Not who you asked, but I want socialism, which requires revolution, which itself requires a mass working class revolutionary party, a militant and class conscious working class, and instability within the capitalist class. The first two are directly actionable through joining socialist orgs like PSL and doing large amounts of outreach, agitation, etc. The latter is out of our control, no matter if the Democrats or Republicans win in elections, and is more a matter of course as capitalism decays.
Fascism isn’t something that can be elected. Fascism is when the capitalist class oversteps the legal boundaries and restricts the civil rights of the country, when bourgeois democracy is replaced with outright direct rule by capital. Republicans winning or losing does not actually increase or decrease the chance of fascism, because fascism is a response to economic conditions and rising socialist organizing outside of the legal system.
This is important, because it means Democrats winning does not stop fascism. Fascism is out of the control of the working class, and can only be prevented by socialism, and stopped once in action by fighting it directly. In either case, mass socialist organizing is both the vaccine and the cure for fascism, depending on the timeline.
Fascism is when the capitalist class oversteps the legal boundaries and restricts the civil rights of the country, when bourgeois democracy is replaced with outright direct rule by capital.
Seems like democrats getting elected does help alleviate fascism then?
Democrats getting elected doesn’t alleviate the risk of fascism, because as I said, it’s the capitalist class overstepping the legal boundaries. Democrats can legislate all they want against fascism (which they won’t do, let’s be honest), but the point is that capital does not care what is legal, and holds the actual power in society by owning the commanding heights of the economy. It can directly implement fascism without the consent of the DNC.
As for fighting it directly, a socialist revolution prevents the risk of fascism by taking the commanding heights from the capitalist class. In the case of fascism, socialist revolution is what can end it most effectively. In either case, armed struggle is almost certainly necessary, but it’s far cleaner before fascism actually is implemented than after.
There is always a risk of fascism. My point is that fascist policies are implemented and acted upon far more often under R rule than D, and prosecuted more under D than R.
I think you’re still not getting how fascism works. The party in power makes absolutely no difference on whether or not fascism is implemented, and the drive for fascism is related to the ability for the capitalist class to continue to effectively control the population, which decreases in times of economic duress, and which is necessarily a ticking clock in capitalism as it is unsustainable.
the drive for fascism is related to the ability for the capitalist class to continue to effectively control the population
You mean like through the media, where republicans are less truthful, own the means to control what news people see, and intervene (as on Twitter and Facebook) to prevent certain information from spreading? Or how Ronald Reagan repealed the fairness doctrine and vetoed its reinstatement?
Or do you mean through economic means, where republicans push to keep costs high for the poor and low for the rich (healthcare, tariffs, tax policy)?
Or maybe directly through force, like with ICE or historical examples like President Harding taking the side of the mining companies in the battle of blair mountain?
Republicans and Democrats do not control the media. Capitalists do, and capitalists also control the Republicans and Democrats. You are confusing state repression under capitalism with fascism itself. Capitalism is a brutal system all on its own, and would prefer to keep the bourgeois democratic shell as it’s the most stable and effective at maintaining their control. Capitalists rip off the mask of bourgeois democracy whenever their rule is in actual danger, regardless of the party in power, regardless of how legal or illegal it is.
Not who you asked, but I want socialism, which requires revolution, which itself requires a mass working class revolutionary party, a militant and class conscious working class, and instability within the capitalist class. The first two are directly actionable through joining socialist orgs like PSL and doing large amounts of outreach, agitation, etc. The latter is out of our control, no matter if the Democrats or Republicans win in elections, and is more a matter of course as capitalism decays.
Fascism isn’t something that can be elected. Fascism is when the capitalist class oversteps the legal boundaries and restricts the civil rights of the country, when bourgeois democracy is replaced with outright direct rule by capital. Republicans winning or losing does not actually increase or decrease the chance of fascism, because fascism is a response to economic conditions and rising socialist organizing outside of the legal system.
This is important, because it means Democrats winning does not stop fascism. Fascism is out of the control of the working class, and can only be prevented by socialism, and stopped once in action by fighting it directly. In either case, mass socialist organizing is both the vaccine and the cure for fascism, depending on the timeline.
Seems like democrats getting elected does help alleviate fascism then?
Also, what do you mean by “fighting it directly”?
Democrats getting elected doesn’t alleviate the risk of fascism, because as I said, it’s the capitalist class overstepping the legal boundaries. Democrats can legislate all they want against fascism (which they won’t do, let’s be honest), but the point is that capital does not care what is legal, and holds the actual power in society by owning the commanding heights of the economy. It can directly implement fascism without the consent of the DNC.
As for fighting it directly, a socialist revolution prevents the risk of fascism by taking the commanding heights from the capitalist class. In the case of fascism, socialist revolution is what can end it most effectively. In either case, armed struggle is almost certainly necessary, but it’s far cleaner before fascism actually is implemented than after.
There is always a risk of fascism. My point is that fascist policies are implemented and acted upon far more often under R rule than D, and prosecuted more under D than R.
I think you’re still not getting how fascism works. The party in power makes absolutely no difference on whether or not fascism is implemented, and the drive for fascism is related to the ability for the capitalist class to continue to effectively control the population, which decreases in times of economic duress, and which is necessarily a ticking clock in capitalism as it is unsustainable.
You mean like through the media, where republicans are less truthful, own the means to control what news people see, and intervene (as on Twitter and Facebook) to prevent certain information from spreading? Or how Ronald Reagan repealed the fairness doctrine and vetoed its reinstatement?
Or do you mean through economic means, where republicans push to keep costs high for the poor and low for the rich (healthcare, tariffs, tax policy)?
Or maybe directly through force, like with ICE or historical examples like President Harding taking the side of the mining companies in the battle of blair mountain?
Republicans and Democrats do not control the media. Capitalists do, and capitalists also control the Republicans and Democrats. You are confusing state repression under capitalism with fascism itself. Capitalism is a brutal system all on its own, and would prefer to keep the bourgeois democratic shell as it’s the most stable and effective at maintaining their control. Capitalists rip off the mask of bourgeois democracy whenever their rule is in actual danger, regardless of the party in power, regardless of how legal or illegal it is.