Alt Left: Woke Militarism and US Imperialism, Liberal Democrat Variety

And you guys keep wondering why I’m a socialist. Well, I could always be a liberal, but then I would have to buy into the “woke imperialism” of the US Democratic Party. We may be slaughtering brown Venezuelans, Syrians, and Iranians by the hundreds of thousands, but as long as the trannies get to play high school girls’ track and field, it’s all good.

Seriously, how do US liberal Democrats sleep at night? I’ll never get it.

I guess it’s just capitalism though. The “social democrats” in Europe are just about the same as US liberal Democrats. There’s a limit to how leftwing a capitalist party can get. At the end of the day, it’s always about what’s good for the country’s corporations, and that’s always Western imperialism, every single time. I’m starting to think capitalism is unreformable. Of course that was the reluctant conclusion of Karl Marx himself, if you read him correctly, as almost no one does.

8 thoughts on “Alt Left: Woke Militarism and US Imperialism, Liberal Democrat Variety”

  1. Do you think capitalist societies are inherently semi-fascist, or inherently prone to fascism?

    They seem to tend inevitably toward imperialism and of course have a social darwinist mindset.

    1. That is an excellent question and I am starting to think more and more that all capitalist societies will go fascist or support fascism. Fascism is simply a stage of capitalism that happens when capitalism is under a serious threat from the Left. It’s a last ditch attempt to rescue capitalism from a serious threat from the Left.

      Democracy doesn’t cut it anymore as democracy allowed the Left to take power. Definitely fascism in the sense of rightwing authoritarianism along the lines of the Cold War US-aligned rightwing dictatorships in the 3rd World, especially Latin America. That sort of fascism is absolutely tied directly into capitalism.

      Also all European social democracies are supporting fascism in the 3rd World now, which to me implies that social democracy is bankrupt. Countries like Russia, China, Iran, India, Turkey, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, Syria, most of the Arab World, most of Africa, most of Central Asia, most of South Asia, most of SE Asia are all opposed to the sort of pro-fascism that the West is engaged in.

      A lot of these are just the old nonaligned block. Any country that is trading with Venezuela, Nicaragua, North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. is outside of the Western pro-fascist block. All of those countries are socialist in one way or another.

      They become imperialist once they get enough money. You need a certain amount of money to become part of an imperialist network. Most countries in Europe are part of a Western imperialist and pro-fascist project. Canada is also part of this network.

      On a lesser level, so is Japan but more as a lapdog than anything else. The imperialism goes right along with the fascism. An imperialist country always supports fascism. There are a few emergent economies that are supporting Western imperialism and fascism in the Gulf, especially Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE. All three really hate the Left and see the Left as the enemy.

      1. Good article I totally agree. I despise both the Democrats and the Republicans:

        On another note, have you heard of the Bank of North Dakota? It is a shame that more states don’t have their own banks. I think this would appeal to your socialist leanings:

          1. The problem with Nazism wasn’t their economics. Some aspects of their economics were ok.

      2. Leon Trotsky, as far as I can tell, held the view that fascism is a capitalist phase that occurs when capitalism needs to be rescued from rising discontent among workers.

        He wrote:

        The Nazis call their overturn [of Social Democracy] by the usurped title of revolution. As a matter of fact, in Germany as well as in Italy, fascism leaves the social system untouched. Taken by itself, Hitler’s overturn has no right even to the name counterrevolution.

        But it cannot be viewed as an isolated event; it is the conclusion of a cycle of shocks which began in Germany in 1918. The November Revolution, which gave the power to the workers’ and peasants’ soviets, was proletarian in its fundamental tendencies. But the party that stood at the head of the proletariat returned the power to the bourgeoisie. In this sense social democracy opened the era of counterrevolution before the revolution could bring its work to completion.

        However, so long as the bourgeoisie depended upon social democracy and consequently upon the workers, the regime retained elements of compromise. All the same, the international and internal situation of German capitalism left no more room for concessions. As social democracy saved the bourgeoisie from the proletarian revolution, fascism came in its turn to liberate the bourgeoisie from social democracy. Hitler’s coup is only the final link in the chain of counterrevolutionary shifts.

        In Trotsky’s view, social democracy overturned socialism after 1918, promising compromise between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and then Nazism overturned social democracy so as to end the need for compromise between the bourgeoisie and proletariat.

        Nazism, in his analysis, and fascism in general is an expression of the petty bourgeoisie, which is hostile to economic and social development because such development in the current era necessarily favors either capitalists or workers. So the petty bourgeois start making a commotion when economic and social conditions turn against them, and when the big bourgeoisie feels sufficiently threatened by the Left, they ally with the petty bourgeois elements and fascism begins. The primary objective is to throttle the workers so that both the big and petty bourgeoisie can be relatively comfortable in their socioeconomic positions.

        However, the big capitalists prefer not to be in alliance with the petty bourgeoisie and to rule on their own, so such an alliance is merely convenient, and the big capitalists are not fully comfortable with it since it, like social democracy, limits their autonomy.

        So during the capitalist stage of history, the upper class naturally prefers laissez faire capitalism or libertarianism, the middle class naturally prefers stasis and to hinder development so as to preserve themselves, and the working class naturally prefers socialism.

        Perhaps it can be thought of like this: Fascism occurs when both the upper and middle Class agree that workers’ power threatens to grow too starkly, and they ally. Social democracy, perhaps, occurs when the middle and working class feel acutely threatened by the upper class, and they ally. Laissez faire capitalism occurs when the upper class is firmly in control. And socialism occurs when the working class is firmly in control.

        Moreover, social democracy tends to pave the way for the upper class to regain much of its diminished power by maintaining the social system of the capitalist stage of history in general. This is why Trotsky thinks only a full proletarian revolution can safeguard against the return of an anti-worker regime, whether that regime is laissez faire or fascist.

        Of course, Marxism in general holds that capitalism must reach a certain level of development before a true and lasting proletarian revolution can occur.

        What do you think of all this?

        Trotsky’s take on national socialism and fascism:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)