Fascism in Scientific Understanding and Fascism in Layman Interpretation

M.V. Popov,
Professor of Saint-Petersburg State University
перевод Л. Кашуба

Lecture in the University of Workers-Correspondents

(https://youtu.be/HK73M48Bt3A)

Galko:

Good evening, dear comrades.  The Workers’ Correspondence University is glad to see you all back from recess. Let me remind you, study sessions in current semester are led at 19.00 P.M. each Thursday in these premises. The plan of studies has been published in the newspaper “Narodnaya Pravda”. You may as well find it on the web-site of Working-Class Academy Foundation and on the web-site of Russian Communist Labor Party.

Today it is our first study session, the topic is most up-to date: “Fascism in Scientific Understanding and in Layman Understanding”. The study session is led by Mikhail Vasilyevitch Popov, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor of Saint-Petersburg State University. You are welcome, Mikhail Vasilyevitch.

Popov:

Hello, dear comrades. How should we determine the significance of the topic to which we decided to dedicate our first study session? Its significance is determined so that we need to select right categories and notions for estimation of issues that are especially hot-button and acute. If we do not find necessary words, if we fail to choose needful notions we will not get to the verity, because the definition of truth is namely the agreement  of the concept with its subject matter. If we use wrong words to express what’s happening, that means we have deviated from the truth and therefore we cannot find a political solution of the problem which needs correct estimation.  That’s why the question of what exactly is happening at present and whether the on-going things  are related to the awful plague of the past century and whether this plague, according to some suggestions and estimations, whether it is coming into certain development, expansion and amplification today , – that is the problem which needs to be studied out. In order to study this issue out, we need to explore it from scientific point of view. In order to do scientific research, one needs to give precise definitions because if I have my own opinion of fascism, if another person has another opinion of it, and the third person has his own different opinion of it, we will use the notion of fascism as an affront. For example, if someone does not like your haircut, he might call you a fascist.

If someone else does not like your figure, then he calls you a fascist. And, vice versa, if someone gets this nickname, he sends it back to you, he replies to you that you yourself are a fascist. To make things short, as young people often like to put it, some people belong to “Fa” group, and other people are “Anti-Fa”. But neither Fa nor Anti-Fa have no idea of what fascism really is.

They do not know it not only because they were not present during those dreadful events which are remembered, which are written about and which are spoken of, but they also do not know it from historical point of view, they do not know the exact meaning of this word. Still, we can define it quite precisely and we should stick down to this definition. It I have defined something and if I do not hold to that definition, that means that I am unable to think logically, I can’t reason and I am not able to draw conclusions.

We are speaking here neither of dialectical logic, nor of simple logic, we are speaking of our understanding. Hegel wrote about understanding that “The understanding determines and holds the determination fixed”.

If a person can’t hold the determinations fixed, he can’t, so to speak, achieve the stage of reason because he has not yet achieved the stage of understanding. So, if we write our comments or make speeches, or talk and discuss without holding precise scientific determinations fixed, there won’t be much use of such discussions; it is always easy to quarrel and to find a pretext for it. That’s why I would like to start even not with determination of fascism but with determination of determination itself. Why? Because there are people who, due to efforts of those who write various glossaries, read not the masterpieces of geniuses but they read glossaries who were created by people who did it to get their fee. So people plunge into these glossaries and read that determination is a collection of attributes, characteristics of some object.

What is a collection? You know, people prepare collections of sweets for celebration of some event. You may put chocolates there or sugar canes, or an orange. Or you might not add any citrus fruit into it and so on. What kind of collection is this? It is a bag, a bag of attributes. Then people, like Santa Claus, take something out of it and each time they do it they say: this belongs to this determination, that other thing belongs to that particular determination. Still, there exists a determination and there exists the action of that what has been determined. Roughly speaking, if we have determined a cow and this cow is grazing in the meadow, one should differentiate that here is determination of the cow, and there is grass, a meadow and the sun and these are the actions of the cow.

And likewise, if we want to consider something as phenomenon, we need to give a determination to it. Only after that we should say how it is related to other things, how it manifests itself, what its characteristics are, what its associations are and so on. Thus we need to start with what a determination is.

How is determination determined in works by Hegel, a genius of philosophy, the creator of dialectics? Let’s open the first volume of “The Science of Logic”.

When the question of a something is considered in this text, then we find the determination of determination. It is when we have reached the place where a something is considered, starting from pure being, then we get to the determination. It sounds a bit unusual, this determination, if I give it to you right now. It might even seem strange, at least for those people who did not study “The Science of Logic”. But it is easy to translate into, so to speak, common language, understandable for people because the meaning of this determination is perfectly clear. So, strictly speaking, the determination is determined just like so:

“The quality which is in the simple something is an in-itself essentially in unity with the something’s other moment, its being-in-it, can be named its determination”.

Let me repeat it. It’s my job, repeating. The quality which is in the simple something is an in-itself essentially in unity with the something’s other moment, its being-in-it. Well, now I am going to explain this determination in detail to make it clear that a very simple thought is enclosed in it. First of all, quality. We should take one quality. Not ten attributes, not sixteen characteristics. We should not mix them in various proportions,  we should take just one quality. For example… Hegel gives a very simple example there. He says that people can be discerned out of animal world so that a human being is an animal that has an earlobe. Maybe in prehistoric times women used to wear earrings or due to some other reason, for example when someone did not study well and his punisher pulled him by his earlobe, anyway no animals except people possess earlobes. According to this, if you have earlobes, you are human, if you do not have earlobes, then you do not belong to humanity. But there may be various situations, especially nowadays, you know how often road accidents happen, there may be situations when after an accident a person is living but he does not have earlobes anymore.

At present things happen, sometimes a person might perish due to a road accident. After all, such a thing as losing of an ear, not inner ear but just outer ear, is not such a big deal. More than that, we all know that under some circumstances, during combat operations and clashes, some people had their earlobes cut away. People who were deprived of external ears, still remain human beings. That’s why Hegel says that earlobe is determinateness of a human being.

The determination of a human being is rational thinking. If a human being loses the ability of thinking, he is not considered to be fully functioning  human being anymore. Mad people are not allowed to vote.

Who can’t be indicted of a crime? People who are out of mind can’t be indicted. And Yeltsin and his dependants, too, can’t be indicted in advance to whatever they are doing. Only these categories of people can’t be charged with a crime, no others. All other people can be prosecuted. So Yeltsin’s group and mad people they were made equal in this sense. This is an interesting estimation, people who tried to sanctify Yeltsin supposed it should be positive. Some people wanted to raise up high Yeltsin and his dependants, to show that they a priori, before any accusation are free from criminal sanctions due to a special decree.

So, rational thinking is determination of human being. Another thing is – how can rational thinking be implemented by a human being? Rational thinking can be used only owing to that the human being is a social animal, it is a working animal and it is a speaking and thinking animal. There this determination is expressed in more detail. Still, before it is expressed in more detail, you should give one quality that determines this phenomenon.

What kind of quality is this? If I possess this quality today but tomorrow I do not have it, can it be my determination or not? It should be such a quality that stays with me in all life circumstances and changes. Right?

Well, the determination that I gave to you might be still not clear to you but let me ask you, are you in yourself or not in yourself?

You are in yourself, i.e. you are equal to yourself. If you always are in yourself, i.e. if you are being in-itself, therefore you are always equal to yourself. For example, if you are a member of Russian Communist Worker Party under bad and under good circumstances, when no one harasses you and when you are being attacked, then it is your determination.

When counter-revolutionaries appeared in the Communist Party of Soviet Union, when there came Gorbachyov and  Yeltsin, those people  who used to be members of the party, laid their Party membership cards away and left their communist positions. And who is a communist by determination? That person who continues struggling for communism under the circumstances which are available for the time being.

Under the present circumstances a true communist still continues his struggle. Our communists kept on struggling when  fascists invaded, under circumstances of fascism they continued to struggle underground, they perished there but they remained to be communists. There are no such people who will live forever anyway.

So, if it is a determination, that means it is a quality which remains in all changes.

This idea is expressed by words “the quality which is in-itself”. In itself, that means it preserves in the simple something.

More than that, it is not enough if you just keep it together with you. You may be an ardent communist, a convinced communist but if no one knows that and it is not expressed anyhow, are you then a communist? – No. If it is not expressed in anything, that means you are not a communist. Say, if a communist does not act anyhow and is still proud that he is a true communist; if he says he always thinks like a real communist but he does not want to do anything and if he does not want to take part in any activities, then such a communist does not manifest himself in any outward action.  Outward action is nothing else as characteristic. If it does not express itself outwardly, it is not a determination. Those people who studied “The Science of Logic”  know this particular place expressed by words “is essentially in unity with its being-in-it”. If it is being in it, then it goes outward.

Inner things go outward. Right?  For example, you have got your heart inside you. The kind of heart you have got and the kind of your brain, all this gets expressed in your activities. That’s why if we want to speak about outer things, we need to observe what is inside. If I tell “inside” then I mean something from outside, if I take something external, then that means that there exists something internal. Right? Then what does our determination of determination resolve itself to? That it is such a quality that is, firstly, conserved in any changes and is inevitably expressed externally. It is inner quality which gets expressed outwardly. What I have told you is stated in the “The Science of Logic”. Those who are interested, can take Hegel’s  “Science of Logic” and check it.  I just explained it to you on the basis of the meaning of these categories. So, is it clear what determination is? Yes, it’s clear now.

Now we are going to get a determination of fascism.

You know, if we want to get a determination of, for example, an oak tree, what is it better to observe – an acorn or a tree with its fruit?  What do you think?  Or should we take a barrel made of oak when we speak of an oak tree? Or maybe we should take an old tree that has thick bark with hollows in it. There are many such oak-trees that are two hundred and even three hundred years of age. So, if we want to have a determination of an oak-tree, should we take the phenomenon in embryo state or in aged state? If we are going to get the determination of fascism, should we take some elements, the elements named by  someone as “Fa” or “Antifa”?   We should take mature fascism. When was it mature? When did fascism spread on international scale?

In 30-s and in 40-s of the twentieth century. There used to be people no less clever than we are now. They worked out the determination of fascism.  It was in those times. This determination was given by Georgiy Dimitrov, Head of Executing Committee of the Communist International Board. He was a highly respected person. When Hitler-sympathising judges tried to blame him for setting Reichstag on fire, he won the trial. Therefore, he was an outstandingly clever, talented and significant member of Communist movement.  I belong to the next generation, however I happened to live in the previous century as well. When I want to know what is fascism, where should I start my search from? I should apply to Dimitrov.

Not to the origin of fascism but to the determination of this phenomenon given when it reached its state of ripeness when it was not presented just by elements. We can find some elements of fascism here and there. At present in some places there appear fascists, adherers of Hitler who have not been wiped out during the war. In Ukraine a monument to Bandera was installed, now he is considered to be a hero of Ukraine, with a helping hand of Yushchenko whose wife comes from America…  Should we choose the determination given by Dimitrov, or, so to speak, time goes on and that determination is outdated?

Determinations do not get outdated. People may get old or some phenomenon may disappear. The determination stays true as it is. We are observing something and we say – we can’t see any fascism there. The phenomenon may get developed, it may grow in strength. But we say – let’s revise the determination and then there won’t be any of such phenomenon there.  So we close our eyes and we can’t see. If we take Dimitrov’s determination, our eyes are wide open and clear and we are able to discern where there is fascism and where there is not. If I close my eyes, more than that, if I have not met any determination of fascism, I can’t tell it when I see it. Someone may tell that he does not agree with Dimitrov. All right, maybe Dimitrov did not  know it well, maybe he did not understand , maybe he did not get it right.  Those of you who saw it and who know it better – please come and tell us what is fascism. No one comes. I have not met such a person who would give another determination of fascism. Maybe you have met such people? Everybody is discussing what fascism is and what it is not. But they do not use determination.

(A remark from a listener: “Now there exists such determination that fascism is a radical form of nationalism”).

Popov:

What does it mean – radical form? Do you know what radical means? Radical comes from the word “root”. Does anything radical necessarily mean fascism? For example, the revolution led to radical changes in social formation. Is it fascism? Please be careful and take care not to be misled.   So, we are talking about vulgar understanding of fascism and of scientific determination of fascism. Not to be misled in politics, one needs to know precise determination. I told you that no one has given another concurrent determination. Who gives determinations? Determinations are given by people who create some scientific paradigm. If I just give descriptions, I can give one hundred descriptions of one object in one day. I may give even 120 determinations, no problem . Determinations are not something which is just thought out, they are foundation stones in total system, in some scientific paradigm of society. This determination was worked out by our previous generations and by comrades who fought against fascism. People who fought against fascism and who defeated it, they followed this determination of fascism. Today some comrades dislike this determination because they, probably, do not like actions of those people who defeated fascism.

Or maybe they became so presumptuous that they  think – well, I don’t care about Stalin and I don’t care about the whole Soviet Red Army that defeated fascism – I don’t care what they said. I myself prefer to think that fascism is something other than that. One may think whatever he likes but it is layman interpretation. These people are quite conceited, they are far away from scientific approach, from scientific layout of reality, they just try to pamper their own self-esteem, so to speak. What do they try to pump up their self-esteem at? They want to bolster their self-esteem with things that were the greatest scourge for huge numbers of people, millions of people. If you have revised something, you have crossed something in it, deleted some bit of understanding of what it really used to be. That’s why some people say today , “Let’s Talk about Totalitarianism”. Then they start putting fascism and totalitarianism at the same level.  Did anyone here give a determination of totalitarianism? The word “total” means “absolute’, ‘entire’, ‘overall’. We used to have total education, total medicine care – everything was free for everyone. Nowadays they are not total. Have you got the money? If you do have, then we say “Hello”. If you have got no money, we say “off you go”. Now we don’t have any totalitarianism, everything is OK now. A very good history textbook for the 11th form under the editorship of Filippova and the accompanying  teachers’ book say that we should not use the category of totalitarianism, it is not scientific. It is a misused category. There are two opposite systems, two politics of opposite classes and some people try to set them equal,  to call them with the same word. Such set-ups are made by political instigators who need to be exposed.

So, we have got determination of fascism. What is in it?  First, this determination belongs to a certain stage of development of human society. What is this stage in particular?  It’s the capitalism. There was no fascism before capitalism.  Were there atrocities in the past? Yes, there were. Did people ganch their  enemies? Was it comfortable to be seated on a ganch? Was it a radical posture? Yes, it was radical. But it was not fascism. Were there tortures in the middle age? Yes, there were. Was there a torture of strappado? Well, I will not go further into details on this topic. Those who just equal fascism to some tortures, assassinations, atrocities, they do not understand that fascism implies atrocities but atrocities do not imply fascism. There used to be and there still are many kinds of atrocities. Thus we need to consider this phenomenon which relies namely to capitalism and not to any other social formation. There was not any fascism either during feudal times or during slavery. There still used to be many ways of killing, people were killed, tortured, burnt, skinned alive but it was not fascism.  That is the first point.

Second, exactly what stage of capitalism development embodies this phenomenon? There was no fascism during the stage of free capitalistic competition. Fascism appeared  at the stage of imperialism. Does this necessarily mean that imperialism itself inevitably brings fascism? No, it does not.

There was no fascism at the initial stage of capitalism. Mayakovsky described it like this:

Capitalism

in his early years wasn’t so bad—

a business-like

fellow.

Worked like blazes—

none of those fears

that his snowy cravat

would soil

and turn yellow.

 

 

There was no fascism then. Fascism appeared at the imperialistic stage of capitalistic development. Mayakovsky described it in the following words:

Just guzzling,

snoozing

and pocketing pelf,

he too

outgrew himself

living

off the blood and sweat

of the people.

Capitalism

got lazy and feeble.

All blubber,

he sprawledin

History’s way.

No getting over or past him.

So snug in his world-wide bed he lay,

The one way out was to blast him.

 

 

There was the first imperialistic war. During the first imperialistic war there were used chemical warfare agents. In Belgium there is a nice town called Ypres. I happened to be there. I was told that chemical war agents had been first applied there. The gas that was used in Ypres had a pleasant smell, I was told. But no one knows where this information came from because those who smelled it, would never be able to tell anything to anybody.  But still I was told that this gas had a pleasant smell. I am not sure how they got this information from the dead. Owing to the name of this town the gas was called yperite, or mustard agent. And other gases that were used during the First world war, they were massive destructive weapons that were rejected even by the biggest villains, including Hitler and fascists. The convention which prohibited usage of these gases was in power during the second world war. They were not used then. Of course, there are always some exceptions. There are always some exceptions in society.

Take any public matter, there will always be some renegades or criminals. There are always some exceptions that proof the rule. We are speaking about millions of people, therefore there should always be some exceptions. Poisonous gases were not used in massive scale and they were not used as weapon of massive destruction. It means that imperialism already existed during the First world war but there was no fascism. Thus it is not correct to state that imperialism necessarily supports fascist method of implementing of bourgeois domination. I would even say that history after the defeat of fascism proved the bourgeois democracy  to be the most convenient way of implementing bourgeois dictatorship.

It is very important for bourgeois democracy that everyone should vote. Those who are suppressing and oppressing you, they should be the ones whom you have voted for. It is desirable that among the ruling class you would choose the ones the most agreeable to you so that you should find it agreeable when they oppress you. Marx wrote that the essence of parliamentarism and democracy is the following: once in five years’ period the suppressed class is allowed to decide what representatives of the ruling class are going to  suppress it in parliament. You should understand that it was your choice. The more honest elections are, the better. Vladimir Putin has demonstrated to you what honest elections are like. Do you feel any better? What kind of dictatorship will be entailed by the most honest elections ever?  Under condition that TV has been massively infusing bourgeois ideology , mass media, radio, internet are pouring bourgeois ideology out in big torrents, under these circumstances what class is going to win in the most honest elections ever?  What ideology wins in the society? The ideology of the ruling class wins. Marx and Engels wrote about it. It should be clearly understood that bourgeois ideology rules in bourgeois society.

I have to explain it to my students that the society corresponds to its ideology. If you have bourgeois society, then bourgeois ideology will be ruling in it. How can it be different? According to what are we going to vote during elections? – According to our ideology. If we do everything in the most honest way (however, it is not possible that everyone has done everything right everywhere). If dozens of thousands of people are taking part in something, it is inevitable that someone makes a mistake in something somewhere. That’s why it is always possible to say – well, you made a mistake there, then your elections are not legitimate. Therefore, you are not elected. If the elections turned out to be illegitimate, I come and take the administration building. I announce these elections to be illegitimate. What does the word “illegitimate” mean? Not permitted by law or by the rules, i.e. illegal.  Why should the elections be illegal? Everybody observed bourgeois rules and laws during the elections. You wanted that, didn’t you?  When democracy was propped up to the USSR, it was counterrevolution. Democrates installed bourgeois democracy here. Why are they blubbering then that something is fishy during elections? They ought to enjoy what they have done. These were not communists who did it, were they? Bourgeoisie did it, all those Sobchak, Tchubais and the akin…

It was Gorbachyov who did it and it was Gaydar who was manager of economical department of “Pravda” newspaper and of the “Communist” journal. They did all this. Why then are they crying that something is dishonest? They wanted it – they get it, they should blame themselves for it.

So, if we consider the form of implementing of bourgeois dominance then we should admit that there were two big imperialistic countries that participated in final rout of fascism. These were the USA and England. By the way, the USA made good money out of this war contrary to all other countries that lost the war. And the USA helped us, we were allies within the well-known coalition. The USA pursued their own interests, we defended our own goals. They did not stop to be anti-communists and we did not become friends of bourgeoisie for the period of Great Patriotic war and during the second world war when we and our allies run coordinated missions and when we received help from them. This help was not decisive, still it was substantial. I think that these events, especially when the world-wide socialism system appeared, these events showed to bourgeois democracy and to bourgeois countries that fascism is terrible for them. If it takes the world-wide scale, it will lead to collapse of the whole capitalistic system. Because you can deceive people for quite a long time by playing the strings of democracy.

Our comrades from CPRF (Communist Party of Russian Federation) still think that the time will come and they will elect, they are going to get elected… But it that possible? Has there been at least one case in the world history that the power of the workers was installed via elections? This never happened. Comrade Solovyov presented a wonderful report “Elections for the Constituent Assembly and the Dictatorship of Proletariat”. It was well explained there that such things never happen. You should create power of workers, then you need to draw more and more people using this power. If someone tells you, come and draw the majority of people to your side under the rule of existing power… It is just impossible! You will never have so much money and you will never collect the majority of people at your side. You need to participate in the elections but do not share the illusion that we will acquire the majority of votes. It is just naïve to think that you may receive the majority in bourgeois society. Did Bolsheviks understand that? Yes, they did. Did they participate in the elections to the Constituent Assembly?  Yes, they did. What place did they get there? The third place. What place did the existing power receive? The first one. They decided to gather the Constituent Assembly. The Provisional Government failed to do it. Bolsheviks succeeded in gathering it. They were allowed to speak, to estimate what had been achieved since the Soviet power was established. Therefore, after the world-wide socialism system appeared, the countries that participated in anti-Hitler coalition as well as bourgeoisie, they all understood that fascist system of dictatorship is not the best one for them. Another crazy Fϋhrer may come and this crazy Fϋhrer may kill the capitalists themselves because there are no restraining factors. That’s the first point.

The second point is that after fascist dictatorship appears, it becomes evident that the system of capitalism  is regressive. There are no more fig-leaf covers of democracy, there are no votes, no elections, there is nothing of the kind. Everyone understands that the fascism should be destroyed. Bourgeoisie would not like it, therefore it goes another way, it organizes fascism in some other countries. For example, in Chile, where they needed to effectuate their imperialistic intents. It was not without help from the USA that Chile built up the fascist dictatorship of Pinochet. Was there fascist dictatorship in Spain?  Yes, there was, but then it gradually dissolved. Were there “black colonels” in Greece? Yes, there were. Was there fascism in Portugal? Yes, there was. People tend to forget it. There was no particular nationalism but there was fascism. In Spain, too, there was fascism without any particular nationalism. There existed such evident and vivid elements that everybody understands that these were fascist regimes. What is the determination of fascism? Let’s give it now.

But we aren’t going to think it out anew. There is determination of fascism given by Dimitrov and with your permission I am going to quote it. Fascism is an open terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionist elements of financial capital. We need to consider all elements of this determination. First, it says about financial capital. What is financial capital? It is not bank capital and it is not industrial capital. It is bank capital fused with industrial capital. What does it mean? How can it be fused?   Is it fused in our country or not?  As a professor of economics and law  I have the honour to tell you that there are no banks in Russia at present.  There are people who say that they are working for a bank. There are institutions that write the word “bank” on their signboard. But if we take the precise economical political definition of the bank, it goes like this: “Financial institution of service activities for industry that accumulates financial means which are temporarily free in economic turnover and directs these financial means to areas of temporal shortage of financial means”. They gather these temporarily excess money and financial means that are out of turnover and send them to areas of temporary shortage. All this is done, it should be done according to regular capitalistic course of events for average rate of profit. What is the average rate of profit?  10-15 %, isn’t it?

Is such a bank a progressive or reactionist phenomenon? It is progressive phenomenon. Now the banks that are doing service activities for industry, these banks know everything in this production and they get tempted to install total control over the whole economics. Economics is the decisive factor of everything.  There comes a temptation to get rid of all that democracy, what for are all those congresses, Dumas, committees, governments – all of them are not necessary because we know everything that should be done, we are controlling everything, we have got all the money, all industry is under our control. If there comes fusing of bank and industrial capital, there is temptation to cast away the additional ruling parts. Under such conditions there are two ways out. First way is to the total control and accounting that are viable for socialism. Isn’t it? Banks are ideal accounting institutions of the new society, as Lenin said. Right?   Ideal accounting. But the financial capital tends to consider the accounting as tool of dominance and dictatorship. Why should we have dictatorship via all these additional forms, all those elections, votes, blabbering parliamentarists, it is up to us to decide and our people will tell us what to do.

Those who resist us will be destroyed. How shall they be destroyed?  We just say it needs to be done and it will be done. This is open terroristic dictatorship. What does the word “open” mean? It literally means open, not covered with anything, neither elections, nor votes. No laws. Fϋhrer told us to do that and that is enough for us. How much time is lost while law drafts are made! This is so annoying to the financial capital. Why should we lose out time on that stuff, we just decide it and that’s all! It is just sheer terroristic dictatorship of financial capital. Now here comes a question. Is there financial capital in Russia? These questions should be considered more deeply. Are there any banks in Russia? We have agreed to stick to precise determinations.

There are no banks in Russia that fall in the category of the definition that I have given to you. They fulfill certain services that banks need to do. They keep accounts of their users. Now if I tell you that our Working-Class Academy Foundation keeps and account in “Rossiya” bank, then who should pay to whom? Our finances are quite meager. Who should pay, the one who deposits the money or the one who makes use of the money? Our banks make use of our money. If anyone sends us 100 roubles to our account, the bank will deduct 4000 roubles for the turnover.

That’s why we are asking you, comrades, not to send your money there, it is sheer busting. We have to pay just for the fact that we are in there. Some huge monopolies do not suffer from that, it is not substantial money for them. But that means ruin for such organizations as Working-Class Foundation. Next, our banks are said to do some good money operations of crediting of industry. What kind of crediting is that? What size a middle rate of profit should be? For example, if I am a big capitalist and I am going to build a plant, I have got capital. Please don’t ask me how I have acquired this capital, I just worked strenuously, I carried heavy weights at construction sites for my living like Abramovitch and I earned huge money. So, I want to use this money and build a plant. I started counting, I need to buy materials, I need to hire builders, I need to pay for kick-back schemes and I am going to have a middle rate of profit of 10-15 %.  I am offered to take a credit in the bank. I go and find out that the interest rate of credit is 23%, 20%, 17%. So, I make a profit of 15% and I pay interest rates of 17%. What for?  After a thorough speculation I decided that I’d better go and open a bank, I register it. Then I go to the “Centrobank” and I will get credit at 8.25% interest rate. Then I will give credits at 17-18-20%. If I engage in microfinancing, then you know that there it goes up to 2000% a year. That’s where I need to go to. That’s why if you take a walk along Liteiniy avenue to Vladimirskaya square, you will find at least 7-8-9 banks on your way.

They are in every other building. These are so-called banks. But in reality these are organizations that take money, not their own money, but money from other subjects, money from the government and they receive interest rates. These are money speculations, the money which belongs to other people, these organizations make their profit on it. Why then should I build a plant or why should I arrange functioning of the plant if I just can take money and receive interest rates. Everyone says, come and take credits!  What did we have in our defense industry? Matviyenko, when she was a governor here, she informed that it was the first of July and not a copeck of money was sent to accounts of defense factories. Why was this money absent? Because it came to banks which were to send the money to the defense factories. The directors of the factories were suggested to take credits and start work. The directors took credits. What was the interest rate? 19-20%. After a year they made profit of 15% and then they had debts, no development of industry, no growth of salaries, they could not even pay the salaries in a full scale. All production is suppressed, violated! By whom? By these money-lending offices that make themselves for banks. So, when people discuss, what basis do we have for fascism here, in Russia, it is obvious that the basis is quite poor.

The existence of bank capital makes some progress. However, there is danger to start ruling without taking into account any forms of bourgeois democracy, to implement bourgeois dictatorship directly. What kind of dictatorship? Terroristic dictatorship that means killing people, terrifying them. If you have presented a speech against me, then you should be killed. No discussions are needed then if it is fascism. If this is fascism, issues are then settled like that.

So, if we look at it this way then all speculations about Russian fascism drop away. What do some people want to thrust upon us? The country that vanquished fascism, is pigeonholed by some individuals as “Russian fascist”. Shvydkoy made a speech saying there is nothing so bad as Russian fascism. Just look at how low some people may drop themselves…

So, fascism is open terroristic dictatorship of financial capital. Open. Now if we take a look at the modern world, is there a country that has fascist form of bourgeois dictatorship in its inner policy? Can anyone tell me?

(Voice from the audience):

America as it is today…

Popov:

No, that is wrong. If people there find that you need to be seated into electric chair, you will be taken to the court according to law. There will be people who will condemn you to death according to legislation. People have not cancelled death penalty in America, like we did.  Our country prefers to keep its corrupt officials, bribetakers, serial killers etc. alive. In America they don’t care to keep them alive. When everything is decided, the death penalty is implemented according to rules of particular State. Some State solves this task using electric chair, some State uses three injections. First injection is to calm you down, second one is to make you feel good, the third one puts your life to an end. Everything goes according to legislation, no impromptus. Any kind of force actions that are not required by law, are reprobated there. All this is quite democratic.

What is democracy? Democracy is a form of dictatorship. What did you expect? Some people might ask, “Why, what democracy is in dictatorship”? It is democracy as it is!  When was the best democracy in the world? It was under slavery formation. Right? When someone sees elements of slavery somewhere, he should not be surprised. Americans wanted to install the best democracy. What was necessary for that? They needed to bring slaves. First they destroyed aboriginal population, almost all of them. They left only several individuals just to demonstrate that Indians used to live there. Then they brought slaves. 1.5 million slaves died during transportation, they suffocated in ship holds. Then there burst out the fight against slavery. One group of democrats who had kept slaves, this group fought against other democrats who did not keep slaves. North democrats, the Republican party that due to unknown reasons is nowadays is considered to be worse than Democratic party, they stood up against slavery.

But true democrats were for slavery. True Democrats lost the war. Republicans won it. Now Democrats have come to power again. They are not going to install slavery in their own country. They are watching other countries. Their country is large and great. They have got many aircraft carriers, they have got high labor efficiency. People say that they are just printing dollars. Well, come and make the same labor efficiency like in America, make up the same economical level and then you may print out roubles as well. The essence is that they are large and industrially well-developed country. They need to suppress all other countries. That is imperialism when it is constant fight for division and re-division of the world. The division has already been made, then there should be re-division. If we need to divide everything anew and someone tries to demonstrate his independence, then we need to think about it.

This independent person reminds them that he was elected according to rules of democracy.

Well, America says, your democracy is not real. We are going to bring you real democracy on the wings of our war planes.

First we are going to hang you. All your institutions of bourgeois democracy will be dismantled. We will elect new administration for you. Did they elect new administration in Iraq? Everything goes well there now? Did they hang Hussein? Hussein is neither a friend nor a brother to us. Hussein was not a communist. Hussein is a bourgeois politician. But Iraq is, by the way a historically important place with culture of highest rank. Americans just came, bombed them, blew them up, hung their president. Why did they bomb them? Under the pretext of looking for weapons of mass destruction.

They searched for it, hung the president and then said, that it wasn’t there. Well, next time they will look for it in Syria. They need to find it there now. Yugoslavia used to be a big country with multi nations living in it. This country fought against fascism on its own. They helped our troops and they also fought on their own and we cooperated with them. What did Americans do to Yugoslavia? They sent their missiles, they attacked the Embassy of China in Yugoslavia so that China should keep silent. Then American pilot started bombing a civil train… With an active help of this Western friend the state of Yugoslavia was destroyed. What kind of state was it? Bourgeois state. It did not have anything in common with the Soviet Union or with socialism. This used to be bourgeois country. This country of bourgeois democracy was destroyed, split into many tiny states. Each of them has its own bourgeois democracy. Any of them can’t say a word against the USA now. There is no one to make independent decisions there. Who’s next? Iraq and Libya. Our not much respected former president Medvedyev decided to support the resolution of NATO. He acted in compliance with his bourgeois democracy rights.

He decided to support that resolution. What happened to Libya? Dismantling of legitimate power institutions. Those institutions were democratic. But this is true fascism. But Medvedyev did not know the determination of fascism. More than that, he did not know the determination made by Dimitrov. Medvedyed is led into hysterics just by mentioning of the necessity of creating the Ministry of Issues of Nationalities. Stalin used to be People’s National Commissar.  Stalin was also Head of Inspection of Workers and Rural Workers. Also Stalin was General Secretary. So why then should there be no Ministry of Nationalities’ Issues? We do not have Nationalities Issues? Isn’t Russia  a multi-national country?

Medvedyev supported the resolution of NATO. What started then? Who attacked Libya? The most civilized countries did. The people who like to teach us a lesson and mention that they are the most civilized countries. These most civilized countries came and attacked Libya. Did France participate in that? Yes, it did. Did Italy participate in that? Yes, it did. Germany took part in it as well as Canada… All of them came to bomb. They pursued people from war planes! They shot them, bombed them and killed them. What is that? Is that terrorism or not? This is terrorism. Is it terroristic dictatorship? Yes, it is. Whose dictatorship? Of financal capital. Whose capital? Of America and of Western Europe. This is terroristic dictatorship. Is it long-term or short-term? Why should it be short-term? They bombed everything there, now Russia does not have any orders. They made the re-devision. Now all countries are oriented at America and Western Europe. Now new government may be elected there. What is there in Libya, where the government was totally destroyed? Their new bourgeois government has not settled yet. Other countries try to mold it to cover their dictatorship over Libya. The best method of bourgeois democracy is to cover everything with elections, votes.  Then they can say that Libya people elected for themselves.

People who were left to live there, who weren’t killed elected new democratic government.  Then the “helpers” tried to repeat this scheme in Syria. It is obvious. In previous times such operations were made by CIA. Now it is done another way. They have got a special institution. Mackenzie is the head of it. It is a democratic institution. This institution is richly financed. It sends this financing to various channels. We know what channels these are. It is done via non-commercial organizations. We know that millions of dollars were legally sent to Ukraine. Each year. All these channels support elements that can be used as insurgent fighters. These fighters are said to fight against local dictators. What kind of people are fighting in Ukraine? They are Bandera supporters, Bandera was a serving man of Hitler in Ukraine. Of course, many people joined them who just were deceived. There are always many people of the kind. There are many such people among intellectuals, too. Besides intellectuals, there stood up true fascists. And they are well-organized.

What does this well-organized power do? It gradually destroys institutions of bourgeois democracy. In Ukraine it does not let functioning of the Ministry of Law. It occupied the building of the Ministry. It occupied the building of Rada in Kiev. And so on. It occupies administrative buildings in other regions. What’s that? That is breakup, destroying of institutions of bourgeois democracy. What does the breakup of institutions of bourgeois democracy mean? That is open terroristic dictatorship. They openly set up terrorism in Ukraine. It was done with support of American and Western European financing capital. How should we identify that phenomenon? We can say that there is no fascism inside the USA or Germany yet. It used to be there, but now it is not now. But they do it outside. However, external politics is the extension of inner politics. Their external politics is dictatorship of financing capital. The dictatorship of financing capital is aimed at particular countries, not towards all countries. They do that towards those whom they hold at gunpoint. We can tell these countries, it is Syria, it is Russia. There is a special map hanging in McCain’s institute. Make some investigations about this institute. There is a map there. Some places are coloured blue, other countries are  coloured green. Those countries that are in the wake of the USA, they are highlighted with good colour. Russia and China are still highlighted with wrong colour. The USA would like to change it.

What’s the difference between events on Bolotnaya square and events in Ukraine? Only in scale and in the basis. There was no such financial basis as it was in Ukraine. Still, there is a coordinative institution created in Russia. But it is not justified to send them arms yet. Money could be sent but money channels are blocked now. Money can’t come freely. Also  buildings can’t be raided.  However, attempts have already been made to organize smouldering points of neglected crisis. Some people tried to surround administrative buildings with white ribbons. Yes, it was quite similar. But here in Russia the representatives of Russian capital faced the truth that the representatives of Russian government will be treated the same as the president of Iraq. I think, they have got such understanding. After that investments into war industry have increased. Some institutions were supported, they started fighting against the right adherers. If our bourgeoisie is fighting against fascism, then that goes together with our interests. We support the fight against fascism. But we do not support the bourgeoisie. Because the interests of the working class are opposite to those of bourgeoisie.

Our interests are contrary but when a bourgeois representative says that two times two makes four, then I should not come up and say it makes seven. If a deed corresponds to the truth and, as in the present case, it corresponds to the interests of the class which we are representing and defending, then we should support such deeds. Our comrades in Ukraine do not understand that. We are reading their Ukrainian newspapers out of those that are considered to be communist papers. Unfortunately, they are writing about working-class movement in Brazil, in Denmark, in Sweden, in Russia… Anywhere except Ukraine. I mean the newspaper, for example, “Working Class”. It is issued by the Working Party of Ukraine. Not to cast any doubt, they put a note in brackets that it is Marxist and Leninist newspaper. You will read everything about the working-class movement anywhere but for Ukraine. Also, they stay indifferent to what is going on. If fascism is approaching, should one stand up against it? Yes, of course he should!  But one should understand that now new efforts are made to establish fascist dictatorship in the 21st century. But this dictatorship is going to be for countries that are considered to be outcasts. Is everything ready for Iran? Yes, everything is ready. Same for North Korea. But North Korea does not tolerate that. They say that they are going to use their atomic bombs and rockets. They are fighters. So, summing up, what should we say?

We should say that if we are guided by the determination given by Dimitrov, the determination that is fixed by the decision of the 7th Congress of the Communist International Board, that fascism is open terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionist  elements of financing capital, then we are able to tell bourgeois democracy of today from fascism. We are able then to direct our force to joint fight against bourgeoisie as it is and, primarily, against fascism. Because setback in fight against fascism would entail dramatic degradation of the working-class status and massive declination of conditions of fighting for socialism. Bourgeois democracy means improvement of conditions. That’s why we are concerned what it going to be, bourgeois democracy or fascism.

A question from the audience:

Social democracy united the Soviet government so that it urged its adherers not to ally with European social democracy. Soviet government considered European democracy to be no better than fascism. And that was one of reasons why such utter fascism came to power in Germany.

Popov:

I didn’t understand, how the Soviet government is related to that.

Question:

You told that we need to fight against fascism.

Popov:

Surely.

Question:

European social democracy proposed to communists to fight against fascism. But Soviet government was against this union.

Popov:

I understand now. The matter is that your education is different to mine. I know that communists proposed to social democrats to come together to fight against fascism. But social democrats did not agree to that. That is what I know. But you somehow know quite the opposite.

Well, it seems like we have to go deep into the subject and check.  According to my information, social democrats took the position of placation of the aggressor and they turned a blind eye to him. The ruling circles of European countries surrendered their countries and their democracy and they did not stand up against fascism. This concerns not only social democrats . It concerns bourgeoisie of these countries and their adherers. Social democrats are adherers of bourgeois democracy. In this aspect we should not separate social democrats from bourgeoisie. Such were  bourgeois parties since 1914. European bourgeoisie did not fight against fascism. Only English and American bourgeoisie fought against fascism. In Europe there were just some elements of such bourgeoisie. Admiral de Gaulle fought against it. We all know him. Did the government of France fight against fascism? No, they just surrendered France to fascists and that’s all. Was this country a small one? Or was it poorly developed or powerless? It is not Belgium or Holland. That’s why I think that the situation is totally different here. Social democrats, as well as other bourgeois parties, did not say anything to the offer to create the united front. The English and the American kept silent, too, until the Japanese attacked Americans and Germans attacked the English. The English and Americans were forced to unite with us. Who forced them? Fascists did. When fascists attacked them, then they ran up to us and offered to unite. They did not want to join us before that. Therefore, we will not get any consistent  allies in our fight against fascism. We know how our allies lingered with opening of the second front. They also wanted to get lend-lease money from us. Stalin told them that we paid with our blood for the means that they had sent to us. I think, it will be correct to say that communists are anti-fascists. But anti-fascists are not all communists. There are very few communists among anti-fascists. Anti-fascists are against fascism. That’s all. But if they fight only against fascism, then we agree with them only in that point. We are not united with them, we join them only in that particular issue. There is no way of uniting with social democrats into one party. We are together with them only in certain activities. It’s better not to create any institutions. We are acting together and we fight together in this direction. Our standpoint is consistent, it stems from the interests of working class. Their standpoint is temporary. They are afraid of fascism and therefore they are against it. Sometimes they think like this: “Maybe we will be better when fascists come”. Solzhenitzyn wrote that “We used to have a big-moustache portrait. Then we will just have a little-moustache portrait, that’s all the difference”. Yes, he said so.

Galko:

Are there any more questions?

Question:

How is fascism related to such an ugly phenomenon as nationalism?

We have already given the determination of fascism. The extensive determination by  Dimitrov says of dictatorship of reactionist elements, the elements that are the most reactionist and chauvinistic. This determination encompasses the traits that can develop. For example, if there is an issue of nationalism in some country, it can evolve into true racism. What is chauvinism? Chauvinism is the extreme form of nationalism. Dimitrov defined fascism as dictatorship of the most reactionist, the most chauvinistic elements. This is the extensive definition of fascism. But I didn’t make a point of that due to one simple reason. If we take countries which had fascism, we will see that the most chauvinistic form of dictatorship was in Germany. If we take Italy, the Italian fascism, did they have nationalism? No. The issue of chauvinism can’t be applied to Italy. Who did they direct their chauvinism upon? Germans of Russians? No, chauvinism did not exist there. Let’s take Spain, for instance. Was chauvinism applied there to anyone? No. What about Portugal? No. Greece used to be under the regime of black colonels. “Хриси Авги” party of Greece has got some elements of nationalism, therefore some people say  it is fascism. Yes, it belongs to constitution of fascism. It is not determination of fascism, it is its constitution.

Hegel puts two categories together, category of determination and that of constitution. That means that the determination can evolve into constitution. If some country has got some national problems, they can evolve not only into nationalism but into regular racism. Was there nationalism in Chile, for example?

A voice from the audience:

Racism can exist together with bourgeois democracy.

Popov:

Yes, it can exist together with bourgeois democracy. The most vivid example of it was in Germany. Therefore we call German fascism as Nazism. Now this word is reduced just to Nazi. Nazis are not nationalists. Being a nationalist does not necessarily mean being a fascist. If it is bourgeois democracy, there will be bourgeois nationalism. And there will inevitably be bourgeois internationalism. There also exists proletarian internationalism. There are three categories. What is proletarian internationalism about? Proletarians of all countries should unite to create the universal Soviet republic and to provide for global victory of proletariat. What is bourgeois nationalism about? This kind of nationalism is national egotism. Everything is good that is good for our national bourgeoisie. It is bad for bourgeoisie of other countries. In this sense American nationalism is extremely vivid, it is chauvinistic. They call some countries “outcasts”.  They give such name not to one individual of some nationality. They call whole countries to be outcasts. These outcasts should be banished from the world. We just have not had enough time to do that yet. Everything is ready to destroy these outcasts. This is the extreme form of chauvinism, i.e. nationalism. Whose chauvinism is that? American. They are masters of the world.

If we consider the question of cosmopolitism. Cosmopolitism is bourgeois internationalism. You have got capital and we have got capital, we will always be able to settle things together. We all know that representatives of Jewish capital made agreements with representatives of German capital, they mutually supported each other and co-existed perfectly. At the same time, poor Jewish people were subjected to genocide. This is what bourgeois cosmopolitism is like. This is not discussed currently. Such discussions are not led nowadays. Is cosmopolitism currently present?  Is bourgeois internationalism currently present? They think themselves to be brothers. They live here and there. This is only temporary sojourn of theirs. Tomorrow they will pack their bags and leave. Where for? Some of them leave for England, others for Belgium, someone for Crete island, other for Cyprus. Some live there and come here only for a short visit. Everyone can see that. We have got bourgeois internationalism, too. Therefore not only bourgeois nationalism is flourishing but also bourgeois cosmopolitism.

Let’s call it by their names. But this isn’t fascism. We should not mix them up. Of course, fascism can be related to nationalism.

A question (from Denisov)

  • Well, I’d like to ask if we can call Putin’s tyranny to be semi-fascist or maybe Putin and his gang are pro-fascists who are masking themselves under cover of patriots and government servants? Or are they still close to fascists because Putin’s policy as well as his gang’s policy is directed against the working class. The economical essence of their policy is pro-fascist.
  • Popov:
  • Dear comrade Denisov, if we had Putin’s tyranny here, you would have been taken out and shot right away. This is the first. Second, I’d like to note that you are not formulating exactly the actual state of matters. Putin’s policy and bourgeois policy on the whole is aimed at realizing the interests of bourgeoisie. Moreover, I would have been happy to state that they fulfill the interests of Russian bourgeoisie. But, unfortunately, I can’t say that. Because I observe great care of foreign bourgeoisie and much less care of the national bourgeoisie in Putin’s and the general governmental deeds. To take such care, money of the government, which comes from our pockets as well, is used to pay for foreign products so that you would not get working places and so that you would not achieve well-being.

We can observe that Putin’s position is that of a person who tries to keep balance between the national bourgeoisie that tries to create something here and comprador bourgeoisie that is said to be disapproved but it still has vast possibilities to imp-lement its interests.  Therefore, one can find there such persons who  may support some positive action and disapprove another one. All this is done according to the law. Laws are created and remade. In order to remake them, wages of men of law have been increased. From 150 thousand to 250 thousand roubles.   (Answer to a comment from the audience).  Those are additional bonuses. I am just quoting the data given in “Rossiyskaya gazeta” journal. Our government seems to have hard times now due to inundations in Khabarov region, so their wages have been increased up to 580 thousand roubles to each one per month. If you were paid such wages, what would you do with such amount of money? Ultimately, when I hear such questions as this one, it seems to me that some people think that fascism is bad and bourgeois democracy is good.

  • Denisov:
  • This is all the same thing.

Popov:

No, it is not the same thing. There is a big difference. First, the capital punishment does not exist any longer in our country. You will not be shot. A criminal can only be shot during his detention. I want to underline, do not show bourgeois democracy as sweet existence. Bourgeois democracy is a form of bourgeois dictatorship. What you said here is right. Bourgeois democracy means tyranny for the working-class. What did you expect? Did you expect that bourgeois democracy will come and give you presents? No, it won’t. It will just hit you. That is what it does. So that you could study what bourgeois dictatorship means.

Galko:

Last question, please, and we pass on to speeches.

Question:

Please would you explain the following. We have come to the conclusion that at present there is no fascism in our country. We just have separate manifestations of downright fascism. My question is if dialectical term of becoming can be applied to this phenomenon.

Popov:

  • Yes, I want to say that all these “marches of millions” that have standard name, they are used the same way for all countries. In Ukraine, too. All these so-called “colour revolutions”, they are neither revolutions nor counterrevolutions. Do all of us understand that revolution means transfer to more progressive social formation? Counterrevolution in present society can only mean transfer to feudalism. Right? What are these colour revolutions then? They are fascist takeovers!

A voice from the audience: they are military coups.

Popov:

Not just coups. There can be military coups. And there can be fascist takeovers. This is what is going on in Ukraine and was attempted to do in our country. They have not given up hope to achieve it yet. You just listen to the “Ekho Moskvy” radio station, they were organizers of that. After there was a case of shoolboy’s shooting, listeners of “Ekho Moskvy” were asked what needs to be done. A listener who was first to call, said that “Ekho Moskvy” should be closed down. Then there will be less shooting.

Denisov:

The boy who was shooting had a grandfather who was a general in FSB.

Popov:

Yes, things happen. Gorbatchev, too, used to be a president of our country.

We have elements of becoming of fascism. It was from the side of those who are now suffering in prisons because they got arrested.

A voice from the audience:

Are we having fascism of the 21st century?

Popov:

This isn’t fascism of the 21st century. Fascism is just as it is. The century in which it occurs depends just on the date. Some people say, “You used to have socialism of the 20th century”. They just overslept it then. Our people managed to do it in the 20th century, other people didn’t. That’s why there does not exist any particular socialism or fascism that belong to particular century.

A voice from the audience:

  • But there can be no fascism in the 15th

A reply from the hall:

  • He has explained that industrial capitalism… (polyphony of voices, words can’t be heard)

Question:

When dealing with the topic of fascism you gave us examples. Modern ones, those that concern our country as well as…

Popov:

Yes, I did.

Question:

Monopolies pursue the policy of fascism for export. They export fascism to other countries, for example, to Libya, to Syria… Russia, being a capitalist country, can also pursue such policy as the USA does. Can you give examples of such policy?

Popov:

Imperialistic policy?

Question:

Examples of fascist policy of Russia on the external level… If other countries do it, then Russia also can do it. It can defend the interests of monopolies. By doing it, Russia can also effectively solve its problems.

Popov:

Yes, it can. But as soon as we see it, we’ll have to admit that it is an element of fascism. Maybe I have not explained it clearly enough that we do not have financial capital. Because we do not have bank capital. We do not have it in its extensive form. Therefore we do not have this merging of bank capital and industrial capital. Thus we do not have basis for fascism. Still do not have, praise god. The availability of financial capital makes progress. As soon as it appears, such essays will be made. So we should be ready for that. You are right that you are getting ready beforehand. We should not overlook it. But we can’t speak of such things right now. Just now we can see that our country has been chosen as another victim of foreign financial capital. Our country is still too hard for their teeth. Therefore they decided to stab it in the back, to hit by Ukraine. This thrust went home. If fascism reigns in Ukraine, it will be a terrible loss to us. The position of our country and the prospects of our revolution will considerably drift away. That is what we need to think of.

Galko:

Who wants to make a speech? Ivan Mikhailovitch, please.

Gerasimov:

Generally speaking, if we take classical nationalism… Here is Simon Bolivar, Jiuseppe Garibaldi. Modern nationalistic parties: Indian National Congress, African National Congress, Working Party of Kurdistan – they are said to be making advances at Marxism. But it is surely not a Marxist party as it is fighting for national liberation of Kurdish people. They are not flourishing their nationalism. When it comes to talking about modern nationalists, people mean some other forces. Mikhail Vasilyevitch told us there was no nationalism in Italy, fascism there was not accompanied by nationalism. Was there fascism in Spain? If fascism is the creation of financial capital, then was there financial capital in Spain? Was their financial capital capable of generating their own particular fascism? In Chili then it was no way for emanation of financial capital of Chili because it was practically absent there. The same is true for Portugal and for Italy, too. In Germany fascism was accompanied by nationalism.

Nationalism implies that a person makes a big point of his nationality. German fascism was defeated. It was done quite cruelly, we should say. Nowadays it is not often said but during bombings of Hamburg there died more than 100000 people. According to different estimations, during bombings of Dresden there died from 40000 to 250000 people. Then Americans came to Germany. German Nazis who should have been burning with hatred and vengeance, instead of that they crawled on their knees to Americans who bombed away and killed, so to speak, their wives, sisters, children. They joined them to serve them in their anti-communist activities. Bandera followers in Ukraine. Hitler invaded Ukraine having a specific goal. There was a plan named “Ost”. We will not run into details now… Future of Ukrainian people was quite gloomy according to that plan. What are these Ukrainian nationalists saying now? They are saying that they fought against Germans, too. There was an excellent film named “Orange kids of the Third Reich”. This film was shot in 2010. It was directly told in it that queries  had been made to German archives as to the losses of Wehrmacht and SS troops made by Ukrainian nationalists.

The response sent by German archives said such data could not be found. That means that Ukrainian nationalists were closest allies to those who were destroying the Ukrainian nation. So, to proceed. There still were nationalists in Europe who fought against Hitler: Serbian partisans and Polish Army Krayowa.  Other nationalists were not like that.

For example, nationalists of Norway were enslaved by Hitler and they had to catch and kill runaway Soviet prisoners of war. A regular nationalist from Norway got enlisted as volunteer to SS division named “Viking” and died in the Eastern fighting line. At present the so-called Russian Nationalists have joined Ukrainian nationalists on Maidan. Those queer guys from “Russian Legion” are together with their Ukrainian brothers claiming no corruption in Russia and so on. But are they Russian nationalists? Do they stand for interests of Russian nation? What about those Russian nationalists who participated in so-called “Russian Marches” under guidance of Potnik in Bolotnaya square? Are they just friends of Russian nation?

Nowadays there exists a kind of movement in Siberia for separation of Siberia from Russia. Sure thing, money from certain circles go in there. These financial circles and this financial capital that finaces such events, it is surely chauvinistic. Governing circles in America are severely chauvinistic. They brought Negroes to make them slaves, they had been hanging Negroes up to the 50s of the previous century. There was segregation when there were separate drinking fountains for the white and for the black, buses were divided into two parts, for the white and for the black. Americans destroyed Indians with much atrocity. They killed them in huge amounts. After the second world war they examined outmost cruelty in Korea. They burnt villages and towns with napalm. Same in Vietnam. They are true chauvinists. And the so-called Russian nationalists are just slavey of the chauvinists. General Vlasov was an ally of Nazis. His followers are singing “Glory to heroes of Vlasov army”, “Raise up you heroes of Vlasov army”. In my opinion, they are not related to Russian people and to classical Russian nationalism. The same concerns Indian National Congress and Indian people.

Begizov:

I’d like to argue a little with Ivan Mikhailovitch. His speech  implies that nationalism is a positive phenomenon. First, it is not positive. We need to discern the nationalism of suppressed nation, for example, Polish nationalism in relation to the Russian empire. Is Russian nationalism a progressive phenomenon? Russia, after Mongol-Tatar Yoke, was independent land. There were attempts to vanquish it but they were in vain. We cannot speak about progressive role of, for example, Russian nationalists or German nationalists or any other… You did not make it clear that bourgeois nationalism defends bourgeois interests. There can’t be any nationalism that should defend the interests of working class. Only when a nation is fighting for its independence, for example, in colonial Africa, then it can be progressive until this nation acquires its independence. In all other cases nationalism means evil for working class. It is great evil. Those Russian nationalists are true ones, they are for destroying Jews, making pogroms. Their goal is to make Russia the same as America, so that Russia should lead similar policy. Russian nationalists think that we should bring our arms to some other land and we should kill other people there. These nationalists are the same as those who came to Russia in Hitler’s troops. Such are Russian nationalists of today. We need to understand that well not to create illusions.

(A man from the audience)

  • I’d like to thank Mikhail Vasilyevitch. This lecture was quite interesting. One can agree with the majority of the points except one. The role of financial capital is enhancing. The danger of fascism is getting bigger. The temptation to go to such measures increases as contradictions are getting bigger. Due to this reason we have started our first session with discussion of this topic. This is quite right.

The next speaker:

  • The second thing that I’d like to point out is that the determination of fascism should comprise its basic characteristics. You have quoted the determination given by Communist International Board, haven’t you? This does not mean that we should reject other parameters and characteristic traits of fascism. Not at all. More than that, we can deduct any further parameter of fascism out of the main determination. Just see it. Open terroristic dictatorship of financial capital, of its most reactionist elements – when is it most tempting to apply it? During periods of crisis, in order to keep the system. To keep it safe from resistance and conscious actions of working class and of socialist revolution.

Therefore anti-communism makes part and parcel of fascism. Due to that a block against the Communist International Board was organized before the second world war. Then it increased its forces. Anti-communism, destroying of communism was made by Hitler as the goal of his whole life, this was expressed in his book “Mein Kampf” when it was still far from his coming into power. The main merit of the Communist International Board, I think, was the foreseeing of fascism, making determination of fascism and the organization of fight against fascism. The tactics of people’s front and actions of communists together with the USSR and All-Union Communist Party make the essence of all the events.

Three million of lives of communists, five million lives of members of Communist Youth League were given to achieve the victory. The main merit of the Communist International Board was the defeat of fascism of the 20th century, rout of Nazism etc. All these things are entailed by the main determination. Same as to our discussion about chauvinism that used to be characteristic for those times, how is it expressed today? It is expressed in the ideology of over-powering. Today the imperialism enters the whole countries into category of outcasts. They call Syria, Iran, North Korea outcasts and the axe of evil… One other moment that is to be deducted of the main determination. We did not have enough time to discuss it properly.

Maybe we will be able to discuss it at the next session… We need to discern between fascism as ideology and fascism as politics that is carried out.  Now, as to all those ideology manifestations. They can also be named as elements of fascism. They are manifested in Russia as well. I agree with Ivan Mikhaylovitch in this point. They are expressed as anti-communist manifestations. Sheer anti-communism is now accepted as ruling principle of present governmental policy. Anti-Soviet manifestations, changing of historical names, calendar events. The flag of today’s Russia is the flag of forces that were fighting on Hitler’s side. What’s that? That is ideological manifestation of elements of fascism. If we accept that financial capital becomes more and more international and Russian capitalists are closely connected to it – huge sums of their money are kept not in Russian credit organizations but in big imperialistic structures, then we can wait for manifestations of open terror accompanied by rejecting of all democratic norms, this will come from our national Russian capitalists and government.

Therefore such danger is present here. But I want to highlight that this danger comes not from those imbeciles who are being showed off as danger of Russian fascism, those football fans or pig-headed skinheads. This topic is quite up-to-date and it is difficult. We asked the Foundation of Working-Class Academy and namely Mikhail Vasilyevitch to lead this discussion because our initiatives to make such talks on international level have found support but from the other hand we encountered certain resistance. This resistance came from the side of parties that take opportunistic position, often of euro-left kind. Those parties get fit into the system of imperialism in one or another way.

And when they get cornered with the determination of fascism…We tell them, “Just when you accept the determination made by the Communist International Board, then it is completely different level of discussion”. This is what encounters the resistance. When it comes to practical analysis, how is that manifested? The Communist party of France that used to be glorious has now supported a would-be socialist Ollande whose most prominent electoral statement was legalization of homosexual marriages. He supports aggression against Syria with much enthusiasm. Using the determination we can deduct that it is fascist policy. Thus the French are now in dubious position. Many other questions result from here, the questions of practical importance.

The alliances with petty bourgeois parties and layers and so on. Therefore I would like to express my gratitude to the Foundation  of Working-Class Academy and to Mikhail Vasilyevitch for this lecture. I invite all that are present to follow the further discussion of this topic. It is sure to be continued. An article is being prepared for the “International Communist Revue” journal and it is not an easy situation inside the editing committee. There is serious contention of arguments and tendencies there. So further discussion will surely follow up. We should observe it from the scientific point of view. And we need to organize the struggle. I think we are going to ask the Foundation of Working-Class Academy to plan another lecture on this theme after some time. Thank you.

A speech from the audience:

First of all, I support the proposal made by Victor Arkadyevitch. Mikhail Vasilyevitch explained us the position of fascism most cleverly and in much detail. As well as the position of fascism in our country. I think that is due to the prolonged and deep studying of the “Science of Logic” by Hegel. This is the main tool at present. It was not incidental that one of our newspapers printed the article by A.S. Kazyonnov “Not to Be at the Tail-End of the Ultra-Right”. This article was designed to warn against such events as are happening in Ukraine at present. Imagine what could happen if those individuals who protested in Bolotnaya Square, if they would have turned up in Ukraine where people are being bombed etc. This article was a cautionary statement  because this situation was pending. Especially in Ukraine where the government is feeble. From one hand, it is good that they have feeble government, from the other hand we don’t want fascism there. Yes, Yanukovitch is our enemy. He belongs to the opposite class. But fascism is not to be flourishing there. And, of course, I would like to note that such countries as England, France, the USA, they fought in the Second World War, too. But they fought against fascism not because they wanted to render help to our country. They did not wish to let open bourgeois terroristic dictatorship rule. Stalin who was aware of the state of affairs, he used the help of the opposite class, the bourgeoisie although he was a true communist. We are all grateful to Mikhail Vasilyevitch for such an excellent lecture. I think this topic will be continued during our sessions. Thank you.

Galko:

The closing speech, please.

Popov:

My closing speech will be a short one. I would like to thank all of you who came and participated in the discussion, who posed questions. I would like to recapitulate. All the present participants have quite understood the determination of fascism and they will use it in their practice, in their propagandist and ideological work. I think that many of those people who are going to watch this video will do the same. Because the Foundation of Working-Class Academy should give knowledge that can be used in practical political work. I think our session is fruitful in that aspect. I thank all of you.

ru_RUРусский
lvLatviešu valoda ru_RUРусский