> CB: Reaganism is social fascism. In Michigan, Engler , the social
> fascist,
> murdered and tortured many by shutting down state mental hospitals in the
> early 90's.
Get your Third Period Comintern rhetoric str8 ;-) Reagan and Engler, social democrats, left-wing of fascism?! (According to , "Dutch, " that pseudo-bio. of Reagan Reagan wanted to join the CPUSA in the 30's, btw.) http://www.marxists.org/archive/hallas/works/1985/comintern/ch6.htm
‘Just as social democracy is evolving through social imperialism to social-fascism, joining the vanguard of the contemporary capitalist state ... the social-fascist trade union bureaucracy is, during the period of sharpening economic battles, completely going over to the side of the big bourgeoisie ... transforming the reformist trade union apparatus into a strike-breaking organisation. In this process of the rapid fascistization of the reformist trade union apparatus and of its fusion with the bourgeois state, a particularly harmful role is played by the so-called ‘left’ wing of the Amsterdam International (Cook, Finmen, etc.) who, under the cloak of opposition to the reactionary leaders of the Amsterdam International, are trying to conceal from the workers the real significance of the process and are forming an active and constituent part (and by far not the least important) in the system of social-fascism.’ Resolution of the tenth plenum of the Comintern executive, July 1929
...‘In this situation of growing imperialist contradiction and sharpening of the class struggle, fascism becomes more and more the dominant method of bourgeois rule. In countries where there are strong social-democratic parties, fascism assumes the particular form of social-fascism, which to an ever-increasing extent serves the bourgeoisie as an instrument for paralysing the masses in struggle against the regime of fascist dictatorship.’ [4] (4. Degras, vol.3, p.44. Degras, The Communist International 1919-43: Documents, London, vol.1 1956; vol.2 1960; vol.3 1965)
What this farrago of nonsense meant on the ground was the rejection of the united front, not honestly, of course, but by way of again proposing united front action ‘only from below’. The social democrats were now the main enemy, not the actual fascists. The absurdity of the ‘social-fascist’ analysis has already been demonstrated. As to the question of who is the main enemy, this cannot of course be answered with any timeless generalisations. It depends entirely on the situation. At the point where this ‘new line’ really mattered, in Germany at the time of the rise of Hitler, the main enemy was clearly the fascists of the Nazi Party, not the social democrats of the SPD. -- Michael Pugliese