Talk:Social fascism

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tied this article to the wiki on Social corporatism. Kjk2.1 (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Social-fascism" was also used in the 1960s/70s by Maoists against pro-Moscow Communists; btw, the use of "social-fascism" in the poster is that - in the internal jargon of MRPP, "social fascism" meant the Portuguese Communist Party.--81.84.190.135 (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is so much of the article dedicated to the opinions of the Menshevik/crypto-social democrat, Trotsky? Of course he is going to defend social democracy, since in his heart of hearts, that is what he really was!

We need to dedicate more of the article to the theory itself, rather than smears against it. Marxist-Leninism views Fascism as a specific thing, as the final barrier of the most reactionary elements of the bourgeoisie, using any means possible including violence, to redirect or hold off proletarian revolution. When looked at in this way, social democracy perfectly fits the definition of fascism in Marxist-Leninist theory, because it always, at the final hurdle, comes down on the side of the bourgeoisie (these are couched as "rational compromises/negotiation," but are in fact the goal of social democracy from the outset!)

This article needs rewriting to cull Trotsky's inane babbling down and to present the theory in a more neutral and serious manner. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not the purpose of Wikipedia to take sides in internal esoteric Marxist theory disputes (see

WP:NPOV). Trotsky is in there because he was a Communist who predicted clearly what a number of people with widely-differing political views also predicted: That if Communist declarations that non-Communist leftists were the greatest enemy led to the rise of right-wing totalitarian regimes in various countries, then not only would ordinary workers in those countries suffer greatly, but also Communist party organizations in those countries (ask Willi Münzenberg). It was one of several very big blunders that Stalin made. If "Social Fascism" doctrine was so great, then why was it replaced by the "Popular Front" soon after Hitler came to power? AnonMoos (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

For the purposes of Wikipedia it doesn't matter if Trotsky was "inane" or prescient; it matters whether his views were notable and whether we can reliably source them and concisely and neutrally describe them. I have trimmed the Trotsky section and one of the quotes (maybe it could be trimmed a little more, but not much) and removed the synthesis at the end of the section, but I don't think we want to do much more. If more weight should be given to the theory itself, that should be done by expanding the article not cutting that bit out.BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In a practical sense this meant treating peasants (then 80% of the population), especially the richer "kulak" group, as class enemies and urging party cadres on to ever more ruthless action against them."

Removed this. Perhaps someone can replace this statement with something more neutral and sourceable. Or not, the piece works fine without it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.38.232 (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term social fascism existed way back before 1928 and was one of the theses of the KPD against the SPD. This early periode way before 1928 lacks in this item. While it is crucial in understanding revolutionary years like 1919 Germany, and the mental position that people (like Hitler) held in all of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.98.229.18 (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Fascism" was somewhat obscure outside Italian fringe politics until 1921 or 1922, so I doubt that "Social Fascism" goes way back before 1928... AnonMoos (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If someone had used the expression with a different meaning, it would be a different topic. The term social can be added to most ideologies: social conservatism, e.g., social liberalism, social democracy. TFD (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There doesnt seem to be any evidence that Thaalman actually said the quote at any point, let alone that they ' internally used the slogan'. The only source for this seems to be the work of C.L.R. James that besides its open and obvious bias, states 'The Communists could not popularise this as a slogan, but under the guidance of the leadership, many of the rank-and-file used it among themselves, no doubt sincerely believing in this as Marxism.' This is, in my opinion, clearly hyperbole and even if it was not presents no evidence it was widely used amongst the rank and file, only that perhaps some people used it- and even it doesnt claim the leadership did! I would recommend that the wording be altered to reflect that it is speculation and not fact, but frankly I think it should just be deleted. If there is no opposition I will just do it. Mooneylupin (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It expresses a certain attitude among some people then, and may be worthy of mention on that basis, but of course no specific claim as to how it was allegedly used can be accepted without a reliable source. AnonMoos (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]