Georgi Dimitrov detailed the class character and creation of Fascism in his literature. Regarding it in his book “The Fascist Offensive and the Tasks of the Communist International in the Struggle of the Working Class against Fascism” as follows:
”Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations.”
“This, the true character of fascism, must be particularly stressed because in a number of countries, under cover of social demagogy, fascism has managed to gain the following of the mass of the petty bourgeoisie that has been dislocated by the crisis, and even of certain sections of the most backward strata of the proletariat. These would never have supported fascism if they had understood its real character and its true nature.”
“The development of fascism, and the fascist dictatorship itself, assume different forms in different countries, according to historical, social and economic conditions and to the national peculiarities, and the international position of the given country. In certain countries, principally those in which fascism has no broad mass basis and in which the struggle of the various groups within the camp of the fascist bourgeoisie itself is rather acute, fascism does not immediately venture to abolish parliament, but allows the other bourgeois parties, as well as the Social-Democratic Parties, to retain a modicum of legality. In other countries, where the ruling bourgeoisie fears an early outbreak of revolution, fascism establishes its unrestricted political monopoly, either immediately or by intensifying its reign of terror against and persecution of all rival parties and groups. This does not prevent fascism, when its position becomes particularly acute, from trying to extend its basis and, without altering its class nature, trying to combine open terrorist dictatorship with a crude sham of parliamentarism.”
Dimitrov explains it very clearly, that not only can Fascism vary by different forms based on conditions and nations, but it persists within the framework of the democratic government until it’s time to tighten power becomes a necessity; and that the main participants to bring about Fascism are the financial institutions using the petite bourgeois that they misguided as their attack dogs.
"Then there’s the insecurity brought on by conflict - the wars in Europe and the Middle East and the real possibility those conflagrations may incite the far-right leaders of both Russia and Israel to press the nuclear button."
While indeed, Israel'svery far right government is on the record for wanting to ethnically clens Gaza, and with a de jure and de facto Apartheid regime, as described by B'Tselem, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and characterized by the present leadership of South Africa as worst than the original Apartheid regime in their own country, Russia does not have a far right government, and the present war is solely due to the US desire to bring Ukraine in NATO:
- Stoltemberg was caught on record admitting as much;
-Stoltemberg was also caught admitting that there will be no "grey zones" left, no neutrality allowed, by the US hegemon, no Finland, no Austria, no nothing: You are with us or against us!
-The Ukrainian Chief negotiator of peace in March 2022 admitted that an accord was within reach that only demanded of Ukraine not joining NATO, but USUK trashed it by declaring that they will not provide any security guarantees. It is obvious, after almost 2 years of war, that the only security guarantees that are relevant to Ukraine are the Russian security guarantees. Ukraine on its own could have faced the NATO forces with the legacy Soviet systems it had in its stores.
“In the absence of more progressive leadership” - it’s worse than that. Progressive or peaceful outlooks are slurred even in the more moderately conservative press. Nobody of any mass-influence seems to acknowledge what the word means any more.
Sometimes, publishers’ response to a catastrophe is not to mourn or respect the dead but to produce click-bait putting out feelers for hurt & division on any given topic. So ‘progressive’ has become bandied about like ‘woke’, with zero levity or context but in the interests of far right leaders.
Is it the existence of central banks that is wrong? Or is it the behaviour, education and background of those who populate central banks, which lead them to behave in the way that they do?
Perhaps we do after all need these institutions and they might have a valuable role to play in an overall financial system, but they need to have a very different remit and be populated by people with a rather different and broader set of backgrounds.
At least UK still has its own BoE. Re-nationalising it is a simple policy issue. On the other side of the channel, getting rid of ECB dictatorship will be a tougher nut to crack.
Georgi Dimitrov detailed the class character and creation of Fascism in his literature. Regarding it in his book “The Fascist Offensive and the Tasks of the Communist International in the Struggle of the Working Class against Fascism” as follows:
”Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations.”
“This, the true character of fascism, must be particularly stressed because in a number of countries, under cover of social demagogy, fascism has managed to gain the following of the mass of the petty bourgeoisie that has been dislocated by the crisis, and even of certain sections of the most backward strata of the proletariat. These would never have supported fascism if they had understood its real character and its true nature.”
“The development of fascism, and the fascist dictatorship itself, assume different forms in different countries, according to historical, social and economic conditions and to the national peculiarities, and the international position of the given country. In certain countries, principally those in which fascism has no broad mass basis and in which the struggle of the various groups within the camp of the fascist bourgeoisie itself is rather acute, fascism does not immediately venture to abolish parliament, but allows the other bourgeois parties, as well as the Social-Democratic Parties, to retain a modicum of legality. In other countries, where the ruling bourgeoisie fears an early outbreak of revolution, fascism establishes its unrestricted political monopoly, either immediately or by intensifying its reign of terror against and persecution of all rival parties and groups. This does not prevent fascism, when its position becomes particularly acute, from trying to extend its basis and, without altering its class nature, trying to combine open terrorist dictatorship with a crude sham of parliamentarism.”
Dimitrov explains it very clearly, that not only can Fascism vary by different forms based on conditions and nations, but it persists within the framework of the democratic government until it’s time to tighten power becomes a necessity; and that the main participants to bring about Fascism are the financial institutions using the petite bourgeois that they misguided as their attack dogs.
Read more at:
https://islamicmarxismleninism.substack.com/p/the-american-move-towards-fascism
Bank of Canada share capital is held in the minister's office. Nuf said.
Political junk in political junk out. Donor corrupt institutions.
"Then there’s the insecurity brought on by conflict - the wars in Europe and the Middle East and the real possibility those conflagrations may incite the far-right leaders of both Russia and Israel to press the nuclear button."
While indeed, Israel'svery far right government is on the record for wanting to ethnically clens Gaza, and with a de jure and de facto Apartheid regime, as described by B'Tselem, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and characterized by the present leadership of South Africa as worst than the original Apartheid regime in their own country, Russia does not have a far right government, and the present war is solely due to the US desire to bring Ukraine in NATO:
- Stoltemberg was caught on record admitting as much;
-Stoltemberg was also caught admitting that there will be no "grey zones" left, no neutrality allowed, by the US hegemon, no Finland, no Austria, no nothing: You are with us or against us!
-The Ukrainian Chief negotiator of peace in March 2022 admitted that an accord was within reach that only demanded of Ukraine not joining NATO, but USUK trashed it by declaring that they will not provide any security guarantees. It is obvious, after almost 2 years of war, that the only security guarantees that are relevant to Ukraine are the Russian security guarantees. Ukraine on its own could have faced the NATO forces with the legacy Soviet systems it had in its stores.
“In the absence of more progressive leadership” - it’s worse than that. Progressive or peaceful outlooks are slurred even in the more moderately conservative press. Nobody of any mass-influence seems to acknowledge what the word means any more.
Sometimes, publishers’ response to a catastrophe is not to mourn or respect the dead but to produce click-bait putting out feelers for hurt & division on any given topic. So ‘progressive’ has become bandied about like ‘woke’, with zero levity or context but in the interests of far right leaders.
Is it the existence of central banks that is wrong? Or is it the behaviour, education and background of those who populate central banks, which lead them to behave in the way that they do?
Perhaps we do after all need these institutions and they might have a valuable role to play in an overall financial system, but they need to have a very different remit and be populated by people with a rather different and broader set of backgrounds.
At least UK still has its own BoE. Re-nationalising it is a simple policy issue. On the other side of the channel, getting rid of ECB dictatorship will be a tougher nut to crack.