Many, probably, have repeatedly noted that the word “fascism” in modern political journalism is extremely vague. It is often used as an abuse, in order to defame the opponent. For several decades now, for most people in Russia, the word “fascism” is a political synonym for evil, brutality, extreme cruelty. And even at the domestic level, the “fascist” is an offensive insult. Often this is done by calculating politics, inventing new terms like “liberal fascism”, “red fascism” and others. As a result, public consciousness is increasingly moving away from the correct scientific definition of fascism. In today’s Communist press, any enemy of communism can be called a fascist. What’s wrong.

There are serious ideological errors. The Communists are now ready to support any force opposing the policy of the conglomerate of Western imperialist countries led by the United States. Sympathy for all enemies of the United States, including various bourgeois dictators, is justified by the fact that the US and its satellites are pursuing a fascist policy. So, it is necessary to unite all anti-fascist forces, like the anti-Hitler coalition and the policy of the people’s fronts.

Fascism is a political course of the extreme right wing, expressing the interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie. Fascism in ideology uses racism, nationalism in a chauvinistic manner, militarism, advocates escalating violence against the labor movement and all those who disagree with its policies. The ideology of fascism piously respects the inviolability of the private property of the monopoly bourgeoisie and its profits.

Fascism, as a policy of the bourgeois state, is an open terrorist dictatorship of the imperialist bourgeoisie, aimed at the expansion and (or) protection of capitalism from the labor movement and, especially, the Communists.
In fact, the dictatorship of the monopoly bourgeoisie takes the form of fascism to defeat communist influence in the labor movement and for extreme forms of competition-expansion and redivision of peace between the imperialists.

The Nazis (National Socialists) are members of the bourgeois National Socialist Workers Party (NSDAP). These are the German fascists, whose task was to defeat the labor movement of Germany, the Communist Party and the unleashing of a world war for the profits of Germany’s monopolies.
Under capitalism, bourgeois ideology prevails. It follows from the very existence of man within the framework of capitalist relations. People are dominated by social forces, which they can not explain. The intelligentsia – a stratum of society engaged in the sphere of intellectual labor, in the service of the bourgeoisie, invent hundreds of thousands of ways to justify the stupidity, irrationality and meaninglessness of market, commodity relations on the basis of private property. In the conditions of wage labor, which do not give workers the possibility of a full-fledged comprehensive education, propaganda of bourgeois ideology in all sorts of variations from scientific departments, church altars, from book pages, newspapers, magazines, television and the Internet, creates public opinion about the uncontested capitalism.

In its ordinary position, the bourgeoisie exercises its unlimited dictatorial power in the form of bourgeois democracy. Parliament, president, elections, competition of political parties and other visible husks behind which the policy of interests of monopolists is hidden. The bourgeois-democratic organization of the state power of monopolists of entrepreneurs helps and ideologically speak the proletariat with beautiful words about democracy.
But when in society the power of the denial of private property is gaining power, for its salvation the bourgeois state is cast off by democracy, and the capitalist dictatorship is in its naked form – in the form of an open dictatorship – of fascism.

That is, fascism is not a new ideology of the bourgeoisie, but the same old, based on the “sacred right” of private property, but devoid of a democratic cover, in fact, a wrapper for fools. Fascism is a method of exercising the rule of the bourgeoisie, which can be used by the bourgeoisie under the threat of revolution and for expansion against international competitors. Therefore, the definition given to fascism by the Comintern indicates precisely this: Fascism is an open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, most imperialistic elements of financial capital, a special form of class domination of the bourgeoisie.

“International fascism,” which the imperialists of the bourgeois-democratic countries allegedly extends through aggression against competitors, is a chimera like international terrorism. The lie about international terrorism (we do not deny such a phenomenon, but we consider it wholly dependent on a competitive struggle between different entrepreneurs within one country, between businessmen of different countries with the aim of redistributing profits, state borders and the seizure of states) needs the imperialist bourgeoisie to invent an excuse for intervention in the internal affairs of other states, right up to aggression. It is clear why the imperialists need this chimera.

It is not clear what benefit the working class and its party can give an erroneous theoretical conclusion:
“Fascism for export is an open, ignoring all laws and norms of international law, the terrorist imperialist policy of violence and bloody resolution of issues of ensuring the interests of world imperialism, the core of which is financial capital. This is a modern form of fascism. “

For the sake of the ringing phrase – “fascism” – such truths were forgotten:
– Fascism appears as a way of implementing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in a concrete bourgeois state, where the power of the bourgeoisie is threatened with defeat;
– the policy of any imperialist state is always aimed at ensuring the interests of its imperialist bourgeoisie first of all. The vector of these interests can coincide with the vector of interests of other imperialist states, but only so that then the obtained success can be directed against an imaginary ally;
– World (international) imperialism is just the sum of the competing interests of the imperialist states, each of which represents a common interest in order to squeeze the rest on the world market under this cover, or, even better, to eliminate the competitor;
– Imperialism long before the breakup of the USSR showed extreme aggressiveness and more than openly violated the so-called “norms of international law” and ignored even bourgeois legality. Do I need to be reminded?

Moreover, it was not today, but during the Cold War, US imperialist policy was the most reactionary. In the struggle against communism, the imperialists supported all forces, including outspoken neo-fascists. In particular, military dictatorships (in Chile), Islamic radicals, preaching the actual return to the Middle Ages (in Afghanistan). While today, after quarreling with some former allies, the United States pursues a policy that does not have such unequivocal consequences in terms of the interests of the communist and workers’ movement. It is necessary to be able to distinguish situations – or there is an outpost of the world revolution of the USSR, or not.

“Having committed aggression against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, Yankees brought gangs of marauders and traitors in their transportation. To give the appearance of legitimacy to the government of their Gauleiters, they conducted “free elections” under conditions of military occupation. The financial capital of the United States was covered by a seemingly “democratic” cap on a terrorist dictatorship. ” – writes Fetisov with publicistic fury. But did not the power of the Taliban obscurantists in Afghanistan and the Communist dictatorship of Saddam Hussein destroy the communists as a result of US actions? Whatever it was, but the Communists of these countries after the establishment of the pro-American regime ceased to be subjected to systematic repression, managed to get out of the underground and conduct legal activities. Yes, with all the “delights” of bourgeois democracy, burdened by occupation. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that the US actions had, along with negative (destruction, death of people), and positive consequences for workers of these countries. This must be understood, and not fall into sweeping anti-Americanism. For the Communists, it is necessary to choose which regime is weaker-the Saddam regime or the US occupation regime. And in the matter of the war in Iraq, one must stand for the struggle of the Iraq proletarians against both the domestic bourgeoisie (anti-American reactionaries) and the foreign bourgeoisie (the US and the coalition).

As a rule, part of the capitalists, oriented toward the US, mobilizes the masses against the power of other capitalists that do not meet the interests of the United States. In the conditions of the defeat of socialism, the weakening of the world communist movement, entrepreneurs can not yet be afraid that the masses will get out of their control and overthrow the power of all bourgeois groups. Therefore, the workers, dissatisfied with the existing situation, become the “striking force” of the apex bourgeois revolution, which changes the personalities in power, but does not at all touch upon the essence of the capitalist system.

The neo-communists struggle to struggle against the comprador bourgeoisie only when there is a question of the destruction of feudal survivals. Compradors turn their countries into “banana republics”, they do not allow developing capitalist relations. Then the Communists block with the national bourgeoisie for national sovereignty, against the imperialist. In other cases, if there are no remnants of feudal relations and there are no special conditions in terms of national character (backwardness, national infringement and so on), then it is necessary to be bold for a purely proletarian line-against all bourgeoisie, for revolution and socialism. After all, the essence of exploitation tells us that any bourgeois will squeeze out of the proletarian everything that he can. And the practice of our country shows that if a bourgeois of the same nationality as the proletariat, then he believes that he has the moral right to do this in a sophisticated and merciless way.

Both sides in the “orange revolution” usually include the most diverse forces – from the leftist reformists to the extreme right-wing reactionaries. Fascists are also present in both camps. For example, during the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine, pro-Western nationalists and neo-fascists (“Bandera”) supported the “orange” Yushchenko, and “pro-Russian” fascists oriented toward “Slavic unity” – “blue” Yanukovych.

The consequences of the victory of the “orange” pro-American forces are also different for the communist movement. The very situation of the split of the bourgeois class, the constant conflict in it, is beneficial for the Communists. After all, this weakens the power of the capitalists, does not allow “to tighten the nuts”, forcing to preserve a fairly wide range of bourgeois-democratic freedoms. There is not a single example when the apocalyptic predictions of the fighters against the “orange threat” would come true, and the “orange” would really bring the fascist regime to power. Played with Bandera – “the hero of Ukraine”, and the end. And the Ukrainian proletarian, for the most part, spoke Russian, because it is conditioned by economic ties and the cultural level, and he says so. How he hated his position as a hired slave, he hated it.

Therefore, all the calls to “rally against the orange threat”, which we hear from a variety of forces – the court Kremlin “masters”, nationalists, left-wing “patriots” (part of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, “The Mist of Time” S.Kurginyan) are unreasonable. The “Orange” in Russia is part of the petty and middle bourgeoisie, as well as the pro-Western intelligentsia that follows them, expressing the interests of American and European imperialist capital. They do not have a mass social base outside of Moscow and St. Petersburg. That is why it is not necessary to speak seriously about the prospect of an “orange revolution” in Russia.

There is a glaring contradiction in the very formulation of the question. If the comprador bourgeoisie is in power in Russia, then against whom does it want to organize a “color revolution”? Against yourself? But the most important thing is that today in Russia the imperialist bourgeoisie is evident. It is weaker than the US and EU bourgeoisie, but it is gradually increasing, increasing appetite. From this and “patriotic” hysteria in the media, the search for “foreign agents” among the opposition, a disgusting tragicomedy with the “Magnitsky Law” and the ban on the adoption of Russian children by US citizens. The left “anti-orange” work almost did not remain – with it the Kremlin is doing just fine.

The Portuguese and Greek Communists, regarding the Beirut conference, are absolutely right. “Fascism for export,” the absoluteization of the threat of US imperialism, gluing it to the label of “fascism” serves to strengthen patriotic illusions among the proletariat of other countries, creates the basis for a supra-class unity. The bourgeoisie of Greece, Portugal, and Russia, all responsibility for the plight of the working people can be blamed for “villainous America” ​​or the European Union. Demonizing Western imperialism, while keeping silent about Russian imperialism, about the activities of fascist organizations in Russia, the Communists are in fact risking knocking the workers out of the way of the class struggle, giving the anti-fascist slogan into the hands of supporters of capitalism.

Camilla Abrahamyan

Analyst of the Headquarters of the 4th Network Rate


Gyumri, Armenia

Spread and Share