On Modern Reactionary Anti-Communism

Morning Comrades.

I read this note during my coffee and catch up routine on my day off earlier and admittedly it got to me. To clarify, “notes” here on substack is similar to twitter in the sense that it also full of reactionary closet fascists talking bullshit in order to sell something but it has its benefits that it has fewer of them than twitter or meta for example.

To be clear, I don’t think this person is the above and whilst I disagree with a lot of her writings and opinions it never hurts to read outside of your bubble. This take, however, is so utterly telling, unserious and admittedly, almost turned me into one of those annoying online shit-posters- but let’s aim above that. To be clear, I am fully aware that retorting to a massive account online that posts nonsense such as the above is often exactly what is desired, engagement for engagements sake and monetization and I will do my best to keep the following argument as factual as possible. For one, the incorrect position that “the left” and “the right” are two sides of the same coin is at its core a tell tale sign that a) yup, you’re “on the right” but are begging for a seat at their table and b) simplifies complex realities for consumption rather than discussion.

To start, linguistics: the terminology of “right” and “left” is pointless and obfuscates the reality that they can, materially, mean nothing as it posits an identity to the individual without the responsibility of action, that, inherently, is the only motion that can create an identity. I care extremely little about the “right” - only insofar to know who they are and where they live but as far as the “left” goes - whatever, that does not exist either, again something we have discussed on here before.

Secondly, proposing an undefined “third” option outside of the bourgeoise binary, that is fictitious - a right and a left - without saying precisely what it is, is suss as fuck. Again, I don’t think this writer belongs to this flock, but 99% of the time where you have individuals talking about “it’s not left and neither right” - usually they’re fascists with a podcast to sell you protein shakes. I don’t make the rules but that’s a safe bet.

On that note, let’s really get into it.

Fascism and communism, something the writer above is alluding to when speaking of the “right” and the “left”, are fundamentally distinct ideologies when analyzed through the lenses of their historical origins, core motivations, and overarching goals. One can differentiate them effectively by understanding how fascism primarily functions as a reactionary tool while communism is a philosophical theory aimed at the liberation of the working classes.

1. Historical Origins and Context: Fascism emerged in the aftermath of World War I and the Great Depression as a response to perceived societal decay and economic instability. It aimed to restore order and preserve the existing social hierarchies. In this reactionary context, fascist regimes often focused on strong authoritarian leadership and aggressive nationalism. Communism, on the other hand, grew as a response to the exploitation and inequalities inherent in capitalist systems. It developed as a philosophical theory championing the rights and liberation of the working classes from oppressive conditions. Communism sought to create a classless society through the collective ownership of means of production.

2. Motivations and Objectives: Fascism is driven by a desire for nationalistic unity, often involving the glorification of a charismatic leader and a commitment to preserving traditional values. It emphasizes the importance of a dominant state apparatus and often suppresses dissent to maintain control. Communism seeks to dismantle class distinctions and redistribute wealth. Its focus is on the empowerment of the working class through the abolition of private property and the establishment of a stateless, classless society where resources are shared collectively.

3. Social Change and Economic Structure: Fascism maintains the existing economic structure, favouring collaboration between government and corporations while suppressing labor movements and workers' rights. Economic inequalities are always perpetuated. Communism envisions a radical transformation of the economic landscape, aiming to abolish private ownership and institute collective ownership of the means of production. This shift is intended to ensure equitable distribution of resources and end exploitation.

4. Reactionary vs. Progressive Nature: Fascism is as a reactionary force, aiming to restore or preserve a perceived golden age or past greatness. It often opposes progressive societal changes and seeks to maintain traditional hierarchies for the sake of maintaining the ruling classes status’ quo. Communism, as a philosophical theory, is inherently progressive. It calls for radical societal transformation and challenges the existing power structures, with the ultimate goal of achieving a more just and equitable society.

By examining a selection of contemporary works, we can furthermore explore the divergent paths, motivations, and consequences of these ideologies, dispelling the oversimplified and misleading idea of their equivalence.

Distinguishing Ideological Foundations:

"Blackshirts and Reds" by Michael Parenti: Parenti's analysis delves into the economic underpinnings of fascism and communism. He argues that fascism serves the interests of entrenched elites, whereas communism strives to empower the working class. Parenti challenges the notion that communism and fascism are interchangeable by highlighting their opposing goals and outcomes.

"Fascism was a counterrevolution against a revolution that never came. It retained the old property relations by suppressing the would-be revolutionary class."

"The Communist Hypothesis" by Alain Badiou: Badiou examines the enduring relevance of communism and its aspirations for universal emancipation. He critiques the conflation of communism with fascism, emphasizing that while communism pursues collective liberation, fascism thrives on authoritarianism and exclusion. Badiou's exploration underscores the profound differences between the two ideologies.

"Fascism says: ...'Let's ensure the fundamental inequality of individuals in the name of collective unity.' Communism says: 'Let's produce collective unity in the name of the inalienable equality of individuals.'"

"The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" by Robert Tressell: This classic working-class novel exposes the exploitative capitalist system that communism seeks to dismantle. Tressell's portrayal of laborers' struggles underscores the imperative of addressing economic disparities, setting communism apart from fascism's preservation of economic inequality.

"Their lives were but a living death—a living tombstone over the rotting corpse of murdered hopes and dead ambitions."

In short, arm yourself against this modern day phenomena of utilized by charlatans, modern day cult leaders if you will, that throw all of this on the same banner. To be brutally clear, the fascists and their capitalist backers have drenched this planet in the blood of the working people for the sake of profit by means of bankrupt ideologies, we want the liberation of everything and everyone from the yolk.

Smooches and back to not getting riled up by shit online,

yours,

V.