#and NO ONE deserves to be brutalized because of their membership to a class

[canichangemyblogname]

Wow… what an amazingly revolutionary ideology that is totally challenging and deconstructing the patriarchy (/sarcasm) by *checks notes* blaming victims of patriarchal violence…

I’m sure you have other totally normal, totally non-racist, totally non-homophobic things to—

Hmm. Wow. Yeah. Fascinating how “hate all men” leads people to specifically single out marginalized men and discourage people from forming class consciousness on issues of race and queerness. Would have never expected that (/sarcasm). I’m sure this is super duper helpful for combating white supremacy 👍

[bustedbernie]

A great read about Social-Fascism. Very apt to our current political situation. I’ll include an opening excerpt below as well as some quotes that are very apt and could very much have been written by a “Bernie or Bust” supporter in their “Biden and Trump is the same” mantra or their just as concerning “Trump will accelerate the drive toward a proletariat revolution.” 

But I would be less than candid if I did not confess that I was moved to look back at social-fascism because it is no longer of merely historical interest. In its original incarnation, it helped to bring about such a vast and shattering catastrophe that it once seemed such ideas could never again be revived on a large and dangerous scale. Yet this is exactly what has been happening. The term itself has not come back into general use, but the thinking behind it again has its devotees.

A new revolutionary generation has raised questions that are not altogether new. Who is the “main enemy”? Are “reformists” more dangerous than “reactionaries”? Is liberal democracy nothing but a “mask” for bourgeois dictatorship or even some form of totalitarianism? Is it necessary to provoke violent confrontations in order to unmask this type of liberalism? If a revolutionary minority strives to destroy a democratic, even a “bourgeois-democratic,” order, is it necessarily going to be the main beneficiary—or even avoid the fate of the democratic order it has helped to pull down?

Answers to such questions made the difference between life and death for millions of people a few decades ago. In what follows, I have tried to restudy and reconstruct the earlier experience as a historical phenomenon that deserves to be better known for its own sake and that presents us with some large and difficult problems of special interest today.

[...]

The lesson would seem to be that it is dangerous to use the term “fascism”—or today “totalitarianism”—too lightly and too indiscriminately. The problem is how to preserve a very sizable margin of difference in order to make room for the full enormity and horror of fascism in power. To reduce this margin is to make fascism more familiar, more tolerable, more domesticated. By making fascism cover all the ground from Müller to Hitler, the Communists demonized the inoffensive Müller and humanized the demonic Hitler.

[...]

Soon the Communists had their wish. Two elections were held in 1932, on July 31 and on November 6. In the latter, the Social-Democrats lost ground, from 133 Reichstag seats to 121, and from a total vote of 7,959,700 to 7,248,000. The Communists gained almost as much, from 89 seats to 100, and from 5,282,600 votes to 5,980,200. For the first time in four years, the Nazis fell back, from 230 seats to 196, and from 13,745,800 votes to 11,737,000. Between them, the Social-Democrats and Communists still managed to hold well over one-third of the total vote. The Nazis were slipping, and a real Social-Democratic-Communist united front might conceivably have blocked the way to Hitler's power.

But the theory of social-fascism held firm. In its post-election statement, the Central Committee of the Communist party of Germany declared: “The decline of the Social-Democratic party in no way reduces its role as the main social buttress of the bourgeoisie, but on the contrary, precisely because the Hitler party is at present losing followers from the ranks of the workers, instead of penetrating still more deeply into the proletariat, the importance of the Social-Democratic party for the fascist policy of finance capital increases.”39

Ten weeks later, on January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler gained power.

Twenty-one years later, Walter Ulbricht, the present master of East Germany, admitted that the Communists had concentrated their main fire on the Social-Democrats, not on Hitler, Brüning, Papen, or Schleicher, “without sufficiently distinguishing between the Social-Democratic leadership and the Social-Democratic membership.”40 In all those years, Ulbricht could think of nothing else that had been wrong with the theory of social-fascism.

[...]

For this purpose, I have made up a little anthology that takes the subject into 1934. The various items require little comment, and I have merely grouped them under appropriate subject headings. All of these quotations have been taken from the most authoritative Communist sources and spokesmen for a period of over a year after January 1933.

_____________

The Revolutionary Upsurge

“The fact of the Hitler government coming into power enormously accelerates the maturing of the revolutionary crisis in Germany. Germany is on the threshold of a revolutionary crisis (italics in original).”41

“The fascist dictatorship is not only incapable of solving the social and national conflicts, but it is also incapable of really consolidating its political rule.”42

“In spite of the most ruthless and bloody terror, a revolutionary upsurge is growing among the working class, which is completely deprived of all rights by fascism.”43

“After the establishment of the fascist dictatorship, the revolutionary mass movement is experiencing a fresh upsurge.”44

“The revolutionary uprising of the German working class—that is the perspective in Germany.”45

“The present stage in Germany, in Austria, is no longer simply a period of struggle to win over the majority of the working class, but a period of the formation of a revolutionary army for decisive class battles for power, a period of the mobilization of such cadres as are prepared to make any sacrifice in order to destroy the existing regime, in order to lead the proletariat to victory.”46

The Usefulness of Fascism

“The establishment of an open fascist dictatorship, by destroying all the democratic illusions among the masses and liberating them from the influence of Social-Democracy, accelerates the rate of Germany's development toward proletarian revolution.”47

“The bourgeoisie is compelled to abandon the democratic façade and to put the naked dictatorship of violence in the foreground. This development makes it easier for those carrying out a correct, united front, anti-fascist policy to overcome the illusions, which have been fostered by Social-Democracy for decades, with regard to the role of the State, and with regard to economic democracy and the policy of the ‘lesser evil.’”48

“Even fascist demagogy can now have a twofold effect. It can, in spite of the fascists, help us to free the masses of the toilers from the illusions of parliamentary democracy and peaceful evolution . . . ,”49

“The rapid fascisation of the capitalist governments naturally confronts us with added difficulties, but the bitterness of class antagonisms and the complete bankruptcy of the Second and Amsterdam [trade union] Internationals offer us tremendous new possibilities” (italics in original).50

“The present wave of fascism is not a sign of the strength, but a sign of the weakness and instability of the whole capitalist system. . . . Germany was and remains the weakest link in the chain of imperialist states. . . . That is why the proletarian revolution is nearer in Germany than in any other country.”51

“Fascism does not only make the struggle of the working class more difficult; it also accelerates the processes of the maturing of the revolutionary crisis.”52

The Main Enemy

“The Social-Democracy proves once again that it is inseparably allied with capitalism, that it still remains the chief buttress of the bourgeoisie, even when the latter go over to measures of open violence, including repressive measures against Social-Democracy.”53

“If the fascists are persecuting Social-Democracy as a party, they are beating it as a faithful dog that has fallen sick. They are beating it because they know that it is incapable of resistance, that, when it is beaten, it will come forward all the quicker to the service of the bourgeois dictatorship, even in the open fascist form.”54

“The complete exclusion of the social-fascists from the state apparatus, and the brutal suppression even of Social-Democratic organizations and their press, does not in any way alter the fact that Social-Democracy is now, as before, the chief support of the capitalist dictatorship.”55

“History now offers a real possibility of liquidating the mass influence of the Social-Democratic party, which is responsible for the victory of fascism and which is the main support of the bourgeoisie, and the possibility of establishing the unity of the labor movement.”56

“Social-Democracy continues to play the role of the main social prop of the bourgeoisie also in the countries of open fascist dictatorship.”57

“In spite of all their disagreements, the fascists and social-fascists are, and remain, twins, as Comrade Stalin remarked. . . . There are no disagreements between the fascists and the social-fascists as far as the necessity for the further fascisation of the bourgeois dictatorship is concerned. The Social-Democrats are in favor of fascisation, provided the parliamentary form is preserved.”58

“Even after the prohibition of its organization, Social-Democracy remains the main social prop of the bourgeoisie. . . . The present situation [December 1933] in the German labor movement offers us the possibility of destroying the mass influence of the SPG [Social-Democratic party of Germany] and of reestablishing the unity of the labor movement on a revolutionary basis.”59

“Every revolutionary must know that the path toward the annihilation of fascism, the path to the proletarian revolution and to its victory can only be the path that leads via the organizational and ideological abolition of the influence of Social-Democracy.”60

“It is, therefore, necessary above all to make a clear stand in regard to Social-Democracy, and first and foremost in regard to ‘Left’ Social-Democracy, this most dangerous foe of Communism” (italics in original).”61

“We must destroy the Social-Democratic influence on the working masses and we must not tolerate any vacillations in our ranks in the struggle against the Social-Democracy as the chief social support of the bourgeoisie.”62

_____________

I hope the reader has not skipped too quickly over this collection of seemingly quaint, musty quotations. Not so long ago, men paid for them with their lives, Communists and Social-Democrats alike. In March 1933, the “mask” was finally torn from the Weimar constitution. A newly elected Reichstag voted, 441 to 94, to give Hitler dictatorial powers. All 94 negative votes were cast by Social-Democrats (the remaining 27 Social-Democratic deputies and all 81 Communists could not vote, being already in exile, in hiding, or under arrest). The Communist party was officially outlawed on March 31; the trade unions were smashed in May; the Social-Democratic party was banned on June 22. Thereafter, Hitler made no distinction between Communists and Social-Democrats; he took their lives, cast them into concentration camps or, if they were lucky, drove them into exile, impartially.

Don’t let Bernie or Bust type folks lead you into this dangerous and toxic form of thinking. Don’t let them divide us at this moment when we must come together to protect ourselves and our liberties. Take a page from history and learn from it. 

[noramoya]

June 13, 2005

“ THE VEREDICT OF MICHAEL JACKSON”

By David Walsh - June 15, 2005 -

“Michael Jackson's acquittal for sexual harassment to minors and related charges is completely welcome. Whether it is a sign of change of popular feelings or a more isolated episode, the decision of the jury of Santa Maria, California, to judge the singer NOT GUILTY of TEN CRIMES andFOUR MISDEMEANORS is appropriate, both from the legal and human points of view . In Contemporary America, unfortunately, rational and civil conclusions to these sordid episodes are far too infrequent.

In objective terms, the decision of the jury to acquit Jackson represent a pungent reprimand to the vengeful accusation LED by the District Attorney Of Santa Barbara, Thomas Sneddon, and supported by an ultra-right-attack-dogs. The verdict that rejects even the minors allegations, if the eight women and four men of the Jury were fully aware of the fact or not, it represents an indictment for the fraudulent and malicious character of the prosecution thesis. The Jury’s decision came in front of decisions by Judge Rodney Melville, who favored the District Attorney.

Jackson's acquittal also arises as an indictment of the dishonest role done by the American Mass Media, which have legitimized and tried to support the cause against the singer. The verdict stunned many media experts, who have done everything in their power to stigmatise and demonize Jackson in the last 18 months.

In the period immediately following the reading of the verdict, before the anchors-TV and the assorted pundits had the opportunity to bring their stories back directly, a number of television journalists admitted what none of them had admitted publicly before-that not There's never been a serious case against Jackson. However, the media approach quickly moved and tried to denigrate the meaning of the verdict, stressing the reserves of some jury members for Jackson's past behavior.

Even in this case, media managers and experts reveal their ignorance and instinctive hostility to elementary democratic principles. If the members of the jury have expressed reservations about Jackson's behavior or suspicions of bad conduct past, they did what they had to do: they listened to the evidence, discussed it between them and established that the accusation had not shown his case at Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt. It was this stubborn adherence to legal standards and democratic principles, including the presumption of innocence, which so irritated the legal institution and the models (of) Media, which have long discarded such membership.

Even if jackson had been guilty of sexual harassment, he would not have deserved the wild treatment received by the hand of the state and mass No humiliation is too big, no one debased is too complete for these forces.

Jackson appeared exhausted and on the brink of collapse for the end of the process, in the brutality of a Sneddon you see, in a microcosm, the character of the American Executive Class: ignorant, unconscious, tightened, who pursues without end anyone and anything that hints of opposition or "counterculture".

Why was Michael Jackson really under trial? Because his lifestyle is different, even bizarre, because he is perceived as gay, because he is black. In the paranoid, pornographic vision of the extreme right, whose perverse mental life deserves to be analyzed by a Freud, Jackson represents a provocation and a threat to "American values".

For Mainstream-media in the United States, a Jackson's process was a manna from heaven. Incapable and reluctant to present the truth about everything that matters, the mass media instinctively gravitate towards anything that corrupt the social environment. With the precipitating support of the Iraq war, as well as the national policies of George w. Bush, efforts to divert the attention of the population from the burning themes of the day becomes increasingly hectic.

The general reaction of the media to the verdict Jackson was mischievous, if not defamatory. A guest interviewed by fox news by Shepard Smith calls Jackson " the plastic monster " and claimed that " we need intelligence tests for the jurors." numerous commentators have equally asked sneddon, defender Thomas Mesereau and jurors Assorted If they don't believe a child molester has been released. Not only have they thrown out the window the presumption of innocence the window, but an acquittal unanimously adopted by a jury means nothing for these elements.

Nancy Grace, the former prosecutor, who poured, every night, out reactionary poison on CNN, barely contained herself on the Jackson verdict. Grace, who has declared her believe in Jackson's guilt for months, started her program: "It's clean square in a California Court Jury, Michael Jackson issued a verdict that stunned the nation: NOT GUILTY ON ALL FRONTS ! It was a 13-year-old boy, Hispanic who brought Michael Jackson to court. And tonight, he's not guilty,because of his celebrity" Grace has been inciting a Jury member, Paul Rodriguez, defiantly asking at some point: “What do you think would have been necessary to convince the Jury that Jackson molested this guy?"

...”Debra Opri, a lawyer for Jackson's parents, finally put Nancy Grace in her place, saying : “Well, this is the bitter pill you're trying to swallow, Nancy. This is reality, not the reality you created for the last year... Michael Jackson is NOT GUILTY. Let him live his life in peace and stop trying to try the case again, ‘cause that's what you're doing !"

As noticed above, the media seized comments from a juror in particular, Raymond Hultman, in the sense that even if there weren't enough evidence to condemn Jackson of the crime he was accused of, the singer had probably acted improperly with underage boys in the past .

This exchange between the co-Conductor Katie Couric of nbc''s today show and mesereau was:

Couric: some jurors are saying that this is a verdict of guilt, not a verdict of innocence. A Juror said he believes Michael Jackson molested other children, not just this. So is this the claim that Michael Jackson's supporters think it is?

Mesereau: Yes, it is. Macaulay Culkin came and testified that he was never touched. Mr.. Robinson testified that he was never touched. Mr.. Barnes testified he was never touched. I mean, they tried to promote Michael Jackson's behavior theories that collapsed just because they weren't true.

Couric: but does it seem troubling to you,

Mesereau: I think it's total rematch.

Couric: find troubling, though, Mr. Mesereau, that a juror is saying: "I think Michael Jackson molested children or molested children first"?

Mesereau: No. I don't find it worrying because we won the cause, and we should have won the case He is innocent.

Polls record that a majority continues to believe in Jackson's guilt. But where does the audience get the information from? As Defender Barry Scheck Annotated on the today show, the audience saw the process through the prism of the media, while the jury saw it directly.

The elaborate conspiracy charged by Sneddon, that Jackson kidnapped the family of his alleged victim and plotted to send them to Brazil, was proven to be absurd. Mesereau had no difficulty showing that the family had gone shopping during their alleged captivity, including the body's waxing for the mother of the then 13-Year-old boy and orthodontics works for the second daughter and his brother. Testimony indicated that the family was "escaped" and returned to Jackson's Neverland ranch for three times, once in a rolls-Royce, but did not ask for help.

Defense presented test elements, not disproved by the accusation, that the boy's mother had received a $ 152.000 liquidation from JC Penney after he accused the security guards of having her groping, when, in fact, the damage is Been caused by violent husband. Mesereau was able to portray the woman as an artist of the scam who had a story of attempts to extort money from celebrities for the son affected by cancer.

Jury members declared the press after the process that the boy's mother had a very unfavourable impression on them. During his testimony, the woman claimed that "Killer" threatened her during her alleged captivity and planned to take her children away in a balloon.

In some cases, the prosecution's moves exploded their front. Called By Sneddon, as a witness, Debbie Rowe, Jackson's ex-wife, turned out to be very favorable to the In his opening statement the district attorney promised the jurors that rowe would testify that a video recorded praising Jackson had been under pressure and that his appearance was completely written. When she appeared, The Rowe, who is engaged in a custody battle with Jackson, disowned this version of the facts and called the pop singer "my friend".

The prosecution presented several former Neverland collaborators on the witness bench who claimed that Jackson had tested a number of boys in the early 1990. S. Most of these witnesses had either sued or sold Jackson stories and, as Pointed out mesereau at couric, the guys who testified denied any impropriety.

The jurors who spoke to the media explained that the prosecution had never done simply a case. One of the jurors, a middle-aged mother, told the press, " the evidence said everything. We had a closet full of evidence that gave us back the same thing, that there weren't enough " to condemn. " things don't come back," he said.

In a statement that they had read to the judge in court, the jury of eight women and four men explained, " we the jury feel the weight of the eyes of the We have studied the testimonies, the tests, the rules and the procedures. We confidently come to our verdict. "

The jurors explained that while the process proceeded, they began to think less about Jackson as a celebrity. "even if he is a superstar, he is a human being", he explained a female juror. " to see it in the whole process, is a normal person. He made it real to my eyes. "

Rodriguez told abc good morning America that Jackson thanked them. " he looked towards us. In fact, I had a visual contact with him, while the last part of the verdict was read and made just a grimace said pretty openly, 'thank you' ".

Source: FB page "a Michael to know & all truths"

Modified by Arcoiris-15/6/2017, 02:15