Understanding Fascism

[Ludicus]

No,it was was not only an Italian and German occurrence. In the interwar period, a wide plethora of fascist movements emerged in a Europe, but only in two countries, Italy and Germany, fascism succeeded in attaining absolute state power.The consequences are well know: the abolition of democracy, the genocide of European Jews, the suppression of the working classes, and in the end a rapid acceleration to an imperialist war (WW2). And then we have the reemergence of fascism in the period 1970's-1990's. Le Pen, fascist NPD in Germany, the National front in Britain, the intensification of islamophobia, the war on migrants, boosted by Trump, the emergence of illiberal governments, the authoritarian regime of Putin, the rise of Pegida, a mass racist islamophobic movement initiated by Nazis outside of AFD in 2014, the nazi Erfurt Declaration , the paramilitary nazi organizations developed by the Golden Dawn (Greece) and Jobbik ( Hungary), the interaction of conservatives and fascists, and son on.
--

Wondering why you don't mention the Condor Legion

My dear DaVinci, the history of the Spanish civil war was already abundantly discussed in multiple topics, including the German involvement in the Spanish war. For example, here Franco's Mausoleum upsets Spain, again.

Only a few people is interested in knowing the history of the European fascism. They are more interested in the Pro-Franco anticommunism, for his glorious fight against the evils of the Soviet communism and the evils of Marxism, rejected by Mussolini.
They will tell you that Nazi Germany, Franco and Mussolini's Christian corporatism (tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato) openly supported by the catholic church, they all fought valiantly against the ultimate evil.
They will tell you that the Condor Legion fulfilled their role brilliantly in the obliteration of Guernica, in the support of the francoist advance on Bilbao. Ironically, the strategic main access route to Bilbao remained untouched.

[youneuoy]

So, I suggest you reread my previous posts again and either start a normal discussion or get out of this topic

"Artel's " existed until Stalin's death and in later USSR there were various venues for small private entrepreneurship as well.

About the USSR before Khrushchev:
The Artel is not a state. For example, two shoemakers work in an artel, they have a workshop - this is not a state enterprise, they are the owners themselves, but together they are a society. They cannot make capital or alienate part of the results of labor from each other; they also have to compete with the state. In this sense, yes, public. The whole idea is to gradually include the entire population in socialist production instead of using violence. It is all the more stupid after this to hear your further reasoning (there are no more humane ways to do this, in general).


Further:
in the time of Khrushchev, a gradual implementation of reforms that introduced market relations began, and the party also began to rapidly degrade due to a large number of poorly trained members (a large number of ideologically savvy cadres were lost in ww2). This is about the same as what later began to happen in Czechoslovakia and there it led to Prague Spring. It also ended badly for the USSR.

Um, this has nothing to do with the fact that many socialist regimes were nationalistic.
Also I'd suggest looking up the crimes committed by Lenin and Stalin, including red terror, massive famines, genocide and political repressions. This explains why many patriotic people like Vlasov and former White emigrants (Russians that fought for freedom during Russian Civil War like generals Krasnov, Shkuro and Smyslovsky, basically the good guys of Russian Civil War) chose Germans as lesser evil, while themselves being ideologically far from Hitler's authoritarian socialist ideals. Some, like Denikin, viewed both Stalin and Hitler as "all the same".

oh, looks like you're a troll after all. So no. First, we consider current topics, then others. If you intend to constantly jump from one discussion to another (while not knowing anything other than common myths that have already been analyzed thousands of times wherever possible), then I have bad news for you. This exposes your position to ridicule and suggests that you lost the argument. You lost it anyway, but take it with dignity and try to figure out the real state of affairs.

Um, you do realize that this is a confirmed fact, right?

confirmed by whom? Than? The author of a 15 minute pointless video? No, comrade, go back to the main topic of discussion.

Lenin received funding from Kaiser government (no idea why you brought up Goebbels into this when it happened 15 years before NSDAP came to power and would make no sense for them to talk about that discrediting factor).

it didn't make sense to talk about it during ww2? Most of these myths originate precisely from the Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda and have no foundation. Can you imagine how a similar fact would hit the USSR?

Lenin was a tool of German capitalists to de-stabilize Russia.

not. It was mainly the Russian bourgeoisie who destabilized the situation in Russia. And of course she had connections with German capital.

I mean modern socialists are rather capitalist tools today as well, just look at how modern domestic terrorist groups of left-wing variety, such as antifa and others, receive funding from NGOs that are owned by billionaires like Soros.

with many it is true and they need to be exposed. By your words on this topic, you are working into the hands of their owners and discredit the really left socialist movement.

Are you saying that socialists like lenin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and Mao were not authoritarian? That's rich.

half of your list are not socialists at all. Completely. They are their complete opposite.

[Heathen Hammer]

This is about the same as what later began to happen in Czechoslovakia and there it led to Prague Spring. It also ended badly for the USSR.

That's what always happens to socialist regimes, as they can't keep up with public demands for goods, so they either have to go full police state or introduce private ownership and even market relations between private entities to close that gap. In fact, its probably what prevent USSR from collapsing in 60s instead of early 90s.
The point is that USSR definitely had private ownership of means of production in one form or the other throughout its existence. So in that regard National-Socialism can't be not socialist, as that was defining trait of USSR and other socialist regimes.

h, looks like you're a troll after all. So no. First, we consider current topics, then others. If you intend to constantly jump from one discussion to another (while not knowing anything other than common myths that have already been analyzed thousands of times wherever possible), then I have bad news for you. This exposes your position to ridicule and suggests that you lost the argument. You lost it anyway, but take it with dignity and try to figure out the real state of affairs.

Ummmm.... what? You were the one who brought up alleged "crimes" of Russian anti-communists. My point all along was the fact that when Soviet population ran to Germans, Stalin had to embrace aspects of patriotism and nationalism to save his ass from German boot.
That and pretty much every socialist regime outside Europe was incredibly nationalistic. In fact, in East Asia they literally had nationalist conflicts between each other (China, Cambodia and Vietnam).

confirmed by whom? Than? The author of a 15 minute pointless video?

No, by German officials:
https://www.dw.com/en/how-germany-go...und/a-41195312

At the end of the day, socialism has always been the tool of capitalism. Hence even today Western leftist movements rely on "support" from billionaire-owned NGO's to maintain themselves.

half of your list are not socialists at all. Completely. They are their complete opposite.

So.... You are a real socialism hasn't been tried kinda guy, eh?

[youneuoy]

Well, if so, let's continue

That's what always happens to socialist regimes, as they can't keep up with public demands for goods, so they either have to go full police state or introduce private ownership and even market relations between private entities to close that gap. In fact, its probably what prevent USSR from collapsing in 60s instead of early 90s.

you did not understand anything about this) Reread what I wrote again.

The point is that USSR definitely had private ownership of means of production in one form or the other throughout its existence. So in that regard National-Socialism can't be not socialist, as that was defining trait of USSR and other socialist regimes.

"in one form or another", well, you're a joker) Come back again and read what I wrote to you.

Ummmm.... what? You were the one who brought up alleged "crimes" of Russian anti-communists. My point all along was the fact that when Soviet population ran to Germans, Stalin had to embrace aspects of patriotism and nationalism to save his ass from German boot.

go back and re-read again. The USSR was international, what nationalism could there be? This is not something around which one can rally in such a situation, and the Bolsheviks would not have done this. People fought for the Soviet power (they were this power), for their freedom from oppression.

That and pretty much every socialist regime outside Europe was incredibly nationalistic. In fact, in East Asia they literally had nationalist conflicts between each other (China, Cambodia and Vietnam).

do not meddle in other topics until you have not yet fully realized that you are defeated in the existing ones. And when you realize this, you no longer need to translate the arrows.

No, by German officials:
https://www.dw.com/en/how-germany-go...und/a-41195312

oh, this is what I expected from you
You would at least be ashamed to post outright fakes. By the way, there are no links to sources in your article.




Let me explain briefly(read this and admit you were wrong. Otherwise, leave the discussion):
The author of the forgeries is Anthony Ossendovsky, during ww1 a writer in the newspaper. In 1918 he fabricated documents "proving" the cooperation of the Bolsheviks with the German General Staff. At first he tried to sell them to England and France, but they refused to buy such dubious materials. As a result, the buyer was found - the envoy of the President of the United States Edgar Sissen (these fakes are now called simply everywhere - Sissen's documents). By the way, the statement of the British diplomat Bruce Lockhart (he was later expelled from Soviet Russia for participating in a conspiracy, all kinds of bribery there, etc.):
"The most outstanding of the feats of this gentleman was ... the purchase of a package of so-called documents, which even our intelligence was not tempted by, before they were grossly forged."


It was Sisson who made Osendowsky's crafts widely known, insisting on their authenticity in his homeland.
However, his assurances were soon scientifically refuted. A detailed analysis of this topic in 1956 was written by the famous American Sovietologist J. Kennan. Russian historians, professors of St. Petersburg State University Gennady Sobolev and Vitaly Startsev, already in the post-Soviet era, finally proved that there can be no talk of the reliability of Sisson's documents. Nevertheless, many of Ossendowski's inventions are still in demand by publicists, who seem to "ignore" scientific revelations. Authors such as Akim Arutyunov, Anatoly Latyshev and Elena Chavchavadze, from time to time cite the texts of the Polish adventurer in their writings, passing them off as real.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most often (for example, in the last book of Chavchavadze and Valery Shambarov "Revolution. Trap for Russia), the following document is issued as genuine:


"People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs


(top secret)


Petrograd, November 16, 1917.


Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars.


According to the resolution adopted at the meeting of the people's commissars, vol. Lenin, Trotsky, Podvoisky, Dybenko and Volodarsky, we did the following:


In the archives of the Ministry of Justice from the case of "treason" Cde. Lenin, Zinoviev, Kozlovsky, Kollontai and others seized the order of the German Imperial Bank No. 7433 dated March 2, 1917 on the release of money com. Lenin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Sumenson, Kozlovsky and others for promoting peace in Russia.
2. Checked all the books of the Nia bank in Stockholm, concluding accounts of com. Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, and others, opened by order of the German Imperial Bank No. 2754. These books were given to Comrade. Müller on a mission from Berlin.


Plenipotentiaries of the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs


E. Polivanov, F. Zalkind ".


A new life to this fake was given in 1993 by the historian Anatoly Latyshev, who said that he had found the original document in the Russian archive of the RCKHIDNI. However, the Swedish professor A.S. Kan, after checking Latyshev's data, said that according to the details indicated by Latyshev, photocopies of the same “Sisson documents” with a translation made for V.I. Lenin. There is nothing unusual in this: these photocopies were actively distributed throughout Petrograd in 1918, as evidenced by many memoirists. It is quite natural that one of the copies was presented to the head of the Soviet state. He put a resolution on her "in the archives", where she actually went. Latyshev, like Chavchavadze, cannot but know this.

At the end of the day, socialism has always been the tool of capitalism. Hence even today Western leftist movements rely on "support" from billionaire-owned NGO's to maintain themselves.

to this I have already answered you. You have not refuted my statement.

So.... You are a real socialism hasn't been tried kinda guy, eh?

[Heathen Hammer]

The USSR was international, what nationalism could there be? This is not something around which one can rally in such a situation, and the Bolsheviks would not have done this. People fought for the Soviet power (they were this power), for their freedom from oppression.

USSR was a totalitarian dictatorship. People didn't elect it and service in Red Army was mandatory. They didn't chose Stalin, just like they didn't chose Lenin before him. Soviet government oppressed Russians infinitely more then government of the Tsar (which was incredibly liberal and transparent compared to Lenin's regime that followed), so notion of Russians fighting for a Georgian despot that murdered millions of them is oxymoron and something straight out of KGB's propaganda playbook.
The nationalism" I refer to is USSR's attempt to appeal to population's sense of nationalism and patriotism during WW2. It got to the point that they had brought attributes of Tsarist army uniforms to Red Army, along with re-opening Orthodox churches, cadet schoolls and many other things.

You would at least be ashamed to post outright fakes. By the way, there are no links to sources in your article.

So... German officials were lying? Lenin was lying in his own correspondence to his "comrades"? Lenin being a German spy is a confirmed historical fact. Only pro-Soviet sources deny that (reverse google search of copypasta you posted led to leftist reddit pages, big surprise lol).

to this I have already answered you. You have not refuted my statement.

But you literally agreed with me. Again, if that wasn't the case how come not a single socialist regime came to power without an armed coup that bypasses any democratic institutions? How come Lenin and his cronies lost elections to another leftist party in Provisional Government in 1917?

[youneuoy]

USSR was a totalitarian dictatorship. People didn't elect it and service in Red Army was mandatory. They didn't chose Stalin, just like they didn't chose Lenin before him. Soviet government oppressed Russians infinitely more then government of the Tsar (which was incredibly liberal and transparent compared to Lenin's regime that followed), so notion of Russians fighting for a Georgian despot that murdered millions of them is oxymoron and something straight out of KGB's propaganda playbook.
The nationalism" I refer to is USSR's attempt to appeal to population's sense of nationalism and patriotism during WW2. It got to the point that they had brought attributes of Tsarist army uniforms to Red Army, along with re-opening Orthodox churches, cadet schoolls and many other things.

oh buddy, either write fine or go to hell This is all unsupported nonsense.

So... German officials were lying? Lenin was lying in his own correspondence to his "comrades"? Lenin being a German spy is a confirmed historical fact. Only pro-Soviet sources deny that (reverse google search of copypasta you posted led to leftist reddit pages, big surprise lol).

Are you kidding, I guess? You can also say that the Nazis provide objective information By the way, do you know that it is customary in politics to denigrate an opponent? So, in this regard, your thesis is untenable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan - pro-socialist author? I am also not a Reddit user(most of my last post the post is a translation of the part of article,which I remembered very by the way after your post, and which has sources and they are indicated right in the post).

Are you brushing off really reasoned answers so easily? So what, then, are your posts and your position worth?
I will answer for you: it is worth nothing.

But you literally agreed with me. Again, if that wasn't the case how come not a single socialist regime came to power without an armed coup that bypasses any democratic institutions? How come Lenin and his cronies lost elections to another leftist party in Provisional Government in 1917?

it seems you do not understand nothing either in politics or in history or in economics. Do you know anything about it? Perhaps only in trolling.
You cannot destroy the current apparatus of power with the help of this power, remember the bourgeois revolution. Capitalism has also gnawed its way at the cost of blood.
Socialism recognizes the need for revolution and denies cooperation with any forces that do not fully support it (they will simply betray).Otherwise, capital will not allow you to change anything. You can read the history of the Bavarian Soviet Republic and see where this leads.

[Heathen Hammer]

oh buddy, either write fine or go to hell This is all unsupported nonsense.

Um:

This was in line with Stalin’s wartime policies, through which he rehabilitated the Russian Orthodox Church while identifying himself personally with previous Russian leaders such as the medieval prince Dmitri Donskoy and the tsars Ivan IV (the Terrible) and Peter I (the Great).

https://www.britannica.com/place/Rus...in-era-1928-53

Are you kidding, I guess? You can also say that the Nazis provide objective information By the way, do you know that it is customary in politics to denigrate an opponent? So, in this regard, your thesis is untenable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan - pro-socialist author? I am also not a Reddit user(most of my last post the post is a translation of the part of article,which I remembered very by the way after your post, and which has sources and they are indicated right in the post).

Are you brushing off really reasoned answers so easily? So what, then, are your posts and your position worth?
I will answer for you: it is worth nothing.

I don't really know what this, um, flow of consciousness was supposed to mean, but I don't see how it "debunks" objective historical fact of Germany providing fiscal support to Bolsheviks. It is acknowledged by mainstream historians, as well as Russian sources too.

it seems you do not understand nothing either in politics or in history or in economics. Do you know anything about it? Perhaps only in trolling.
You cannot destroy the current apparatus of power with the help of this power, remember the bourgeois revolution. Capitalism has also gnawed its way at the cost of blood.
Socialism recognizes the need for revolution and denies cooperation with any forces that do not fully support it (they will simply betray).Otherwise, capital will not allow you to change anything. You can read the history of the Bavarian Soviet Republic and see where this leads.

Bavarian Socialist republic is a good example of socialist militants trying to illegitimately take power and getting deservedly crushed by Germans themselves. Shame that Kerensky didn't establish something analogous of freikorps, maybe out of Cossacks, that could have prevented both Stalin and Hitler, avoiding WW2 and other bad things.

[Infidel144]

oh buddy, either write fine or go to hell This is all unsupported nonsense.
[and]
Socialism recognizes the need for revolution and denies cooperation with any forces that do not fully support it (they will simply betray).

Is the nonsense part the USSR being a totalitarian dictatorship or being socialist?

[youneuoy]

Is the nonsense part the USSR being a totalitarian dictatorship or being socialist?

the dictatorship of the proletariat was established in the USSR. And then we need to decide what period we are talking about, it is obvious that over time it degenerated into the dictatorship of the party elite. It is convenient to divide at the moment of Stalin's death.

Nonsense this is almost the entire paragraph of Heathen Hammer.

[youneuoy]

Um:

https://www.britannica.com/place/Rus...in-era-1928-53

I don't really know what this, um, flow of consciousness was supposed to mean, but I don't see how it "debunks" objective historical fact of Germany providing fiscal support to Bolsheviks. It is acknowledged by mainstream historians, as well as Russian sources too.

this does not sound like an objective assessment and is not Where is the proof?

note that the defendant is you, not me, and you are not even trying to defend your position, but simply deny everything presented to you. This is the position of a coward, a losing position.

Bavarian Socialist republic is a good example of socialist militants trying to illegitimately take power and getting deservedly crushed by Germans themselves. Shame that Kerensky didn't establish something analogous of freikorps, maybe out of Cossacks, that could have prevented both Stalin and Hitler, avoiding WW2 and other bad things.

The Bavarian Soviet Republic is a good example of a revolution without communists. During the revolution, three governments were replaced in it, guess how many of them were communists? Despite the fact that the Soviet Republic was not proclaimed by the Communists, but by the Social Democrats and the Independent, and they later betrayed this republic. While there were no communists in power (they did not come there themselves, the people demanded it), they did not even bother to dissolve the garrison, and when the rebel units of the garrison began a coup, they did not try to stop them, they were stopped without them.
And I would look at your freikorps if the communists were in power from the very beginning

By the way, what about this - the revolutionary tribunal of the republic, established after the communists were admitted to the supreme power (while those who were there before simply became their subordinates - a huge mistake, at a critical moment they did everything to destroy revolution from within) did not pass a single death sentence.


An exception:
unauthorized, without any orders, soldiers shot 10 people (from the Thule Society, one of the founders of the NSDAP), after rumors of impending freikorps reached them. It was a crime (it was necessary to wait for a real verdict), but nevertheless, as history will show, they deserved it.


And how many were shot by the "liberators" who came? They had permission to do this without any trial or investigation at all and they actively used this, later in court he always took the side of these killers.


And now an interesting question - what is your political position? Only give the most honest answer.

[Infidel144]

the dictatorship of the proletariat was established in the USSR. And then we need to decide what period we are talking about, it is obvious that over time it degenerated into the dictatorship of the party elite. It is convenient to divide at the moment of Stalin's death.

Nonsense this is almost the entire paragraph of Heathen Hammer.

So was the nonsense part the USSR being a totalitarian dictatorship or the USSR being socialist?

[youneuoy]

So was the nonsense part the USSR being a totalitarian dictatorship or the USSR being socialist?

what do you mean by "totalitarian dictatorship"? I replied that the USSR was a dictatorship, but a dictatorship of the proletariat. Do you think that there can be a totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat?
Dictatorship and socialism are concepts of a different nature.
It's like asking: is your car red or fast? Here the USSR was a fast red car.

Further - nonsense is fictitious or distorted facts in the posts of Heathen Hammer

[Heathen Hammer]

this does not sound like an objective assessment and is not Where is the proof?

note that the defendant is you, not me, and you are not even trying to defend your position, but simply deny everything presented to you. This is the position of a coward, a losing position.

You literally quoted a link to a a sourced article that I posted.

The Bavarian Soviet Republic is a good example of a revolution without communists. During the revolution, three governments were replaced in it, guess how many of them were communists? Despite the fact that the Soviet Republic was not proclaimed by the Communists, but by the Social Democrats and the Independent, and they later betrayed this republic. While there were no communists in power (they did not come there themselves, the people demanded it), they did not even bother to dissolve the garrison, and when the rebel units of the garrison began a coup, they did not try to stop them, they were stopped without them.
And I would look at your freikorps if the communists were in power from the very beginning

They tried to take power by force... and failed.

By the way, what about this - the revolutionary tribunal of the republic, established after the communists were admitted to the supreme power (while those who were there before simply became their subordinates - a huge mistake, at a critical moment they did everything to destroy revolution from within) did not pass a single death sentence.

Yeah, all they had to do was do what Lenin did and commit a genocide so that they can stay in power. your line of reasoning here is disturbing, to say the least.

unauthorized, without any orders, soldiers shot 10 people (from the Thule Society, one of the founders of the NSDAP), after rumors of impending freikorps reached them. It was a crime (it was necessary to wait for a real verdict), but nevertheless, as history will show, they deserved it.

And now you are openly defending terrorism (don't see much difference between commies in Bavaria or ISIS in Iraq, all looking for people to murder for holding wrong beliefs). Yet we are supposed to feel bad for much-deserved deaths of communist terrorists like Luxembourg and Liebknecht who pretty much started the violent insurrection and are now presented as poor little victims despite the fact that they brought it on themselves.

[Ludicus]

Psss... this thread is about the origins of fascism.Don't turn this thread into a anti/ pro communist thread.
---------
Here, Portugal hopes to preserve memory of fascist era with fortress ...

to help ensure that the memories and experiences of its ageing survivors do not die with them.

Unfortunately, the admirers of Salazar are not aware that the dictator declared three days of national mourning after Hitler's suicide. I repeat ad nausea:fascism and nazism are two sides of the same coin.

[youneuoy]

Psss... this thread is about the origins of fascism.Don't turn this thread into a anti/ pro communist thread.

well, these are two opposites and it is logical that where one appears there the other appears. Especially if there are people shielding the wrong side)

Unfortunately, the admirers of Salazar are not aware that the dictator declared three days of national mourning after Hitler's suicide. I repeat ad nausea:fascism and nazism are two sides of the same coin.

yeah. But for some it will be news.

[youneuoy]

Well, now the frank pranks have begun So not interesting, admit already that you screwed up and we will finish on this.

You literally quoted a link to a a sourced article that I posted.

What's wrong? The rebel units of the garrison tried to suppress the republic, and the communists had nothing to do with the declaration of the Soviet republic and criticized it in every possible way. They came to power later and in an absolutely peaceful way(as far as possible). The proclamation of the Soviet republic is a decision of the masses, not carried out by the communists. The admission of the communists to power is also a step towards the masses. What kind of Soviet republic can there be without the communists? But this is what the Social Democrats and the independent tried to do - to limit the influence of the workers 'and soldiers' councils as much as possible, and later to completely abolish all this.

Yeah, all they had to do was do what Lenin did and commit a genocide so that they can stay in power. your line of reasoning here is disturbing, to say the least.

in the face of a serious reaction, inaction leads to failure. There was a civil war in Russia - this time. The Red Terror began only in response to the White Terror - that's two(have you forgotten about the civil war and intervention?). In the Bavarian Soviet Republic, there was only White Terror.


And you again quote only the parts of the messages that are convenient for you - you don't need to do that. In fact, you lost the argument for a long time, I continue it only in order to see how you still try to dodge.

And now you are openly defending terrorism (don't see much difference between commies in Bavaria or ISIS in Iraq, all looking for people to murder for holding wrong beliefs). Yet we are supposed to feel bad for much-deserved deaths of communist terrorists like Luxembourg and Liebknecht who pretty much started the violent insurrection and are now presented as poor little victims despite the fact that they brought it on themselves.

is the first honor of your post intended to piss me off? These are pathetic attempts.
Further:
in germany (as well as in bavaria) the communists did not start the uprising, the Spartacists simply led it ALREADY when it began. And they did it in vain, and they tried to dissuade them from this decision. An uprising without organization and clear goals is doomed to failure, this requires serious preparation. How many such uprisings have there been in human history?
Lenin was also in a similar situation before the revolution in the Russian empire, but then he was dissuaded by party members.

[Heathen Hammer]

What's wrong? The rebel units of the garrison tried to suppress the republic, and the communists had nothing to do with the declaration of the Soviet republic and criticized it in every possible way. They came to power later and in an absolutely peaceful way(as far as possible). The proclamation of the Soviet republic is a decision of the masses, not carried out by the communists. The admission of the communists to power is also a step towards the masses. What kind of Soviet republic can there be without the communists? But this is what the Social Democrats and the independent tried to do - to limit the influence of the workers 'and soldiers' councils as much as possible, and later to completely abolish all this.

Um, no. You should probably look up even a basic chronology of events.
In short - Bolshevicks run for Provisional Government elections and lose to other leftists. Then with foreign money Lenin and his cronies have enough to take over capital and starting a brutal civil war against the rest of the country.

The Red Terror began only in response to the White Terror - that's two(have you forgotten about the civil war and intervention?). In the Bavarian Soviet Republic, there was only White Terror.

What "white terror" - Russians fighting back against commissars that try to murder everyone? "White terror" is little more then contemporary communist propaganda. Now in Russia monuments to communists disappear and often replaced with monuments to White Movement for a reason.
Germans already had an idea about the evil of the threat - hence why they managed to contain and purge the infection and saved their country.

in germany (as well as in bavaria) the communists did not start the uprising, the Spartacists simply led it ALREADY when it began. And they did it in vain, and they tried to dissuade them from this decision. An uprising without organization and clear goals is doomed to failure, this requires serious preparation. How many such uprisings have there been in human history?
Lenin was also in a similar situation before the revolution in the Russian empire, but then he was dissuaded by party members.

More communist propaganda won't change the facts. Bavarian commies were armed criminals, nothing more.

[Kritias]

I'm sure this isn't a new thing, but there's a lot more talk about what Fascism is among "Anti-Fascists" or others who oppose Fascism than avowed Fascists explaining what Fascism is.

I don't understand why the OP is confused by fascism as a political ideology. It's very well documented and fascist movements around the globe have done their best to convince us of their beliefs. They can't shut up about it. For your benefit, here's the gist of it removing the academic jargon.

Fascists are those people who believe the MAJORITY or ALL of the following tenets:

(a) Moral degradation is the underlying factor for everything wrong with society
(b) Certain groups knowingly promote this moral degradation under the guise of 'progress' or 'justice'
(c) There was a point in time where these groups were not part of society or/and were better controlled
(d) During time (c), society was great or was quantifiably better than it is now
(e) We need a Strong Leader to guide us back to these better times
(f) Every patriot's duty is to do whatever is necessary, mainly submit themselves to the will of the Strong Leader, to bring about this change.


If you ticked the majority of these tenets then unfortunately you're down the rabbit hole of fascism. Hope this clears it up for you!

[mishkin]

someone is at home right now struggling to adapt that diagnosis to a leftist he knows and to be able to say "they are the new fascists"

[athanaric]

I don't understand why the OP is confused by fascism as a political ideology. It's very well documented and fascist movements around the globe have done their best to convince us of their beliefs. They can't shut up about it. For your benefit, here's the gist of it removing the academic jargon.

Fascists are those people who believe the MAJORITY or ALL of the following tenets:

(a) Moral degradation is the underlying factor for everything wrong with society
(b) Certain groups knowingly promote this moral degradation under the guise of 'progress' or 'justice'
(c) There was a point in time where these groups were not part of society or/and were better controlled
(d) During time (c), society was great or was quantifiably better than it is now
(e) We need a Strong Leader to guide us back to these better times
(f) Every patriot's duty is to do whatever is necessary, mainly submit themselves to the will of the Strong Leader, to bring about this change.


If you ticked the majority of these tenets then unfortunately you're down the rabbit hole of fascism. Hope this clears it up for you!

I don't think this list is entirely complete, or even accurate. What's missing is the quasi-religious veneration of the collective, in this case the state (which they have in common with socialists), and the way in which the fascist economy is organized.

someone is at home right now struggling to adapt that diagnosis to a leftist he knows and to be able to say "they are the new fascists"

Well, that would be the result of a skewed world view (which has been promoted by the so-called "Left" and has now infected many on the "right" as well) in which "fascism" is synonymous with "stuff I don't like".