12 Comments

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

Expand full comment

Bank of Canada share capital is held in the minister's office. Nuf said.

Political junk in political junk out. Donor corrupt institutions.

Expand full comment

"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.

Expand full comment

“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.

Expand full comment
Nov 28, 2023Liked by Ann Pettifor

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.

Expand full comment

Central banks, specifically the banking of global capitalism, is the financial strong arm that creates and fuels fascist revolts; largely in part by using middle class fascists as attack dogs while the pinstriped fascists rule banking institutions & mega corporations.

Read more here:

https://islamicmarxismleninism.substack.com/p/the-american-move-towards-fascism

Expand full comment
author

No Robin, a central bank is as vital to the economy as the commercial banking system....The question is simply: whose interests are served by the central bank? Global capital markets or the domestic economy? Central banks need to re-orient policy back towards home...and monetary policy must work in tandem with any elected government's fiscal policy - and not in conflict with it.

Expand full comment

Precisely. The quote: "We’ve tried regulation. None meaningfully worked." stands the problem on its head. Regulating/eliminating most financialization is what needs to happen. As for home, home needs to be creating an economy and money system that serves the individual not the financial elite and a coterie of speculators. The current Monetary paradigm of Debt ONLY is the central problem because it is a monopoly SINGLE CONCEPT/paradigm wielded by the Banks and utilized by the greedy financial elites.

Strategically integrate the new paradigm of Monetary Gifting at retail sale and point of loan signing via the same accounting operations utilized by the banks to create new money, namely equal debits and credits that sum to zero. A 50% (credit) reduction of price at the single macro-economic/aggregated point in the entire economic process (because EVERYONE participates in retail sale) and then rebate (debit) the entirety of the discount amounts back to the merchant and you eliminate inflation forever by implementing individually and commercially beneficial price and asset DEFLATION. Inversion of temporal universe reality is a cardinal signature of paradigm change. Tax inter-economic attempts to inflate at a rate of 100% and redistribute any revenue garnered by such greedy and unethical actions back to the proceeding business model toward retail sale...and of course eliminate most financialization as well. Same 50% policy at loan signing integrates debt jubilee continuously into the economic process.

With inflation banished it frees us to run the kind of fiscal deficits needed to fund the research and mega projects to confront climate change. And these benefits aren't even the best result of the new paradigm which is implementing a daily opportunity for the universal self actualization of gratitude for a Monetary Gift directly and continuously into the economic process. Imagine an economy of grace...instead of greed.

Expand full comment

A final thought: by integrating the self interests of the traditionally opposed relationship of merchant and consumer you set up what Marxism has never been able to do, which is to bring conflict between finance and those two overwhelmingly numerous constituencies. That way you not only have fertile ground for "a revolt of the bourgeosie" you also have the makings of a mass movement for deep change like none before it. Let us have homo sapiens/wise and discerning man instead of a confused and dominated homo economicus.

Expand full comment
Nov 28, 2023Liked by Ann Pettifor

As you might have guessed it was a rhetorical question. I’ve seen a few of these institutions from the inside which helped me understand a bit about both their roles and cultures. There are those who argue for their elimination- I’d argue that they need different remits and different people. Maybe a few less pure (in-?) bred economists and ex bankers and more who understand the wider economy and society.

Expand full comment

PS The Cowboy Economist is good on the topic - eg https://youtu.be/NW66W0jI9pw?si=nWB0RhUc2jsqWEXh. Though he probably offends your more academic brethren!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment