What do you think?
Rate this book
Fascism: What It Is and How to Fight It
Writing in the heat of struggle against the rise of fascism in Germany, France, and Spain in the 193s, communist leader Leon Trotsky examines the class origins and character of fascist movements. Building on foundations laid by the Communist International in Lenin’s time, Trotsky advances a working-class strategy to combat and defeat this malignant danger.
46 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1944
142 people are currently reading
5857 people want to read
About the author
Leon Trotsky
1,093 books804 followersSee also Лев Троцкий
Russian theoretician Leon Trotsky or Leon Trotski, originally Lev Davidovitch Bronstein, led the Bolshevik of 1917, wrote Literature and Revolution in 1924, opposed the authoritarianism of Joseph Stalin, and emphasized world; therefore later, the Communist party in 1927 expelled him and in 1929 banished him, but he included the autobiographical My Life in 1930, and the behest murdered him in exile in Mexico.
The exile of Leon Trotsky in 1929 marked rule of Joseph Stalin.
People better know this Marxist. In October 1917, he ranked second only to Vladimir Lenin. During the early days of the Soviet Union, he served first as commissar of people for foreign affairs and as the founder and commander of the Red Army and of war. He also ranked among the first members of the Politburo.
After a failed struggle of the left against the policies and rise in the 1920s, the increasing role of bureaucracy in the Soviet Union deported Trotsky. An early advocate of intervention of Army of Red against European fascism, Trotsky also agreed on peace with Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. As the head of the fourth International, Trotsky continued to the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, and Ramón Mercader, a Soviet agent, eventually assassinated him. From Marxism, his separate ideas form the basis of Trotskyism, a term, coined as early as 1905. Ideas of Trotsky constitute a major school of Marxist. The Soviet administration never rehabilitated him and few other political figures.
Russian theoretician Leon Trotsky or Leon Trotski, originally Lev Davidovitch Bronstein, led the Bolshevik of 1917, wrote Literature and Revolution in 1924, opposed the authoritarianism of Joseph Stalin, and emphasized world; therefore later, the Communist party in 1927 expelled him and in 1929 banished him, but he included the autobiographical My Life in 1930, and the behest murdered him in exile in Mexico.
The exile of Leon Trotsky in 1929 marked rule of Joseph Stalin.
People better know this Marxist. In October 1917, he ranked second only to Vladimir Lenin. During the early days of the Soviet Union, he served first as commissar of people for foreign affairs and as the founder and commander of the Red Army and of war. He also ranked among the first members of the Politburo.
After a failed struggle of the left against the policies and rise in the 1920s, the increasing role of bureaucracy in the Soviet Union deported Trotsky. An early advocate of intervention of Army of Red against European fascism, Trotsky also agreed on peace with Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. As the head of the fourth International, Trotsky continued to the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, and Ramón Mercader, a Soviet agent, eventually assassinated him. From Marxism, his separate ideas form the basis of Trotskyism, a term, coined as early as 1905. Ideas of Trotsky constitute a major school of Marxist. The Soviet administration never rehabilitated him and few other political figures.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 200 reviews
June 14, 2018
Trotsky admits that fascism is a middle class(which he calls the petty bourgeoisie) movement that grows out of a collapse of capitalism. It is opposed to both the upper crust of the bourgeoisie and a proletarian revolution. Developed countries with a large middle class are resistant to a proletarian revolution(e.g. Germany and Italy). Underdeveloped countries with a small middle class are susceptible to a proletarian revolution(e.g. Russia, Cuba, etc.).
Trotsky asserts that the Comintern(Communist International) was run by a bunch of idiots, especially Stalin, who didn't know political strategy. Trotsky focuses on the German elections between 1928 and 1930. During that time the Communist Party in Germany grew by 1.3 million votes and declared a Soviet Germany. However, in the same time the NSDAP grew from 800,000 votes to over 6 million votes. Trotsky says the NSDAP overwhelmingly won over the middle class by only focusing on the middle class, and in doing so won over some sections of the proletariat. On the other hand, the Communist Party embraced a theory called "social fascism" which declared war on the social democrats. This theory came from the mouths of the Comintern, which ultimately led to the Communist Party's downfall.
At the Sixth Congress of the Comintern in 1928, the end of capitalist stability and the beginning of the "Third Period" was proclaimed. The end of capitalism, accompanied with a working class revolution, was expected and social democracy was identified as the main enemy of the communists. This Comintern's theory had roots in Grigory Zinoviev's argument that international social democracy is a wing of fascism. This view was accepted by Joseph Stalin who described fascism and social democracy as "twin brothers", arguing that fascism depends on the active support of the social democracy and that the social democracy depends on the active support of fascism. After it was declared at the Sixth Congress, the theory of social fascism became accepted by the world communist movement.
Trotsky argued against the accusations of "social fascism" and in the 'Bulletin of the Opposition' of March 1932 declared: "Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank... And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory". However, Trotsky said in the same essay that any cooperation with the social democrats was only tactical and temporary and that in the final analysis the social democracy would have to be defeated and subverted by the revolutionary faction:
"The front must now be directed against fascism. And this common front of direct struggle against fascism, embracing the entire proletariat, must be utilized in the struggle against the Social Democracy, directed as a flank attack, but no less effective for all that... No common platform with the Social Democracy, or with the leaders of the German trade unions, no common publications, banners, placards! March separately, but strike together! Agree only how to strike, whom to strike, and when to strike! Such an agreement can be concluded even with the devil himself... No retraction of our criticism of the Social Democracy. No forgetting of all that has been. The whole historical reckoning, including the reckoning for Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, will be presented at the proper time, just as the Russian Bolsheviks finally presented a general reckoning to the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries for the baiting, calumny, imprisonment and murder of workers, soldiers, and peasants."
Trotsky then states that the middle class is incapable of forming an independent policy and must choose between the policy of the big bourgeoisie or the proletariat, but I beg to differ. Trotsky must have been unfamiliar with Robert Ley's German Labor Front and their theory of "Einheitsgewerkschaft". According to the Comintern, the middle class is indissoluble from the big bourgeoisie and the former is a caricature of Jacobinism. Trotsky disagrees with this and brings up the Paris Commune of 1871 as an example of the middle class siding with the proletariat.
According to Marxist doctrine, the most developed capitalist country is supposed to be the first country to have a proletarian revolution. So when Germany went to the NSDAP and not the Communist Party, this baffled Trotsky and spent the rest of his life trying to figure out the nature of fascism.
So how does Trotsky suggest fighting fascism? With armed proletarian militias. Trotsky says the proletariat should confiscate and seize the weapons of the fascists in this struggle to the death.
Trotsky was banned from the Soviet Union in 1929 and went to France, Norway, and finally ended up in Mexico. From Mexico, he would continue to write critically of the Soviet Union and continue his fascination with fascism. He was assassinated by Stalin's NKVD agent while in Mexico in 1940 and never lived to see Germany invade the Soviet Union.
This book contains excerpts from his two major works on fascism, "The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany" and "Leon Trotsky On France".
Trotsky asserts that the Comintern(Communist International) was run by a bunch of idiots, especially Stalin, who didn't know political strategy. Trotsky focuses on the German elections between 1928 and 1930. During that time the Communist Party in Germany grew by 1.3 million votes and declared a Soviet Germany. However, in the same time the NSDAP grew from 800,000 votes to over 6 million votes. Trotsky says the NSDAP overwhelmingly won over the middle class by only focusing on the middle class, and in doing so won over some sections of the proletariat. On the other hand, the Communist Party embraced a theory called "social fascism" which declared war on the social democrats. This theory came from the mouths of the Comintern, which ultimately led to the Communist Party's downfall.
At the Sixth Congress of the Comintern in 1928, the end of capitalist stability and the beginning of the "Third Period" was proclaimed. The end of capitalism, accompanied with a working class revolution, was expected and social democracy was identified as the main enemy of the communists. This Comintern's theory had roots in Grigory Zinoviev's argument that international social democracy is a wing of fascism. This view was accepted by Joseph Stalin who described fascism and social democracy as "twin brothers", arguing that fascism depends on the active support of the social democracy and that the social democracy depends on the active support of fascism. After it was declared at the Sixth Congress, the theory of social fascism became accepted by the world communist movement.
Trotsky argued against the accusations of "social fascism" and in the 'Bulletin of the Opposition' of March 1932 declared: "Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank... And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory". However, Trotsky said in the same essay that any cooperation with the social democrats was only tactical and temporary and that in the final analysis the social democracy would have to be defeated and subverted by the revolutionary faction:
"The front must now be directed against fascism. And this common front of direct struggle against fascism, embracing the entire proletariat, must be utilized in the struggle against the Social Democracy, directed as a flank attack, but no less effective for all that... No common platform with the Social Democracy, or with the leaders of the German trade unions, no common publications, banners, placards! March separately, but strike together! Agree only how to strike, whom to strike, and when to strike! Such an agreement can be concluded even with the devil himself... No retraction of our criticism of the Social Democracy. No forgetting of all that has been. The whole historical reckoning, including the reckoning for Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, will be presented at the proper time, just as the Russian Bolsheviks finally presented a general reckoning to the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries for the baiting, calumny, imprisonment and murder of workers, soldiers, and peasants."
Trotsky then states that the middle class is incapable of forming an independent policy and must choose between the policy of the big bourgeoisie or the proletariat, but I beg to differ. Trotsky must have been unfamiliar with Robert Ley's German Labor Front and their theory of "Einheitsgewerkschaft". According to the Comintern, the middle class is indissoluble from the big bourgeoisie and the former is a caricature of Jacobinism. Trotsky disagrees with this and brings up the Paris Commune of 1871 as an example of the middle class siding with the proletariat.
According to Marxist doctrine, the most developed capitalist country is supposed to be the first country to have a proletarian revolution. So when Germany went to the NSDAP and not the Communist Party, this baffled Trotsky and spent the rest of his life trying to figure out the nature of fascism.
So how does Trotsky suggest fighting fascism? With armed proletarian militias. Trotsky says the proletariat should confiscate and seize the weapons of the fascists in this struggle to the death.
Trotsky was banned from the Soviet Union in 1929 and went to France, Norway, and finally ended up in Mexico. From Mexico, he would continue to write critically of the Soviet Union and continue his fascination with fascism. He was assassinated by Stalin's NKVD agent while in Mexico in 1940 and never lived to see Germany invade the Soviet Union.
This book contains excerpts from his two major works on fascism, "The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany" and "Leon Trotsky On France".
Read
October 30, 2018Whole thing available for free at
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trot...
From The Workers Militia and its Opponents mentions "Liberalism has always said to the workers that by their class struggle they 'provoke' the reaction." and "If the oppressed do not balk, the oppressors will not be obliged to beat them" which sounds like the same kind of gaslighting our culture enacts against african americans who speak out (kneeling during the pledge, getting shot because they wear a hoodie, reaction against BLM, etc). I like how this section breaks it down into a tactic and shows how its been used against different groups in different places.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trot...
From The Workers Militia and its Opponents mentions "Liberalism has always said to the workers that by their class struggle they 'provoke' the reaction." and "If the oppressed do not balk, the oppressors will not be obliged to beat them" which sounds like the same kind of gaslighting our culture enacts against african americans who speak out (kneeling during the pledge, getting shot because they wear a hoodie, reaction against BLM, etc). I like how this section breaks it down into a tactic and shows how its been used against different groups in different places.
August 8, 2021
This entire book/pamphlet is just a cope for the fact that fascism is in all actuality more popular and appealing than communism. Also, Trotsky notes that communist uprisings help the fascist parties, which just proves the first sentence.
Also, the quote "Fascism will inevitably break its neck against the irreconcilable hostility of the workers" is very funny to me, since none of the existing fascist regimes at the writing of the pamphlet fell through proletarian uprisings.
Also, the quote "Fascism will inevitably break its neck against the irreconcilable hostility of the workers" is very funny to me, since none of the existing fascist regimes at the writing of the pamphlet fell through proletarian uprisings.
January 31, 2010
A brief collection of some of Trotsky's important letters and articles regarding fascism, this pamphlet offers a brief introduction to the nature of fascism, the conditions that give rise to it, and the strategy of resisting it through a "united front." Based on his observations of the growth of National Socialism (i.e. fascism) in Italy, Germany, Spain, and France, Trotsky concludes that fascism is a mass movement based primarily in petite bourgeoisie and backed by the big capitalist powers. Trotsky identifies a twofold set of conditions that allowed fascism to take hold in Europe: 1) the disorientation and desperation (primarily among the petite bourgeoisie) brought on by the abrupt end of capitalism's growth phase and 2) the absence or failure of a genuinely revolutionary workers' party that offers both the proletariat and the petite bourgeoisie the hope of escape from the grasp of the bourgeoisie. Accordingly, Trotsky assigns a fair proportion of the blame for the rise of fascism in Europe to the leaders of the Communist parties, the Comintern, and the leaders of the social democratic parties who betrayed the workers' revolutions in Germany, France, Spain, and Italy. Trotsky links fascism to the reactionary backlash that followed these aborted revolutions, and counterpoises against the notion of the Communist Party as a form of revolutionary hope the notion of fascism, as a mass movement, as a form of revolutionary despair.
In light of the social foundation upon which fascism rests, Trotsky emphasizes the need for a united front led by a revolutionary proletarian party (as the vanguard of the proletarian class) against fascism. In order for the proletariat to inspire confidence among the petite bourgeoisie, however, the revolutionary movement must first possess confidence in itself. This means that the party must be lead by genuine revolutionaries from the working class who possess the commitment and the strategic capacity to build on and encourage the workers' revolutionary initiative. Trotsky also points up the need for solidarity and for the workers to defend themselves against violence from the fascist. Given the level of violence that workers face, he proposes the development of workers' militias and then systematically dismantles the most common oppositions offered to such a proposal. The final sections of the pamphlet discuss the situation in the United States at the time, and Trotsky warns that the same conditions that gave rise to fascism in Europe have already appeared in nascent form in the US. While his prediction of the length of time that the "war economy" could be used to forestall the radicalization of the working classes proved overly optimistic (Trotsky predicted that this delay could not be of "long duration," whereas the capitalist powers in the US have managed to maintain the military economy since the build-up to World War 2), the severe crisis which capitalism has recently entered into, coupled with the rise of the "Tea Party Patriots," the mainstream media's glorification of "Minutemen" vigilante mobs along the US-Mexican border, the vitriolic backlash against even the slightest measures to alleviate the poverty of the working class, the growth of Christian fundamentalism and the demonization of Muslims, and the absence of an independent workers' party, let alone a revolutionary party, all combine to create conditions similar to those described by Trotsky as the grounds from which a fascist movement grows. As Trotsky observes, the most effective way to counter these trends is to build the revolutionary party.
In light of the social foundation upon which fascism rests, Trotsky emphasizes the need for a united front led by a revolutionary proletarian party (as the vanguard of the proletarian class) against fascism. In order for the proletariat to inspire confidence among the petite bourgeoisie, however, the revolutionary movement must first possess confidence in itself. This means that the party must be lead by genuine revolutionaries from the working class who possess the commitment and the strategic capacity to build on and encourage the workers' revolutionary initiative. Trotsky also points up the need for solidarity and for the workers to defend themselves against violence from the fascist. Given the level of violence that workers face, he proposes the development of workers' militias and then systematically dismantles the most common oppositions offered to such a proposal. The final sections of the pamphlet discuss the situation in the United States at the time, and Trotsky warns that the same conditions that gave rise to fascism in Europe have already appeared in nascent form in the US. While his prediction of the length of time that the "war economy" could be used to forestall the radicalization of the working classes proved overly optimistic (Trotsky predicted that this delay could not be of "long duration," whereas the capitalist powers in the US have managed to maintain the military economy since the build-up to World War 2), the severe crisis which capitalism has recently entered into, coupled with the rise of the "Tea Party Patriots," the mainstream media's glorification of "Minutemen" vigilante mobs along the US-Mexican border, the vitriolic backlash against even the slightest measures to alleviate the poverty of the working class, the growth of Christian fundamentalism and the demonization of Muslims, and the absence of an independent workers' party, let alone a revolutionary party, all combine to create conditions similar to those described by Trotsky as the grounds from which a fascist movement grows. As Trotsky observes, the most effective way to counter these trends is to build the revolutionary party.
July 25, 2024
This book is, unfortunately for everyone, still relevant. There's a lot of bad news in this book, but Trotsky never gave up hope that fascism would be defeated, and provides good reasons to think this might be the case. Let's take it step by step.
The first lesson of the book is the class basis for fascism. It comes from the petty bourgeoisie. Let's agree not to quibble about the difference between petit and petty. Let's abbreviate it PB.
The second lesson of the book concerns the aim of fascism. The significant difference when Mussolini took power wasn't that he set new patterns. What changed was that workers organizations were annihilated, the proletariat was reduced to an amorphous state and that a system of administration and paranoid surveillance of police threats from enemies of the state is created which serves to frustrate any crystallization of the proletariat.
The third lesson is that social democracy and monarchism fail to contain fascism. SD failed since it tried to make the workers docile, leaving them unprepared to resist the comparatively more active fascists. The crown failed to resist at all, often openly endorsing fascist politicians.
The fourth lesson is that fascism is usually underestimated by its opponents. This happens when fascism is excused by those suffering from sentimental illusions as a forgivable minor reaction. The will to fight is paralyzed, and any specificities are swept under the rug.
The fifth lesson is that communism has forgotten how to think big. This is a specific symptom of the infantile disorder Lenin diagnosed. We must not be afraid of facing reality as it is, so that we can decide how to improve it.
The sixth lesson is that fascism emerges out of conditions of crisis. This crisis provokes two responses: despair and hope. If you pick despair, you will eventually become a fascist. If you pick hope, you will eventually become a communist.
The seventh lesson is that adventurism is disastrous for the Left. Only sober strategies can be treated as real political options.
The 8th lesson is that policy matters. The wrong policy can completely derail the movement in a brief period.
The ninth lesson is that wordy formulas do not defeat explosives. Communists care about ideas; fascists often don't. This is difficult to accept, but it's true. Communication doesn't win wars, though it can end them.
The tenth lesson is that the theory of social fascism must be rejected. It is summed up in the idea that Social-Democracy is the moderate wing of fascism. SD is better understood as a source of potential allies in the construction of a united front.
The eleventh lesson is that policemen shouldn't be confused with workers. They may sound similar, but the former will always betray you.
The twelfth lesson is that Bonapartists will promise that when the crisis is over they will give you back power. They won't.
The thirteenth lesson is the first sign of hope. The alliance between the PB and the forces of surplus extraction is not indissoluble. We only earn the faith of the PB with strength, firmness of actions and correct revolutionary policy. This is the key bit - to win the confidence of the PB, we need to have confidence in ourselves.
The fourteenth lesson is that the 'flabby pacificism' produced by workers organizations is the enemy of any alliance between the PB and the workers. Nonviolent resistance is closer to the pious goat that gave Gandhi his milk than to the hammer and sickle.
Spoiler alert: the book ends with a favorable, though slightly ambiguous perspective. It is our job to justify the revolution. We must not do so dogmatically. Let's get to work.
The first lesson of the book is the class basis for fascism. It comes from the petty bourgeoisie. Let's agree not to quibble about the difference between petit and petty. Let's abbreviate it PB.
The second lesson of the book concerns the aim of fascism. The significant difference when Mussolini took power wasn't that he set new patterns. What changed was that workers organizations were annihilated, the proletariat was reduced to an amorphous state and that a system of administration and paranoid surveillance of police threats from enemies of the state is created which serves to frustrate any crystallization of the proletariat.
The third lesson is that social democracy and monarchism fail to contain fascism. SD failed since it tried to make the workers docile, leaving them unprepared to resist the comparatively more active fascists. The crown failed to resist at all, often openly endorsing fascist politicians.
The fourth lesson is that fascism is usually underestimated by its opponents. This happens when fascism is excused by those suffering from sentimental illusions as a forgivable minor reaction. The will to fight is paralyzed, and any specificities are swept under the rug.
The fifth lesson is that communism has forgotten how to think big. This is a specific symptom of the infantile disorder Lenin diagnosed. We must not be afraid of facing reality as it is, so that we can decide how to improve it.
The sixth lesson is that fascism emerges out of conditions of crisis. This crisis provokes two responses: despair and hope. If you pick despair, you will eventually become a fascist. If you pick hope, you will eventually become a communist.
The seventh lesson is that adventurism is disastrous for the Left. Only sober strategies can be treated as real political options.
The 8th lesson is that policy matters. The wrong policy can completely derail the movement in a brief period.
The ninth lesson is that wordy formulas do not defeat explosives. Communists care about ideas; fascists often don't. This is difficult to accept, but it's true. Communication doesn't win wars, though it can end them.
The tenth lesson is that the theory of social fascism must be rejected. It is summed up in the idea that Social-Democracy is the moderate wing of fascism. SD is better understood as a source of potential allies in the construction of a united front.
The eleventh lesson is that policemen shouldn't be confused with workers. They may sound similar, but the former will always betray you.
The twelfth lesson is that Bonapartists will promise that when the crisis is over they will give you back power. They won't.
The thirteenth lesson is the first sign of hope. The alliance between the PB and the forces of surplus extraction is not indissoluble. We only earn the faith of the PB with strength, firmness of actions and correct revolutionary policy. This is the key bit - to win the confidence of the PB, we need to have confidence in ourselves.
The fourteenth lesson is that the 'flabby pacificism' produced by workers organizations is the enemy of any alliance between the PB and the workers. Nonviolent resistance is closer to the pious goat that gave Gandhi his milk than to the hammer and sickle.
Spoiler alert: the book ends with a favorable, though slightly ambiguous perspective. It is our job to justify the revolution. We must not do so dogmatically. Let's get to work.
July 1, 2017
Before I start with the actual review, a few sentences on Trotsky himself. Trotsky was one of the main players of the October Revolution, which killed perhaps a million people, many from executions ordered by the man himself. He was the second in command of Lenin at the time when Lenins regime caused the famines of 1921-1922 that killed million more people. Here's a quote by him that should show you what kind of person we're dealing with:
And another one, the context being that he ordered the killing of any retreating or deserting soldiers from his side:
There was another quote by him to the effect that treating human beings as beasts of burden is decent and efficient, if I recall correctly. I cannot find it at the moment, but I think I made my case: Trotsky was a totalitarian at heart. Keep that in mind when you hear him rail against the facists (or Stalin, for that matter).
Somehow, Trotskys reputation has remained somewhat untarnished by this record, and now he is perhaps best known as Russias Lost Prince and Lenins Chosen One who was chased away and eventually killed by the usurper Stalin. I have my doubts whether he wouldn't have been even worse than Stalin had he been given the chance.
In this collection of letters, Trotsky talks about the origins and the dynamics of fascism and presents a strategy for defeating it. His strategy is to keep up the workers revolution, because that worked so well in Russia and China. His concept of what fascism is is only marginally more interesting. It hinges on the Marxist class theory, a theory that is deeply flawed already and that Trotsky somehow managed to ruin even further. Marx never defined what a class was; his draft of the final volume of The Capital broke off just as he was about to do that. This is the deep flaw of his theory, and it renders what he says as good as inoperable. Along comes Trotsky, and he comes up with the idea of a petty bourgeoisie. What is the petty bourgeoisie? Apparently, it's those that are disenfranchised to a certain degree, but don't yet qualify as workers. Trotsky doesn't say how that is supposed to work. He doesn't even make it clear that he's deviating from Marx. When you replace a clear-cut dichotomy with a spectrum, that's the kind of major deviation I'd like to see pointed out. And how does his modified class theory deal with alienation? Is that possible in degrees, too?
Like I said: Mangled. How, then, can I take him serious when he describes fascism as the petty bourgeois counter-movement to the proletarian movement? His central premise is broken! That alone should be reason to dismiss him. And it's not a small error that can be mended, or readily modified. Any attempt to fix him would be a substitution of the readers' theory for that of Trotsky, for which Trotsky would deserve no credit.
All the other flaws that Trotsky, always the puritan, readily copied from Marx are just icing on the cake. Marx' theory of history as a series of consecutive class struggles concluding in a socialist (or communist, depending on who you ask) utopia has evidently been refuted. Not because the socialist movements failed, but because fascism did, and yet it wasn't supplanted by socialism. Isn't fascism "capitalism in decay"? How, then, can it turn into "slightly more healthy capitalism"? Marx has no response to that, and neither has Trotsky.
I can only repeat myself here: Read actual economics. Do not read this trash. Trotsky doesn't understand what he's talking about. No Marxist (or Leninist, or Maoist...) does. If they did, they wouldn't be socialists. In none of these books that I ever touched did I notice a semblance of economic comprehension. I have many books on economics on my shelves and I invite anyone to check some of them out. Alternatively, ask me for recommendations. Do not waste your time trying to iron out the subtle differences of theories that are all based upon false premises.
In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.
And another one, the context being that he ordered the killing of any retreating or deserting soldiers from his side:
An army cannot be built without reprisals. Masses of men cannot be led to death unless the army command has the death-penalty in its arsenal. So long as those malicious tailless apes that are so proud of their technical achievements—the animals that we call men—will build armies and wage wars, the command will always be obliged to place the soldiers between the possible death in the front and the inevitable one in the rear.
There was another quote by him to the effect that treating human beings as beasts of burden is decent and efficient, if I recall correctly. I cannot find it at the moment, but I think I made my case: Trotsky was a totalitarian at heart. Keep that in mind when you hear him rail against the facists (or Stalin, for that matter).
Somehow, Trotskys reputation has remained somewhat untarnished by this record, and now he is perhaps best known as Russias Lost Prince and Lenins Chosen One who was chased away and eventually killed by the usurper Stalin. I have my doubts whether he wouldn't have been even worse than Stalin had he been given the chance.
In this collection of letters, Trotsky talks about the origins and the dynamics of fascism and presents a strategy for defeating it. His strategy is to keep up the workers revolution, because that worked so well in Russia and China. His concept of what fascism is is only marginally more interesting. It hinges on the Marxist class theory, a theory that is deeply flawed already and that Trotsky somehow managed to ruin even further. Marx never defined what a class was; his draft of the final volume of The Capital broke off just as he was about to do that. This is the deep flaw of his theory, and it renders what he says as good as inoperable. Along comes Trotsky, and he comes up with the idea of a petty bourgeoisie. What is the petty bourgeoisie? Apparently, it's those that are disenfranchised to a certain degree, but don't yet qualify as workers. Trotsky doesn't say how that is supposed to work. He doesn't even make it clear that he's deviating from Marx. When you replace a clear-cut dichotomy with a spectrum, that's the kind of major deviation I'd like to see pointed out. And how does his modified class theory deal with alienation? Is that possible in degrees, too?
Like I said: Mangled. How, then, can I take him serious when he describes fascism as the petty bourgeois counter-movement to the proletarian movement? His central premise is broken! That alone should be reason to dismiss him. And it's not a small error that can be mended, or readily modified. Any attempt to fix him would be a substitution of the readers' theory for that of Trotsky, for which Trotsky would deserve no credit.
All the other flaws that Trotsky, always the puritan, readily copied from Marx are just icing on the cake. Marx' theory of history as a series of consecutive class struggles concluding in a socialist (or communist, depending on who you ask) utopia has evidently been refuted. Not because the socialist movements failed, but because fascism did, and yet it wasn't supplanted by socialism. Isn't fascism "capitalism in decay"? How, then, can it turn into "slightly more healthy capitalism"? Marx has no response to that, and neither has Trotsky.
I can only repeat myself here: Read actual economics. Do not read this trash. Trotsky doesn't understand what he's talking about. No Marxist (or Leninist, or Maoist...) does. If they did, they wouldn't be socialists. In none of these books that I ever touched did I notice a semblance of economic comprehension. I have many books on economics on my shelves and I invite anyone to check some of them out. Alternatively, ask me for recommendations. Do not waste your time trying to iron out the subtle differences of theories that are all based upon false premises.
April 14, 2018
If this is all that Trosky has to say on fascism then he is the bigest joke of marxism. He dose not deal with the ideology, the history and context of it s emergence, the relation with socialism, sindicalism and even communism from whom fascism had a productiv borowing; insted Trosky gives us a fairy tale with the characters named: bourgoise, petty bourgoise, proletarians, stupuid social dems and stalinists and fascists. And as an interesting observation: Trosky blames the parlamentary an conservative attitude of the communism for the victory of fascism... but was not this attitude promoted by Lenin in his left wing communism... ?(1922)
March 24, 2017
A forgettable book that fails to explain what fascism really is & how to stop it. What is Fascism according to Trotsky and what were its causes? Trotsky argues that Fascism is a middle class phenomenon supported by the Wealthy Elite. Adding: “The gigantic growth of National Socialism is an expression of two factors: a deep social crisis, throwing the petty-bourgeois masses off balance, and the lack of a revolutionary party that would be regarded by the masses of the people as an acknowledged revolutionary leader".
Trotsky further places blame on the rise of Fascism in Germany on the German Communists; arguing that Fascism was a result of the German Communists failing to create a United Front with the German Social Democrats (SPD). Every point he makes is wrong. Either it is because Trotsky knows nothing about political science and history or because he was an agent of the Western Powers, as some authors like Grover Fur (See Trotsky's Amalgams) allege.
Either way, the true definition of Fascism is capitalism in decay. When Capitalism can no longer fool the workers with the illusions of elections, it uses force. When the workers fight back, but cannot win, you have Fascism; when they fight back and do win, you have True Socialism. If you look at all the countries where Fascism took place: Spain, Germany, Italy, Hungry, etc.., they were all countries on the verge of revolution or had a revolution; where the workers were literally fighting on the street. Fascism should not be confused with Authoritarian governments. (For example, during the Gilded Age in the US, the National Guards were often called to stop strikes and were known for openly firing even at women and children. However, although there were pockets of discontent in the country, there was no strong nationwide mass movements nor possibilities for revolution).
Further contrary to what Trotsky says Fascism is not a middle class phenomenon; it has nothing to do with the petty-bourgeois “falling off-balance”. It is a pre-calculated movement by the Ruling Elite; a safety net when elections can't keep the slaves enthralled with future promises for emancipation through elections. Check out Hearstfield's poster of Hitler that says: "He's supported by millions" (referring to the Banker's monetary contributions) If one really want to learn what Fascism is, one of the best books on this subject is "The United Front: the Struggle against Fascism and War" by Georgi Dimitrov written in 1935. This book will not disappoint. It is easy to read and Dimitrov really understands his subject matter.
Lastly, Trotsky argument that it was the German communists who were responsible for allowing the rise of fascism by their failure to create a United Front with the Social Democrats is ridiculous. The German Social Democrats were socialist only in name. The Weimar Government led by Ebert after all was not voted into power, but appointed into power by the Germany Ruling Aristocracy & German military to keep the masses further stupefied with more electoral false promises of Labor reforms. As latchkeys of the Right-Wing, they were not only not anti-Fascists; but actually pro-fascist. For example, they were involved in the murders of anti-fascists like Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht. They were also involved in one of the bloodiest put downs of any strike in German history: The massacre of the Ruhr Valley strikers surpassing anything in Germany up to that time. Moreover, The Social Democrats had no compunction about calling out the Freikorps (proto-type of the NAZI storm troopers) to suppress workers at anytime.
Under such conditions it is self-evident; it was the German Social Democrats who refused to form a United Front with the Communists and not the other way around. Trotsky supresses the fact, the right-wing of the SPD (representing the Bourgeoisie) preferred and openly supported Fascism or that many members of the left-wing of the SPD openly admitted they regretted not forming a United Front with the Communists on account of their desire to stay in power; causing them to suppress the communists at the expense of miscalculating the real threat the Fascists posed instead.
Trotsky further places blame on the rise of Fascism in Germany on the German Communists; arguing that Fascism was a result of the German Communists failing to create a United Front with the German Social Democrats (SPD). Every point he makes is wrong. Either it is because Trotsky knows nothing about political science and history or because he was an agent of the Western Powers, as some authors like Grover Fur (See Trotsky's Amalgams) allege.
Either way, the true definition of Fascism is capitalism in decay. When Capitalism can no longer fool the workers with the illusions of elections, it uses force. When the workers fight back, but cannot win, you have Fascism; when they fight back and do win, you have True Socialism. If you look at all the countries where Fascism took place: Spain, Germany, Italy, Hungry, etc.., they were all countries on the verge of revolution or had a revolution; where the workers were literally fighting on the street. Fascism should not be confused with Authoritarian governments. (For example, during the Gilded Age in the US, the National Guards were often called to stop strikes and were known for openly firing even at women and children. However, although there were pockets of discontent in the country, there was no strong nationwide mass movements nor possibilities for revolution).
Further contrary to what Trotsky says Fascism is not a middle class phenomenon; it has nothing to do with the petty-bourgeois “falling off-balance”. It is a pre-calculated movement by the Ruling Elite; a safety net when elections can't keep the slaves enthralled with future promises for emancipation through elections. Check out Hearstfield's poster of Hitler that says: "He's supported by millions" (referring to the Banker's monetary contributions) If one really want to learn what Fascism is, one of the best books on this subject is "The United Front: the Struggle against Fascism and War" by Georgi Dimitrov written in 1935. This book will not disappoint. It is easy to read and Dimitrov really understands his subject matter.
Lastly, Trotsky argument that it was the German communists who were responsible for allowing the rise of fascism by their failure to create a United Front with the Social Democrats is ridiculous. The German Social Democrats were socialist only in name. The Weimar Government led by Ebert after all was not voted into power, but appointed into power by the Germany Ruling Aristocracy & German military to keep the masses further stupefied with more electoral false promises of Labor reforms. As latchkeys of the Right-Wing, they were not only not anti-Fascists; but actually pro-fascist. For example, they were involved in the murders of anti-fascists like Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht. They were also involved in one of the bloodiest put downs of any strike in German history: The massacre of the Ruhr Valley strikers surpassing anything in Germany up to that time. Moreover, The Social Democrats had no compunction about calling out the Freikorps (proto-type of the NAZI storm troopers) to suppress workers at anytime.
Under such conditions it is self-evident; it was the German Social Democrats who refused to form a United Front with the Communists and not the other way around. Trotsky supresses the fact, the right-wing of the SPD (representing the Bourgeoisie) preferred and openly supported Fascism or that many members of the left-wing of the SPD openly admitted they regretted not forming a United Front with the Communists on account of their desire to stay in power; causing them to suppress the communists at the expense of miscalculating the real threat the Fascists posed instead.
July 13, 2023
این کتاب خیلی خیلی خوب بود. کاش هر ایرانی حداقل یک بار این کتاب کم حجم و خوب رو میخوند.
از اینجا به بعد چند بریده کتاب جالب میذارم:
از آنجا که خردهبورژوازی نمیتواند سیاستی مستقل داشته باشد (به همین خاطر هم "دیکتاتوری دموکراتیک" خردهبورژوازی تحققپذیر نیست)، هیچ گزینه دیگری به جز انتخاب بین بورژوازی یا پرولتاریا ندارد.
ص۳۸
خردهبورژوازی باید ایمان بیاورد که پرولتاریا آن توانایی را دارد که جامعه را به مسیری جدید هدایت کند. پرولتاریا تنها میتواند با قدرت و ثبات عمل خود، با یورش ماهرانه علیه دشمن و یا پیروزیِ سیاست انقلابیاش الهام بخش این ایمان باشد.
ص۳۹
خردهبورژوازی میتواند خود را موقتاً با محرومیتهای رو به رشد سازش دهد، اگر به تجربه به این باور برسد که پرولتاریا در جایگاهی است که او را به مسیری جدید رهبری کند.
اما اگر حزب انقلابی به رقم پررنگتر شدنِ بیوقفهی نبرد طبقاتی، چندین باره ثابت کند که قادر نیست طبقه کارگر را حول این نبرد یکپارچه سازد، اگر دلدل کند، اگر سردرگم شود و خود متناقض باشد، اینک خرده بورژوازی صبر از کف میدهد و بنا میکند به مقصر دیدن کارگران انقلابی.
ص۳۹
از اینجا به بعد چند بریده کتاب جالب میذارم:
از آنجا که خردهبورژوازی نمیتواند سیاستی مستقل داشته باشد (به همین خاطر هم "دیکتاتوری دموکراتیک" خردهبورژوازی تحققپذیر نیست)، هیچ گزینه دیگری به جز انتخاب بین بورژوازی یا پرولتاریا ندارد.
ص۳۸
خردهبورژوازی باید ایمان بیاورد که پرولتاریا آن توانایی را دارد که جامعه را به مسیری جدید هدایت کند. پرولتاریا تنها میتواند با قدرت و ثبات عمل خود، با یورش ماهرانه علیه دشمن و یا پیروزیِ سیاست انقلابیاش الهام بخش این ایمان باشد.
ص۳۹
خردهبورژوازی میتواند خود را موقتاً با محرومیتهای رو به رشد سازش دهد، اگر به تجربه به این باور برسد که پرولتاریا در جایگاهی است که او را به مسیری جدید رهبری کند.
اما اگر حزب انقلابی به رقم پررنگتر شدنِ بیوقفهی نبرد طبقاتی، چندین باره ثابت کند که قادر نیست طبقه کارگر را حول این نبرد یکپارچه سازد، اگر دلدل کند، اگر سردرگم شود و خود متناقض باشد، اینک خرده بورژوازی صبر از کف میدهد و بنا میکند به مقصر دیدن کارگران انقلابی.
ص۳۹
June 22, 2025
interesting! really enjoyed this short book. was an audiobook, which was strange for me, but theory (even simpleish stuff) might not be great via audio format
September 17, 2025
short answer - build the revolutionary left.
interesting insight into the different factors that allow fascism to develop and dominate - whether the working class is strong and combative enough to address the social crisis of a particular time, and whether the middle class will rally behind them, or become disillusioned by the weakness of the working class (especially after it was crushed under stalinism or neutralised by SPD) and look towards fascism as the only alternative in despair.
interesting insight into the different factors that allow fascism to develop and dominate - whether the working class is strong and combative enough to address the social crisis of a particular time, and whether the middle class will rally behind them, or become disillusioned by the weakness of the working class (especially after it was crushed under stalinism or neutralised by SPD) and look towards fascism as the only alternative in despair.
July 18, 2021
I read this to see if Trotsky really was as brilliant as they say. I'm still undecided. It certainly wasn't very profound, but that's too much to expect from a loose collection of articles with very practical goals in mind.
Trotsky's been propped up throughout the years by communists trying to blame Stalin for all of the Bolshevik regime's faults. In fact, Lenin and Trotsky were second rate thinkers at best, and Stalin was far from an uneducated boor. All three were intelligent, charismatic, idealistic and ruthless with a very "flexible" sense of morality.
In the first letter (chapter), Trotsky first takes the rather courageous stance of debunking Stalin's propaganda in the early 1930's that calls anyone he finds inconvenient a fascist or a fascist agent, culminating in the idiotic epithet "Social Fascists" for Social Democrats, who through their commitment to democratic rule, have less in common with Fascists that Bolsheviks themselves do.
Then he goes to discuss a lot that now feels like historical trivia about particular revolutionary "comrades", their conduct and predicaments. This felt uninteresting to me but again due to the nature of the writings I can't fault Trotsky for it.
In one of the letters about Germany, at a time when Hitler's rise was a serious concern but not a certainty, he argues for a united leftist front and the formation of an inclusive fighting militia to counteract Nazi SA thugs who were highly organized at that point. Factionalism has always been a fatal flaw of the Left, contributing to the death of the German Weimar Republic, the Spanish Republican Government and the Russian Provisional Government of Kerensky (in the latter case Trotsky himself played a key role). The Middle-Class Center-Left find the radicalism and violence of the Far Left distasteful and immoral and the Far Left view the former as potential class enemies.
In another one, he analyzes the class origins of fascism. Old-school Marxists shove class into everything regardless of whether it belongs there, but in this case it was spot on and the only part of the book that remains relevant to this day. The mass support of fascism are, he argues, lower Middle Class people (disdainfully called petit-bourgeoisie) in fear of sliding back into the ranks of the Working Class and fighting to preserve their hard won albeit pathetic status in the pecking order. I'm writing this from memory weeks after finishing it; so I'm sure there is more insight to be found in the book.
Trotsky's been propped up throughout the years by communists trying to blame Stalin for all of the Bolshevik regime's faults. In fact, Lenin and Trotsky were second rate thinkers at best, and Stalin was far from an uneducated boor. All three were intelligent, charismatic, idealistic and ruthless with a very "flexible" sense of morality.
In the first letter (chapter), Trotsky first takes the rather courageous stance of debunking Stalin's propaganda in the early 1930's that calls anyone he finds inconvenient a fascist or a fascist agent, culminating in the idiotic epithet "Social Fascists" for Social Democrats, who through their commitment to democratic rule, have less in common with Fascists that Bolsheviks themselves do.
Then he goes to discuss a lot that now feels like historical trivia about particular revolutionary "comrades", their conduct and predicaments. This felt uninteresting to me but again due to the nature of the writings I can't fault Trotsky for it.
In one of the letters about Germany, at a time when Hitler's rise was a serious concern but not a certainty, he argues for a united leftist front and the formation of an inclusive fighting militia to counteract Nazi SA thugs who were highly organized at that point. Factionalism has always been a fatal flaw of the Left, contributing to the death of the German Weimar Republic, the Spanish Republican Government and the Russian Provisional Government of Kerensky (in the latter case Trotsky himself played a key role). The Middle-Class Center-Left find the radicalism and violence of the Far Left distasteful and immoral and the Far Left view the former as potential class enemies.
In another one, he analyzes the class origins of fascism. Old-school Marxists shove class into everything regardless of whether it belongs there, but in this case it was spot on and the only part of the book that remains relevant to this day. The mass support of fascism are, he argues, lower Middle Class people (disdainfully called petit-bourgeoisie) in fear of sliding back into the ranks of the Working Class and fighting to preserve their hard won albeit pathetic status in the pecking order. I'm writing this from memory weeks after finishing it; so I'm sure there is more insight to be found in the book.
July 25, 2024
This is a terrific analysis of fascism from a Marxist class perspective.
In a period of crisis created by the bourgeoisie (big capital, the owners of the major means of production), with the masses of people becoming agitated, a potentially revolutionary situation, fascism can arise.
If the proletariat (the working class) builds a successful revolutionary movement against the bourgeoisie, significant sections of the petty bourgeoisie (the small business people and manager class / bureaucrats / so-called “professionals”) and the lumpen proletariat (the unemployed, the dispossessed, the poverty stricken), who also have good reason to hate the bourgeoisie, will join in, and fascism will be averted.
However, if the proletariat fails to build a successful revolutionary movement, the petty bourgeoisie (and lumpen proletariat) will instead be won over by apparently insurgent demagogues, in reality acting in the interests of the bourgeoisie, who focus blame for social ills on scapegoats, typically easily identifiable minorities and other categories of people, often including more vulnerable sections of the proletariat. With the apparent failure of the democratic parliamentary state and its organs, the petty bourgeoisie itself will feel it is imperative to use force to impose order.
Faced with a proletariat threatening revolutionary uprising, the bourgeoisie will prefer to ally itself with, or better said, exploit the petty bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie will tacitly welcome street violence against its enemies, especially the most advanced sections of the proletariat, workers organisations and parties.
With the aid of the bourgeoisie, the agents of the petty bourgeoisie will devour the state, taking over its bureaucracy, and then also all the arms and organs of the state, including its ministries and justice and educational systems, and infesting society.
In a period of crisis created by the bourgeoisie (big capital, the owners of the major means of production), with the masses of people becoming agitated, a potentially revolutionary situation, fascism can arise.
If the proletariat (the working class) builds a successful revolutionary movement against the bourgeoisie, significant sections of the petty bourgeoisie (the small business people and manager class / bureaucrats / so-called “professionals”) and the lumpen proletariat (the unemployed, the dispossessed, the poverty stricken), who also have good reason to hate the bourgeoisie, will join in, and fascism will be averted.
However, if the proletariat fails to build a successful revolutionary movement, the petty bourgeoisie (and lumpen proletariat) will instead be won over by apparently insurgent demagogues, in reality acting in the interests of the bourgeoisie, who focus blame for social ills on scapegoats, typically easily identifiable minorities and other categories of people, often including more vulnerable sections of the proletariat. With the apparent failure of the democratic parliamentary state and its organs, the petty bourgeoisie itself will feel it is imperative to use force to impose order.
Faced with a proletariat threatening revolutionary uprising, the bourgeoisie will prefer to ally itself with, or better said, exploit the petty bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie will tacitly welcome street violence against its enemies, especially the most advanced sections of the proletariat, workers organisations and parties.
With the aid of the bourgeoisie, the agents of the petty bourgeoisie will devour the state, taking over its bureaucracy, and then also all the arms and organs of the state, including its ministries and justice and educational systems, and infesting society.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 11, 2023
Väga hea lihtne ülevaade fašismist 20ndate jooksul toimunud fašismi plahvatuslikust tõusust Itaalias ja Saksamaal. Trotski paneb fašismi leviku perspektiivi muude parteide arenemisega ning kuidas majanduskriisid ja anti-kommunismile keskendunud liberaalid võtsid fašismi tegelikult avasüli vastu.
Eriti oluline on keskklassi kallutatavus vasak-parema telje vahel, sest tavaliselt puudub sellel klassil ühiskonnas ideoloogiline seotus. Fašismi levik Itaalias ja Saksamaal oli perfektne näide, mis juhtub, kui revolutsioonilised parteid jäävad tegevusetuks ning ei julge ei haarata kriitilistel aegadel initsiatiivi, kartes sellega pahandada väikekodanlust. Fašismi populaarsete loosungitega kaldub kodanlus paremale ning on valmis fašismi oma vere hinnaga kaitsma.
Tänapäeva kontekstis on sellest palju õppida just fašismi populaarsuse ohtlikuseks, sest neo-fašismi ja populismi käsikäes liikumises on tekkinud uued lained parteisid, kelle tegevust tuleb igal juhul takistada.
Lühike lugemine tasuta: https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/trots...
Eriti oluline on keskklassi kallutatavus vasak-parema telje vahel, sest tavaliselt puudub sellel klassil ühiskonnas ideoloogiline seotus. Fašismi levik Itaalias ja Saksamaal oli perfektne näide, mis juhtub, kui revolutsioonilised parteid jäävad tegevusetuks ning ei julge ei haarata kriitilistel aegadel initsiatiivi, kartes sellega pahandada väikekodanlust. Fašismi populaarsete loosungitega kaldub kodanlus paremale ning on valmis fašismi oma vere hinnaga kaitsma.
Tänapäeva kontekstis on sellest palju õppida just fašismi populaarsuse ohtlikuseks, sest neo-fašismi ja populismi käsikäes liikumises on tekkinud uued lained parteisid, kelle tegevust tuleb igal juhul takistada.
Lühike lugemine tasuta: https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/trots...
August 12, 2025
Przy powszechnej ostatnio panice wokół rzekomego faszyzmu, gruntowna analiza tego zagadnienia przez Trockiego jest bardzo odświeżająca. Autor analizuje działanie faszyzmu, powody jego powstania, sposób działania, tło klasowe, a także to, jak można go pokonać przy nacisku na zdecydowane działanie ze strony robotników i znaczenie rewolucji.
W polskim wydaniu wprowadzono tutejszy, aktualny kontekst: "Czym jest faszyzm i jak z nim walczyć" został wydany przez Czerwony Front.
W polskim wydaniu wprowadzono tutejszy, aktualny kontekst: "Czym jest faszyzm i jak z nim walczyć" został wydany przez Czerwony Front.
September 12, 2025
O quê é o fascismo e como se luta contra o seu aparecimento e sucesso? Este pequeno panfleto construído com material reunido de outros livros do Trotsky promete resolver essas questões. Não o faz. Pelo menos não totalmente.
Trotsky classifica apenas o Fascismo como um movimento da pequena burguesia em momentos de crise quando esta fica receosa de perder os seus privilégios dentro do sistema capitalista. Estes partidos e movimentos são usados e financiados pelos capitalistas para usarem a violência como movimento anti-comunista e anti-trabalhador. O sucesso deste é equivalente ao falhanço do movimento trabalhista e comunista (em especial da política do commitern durante o mandato de Stalin) que tinha mais ódio ao social-fascismo (social-democracia) do que as gangs violentos do fascismo.
Nestes pontos Trotsky é incrível. Mas a realidade é que não explica o quê é o fascismo. Apenas o porquê de as pessoas seguirem. Sim é um movimento da pequena burguesia mas porquê que estes são os primeiros a cair nele? Qual é a mitologia do fascismo que leva a isso? E claro que os partidos comunistas falham ao eles próprios recusarem a violência e ao atacarem mais a social-democracia do que o fascismo negando assim a criação de uma frente unida. Mas o que fazer do facto de os socais democratas trabalharem com os fascistas assim que for possível?
Este panfleto não responde a estas questões nem é o trabalho dele. É uma chamada a ação por um homem que participou numa das mais gloriosas revoluções da história. Dá uma porta de entrada e uma análise marxista que guiará o resto das (minhas) investigações sobre o projeto e crescimento do fascismo colocando o sobre a luta de classes. Mas deixa mais por resolver do que resolve sendo então isso: uma boa porta de entrada ao estudo.
E lembrem-se:
FASCISMO NUNCA MAIS.
Trotsky classifica apenas o Fascismo como um movimento da pequena burguesia em momentos de crise quando esta fica receosa de perder os seus privilégios dentro do sistema capitalista. Estes partidos e movimentos são usados e financiados pelos capitalistas para usarem a violência como movimento anti-comunista e anti-trabalhador. O sucesso deste é equivalente ao falhanço do movimento trabalhista e comunista (em especial da política do commitern durante o mandato de Stalin) que tinha mais ódio ao social-fascismo (social-democracia) do que as gangs violentos do fascismo.
Nestes pontos Trotsky é incrível. Mas a realidade é que não explica o quê é o fascismo. Apenas o porquê de as pessoas seguirem. Sim é um movimento da pequena burguesia mas porquê que estes são os primeiros a cair nele? Qual é a mitologia do fascismo que leva a isso? E claro que os partidos comunistas falham ao eles próprios recusarem a violência e ao atacarem mais a social-democracia do que o fascismo negando assim a criação de uma frente unida. Mas o que fazer do facto de os socais democratas trabalharem com os fascistas assim que for possível?
Este panfleto não responde a estas questões nem é o trabalho dele. É uma chamada a ação por um homem que participou numa das mais gloriosas revoluções da história. Dá uma porta de entrada e uma análise marxista que guiará o resto das (minhas) investigações sobre o projeto e crescimento do fascismo colocando o sobre a luta de classes. Mas deixa mais por resolver do que resolve sendo então isso: uma boa porta de entrada ao estudo.
E lembrem-se:
FASCISMO NUNCA MAIS.
Want to read
December 25, 2023Don't forget , only the left can confront fascism; Nothing ever fights against its own intensified form.
December 22, 2024
Leon likes to use five words when one would do, which is on par for political thinkers. He loses one star for this, the other for being a commie.
Picked this up during the last election cycle, when accusations of fascism were bubbling up. Never got around to reading it. Here we are five years later and the word is again the topic of conversation on American airwaves.
Is Donald Trump a Fascist? It's what I bought this book to find out. I figured if anyone could pinpoint what fascism is, it would be one of the movement's most renowned opponents. A man who lived through the 20s and 30s and had a front row seat for the ideology's march across Europe.
I was half-joking when I said I took a star for Trotsky being a communist. What really costs this book that second star is the fact that it hardly gets around to a usable definition of fascism. It defines what fascism is not - an aristocratic or militaristic dictatorship. It defines the conditions for the rise of fascism - capitalist crisis, radicalization of the working class, attempts by the upper classes to stifle revolution, and the readiness of the middle class to resort to violence on a large scale. It even delivers on the promise of defining the best way to fight fascism - arm the workers (here I have just saved you 15 pages of reading). But a usable definition of the movement remains elusive.
The main issue here is that this is a selective, heavily paired, collection of letters - a glorified pamphlet. Trotsky wrote thousands of pages on the struggle against fascism, and I have no doubt that a fuller reading of his works would net me a more complete understanding of fascism as he saw it. I have no desire to read a few thousand pages of political and revolutionary jargon currently, but it's nice to know I have a backup if the wine and melatonin mixers ever lose their edge.
Dry as much of this was, Trotsky can actually be a pretty interesting read, especially when he is attacking Stalinists or other presumed allies that he views as impeding the coming revolution. Here he is bashing l'Humanité, a French communist newspaper that advocated against violent revolution in the then-current moment:
"if l'Humanité wants hereafter to develop the doctrine of 'nonresistance to evil by violence,' it should take for it's symbol not the hammer and sickle, emblem of the October Revolution, but the pious goat which provides Gandhi with his milk."
Boom. The inversion of non-violence doesn't quite work as translated, but I assure myself it was a hit in Russian or French.
Now back to the reason I bought this book - is Donald Trump a fascist à la Mussolini or Hitler? No, but he would like to wield their tools. He would like control of the financial system, of the universities, and of the press. He would love if the military and intelligence agencies would bend the knee. And he's willing to use socialist messaging to gather behind him the support of the working classes - a key trait that Trotsky points out in both the Italian and German stands of the ideology. But he doesn't want these tools to systematically stimme the ambitions of the working classes until they become an "amorphous state." He wants them in order to shut up people who speak ill of him and to be able to flaunt his powers in front of the other "strong men" of this generation. Does that distinction matter? Perhaps not.
But what does matter is that it cannot happen here. I know, I know. Everyone, everywhere says the same, over and over, until it DOES happen there (wish I could use italics instead of caps). There's a whole book about it, so I'm told. But even in a second Trump administration, I do not see a path that ends with the majority of newspapers, universities, corporations, and defense institutions bending to his will. And I take solace in that.
Picked this up during the last election cycle, when accusations of fascism were bubbling up. Never got around to reading it. Here we are five years later and the word is again the topic of conversation on American airwaves.
Is Donald Trump a Fascist? It's what I bought this book to find out. I figured if anyone could pinpoint what fascism is, it would be one of the movement's most renowned opponents. A man who lived through the 20s and 30s and had a front row seat for the ideology's march across Europe.
I was half-joking when I said I took a star for Trotsky being a communist. What really costs this book that second star is the fact that it hardly gets around to a usable definition of fascism. It defines what fascism is not - an aristocratic or militaristic dictatorship. It defines the conditions for the rise of fascism - capitalist crisis, radicalization of the working class, attempts by the upper classes to stifle revolution, and the readiness of the middle class to resort to violence on a large scale. It even delivers on the promise of defining the best way to fight fascism - arm the workers (here I have just saved you 15 pages of reading). But a usable definition of the movement remains elusive.
The main issue here is that this is a selective, heavily paired, collection of letters - a glorified pamphlet. Trotsky wrote thousands of pages on the struggle against fascism, and I have no doubt that a fuller reading of his works would net me a more complete understanding of fascism as he saw it. I have no desire to read a few thousand pages of political and revolutionary jargon currently, but it's nice to know I have a backup if the wine and melatonin mixers ever lose their edge.
Dry as much of this was, Trotsky can actually be a pretty interesting read, especially when he is attacking Stalinists or other presumed allies that he views as impeding the coming revolution. Here he is bashing l'Humanité, a French communist newspaper that advocated against violent revolution in the then-current moment:
"if l'Humanité wants hereafter to develop the doctrine of 'nonresistance to evil by violence,' it should take for it's symbol not the hammer and sickle, emblem of the October Revolution, but the pious goat which provides Gandhi with his milk."
Boom. The inversion of non-violence doesn't quite work as translated, but I assure myself it was a hit in Russian or French.
Now back to the reason I bought this book - is Donald Trump a fascist à la Mussolini or Hitler? No, but he would like to wield their tools. He would like control of the financial system, of the universities, and of the press. He would love if the military and intelligence agencies would bend the knee. And he's willing to use socialist messaging to gather behind him the support of the working classes - a key trait that Trotsky points out in both the Italian and German stands of the ideology. But he doesn't want these tools to systematically stimme the ambitions of the working classes until they become an "amorphous state." He wants them in order to shut up people who speak ill of him and to be able to flaunt his powers in front of the other "strong men" of this generation. Does that distinction matter? Perhaps not.
But what does matter is that it cannot happen here. I know, I know. Everyone, everywhere says the same, over and over, until it DOES happen there (wish I could use italics instead of caps). There's a whole book about it, so I'm told. But even in a second Trump administration, I do not see a path that ends with the majority of newspapers, universities, corporations, and defense institutions bending to his will. And I take solace in that.
September 29, 2025
This short book (audiobook was around an hour and a half long) was written in the 1930s and is shocking relevant nearly 100 years later.
A few of the points really drilled into the ole head:
Fascism is a capitalistic response to communism
The goal of fascism is to break the working class
The next political wave in the United States, will be the radicalism of the masses
Fascism is a working class movement that is funded by the rich to obtain their own goals.
I fear that many of these points are at play in the United States. Wealthy corporations and individuals push political agendas and coerce working class individuals into voting for policies that directly affect them in a negative way. The point about the next political wave in the United States is terrifyingly predictive. In the current climate, there is little room for negotiation or compromise as radicalization on both parties have led to the radicalization of each other. I fear that the future of this republic is in the hands of individuals who are more interested in Amazon orders and Instagram reels than the political health of this nation. We are a revolutionary people who have lost our way.
Overall, this is a fantastic short read. I fear, however, that it has given me more to worry about in my own time than insights into the political ideologies of the 1930s.
A few of the points really drilled into the ole head:
Fascism is a capitalistic response to communism
The goal of fascism is to break the working class
The next political wave in the United States, will be the radicalism of the masses
Fascism is a working class movement that is funded by the rich to obtain their own goals.
I fear that many of these points are at play in the United States. Wealthy corporations and individuals push political agendas and coerce working class individuals into voting for policies that directly affect them in a negative way. The point about the next political wave in the United States is terrifyingly predictive. In the current climate, there is little room for negotiation or compromise as radicalization on both parties have led to the radicalization of each other. I fear that the future of this republic is in the hands of individuals who are more interested in Amazon orders and Instagram reels than the political health of this nation. We are a revolutionary people who have lost our way.
Overall, this is a fantastic short read. I fear, however, that it has given me more to worry about in my own time than insights into the political ideologies of the 1930s.
March 18, 2022
Some decent insight into the class-character of fascism. Otherwise, quite disingenuous! Trotsky puts most of the blame for the rise of fascism on comintern policy, which he for his arguments sake equates to Satan himself: Stalin. IF ONLY THEY HAD LISTENEND TO THE INFINITE WISDOM OF TROTSKY!! This is a pamphlet, for a more in dept critique of his alternative strategies you would have to read the full works. Which I won't do, this was already painful enough. But from the quotations given, it seems very unlikely that trotskys advise would've given a better outcome. Plus, most of his criticism was made in hindsight, and in exile! You can hardly blame the "Stalinists" for not being able to overcome the historical conditions which enabled fascism. Trotsky himself admits, although implicitly and slandering, that the comintern changed its policy based on contingent events. Also, how was the theory of social fascism exactly debunked when communists militias werd attacked and banned by the social democrats, while fascists ones were not? The United front didn't come to live because of THAT DAMNED FOOL STALIN, but because of the fatal animosity within the left, which has its roots back to WW1. Trotsky himself is another dividing factor! So Trotsky is mostly twisting and omitting history, in order to make it seem like STALINISTS!!, Deaf to all criticism!!!, let fascism rise because they foolishly thought their revolution would win in the end. Ironically, this kinda did happen at the end of WWII
September 5, 2017
A very good read. Trotsky provides one of the best looks into the nature and causes of fascism. Trotsky attributes the rise of fascism to two main elements. Firstly, a social crisis which sends the middle class into disarray, and secondly, the lack of a genuine worker's party to be the "vanguard of workers." According to Trotsky the failure and fecklessness of the Communist Party in Germany provided cover for fascism to emerge and attract workers. He describes fascist movements as inherently plebeian, but notes that they are financed by "big money capitalists." Trotsky sees the only safeguard against fascism as being a true worker's party that allows the proletariat to assume its full potential and seize power.
It truly is amazing how insightful this was as well as how much of history repeats itself. To get a good sense of how we ended up where we are right now with Trump in the White House and the ascendency of the alt-right and the devastation of the middle and working classes under both Democrats and Republicans, read this. You can look at history and pinpoint the events from the 80's onward that created the milieu for our current situation.
It truly is amazing how insightful this was as well as how much of history repeats itself. To get a good sense of how we ended up where we are right now with Trump in the White House and the ascendency of the alt-right and the devastation of the middle and working classes under both Democrats and Republicans, read this. You can look at history and pinpoint the events from the 80's onward that created the milieu for our current situation.
January 21, 2023
Reading this book for the first time, I thought it provided a very thought-provoking analysis of what Fascism actually is; how it’s enabled by the failure of left-wing socialist movements to seize power. However, after reading Michael Parenti’s works I’ve come to realise this is quite simplistic at best and Trotsky’s claims are surely undermined by his potential collaboration with the militaristic Japanese Empire and Nazi Germany which is explored by Grover Furr in ‘Leon Trotsky’s collaboration with Germany and Japan’.
October 16, 2019
Trotsky admits that The Fascism Is raised from a Collapse OF Capitalism. He Calls it The Petty Bourgeoisie ...
As well known, Trotsky hated Stalin's guts so he dislike his political strategy in Germany And China, and Asserts That the Comintern had made big Mistakes there by calumniation the
Opposition...
Trotsky also Admits that at August 4: The Official German Communist Part was doomed, and from today on Trotskyists Will give all support to The German Proletarians
As well known, Trotsky hated Stalin's guts so he dislike his political strategy in Germany And China, and Asserts That the Comintern had made big Mistakes there by calumniation the
Opposition...
Trotsky also Admits that at August 4: The Official German Communist Part was doomed, and from today on Trotskyists Will give all support to The German Proletarians
August 19, 2019
A quick and concise supplemental text that gives additional information on the rise and push/pull of fascism. This quote I found particularly relevant: “If the communist Party is the party of revolutionary hope, then fascism, as a mass movement, is the party of counter-revolutionary despair.”
September 24, 2019
Trotsky's observations on the middle class desperation at the root of fascism and how it's rise is aided explicitly by the ultra rich and tacitly by opportunistic and disorganized liberal/left forces remain relevant.
July 30, 2020
Excellent summary of what fascism is from a materialist perspective. I’m docking a star for Trotsky’s insistence that the Comintern is to blame for the rise of fascism. IDK man, seems like Trotsky is way more to blame for the division of Communist power.
March 15, 2019
Trechos de destaque:
* A primeira qualidade de um autêntico partido revolucionário é saber olhar a realidade de frente. 30
* É preciso não só que lancem palavras de ordem vivas, mas examinar, em seguida, como esta atuam nas massas. Tal coisa não se pode realizar sem um partido ativo, que penetre por toda a parte, por meio de dezenas de milhares de tentáculos que reúnam testemunhos, discutam todas as questões e elaborem ativamente a sua opinião coletiva. 47
* Os principais efetivos do fascismo continuam a ser constituídos pela pequena burguesia e pela nova classe média que se formou 67
* Os políticos do reformismo, negocistas hábeis, esses intrigantes e arrivistas empedernidos, esses experientes manobristas parlamentares e ministeriais, assim que a marcha das coisas os expulsa de sua esfera habitual e os coloca diante de grandes acontecimento, tornam-se - é difícil encontrar um qualificativo mais brando - completos idiotas. 79
* A social-democracia perdeu os eleitores e os mandatos porque o capitalismo, através da crise, revelou a sua face autêntica. A crise não reforçou o partido do "socialismo", mas, ao contrário, o enfraqueceu, como enfraqueceu as cifras do comércio, as cifras dos bancos, a autoestima de Hoover e de Ford e os rendimentos do príncipe de Mônaco. 86
* O que acaba de ser dito não contradiz o fato de que, entre um sistema democrático e o sistema fascista, se estabeleça, num período dado, um regime transitório, contendo traços de um e de outro sistema 88
* [Citando Lenin]: "Não se pode triunfar sobre um adversário superior senão a custa de uma extrema tensão de forças e com a condição obrigatória de se tirar partido, com a maior atenção, minúcia e prudência, das menores 'rachaduras' entre os nossos inimigos. 112
* O que caracteriza o bolchevismo na questão nacional é que ele considera as nacionalidades oprimidas, mesmo as mais atrasadas, não somente como um elemento objetivo, mas como elemento subjetivo da política. 152
* O adversário ameaça tornar-se demasiado escorregadio; está em toda parte e em parte alguma. 178
* [Do que precisa o partido Comunista?] Viktar à escola estratégica dos quatro primeiros congressos da Internacional Comunista. / Renúncia do ultimatismo com as organizações operárias de massas: a direção comunista não pode ser imposta, só pode ser conquistada./ Renúncia à teoria do social-fascismo, que auxilia a social-democracia e o fascismo. / Utilização perseverante do antagonismo entre a social-democracia e o fascismo...223
* Toda análise séria da situação política deve partir da correlação entre as três classes: a burguesia, a pequena burguesia (e dentro desta o campesinato) e o proletariado. 242
* É exatamente com a guerra que se torna clara a decadência do capitalismo e, sobretudo, de suas formas de dominação democráticas. Já não se trata, agora, de novas reformas e concessões, mas de cortar e suprimir as antigas. 243
* "O fascismo chegará ao poder pela via fria", ouvimos reiteradamente do lado dos teóricos stalinistas.
* Os marxistas afirmavam, com certa prudência, que a intensificação dos antagonismos sociais não seria necessariamente correspondente a uma baixa absoluta do nível de vida das massas. Na realidade, é este último processo que se está desenvolvendo. Como poderia o colapso do capitalismo expressar-se com maior agudeza do que no desemprego crônico e na destruição do seguro social, isto é, na recusa da ordem social a nutrir os seus próprios escravos? 265
* A controvérsia sobre a personalidade de Hitler agudizou-se quanto mais se procurou o segredo do seu triunfo nele mesmo. 284
* A ditadura fascista elimina as dúvidas dos faustos e as vacilações dos Hamlets. 291
* Cada sucesso interno e externo das políticas do nazismo significará inevitavelmente o sufocamento do pequeno capital pelo grande. 294
_
Observações:
- o livro apresenta alguns erros de diagramação e digitação, sinal de falta de uma última revisão refinada.
* A primeira qualidade de um autêntico partido revolucionário é saber olhar a realidade de frente. 30
* É preciso não só que lancem palavras de ordem vivas, mas examinar, em seguida, como esta atuam nas massas. Tal coisa não se pode realizar sem um partido ativo, que penetre por toda a parte, por meio de dezenas de milhares de tentáculos que reúnam testemunhos, discutam todas as questões e elaborem ativamente a sua opinião coletiva. 47
* Os principais efetivos do fascismo continuam a ser constituídos pela pequena burguesia e pela nova classe média que se formou 67
* Os políticos do reformismo, negocistas hábeis, esses intrigantes e arrivistas empedernidos, esses experientes manobristas parlamentares e ministeriais, assim que a marcha das coisas os expulsa de sua esfera habitual e os coloca diante de grandes acontecimento, tornam-se - é difícil encontrar um qualificativo mais brando - completos idiotas. 79
* A social-democracia perdeu os eleitores e os mandatos porque o capitalismo, através da crise, revelou a sua face autêntica. A crise não reforçou o partido do "socialismo", mas, ao contrário, o enfraqueceu, como enfraqueceu as cifras do comércio, as cifras dos bancos, a autoestima de Hoover e de Ford e os rendimentos do príncipe de Mônaco. 86
* O que acaba de ser dito não contradiz o fato de que, entre um sistema democrático e o sistema fascista, se estabeleça, num período dado, um regime transitório, contendo traços de um e de outro sistema 88
* [Citando Lenin]: "Não se pode triunfar sobre um adversário superior senão a custa de uma extrema tensão de forças e com a condição obrigatória de se tirar partido, com a maior atenção, minúcia e prudência, das menores 'rachaduras' entre os nossos inimigos. 112
* O que caracteriza o bolchevismo na questão nacional é que ele considera as nacionalidades oprimidas, mesmo as mais atrasadas, não somente como um elemento objetivo, mas como elemento subjetivo da política. 152
* O adversário ameaça tornar-se demasiado escorregadio; está em toda parte e em parte alguma. 178
* [Do que precisa o partido Comunista?] Viktar à escola estratégica dos quatro primeiros congressos da Internacional Comunista. / Renúncia do ultimatismo com as organizações operárias de massas: a direção comunista não pode ser imposta, só pode ser conquistada./ Renúncia à teoria do social-fascismo, que auxilia a social-democracia e o fascismo. / Utilização perseverante do antagonismo entre a social-democracia e o fascismo...223
* Toda análise séria da situação política deve partir da correlação entre as três classes: a burguesia, a pequena burguesia (e dentro desta o campesinato) e o proletariado. 242
* É exatamente com a guerra que se torna clara a decadência do capitalismo e, sobretudo, de suas formas de dominação democráticas. Já não se trata, agora, de novas reformas e concessões, mas de cortar e suprimir as antigas. 243
* "O fascismo chegará ao poder pela via fria", ouvimos reiteradamente do lado dos teóricos stalinistas.
* Os marxistas afirmavam, com certa prudência, que a intensificação dos antagonismos sociais não seria necessariamente correspondente a uma baixa absoluta do nível de vida das massas. Na realidade, é este último processo que se está desenvolvendo. Como poderia o colapso do capitalismo expressar-se com maior agudeza do que no desemprego crônico e na destruição do seguro social, isto é, na recusa da ordem social a nutrir os seus próprios escravos? 265
* A controvérsia sobre a personalidade de Hitler agudizou-se quanto mais se procurou o segredo do seu triunfo nele mesmo. 284
* A ditadura fascista elimina as dúvidas dos faustos e as vacilações dos Hamlets. 291
* Cada sucesso interno e externo das políticas do nazismo significará inevitavelmente o sufocamento do pequeno capital pelo grande. 294
_
Observações:
- o livro apresenta alguns erros de diagramação e digitação, sinal de falta de uma última revisão refinada.
July 27, 2019
Let's dig into what the humans of the post-capitalist era rarely can observe.
The top
How Wealth Reduces Compassion. This clearly can be seen not only from the research, but ordinary talks with them.
The Inherent Cruelty of a Billionaire Class
The middle
Similar to the top, they start to see that their SELF is very important and righteous and that THEY are sole responsible for their results. When in the real word, their so called results actually are dependent on luck. The state of the middle class is very fragile, because they already have what to lose, and, consequentially, with higher risk of survival they would usually blame the bottom. Why not the top? Well, because they believe they can reach the top. (When again, actually, the top is just random selection of the whole population, not really the derivations of the exact imbecilic "7 habits to millions" "actions".)
Demo of the rise of the fascism:
Step 1: Seven reasons to worry about the American middle class
Step 2: GOP gained ground in middle-class communities in 2016
Step 3: America’s Having a Fascist Meltdown. Why Can’t Americans Admit It?, etc.
I've used U.S. as an example, but actually this is happening everywhere.
Not long and we'll see the third world war. 'Doomsday Clock' remains at 2 minutes to midnight
The bottom
Often too weak to spot or admit on what's really happening in the heads of "others".
The top
How Wealth Reduces Compassion. This clearly can be seen not only from the research, but ordinary talks with them.
The Inherent Cruelty of a Billionaire Class
The middle
Similar to the top, they start to see that their SELF is very important and righteous and that THEY are sole responsible for their results. When in the real word, their so called results actually are dependent on luck. The state of the middle class is very fragile, because they already have what to lose, and, consequentially, with higher risk of survival they would usually blame the bottom. Why not the top? Well, because they believe they can reach the top. (When again, actually, the top is just random selection of the whole population, not really the derivations of the exact imbecilic "7 habits to millions" "actions".)
Demo of the rise of the fascism:
Step 1: Seven reasons to worry about the American middle class
Step 2: GOP gained ground in middle-class communities in 2016
Step 3: America’s Having a Fascist Meltdown. Why Can’t Americans Admit It?, etc.
I've used U.S. as an example, but actually this is happening everywhere.
Not long and we'll see the third world war. 'Doomsday Clock' remains at 2 minutes to midnight
The bottom
Often too weak to spot or admit on what's really happening in the heads of "others".
April 2, 2024
Important quotes:
"The historic function of fascism is to smash the working class, destroy its organizations, and stifle political liberties when the capitalists find themselves unable to govern and dominate with the help of democratic machinery."
"fascism is each time the final link of a specific political cycle composed of the following: the gravest crisis of capitalist society; the growth of the radicalization of the working class; the growth of sympathy toward the working class, and a yearning for change on the part of the rural and urban petty bourgeoisie; the extreme confusion of the big bourgeoisie; its cowardly and treacherous maneuvers aimed at avoiding the revolutionary climax; the exhaustion of the proletariat; growing confusion and indifference; the aggravation of the social crisis; the despair of the petty bourgeoisie, its yearning for change; the collective neurosis of the petty bourgeoisie, its readiness to believe in miracles, its readiness for violent measures; the growth of hostility towards the proletariat, which has deceived its expectations. These are the premises for a swift formation of a fascist party and its victory."
"The historic function of fascism is to smash the working class, destroy its organizations, and stifle political liberties when the capitalists find themselves unable to govern and dominate with the help of democratic machinery."
"fascism is each time the final link of a specific political cycle composed of the following: the gravest crisis of capitalist society; the growth of the radicalization of the working class; the growth of sympathy toward the working class, and a yearning for change on the part of the rural and urban petty bourgeoisie; the extreme confusion of the big bourgeoisie; its cowardly and treacherous maneuvers aimed at avoiding the revolutionary climax; the exhaustion of the proletariat; growing confusion and indifference; the aggravation of the social crisis; the despair of the petty bourgeoisie, its yearning for change; the collective neurosis of the petty bourgeoisie, its readiness to believe in miracles, its readiness for violent measures; the growth of hostility towards the proletariat, which has deceived its expectations. These are the premises for a swift formation of a fascist party and its victory."
January 21, 2025
My first real introduction to Trotsky's work. He argues that fascism is the last ditch method of the bourgeoisie to maintain control after being shaken up (both italy and Germany had failed socialist revolutions before becoming fascist) according to Trotsky, America isn't there yet. It's all semantics really.
Mussolini described fascism as the "wedding of state and corporate power" and with the 6 most wealthy man on the planet seated behind Trump at his inauguration, it's hard not to see parallels. Trotsky's analysis of fascism often filling the void of socialist fervor is important and still valid today. I'm deducting points because of Trotsky's seemingly smug analysis that the leftists are at fault for not seizing power while simultaneously criticizing leftists for taking too much power.
Mussolini described fascism as the "wedding of state and corporate power" and with the 6 most wealthy man on the planet seated behind Trump at his inauguration, it's hard not to see parallels. Trotsky's analysis of fascism often filling the void of socialist fervor is important and still valid today. I'm deducting points because of Trotsky's seemingly smug analysis that the leftists are at fault for not seizing power while simultaneously criticizing leftists for taking too much power.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 200 reviews