This was a very advanced conversation. My very good comrade, Mike Ely says that communists have not yet developed a strong working analysis of fascism. As has been said on this podcast, Dimitrov's analysis is not correct. I think there are problems with the analysis of George Jackson. Some Trotskyists seem to define fascism strictly within 1920s and 1930s categories, so that there cannot be a reemergence of fascistic movements and regimes that take on unique characteristics in new contexts. For the latter, neither Pinochet, nor Putin, nor Trumpism can possibly be fascists or forms of fascism. This is an incorrect method of analysis as well. That leaves it to us to develop an understanding of fascism and the strategies to resist to it. I hope conversations like this continue on this platform and inform resistance to the far right that breaks from the politics of the possible, and into the imaginary of revolution and communist movement.
This was a very advanced conversation. My very good comrade, Mike Ely says that communists have not yet developed a strong working analysis of fascism. As has been said on this podcast, Dimitrov's analysis is not correct. I think there are problems with the analysis of George Jackson. Some Trotskyists seem to define fascism strictly within 1920s and 1930s categories, so that there cannot be a reemergence of fascistic movements and regimes that take on unique characteristics in new contexts. For the latter, neither Pinochet, nor Putin, nor Trumpism can possibly be fascists or forms of fascism. This is an incorrect method of analysis as well. That leaves it to us to develop an understanding of fascism and the strategies to resist to it. I hope conversations like this continue on this platform and inform resistance to the far right that breaks from the politics of the possible, and into the imaginary of revolution and communist movement.