IS DONALD TRUMP REALLY A NAZI?

What the Comintern thought of fascism

By Daniel Paquet    dpaquet1871@gmail.com

MONTRÉAL - « … fascism in power was correctly described by the Thirteenth Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International as the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.

The most reactionary variety of fascism is the German type of fascism. It has the effrontery to call itself National Socialism, though it has nothing in common with socialism. German fascism is not only bourgeois nationalism, it is fiendish chauvinism. It is a government system of political gangsterism, a system of provocation and torture practised upon the working class and the revolutionary elements of the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia. It is medieval barbarity and bestiality, it is unbridled aggression in relation to other nations. » (Source: Georgi Dimitrov, Selected Works Sofia Press, Sofia, Volume 2, 1972).

Who is Donald Trump in regard with fascism?  In fact he is the world champion of individualism and uncontested hero of pragmatism.  He is always right.  As an entrepreneur and businessman, he defines his decisions for USA and the West as the key for successes.  At the  moment, he may represent the last chance for imperialists to retain power in front of a growing discontent of workers and generally the peoples all around the planet.  However, he is realistic and has a touch of « humanity » and would not destroy this world that he benefits from.  Right now People’s Republic of China makes him hopping, especially since this country is a strong and righteous competitor.

 

 « The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. » ( Manifesto of the Communist Party | Marx-Engels Archive).

« Countries with unstable currencies always, over time, roundly underperform those with sound currencies. (…)  The inevitable reckonong turned into a panic that nearly brought the financial system into catastrophic cardiac arrest. » (Forbes, Steve, Editor-in-Chief, The disaster of 2008, Why it can happen again, Forbes, October, 31, 2018, Harian, USA. Page 21).

« The US expansion remains robust The US economy has been expanding at a solid pace, with recent data signalling more momentum than anticipated in the April Report. Net exports have been unexpectedly robust, reflecting transitory factors, and business investment has been more solid than expected. Job gains continue to be elevated amid a tight labour market, and indicators of consumer sentiment remain high (Chart 3). The US economy is forecast to expand by 3 per cent in 2018 and 2 1 /2 per cent in 2019, well above the estimated rate of its potential output growth. Consumption is anticipated to rise at a healthy pace, underpinned by strong employment growth, past income tax cuts and elevated household net worth. Solid private demand and corporate tax cuts should drive robust business investment growth. GDP growth is projected to ease to around 2 per cent in 2020, close to potential output growth, as fiscal and monetary policy support diminishes. US businesses are starting to report that trade policy uncertainty is dampening an otherwise upbeat outlook for investment, although this is not yet evident in the data. The current base-case projection for the US economy therefore incorporates some modest adverse effects of trade policy uncertainty on investment. US core inflation has firmed as the effects of transitory factors, including past declines in telecommunication prices, have passed. Wage growth has been modest but is expected to pick up with a tightening labour market. With stronger wage growth and support from excess demand, core inflation is forecast to remain close to the Federal Reserve’s inflation target of 2 per cent. » (Bank of Canada, Global Economy, Monetary Policy Report, Ottawa, July 2018, page 3).

« Canada is still free to pursue trade deals with any country it wishes… and in the long run that will likely be true. (…)  But it is apparent that it came at a cost, perhaps temporar, to our sovereignty and independence.  Prime Minister  Justin Trudeau now needs to reassert that sovereignty and demonstrate to Canadians that Mr. Trump does not have a say in how we deal with China.  For the moment, that’s not clear. » (Editorial, Did Canada join Trump’s trade war?, The Globe and Mail, Toronto, Saturday October 6, 2018, page 010).

« For a brief, beautiful moment in time Jeff Bezos and Bernie Sanders were at peace. On October 2nd Mr Bezos, the boss of Amazon and the world’s richest man, announced that he would raise starting wages for American employees to $15 an hour. That thrilled Mr Sanders, a curmudgeonly socialist senator who just last month introduced a “Stop BEZOS Act” which would tax the company for the public benefits received by low-paid workers. “It could well be a shot heard round the world,” he gushed. The billionaire returned the kind words, thanking his gadfly and urging other companies to join him in raising wages. Amazon also announced that its phalanx of lobbyists would start calling for a higher federal minimum wage, which has not increased since 2009. » (The Economist, London, October 6th, 2018, page 24).

« As for Canada and Mexico, under a different president the three countries  of North America could work together to contain China where necessary, and co-operate with it where possible.  But the Trump administration is going to have to go it alone on China.  It no longer has any friends.  And that includes Canada. » (Ibbitson, John, Canada will not forget how it was treated by Trump, The Globe and Mail, Toronto, Saturday, October 6th, 2018, page A10).

« The restraint makes sense. China’s economy might be slowing but the situation is far from dire. A big stimulus when growth is still running at about 6.5% year on year would be an alarming over-reaction. And it is easy to exaggerate the gloom. Some noted that the 9% rise in visitor numbers over the National Day holiday marked the first time in a decade that domestic tourism had increased at less than a double-digit rate. Yet popular destinations can scarcely handle much more. At the Humble Administrator’s Garden it was impossible to take pictures without dozens of other people in them. A few daring visitors seeking the illusion of solitude instead climbed onto the grey-tiled roofs of its covered walkways. » (The Economist, London, October 13th-19th, 2018, page 71).

« With the division of labour, in which all these contradictions are implicit, and which in its turn is based on the natural division of labour in the family and the separation of society into individual families opposed to one another, is given simultaneously the distribution, and indeed the unequal distribution, both quantitative and qualitative, of labour and its products, hence property: the nucleus, the first form, of which lies in the family, where wife and children are the slaves of the husband. This latent slavery in the family, though still very crude, is the first property, but even at this early stage it corresponds perfectly to the definition of modern economists who call it the power of disposing of the labour-power of others. Division of labour and private property are, moreover, identical expressions: in the one the same thing is affirmed with reference to activity as is affirmed in the other with reference to the product of the activity. »

« Further, the division of labour implies the contradiction between the interest of the separate individual or the individual family and the communal interest of all individuals who have intercourse with one another. And indeed, this communal interest does not exist merely in the imagination, as the “general interest,” but first of all in reality, as the mutual interdependence of the individuals among whom the labour is divided. And finally, the division of labour offers us the first example of how, as long as man remains in natural society, that is, as long as a cleavage exists between the particular and the common interest, as long, therefore, as activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now. »

« The social power, i.e., the multiplied productive force, which arises through the co-operation of different individuals as it is determined by the division of labour, appears to these individuals, since their co-operation is not voluntary but has come about naturally, not as their own united power, but as an alien force existing outside them, of the origin and goal of which they are ignorant, which they thus cannot control, which on the contrary passes through a peculiar series of phases and stages independent of the will and the action of man, any even being the prime governor of these. »

« How otherwise could, for instance, property have had a history at all, have taken on different forms, and landed property, for example, according to the different premises given, have proceeded in France from parcellation to centralisation in the hands of a few, in England from centralisation in the hands of a few to parcellation, as is actually the case today? Or how does it happen that trade, which after all is nothing more than the exchange of products of various individuals and countries, rules the whole world through the relation of supply and demand – a relation which, as an English economist says, hovers over the earth like the fate of the ancients, and with invisible hand allots fortune and misfortune to men, sets up empires and overthrows empires, causes nations to rise and to disappear – while with the abolition of the basis of private property, with the communistic regulation of production (and, implicit in this, the destruction of the alien relation between men and what they themselves produce), the power of the relation of supply and demand is dissolved into nothing, and men get exchange, production, the mode of their mutual relation, under their own control again? » (Karl Marx. The German Ideology. 1845, Part I: Feuerbach, Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook, A. Idealism and Materialism).

This article may look like a fabric of excerpts.  It is  voluntarily so; there is no need to re-invent the wheel.  Nevertheless there is a danger to let running fascism. It costed mankind over 50 millions lives; that is enough talking to any conscious and common-sense human-being.

Communist News   www.dpaquet1871.blogspot.com

La Nouvelle Vie Réelle   www.lnvr.blogspot.com

Marxistas-leninistas latinas hojas   www.ma-llh.blogspot.com

Le sourire de l’Orient    www.lesouriredelorient.blogspot.com

ARCHIVES

La Vie Réelle   www.laviereelle.blogspot.com

Pour la KOMINTERN now!   www.pourlakominternnow.blogspot.com

L’Humanité in English   www.humaniteinenglish.com