Bill-yun-airs will only be bill-yun-airs as long as there are billions of loyal human subjects supporting them as consumers and investors. These people are so bored with life that they need an outlet and that is fascism/liberalism/Marxism/communism/leftism or similar dogmas that require no thinking or hope for the future.
You linked to an article that asks what fascism is but doesn't even propose a definition for that term. In other words, I consider it a waste of time to read.
In Trotsky’s view, fascism is a counter-revolutionary, mainly petit bourgeoisie movement driven by the socioeconomic crises of capitalist society.
He outlines that fascism arises when the "normal" police and military resources of the bourgeois dictatorship are insufficient to maintain control, leading capitalism to invoke fascism as a means to mobilize and direct the desperate masses of the petit bourgeoisie and demoralized elements against the proletariat.
Trotsky fascism as a mass movement that not only utilizes violence, but that attempts to annihilate workers’ organizations and undermine the proletariat's ability to assert itself politically, ultimately leading to a reconfiguration of state power that consolidates control in the hands of finance capital. The intent to so atomize and isolate workers that they are effectively ’de-classed’ and rendered incapable of organizing themselves.
In this sense, fascism is depicted as a historical tool for the bourgeoisie to preserve its dominance when its standard methods of governance fail.
Trotsky supported, and Stalin opposed, there being developed a Soviet empire; Trotsky was even worse than Marx, who said that imperialism is possible ONLY in capitalism, and NOT in communism. Marx just assumed the problem away, as being impossible under communism. Marxism is stupid, but Trotskyism is even worse. Trotsky wanted to add imperialism to Marxism. Marx was bad enough: he advocated the false labor theory of value, and blamed NOT the aristocracy but the MIDDLE class, the "bourgeoisie, for the problems -- as-if it were the middle and NOT the top class that controlled the country. Like ALL philosophers, Marx was pre-scientific, not scientific. And Trotsky was like Marx except even worse.
The issue isn't you or me; it is reality -- what it is, and what it isn't. I have read Marx, Stalin, and Trotsky, and I have summarized here what each of the three stood for. But a person doesn't need to have read any of them in order to understand that the billionaires control our Government, the middle class ("bourgeoisie") don't. No philosopher is helpful to understand reality -- only scientific investigation is. If you click through to the links wherever you disagree with what I write in an article, you can get through to what the statement's empirical sources were. That is the only scientific way to evaluate a statement: what its empirical sources are -- not what some philosophers' opinions about the matter were. Reading philosophers has always been just a waste of time.
Bill-yun-airs will only be bill-yun-airs as long as there are billions of loyal human subjects supporting them as consumers and investors. These people are so bored with life that they need an outlet and that is fascism/liberalism/Marxism/communism/leftism or similar dogmas that require no thinking or hope for the future.
Eric:
I encourage you to study the perspective of a man who wrote about fascism as he saw it rise.
https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library/fascism-what-it-is-how-to-fight-it-leon-trotsky/01.html
You linked to an article that asks what fascism is but doesn't even propose a definition for that term. In other words, I consider it a waste of time to read.
In Trotsky’s view, fascism is a counter-revolutionary, mainly petit bourgeoisie movement driven by the socioeconomic crises of capitalist society.
He outlines that fascism arises when the "normal" police and military resources of the bourgeois dictatorship are insufficient to maintain control, leading capitalism to invoke fascism as a means to mobilize and direct the desperate masses of the petit bourgeoisie and demoralized elements against the proletariat.
Trotsky fascism as a mass movement that not only utilizes violence, but that attempts to annihilate workers’ organizations and undermine the proletariat's ability to assert itself politically, ultimately leading to a reconfiguration of state power that consolidates control in the hands of finance capital. The intent to so atomize and isolate workers that they are effectively ’de-classed’ and rendered incapable of organizing themselves.
In this sense, fascism is depicted as a historical tool for the bourgeoisie to preserve its dominance when its standard methods of governance fail.
Trotsky supported, and Stalin opposed, there being developed a Soviet empire; Trotsky was even worse than Marx, who said that imperialism is possible ONLY in capitalism, and NOT in communism. Marx just assumed the problem away, as being impossible under communism. Marxism is stupid, but Trotskyism is even worse. Trotsky wanted to add imperialism to Marxism. Marx was bad enough: he advocated the false labor theory of value, and blamed NOT the aristocracy but the MIDDLE class, the "bourgeoisie, for the problems -- as-if it were the middle and NOT the top class that controlled the country. Like ALL philosophers, Marx was pre-scientific, not scientific. And Trotsky was like Marx except even worse.
You are not without a good mind. I’m sorry we can’t work together. All the best to you and yours!
Take care and be well!
The issue isn't you or me; it is reality -- what it is, and what it isn't. I have read Marx, Stalin, and Trotsky, and I have summarized here what each of the three stood for. But a person doesn't need to have read any of them in order to understand that the billionaires control our Government, the middle class ("bourgeoisie") don't. No philosopher is helpful to understand reality -- only scientific investigation is. If you click through to the links wherever you disagree with what I write in an article, you can get through to what the statement's empirical sources were. That is the only scientific way to evaluate a statement: what its empirical sources are -- not what some philosophers' opinions about the matter were. Reading philosophers has always been just a waste of time.