Germany, 1924. The radical German working class had been defeated, but so was the German bourgeoisie. The spartacist uprising began with the split in the SPD in 1914. Over the course of 10 years, fierce political, national, military struggle had led to the splitting or purging of all radical elements. The SPD, what was left of German social democracy as a movement, was objectively opportunistic and fascistic. Not because of ideology, but because of civil war. What we might consider a politically active progressive in our day, would not have been a German social democrat in 1924. It would be like taking the Democrat party and splitting it again and again until all that were left were the most openly bloodthirsty moderates.

Russia 1924. Lenin has died after years of sickness, Stalin is transitioning to power, Russia has not recovered from the civil war that utterly destroyed their entire productive apparatus, nor the disastrous NEP and banning of factions. Russia was in the 18th c. socially, the 16th c. productively, and , in theory, 21st(TBD) c. in socialist governance. Hitler was def a concern but compared to the invading west and white armies, and the mass destruction and active regression of social conditions, for a myriad of different reasons, little could be done either way. Russia would not, could not, invade Germany to carry out the actual first step of Lenin's plan for international revolution. Uprisings were a constant, urgent threat to the Bolshevik government. Stalin's Comintern had a part to play, maybe, in the failure to overthrow the German bourgeoisie, but what's done is done, and success in revolutionary times is, in part, measured in survivors.

Firstly, it is not true that fascism is only the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy.

This definitely rings true to us, but I think the category of "social democracy" is much more broad in our time than in Stalin's. Social Democracy was more like "German political legitimacy" than a definition of a vaguely left liberal ideology. The lies and failures of the SPD were 1000x more obvious than, for example, the USAmerican Democrats. Regular people today are just now waking up to the two-faced nature of mainstream liberalism, which surely functions as a moderate, legitimizing wing of the bourgeoisie. The actual source of social democracy's intrinsic link to fascism, is its bourgeois character, rather than something inherent to the abstract ideas of social democracy. But for the Social Democrats, the fecklessness and utter betrayal was painfully obvious to the masses, there was no doubt.

These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc. It would therefore be a mistake to think that “pacifism” signifies the liquidation of fascism. In the present situation, “pacifism” is the strengthening of fascism with its moderate, Social-Democratic wing pushed into the forefront

Its important to recognize that Stalin is being pretty specific in the social forces he is critiquing. He defines fascism as having emerged out of postwar Europe, a definition that differs drastically from our own iteration of fascism. He also says that the bourgeoisie need the political legitimacy of social democracy to carry out the agenda of fascism, that is, "combating the proletarian revolution." I would argue this is also different, as fascism has, on its own, attained political legitimacy under its own policies. Our bourgeoisie do not need social democracy to legitimize fascism, as far as I can tell, the international bourg are fucking done with social democracy as a liberalizing force. In 1924, the social democrats are more like moderate republicans, than liberal progressives.

When I see the phrase deployed today, it is 99% online. I have hours and hours of political discussion per week, and I have for years, and ive never seen this phrase used in person, except maybe against the status quo Dems. Online however, its deployed against any confused progressive liberal for even hesitating on the question of revolution. The phrase is applied broad-brush to slander anyone to the left of the sect.

Is a coherent historical critique of reformism, as a social movement that abandons the workers for opportunistic and historically contingent reasons, as prevalent as the deployment of this phrase? I'm not sure, but I doubt it. Its a nice simple formula to win ingroup points when an underdeveloped leftist (often arguing with just a different kind of underdeveloped leftist) starts to lose a debate. In this situation, we dont need a break from the right, we need further development of prolonged political struggle, in order to reshuffle the groups, over and over, until the reformists can no longer hide from the masses.

We can definitely see the fascism in, say, European social democracy, where a large part of GDP is generated by arms sales and exploitation of the third world, but we often confuse a bourgeois ideology, and its deadly dual nature, for the individual views of depoliticized subjects.

One thing that I think we do now, much more than people in 1924, in particular a Bolshevik like Stalin, is that we are much more abstract in our thinking. We apply broad, and not always appropriate, generalizations without even thinking about it that way. This reduces huge swaths of the organic discourse happening among working people, into bitter epistemic squabbling. We dont know that we need to be concrete. We dont even know how to concretize something objectively.

So all we know is the two sided coin, with the truths that we recognize on our side, and the lies that we can't see projected toward the other. Rather than engage with people and meet them where they are as goes the traditional wisdom of communists, we instead abstract the working class itself as an ideal. Marx called this out in 1844 in Theses on Feuerbach, saying that bourgeois materialism can recognize the individual, or the society (or social movement in this case), but not both, we can't conceive of how a movement is made up of people, rather than ideology.

When we center human experience in our analysis, which is one of the primary contributions of Marxism and an oft-neglected condition of dialectical materialist thought, when we make our analysis practical and dynamic rather than categorical and static, then we can begin assessing conditions. But a comprehensive method of how to concretize conditions so that a movement or society can change them still eludes the left; most of all online. I think it is an objective social condition that facilitates this developmental stuntedness, rather than ideological difference and error, but we gotta fix that shit quick. A counter cultural movement against unnecessary abstraction, able to link our ideas with the specificities of workers lives, would be a welcome improvement. However it makes me wonder if I am in fact still too abstract to be practical or relatable. I probably am, but fortunately I can't do the revolution on my own, and I have comrades to support my development, through the collective development of political struggle in our local conditions.