Reds fanfic

AH.com Thread: Are Communism and Fascism Twin Ideologies?

I'm not trying to insult anyone. But I reject the notion that Communism is a sign of worker's waking up to oppression. People who are poor or desperate seem to follow the next voice that tells them what to do.

Look at good ol' Soviet Russia. Before the thaw, could you say that it was really a Marxist society? But people in 1917-1918 joined it because the tsar left them too poor, destitute, and uneducated to follow anything else. The Whites, during the civil war, were different people following different ideologies. And many were probably fascist in nature, considering the number of brutal pogroms, predating the Einsatzgruppen in their massacres against Soviet Jews.

The rise of socialism wasn't some collective awakening, but merely a bunch of poor or hopeless people follow the next voice for guidance like that Stratenford lady who joined the UCC.
 
AH.com Thread: Are Communism and Fascism Twin Ideologies?

Religious_Commie said:
I feel that is not quite accurate, as fascism and subsequently National 'Socialism' were historically reactions to the strength of the labor unions and the Workers from the reactionary Petit-Bourgeoisie and Peasants in times of revolutionary/post revolutionary ascendancy where the Workers had not quite gotten the steam needed to tear down the Capitalist State but had gotten dangerous enough to the established order for the Bourgeoisie to sell their souls and short term control of the state for the assurance of their collective survival as a class and when the fascists have run out their use they were historically always thrown out by the same cowardly hypocrites who would subsequently self-righteously proclaim how guiltless they were of the fascist atrocities(look at the how the French bourgeoisie acted after the fall of Fascist France with them trampling over each other to proclaim they were the most innocent) when they were the ones who were most in support of the fascists when they were winning.

Ultimately the most you can say that connects the two ideologies together is the fact that they both do require the situation for the working masses as a whole to be desperate as people do try their best to live out their lives in a class society by keeping their head down as much as possible and try to live day by day and also attempt to reform the system to make it more bearable to live in as it is to try and avoid the possibility of things getting worse, that is part of why reformism was so widely accepted in the Left before WWI, where reforms were at least somewhat possible and it seemed that it was in fact working somewhat, hell even SLP had large parts of it that were in favor of reformism and had been following the Fabian approach before WWI and the Benno Rose completely shattered reformist illusions amongst the Worker's party and the advanced layers of the working class and when it reaches a revolutionary situation it usually means that the system itself is in crisis and the working class as a whole has fundamentally come to the conclusion that the system as it is needs to die and be replaced as it has reached it's expiration date and Fascism is the response from the Bourgeoisie and the mad dogs they let loose to the situation to ensure that the present system does not die the death it so rightly deserves.

It should also be noted by the way that fascism has only really succeeded when the working class movements lack the proper leadership to carry forth the Revolution thanks to reformist fuckers backstabbing the working class "cough" Elbert's SPD "cough".

This is my response to the question and I admit I use the definition often used by Trotskyists and defined by Trotsky himself for Fascism, where it is essentially a reactionary mass movement used by the bourgeoisie as their bludgeon to bash the Worker's movement to death.

This provides a nice source for Trosky's analysis on Fascism. https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm
 
Last edited:
AH.com Thread: Are Communism and Fascism Twin Ideologies?
I subscribe to comrade Commy, but add something of his own.
I think the only thing in common between ultpravymi and socialists (but not the Communists) is that they are both trying to solve the problem of the crisis, and mass movements. There are already differences begin.
First - principle of fascism does not exist. Fascism is a lot. Classic destinations - Nazism, Fascism, Falangizm.
Nazism was based on the urban "middle class"; built hierarchical technocratic military industrial state (in an ideal - a huge military plant); I supported (and leads to power) industrial capital; It has been focused on Christian and pseudo-pagan mysticism, and racial purity; He considered his "revolution" as an experiment in accelerated modernization; It is becoming a State Party to the submission.
Fascism relied on the rural "middle class"; built paternalistic "corporate state"; I supported (and leads to power) mainly agricultural big business; It has been focused on the dominant religion and the appearance of nationalism; considered his "revolution" as a national preventive - to prevent "Bolshevisation"; put the party in the state submission.
Falangizm more openly relied on the rural "middle class" than Italian fascism, but also in colonial circles and militarists; He maintained (and the drive power) of the feudal elite; built patriarchal monarchical state; It has been focused on militant (anti-masonic) Catholicism; He considered his "revolution" as a radical way to bring Spain to the days of the medieval world empire.

After World War II, the ruling elites have never repeated their pre-war mistakes - do not bet in the fight against social revolution in motion "classic" fascism: it turned out that these extremist movements "middle class", after coming to power, easily get out of hand control. Therefore, the post-war fascist regimes (excluding Franco, who, bureaucratic, quickly lost all communication with the mass movement) were "non-classical".
"Non-classical" fascism existed before World War II. For example, Portuguese salazarovsky fascism was the first example of the later is very widespread military fascism, when the traditional conservative elite Army hands power to establish a fascist, and then he begins to fascisation mode of society, creating a "for themselves" fascist parties and movements. Artificial origin of the fascism defines as a rule, its clerical, patriarchal, traditional (rather than revolutionary, like the Nazis) character. In the second half of the XX century. there were dozens of such regimes in the countries of the "third world".
In other embodiments still pre-war "non-classical" fascism were monarchist-fascism and the peasant fascism rampant in Eastern Europe (including in border states). This also were fascist movements (and then modes) with very limited social base, have been unable to mobilize the masses, and who came to power with the help of the traditional elites (though sometimes in a coup), scared the "red danger". Rapid inclusion of these parties and regimes in the orbit of the Italian and German influence mask their identity, on the one hand, and did not give them to develop into an independent phenomenon - on the other.
Another option for "non-classical" fascism are "New Right" emerged in the late 60s. . "New Right" used the experience of the so-called double-breasted fascism - the European Parliament of respectable fascism, fascist ideology which connected with the right-wing conservative practice in terms of parliamentary democracy. "New Rights" decided to renovate the fascist theory by eliminating the primitive racist, primitive universalism and social demagogy. They replaced the notion of racial superiority conception of the incompatibility of different races, we have recognized the value of minorities (ethnic and sexual) and environmental issues, formulated essentially postmodern perspective on the history and civilization and made fascist doctrine virtually indistinguishable from the neo-liberal doctrine in the spirit of Hayek and Mises.
 
Whilst @WotanArgead Franco is not the leader of Nationalist Spain ITTL (I need to check who it is again) and ITTL the is not a Third World and thus far fewer or none non-classical fascist movements besides those points I do find your analysis of the conditions of Fascism rather accurate.

Though the New Right does sound like a form of fascism that would also develop ITTL by the more intelligent of the reactionaries as an attempt to regain power by disconnecting themselves from as much as possible from the term fascist even if they serve a very similar role for the capitalists. Probably why ITTL's present the Objectivists also seem to have taken up the role of being used as the paramilitaries used to bludgeon the working class as much as possible.

Edit:
Though I would contend that fascism and racism and demagogy are fundamentally intertwined together as they (racism and demagogy) are very useful tools by the reactionaries to split the working class between ethnic and racial lines and convince the Petit-Bourgeoisie that the fascists are on their side and also gain their trust them enough for them to side with the fascists and serve as their muscle for breaking the back of the working class, for a time at least.
 
Last edited:
Short Retrospective Reviews: The Miracle Worker (1962)
Published in the Sunday Work, 2001

A social awakening is often synonymous with a personal awakening. As we develop, and learn more of the world, we not only grow as people, but our social awareness tends to grow as well. The personal journey towards social awareness is very much influenced by experiences. How we had been raised, how oppression has affected us, what we do. This interaction between our personal and socialist journeys forms the very core of The Miracle Worker, now available. The story of Helen Keller and her own struggles as someone both blind and deaf leading her to join the burgeoning socialist movement after World War I, and becoming one of the most beloved figures of the Revolution, is well known to most American citizens. This film helps illustrate how her own experiences shaped her later views. It is a fascinating look into how a woman so disadvantaged but accomplished took her achievements and helped others.

The film, unlike most biopics, covers two parts of Keller's life by cutting between them. It focuses on unruly, young Keller and her education under stern, unorthodox teacher Anne Sullivan, who tries to use discipline and sheer will to make her finally come out of her shell. The second story sees her at age involvement in the socialist movement, starting with her at 30 years old learning about the Bread and Roses Strike of 1912, which eventually leads her to join the Socialist Party, and write in protest of World War I. The two stories are intertwined to show her development, and connect them to her awakening as a Socialist.

[....]

The portions of the film set during her period as a Socialist activist are as equally interesting as the early part of her life. Relatively few historical characters appear (most notably, she meets Eugene Debs as she becomes more involved with the Worker's Party in the 1910's, Morris Hillquit during a dramatic recreation of Bienno Russo, and Upton Sinclair during her work with the post-revolution government). We see those who once praised her for her triumphs shun her for her radical views. However, the respect she commands amongst the people allows her to become an ambassador between the Worker's Party and the general public in the immediate pre-revolutionary period. Interchanged with the aforementioned well scene is her stress, fearing for her life as she wonders if her escorts during the Civil War are secretly fascist agents tricking her and sending her to her death. Finally, a dramatic retelling of her as a politician in the post-revolutionary era, working to ensure that the disabled have proper care, and the ability to achieve in spite of their disabilites, much as she had in her youth, as well as other posts (including ambassador to several nations). These scenes provide a rare and interesting look into the conditions that lead to the revolution in the first place, and how they recruited people to their cause. It also provides an inner look into the Worker's Party before the Revolution, when they were still a burgeoning party. Keller's journey in socialism successfully integrates these elements to provide drama.


The title refers to the two heroes of the story. Anne Sullivan, with her perseverance in educating Keller and helping her overcome her disabilities, and Keller herself, for her own work advocating the cause of socialism through its rough breakthrough to the final conflict. It is a true classic, one which is powerful and emotional. It is highly recommended, both as a performance piece, and as a historical drama. If you have the opportunity, make sure you watch this, possibly with your children as an education tool.
 
The analysis is not mine, but thanks anyway. :)
And what about the Spanish Falangists hard for me to say.
I can also assume that the alternative "New Right", in fact even more like Nazis (due to increased "red alert"). And the fact that in our country political literacy will pay more attention ("Why do Italians - fascism, and the Germans - the Nazis?" My former teacher of history could not answer the question).
PS - I am having some ideas as well as the question - what is the fate of Yugoslavia and Titoism? Perhaps the representative of "market socialism" is easier to negotiate with the Americans? On the other hand, Tito had good relations with Khrushchev and Brezhnev, and post-Stalinist eastern Europe were a lot of "market experimentation" (farm Poland and Hungary Janos Kadar).
 
IMMMMMM BAAAAACCKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I hope you'll all be happy to hear that I gave up boxing for good after my last bout. I had a long talk with my girlfriend, my friends, and my family members in an "intervention" of sorts, and they convinced me that the money was not worth it, and I was not only killing myself, but my friends, family, and Mio Amore. Quite a touching moment that I will remember for the rest of my life.

So my head's healed, I've given up boxing, and I'm back in business!

So some new updates I see, but first: an AH thread. While I was resting my head the last few days, I received a phone call from my Uncle, who is a conservative former Army mechanized infantryman. He started talking to me about the normal Conservative talking points: "Liberals" "Trump" "The Military" and my personal favorite: " The Goddamn Navy and Marine Corps is a waste of money". It got me thinking about national "military patriotism" in the UASR, USSR, and FBU, as well as how some people feel about disbanding famous military organizations (they won't be disbanded, it's all just talk.) So here goes....

(So remember, per rules of thread, keep geopolitics out of it unless RSR or Jello say it's canon.)



AH Thread: Military Patriotism/ Should we disband the Marines?

Hello Everybody! Did everybody enjoy the annual Janurary 20th Revolutionary Defense Forces Parade in Deleon-Debs? Made me want to discuss "military patriotism" and how the different events that go on within different countries, and peoples thoughts and opinions on the military.

Which brings me to my other subject. So I was reading in The Daily Worker today about military expenditure for the UASR, and it seems to me like the Workers' and Farmers' Revolutionary Marine Corps takes up quite a bit of the Naval Sectariat's budget. Do you think we should just, you know, disband them? I know they've served with distinction in many of our conflicts abroad, but it seems the Army can do whatever the Marines can. Your thoughts, everybody?
 
AH Thread: Military Patriotism/ Should we disband the Marines?

UpNorth said:

As a supporter of soft power, I am inclined to believe the UASR is better off putting money into development than pay for Marines. The Marines aren't turning anybody in the FBU into a convert to Communism.
 
AH Thread: Military Patriotism/ Should we disband the Marines?

TheThirdMan said:
While I may not be an American, I'm for disbanding most military institutions in socialist nations, and the Marine Corps, being one such organization, should be defunded, and the money and resources put to building up civilian defense and militia training.
 
Night_stalker said:
Disband the Marines? Nope, they have a proud and honored history, even if they were occasionally used by the US as enforcers of corporate laws. Disbanding them also means removing a good fire brigade style force for the UASR, leaving them without a quick response unit on a massive scale.
 
I figured that we could get something rolling with this subject given the divide in the Radical Left Movement between libertarianism and state power.

AH Thread: Military Patriotism/Should We Disband the Marines?

Wait wait wait wait wait, why are we only talking about disbanding the jarheads? That was only one part of the discussion. Why aren't we discussing military patriotism? I personally think that it's healthy to be proud of the military, but some of the shit that goes on in the FBU is kinda like a weird military fetish. I mean, seriously? Do you always have to say "thank you for your service?"

As for the jarheads, I don't think we should defund them. I think the humanitarian missions they do really makes the UASR's image shine. (Also, I have to warn you, if Red_DevilDog sees this, he may have some.... Choice words for you, and you won't like them.)
 
Last edited:
TheThirdMan said:
Well, I hate the military, an archaic institution, so I take a dim look at military patriotism. I think the whole system, at least here in the good ole CCCP, should be replaced by the more decentralized militias. And unlike some of my Libertarian companions, I would promote a civilian defense training program as well.
Skaelingking said:
I suppose military patriotism is fine as long as it doesn't go into military apologia. As in, don't excuse their bad moments. I mean, despite what you may hear me say about it, I consider myself patriotic, and I generally like my country, but I don't excuse everything that my countrymen did in the past.
 
AH Thread: Military Patriotism/Should We Disband the Marines?

Religious_Commie said:
TheThirdMan I have to say that you quite simply being deluded with you stating that militias would be enough to defend and potentially expand the revolution against bourgeoisie reaction as militia's, whilst being very motivated for the struggle, lack the training and organization needed to defend against the professional military machines of the bourgeoisie, after all there was a reason that during the Civil War there was an reestablishment of organization in the revolutionary armies as well as an establishment of an official revolutionary army, it was because an ad hoc mix of militias, revolutionary National Guard and revolutionary professional soldiers who refused to follow fascist reaction were not organized enough to win efficiently against the fascists and war has become far more complicated from that time from what I understand.

Plus the revolutionary militaries are fundamentally democratic and representative of the Workers and Worker's democracy unlike the thoroughly bureaucratic and classist militaries of the Bourgeoisie.

I am kind of sad that there were so few people who either interacted with the Fascist and Communism duel ideologies thread as that could had been extremely interesting topic to discuss upon IU and also that there was so few people who seemed to even notice my post on how my character views Fascism and thus argued/ dissected it.:frown:
 
AH Thread: Military Patriotism/Should We Disband the Marines?

UpNorth said:

Religious_Commie, you seem to think a military is democratic in its operation. A military is a tool of state power. Its job is to kill in defense of a state, or on behalf of one. It is not something you unionize and govern democratically. If it was, the army wouldn't have titles separating the General from the cook.

The truth is, Skaelingking, is that I see any military patriotism as military apologia.

A military is a tool that aught to be used carefully, because the carnage it creates is pretty horrifying. You don't show a picture of gore in a May Day parade, do you? But military patriotism teaches a person to forget all that.

The problem is that too many people worship military power. If you go to Miami, which I have, you see people wearing military uniforms, when they don't wear their bathing suits (or increasingly their birthday suits). Those people hold their guns like Bibles.

Military power and political freedom is not proportional, which why I question the need for a country like the UASR to have so much hardware, when an A-bomb aught to suffice.
 
AH Thread: Military Patriotism/Should We Disband the Marines?

Religious_Commie said:
'sigh' UpNorth need I remind you that Leaders are democratically elected from the bottom on up? That is one of the fundamental differences between the Bourgeoisie classist, bureaucratic tool of oppression that is their military and the voluntary, democratic and representative militaries of the Workers' state(s) that defend the revolution. So no the military is something you unionize in the military of the Workers' state.

Also the Atom bomb is quite simply not enough, not unless you want your only tool of defense also being the button that you should never press ever unless you want the end of the world as if something does happen you could theoretically fight long enough with conventional militaries that some sort of treaty over the peace table could be reached before it went pass the point of no return, having nuclear weapons as the only tool of defense immediately puts you pass the point of no return if you do not desire to be overrun by the enemy.
 
AH Thread: Military Patriotism/Should We Disband the Marines?

UpNorth said:

Ambrose Bierce once wrote that politics is a "strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles." War isn't decided by principle, but by who carries the biggest club, and the biggest brain.

You are making a statement based of passion, not reality. While principles may be bullet brain, your breastbone certainly isn't.
 
TheThirdMan said:
UpNorth- See, this guy gets it. I get that armies were needed during World War II, and before. However, I think we in the communist sphere have started to dismantle the state, and ensure that power is placed in the hands of the people, without authority. Hence, we should disband a standing army, which is the main instrument of the state, but create a system which will allow us to defend ourselves. We also don't need to stuff the revolution down everyone's throats. Just let the inherent problems of capitalism create a revolution, without our intervention.

AVeryTrueDemocrat said:
Wait, wait, let me guess:

"My idea of a perfect state is one guy in a small room at a desk, deciding which cappie bastard we nuke"
 
AH Thread: Military Patriotism/ Should we disband the Marines?
I think that after all the armies of our states are too big and overly modern socialism militarized. And why the civil defense program? Communism - a society of conscious people, not killing machines! You'd be right if you say that the dictatorship of of the CPSU was militorizovana country, and most of the money spent on defense. However, there are alternatives - for example, could be in the hospital. By the same discipline can raise work at a construction site or in the collective farms. When I worked in valantёrom archaeological expedition (Crimea every year some excavations), then to me it was more useful than these endless "Equal - Attention!" In addition, all these armies consume a huge amount of resources in various senses of the word. IMHO - we need more workers, chemists, artists, and so on ... And smaller military. Good thing I'm learning and I do not particularly touch. By the same socialist community is now more or less one and occupies the territory of North and South America, large parts of Asia and Eastern Europe. One of the most populous countries - socialist China! For the defense, you can do volunteer units.
 
I arose another question - in the book "Bull Hour" heroes talk about society Tormans and try to find the roots of all planetary dictatorship. Mention "Gangster Capitalism (obviously the United States, in an alternate reality for them can get the Entente and Brazil), and" Formic Pseudo-socialism "(talk about Maoist China, perhaps the Soviet Union). Question - what system will be called "ant Pseudo-Socialism" ITL?
Quotes from the novel -
"We are faced with a kind of society,
analogues was not in the history of the Earth or noncommunist civilizations of other planets. It is not clear whether it was a further the development of monopoly capitalism or state formic pseudo - socialism. As you know, both of these forms were closing in our earth's history like the establishment of oligarchic dictatorship. At first in the world socialism to capitalism imitated in his race for material strength and mass production of cheap, sometimes bringing in victim ideology, education, art. Some socialist Asian countries have tried to create at the socialist system as possible rather, it is sacrificing everything that was possible, and worst of all - irreplaceable human and natural resources. "

"Formic pseudo-socialism created in China, had just embarked on the path of socialist development, by the seizure of power by a small group which with the help of dropouts youth smashed the state apparatus and put forward as absolutely unquestionable authority of the "great", "greatest", "sun-like" leader. In either case, the end result was brutal oligarchy with multi-hierarchical ladder. Selection on the ladder descended on the grounds of reckless and irresponsible devotion, supported by cheap payoff.

Please note that the novel was written in the early seventies, which means that to criticize the Soviet system directly - bad idea.
 
AH Thread: Military Patriotism/Should We Disband the Marines?



God fucking dammit, I take a few weeks off to go see my cousin in Glasgow, and I gotta come back to this? Knowledge: time to drop it.

First of all, I'm seeing a pattern of anti-military fetishism here that I find slightly irritating if not outright offensive. First of all, regarding the whole "state power vs power to the public" ideals, it's almost as if you're forgetting that the people in the military are actually living, thinking, breathing people, and not just automatons programmed to kill. Do you honestly think we'd let ourselves become tools of oppression for a government apparatus? You do know that they teach us about the history of our respective organizations? They don't just train us for combat, you know. There's a reason that American military personnel are called "citizen-soldiers" in a literal sense of the word, because we are trained not only to be professional warriors, but successful citizens of our American Union.

They teach us about how our bourgeois predecessors, and how they sold their souls to a fucking monstrous government, betraying their proletarian brothers and sisters for a terrible future under a false pretense of an "American Dream". They teach us about men like George Marshall, Lewis Puller, and Macaco himself, snakes who wrought destruction wherever they tread. And yet, they teach us about the brave mutineers who stood up to the fascists. They teach us about men like George Patton and Dwight Eisenhower, and men like Adna Chaffee and Smedley Butler. They teach us about the democratization of the military and the unionization of the infantry. They beat this into our heads on a daily basis that we are not to trust the word of a republican government over the words of our fellow man. I think it's good to be wary of power and where its concentrated, but please try to think in shades of gray and not white and black when dealing with questions like this.

As for the whole "civilian defense program" you have to be joking if you think volunteer militias will deter any professional military. Even the smallest Army could defeat a militia force! Have the lessons of the Spanish Civil War taught us nothing? Come on guys, that's not Libertarian talking points, that's edgy Red/Black movement insanity. ThirdMan, I know you are intelligent: please don't tell me you've started to hang out with BombThrower.

Also, thinking that A-bombs are the end all, be all of defense is quite frankly nuts. Defense does not equal razing the planet, especially since most of the people who would control the dropping of bombs aren't thinking "well maybe we should think about MAD" they are thinking "how can we achieve a manageable casualty rate and still win". Just letting you know, that "manageable casualty rate" is in the tens of Millions. Please, I beg of you: please don't start thinking of defense as simply high amounts of planet killing firepower like Curtis "Level the fucking continent" LeMay.

Now for the secondary subject: disbanding the Marines? Seriously? I knew questions like this occurred in the FBU, but I never thought something like this would be said in America. Thank god this is a minority of the American public who think this way.

But just to humor you, let's say you got one wish, and you decided to get rid of the Marines.

1. You've effectively lost not one, but two great forces to your disposal, both of whom operate under one Marine organization.

-you've lost the Fleet Marines, the shipboard battalions that effectively serve as counterinsurgency experts and commando detachments. Have fun dealing with shit like the Congo, because the traditional Army "point and shoot" doctrine ain't gonna fly in a situation like that.

- You've lost the Shock Marines, a bunch of vicious motherfuckers that punch holes in enemy defenses and cause massive casualties, giving the Army time to set up and get rolling. Not only that, but they actively move forward with the Army guards units and tank armies, shattering the fuck out of anything they go near. (Seriously, we were like a fucking steamroller.)

2. you've lost an organization whose units bear similar training and prestige as a Army Guard Unit, and we all know from WW2 the sheer amount of chaos they can cause, and how they can rally armies on the brink.

3. you've lost an expeditionary force than can do relief actions as well as combat actions. Remember the Haiti Earthquake? The first responders weren't International volunteers, they were Marines. We do more than kill reactionaries, you know.

Also, if you think the Army can do what the Marines can do, you're wrong. I love the WFRA as much as any other gravedigger*, but the Army is a little out of its league when it comes to amphibious ops. The landings in the Pacific in WW2 scarred them well enough to basically declare "the leathernecks can take this from now on."




The info about the American Marines is all taken from a convo I had with Jello. While they are both under one organization, the Fleet Marines are more traditional marines, serving as shipboard counterinsurgency experts (think raiders on crack) whereas shock marines are Expeditionary assault troops, like WFRA guards units but naval.

*Gravedigger: Nickname for the American Marines earned in the South American theatre from Brazilian Army troops, who feared them for their tenacity and combat skill. The Marines savaged the Brazilians on a daily basis and were considered some of the deadliest combat troops in the South American Theatre.
 
Last edited:
Top