Or
For all Amerikkkan and €uropean liberals, "leftists" and fascists.
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 143
- Joined
- 2 wk. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 143
- Joined
- 2 wk. ago
I'm not debating you. I know I'm right I'm simply laying it out for third parties. Id recommend you read some theory and try break away from your liberal view of the world.
You’re still confusing symbolic attachment with structural dependence. No one is denying that Amerikkkan fascists revere Trump currently or that his personality functions as a rallying symbol. Marxism does not deny charisma exists. What it rejects is the idea that charisma is the source or sustainer of fascism.
History already tested this theory repeatedly, and it failed every time. Mussolini was captured and executed. Italian fascism did not vanish; it persisted through institutions, parties, police, and capital. Hitler died, his death alone changed nothing. Franco died peacefully in office, and Spanish fascism remained embedded in courts, police, and the military for decades afterward. Pinochet lost power and later died; Pinochetism dominated Chile for forty years and is again making a return.
If fascism were sustained by individual personalities, these movements would have collapsed the moment their leaders disappeared. They did not. They survived because the leader was never the foundation, the material conditions were. What you’re describing as a “nucleus” is not an origin point. It’s a personification. Fascism always condenses itself into figures because mass alienation seeks symbols. That does not mean the symbol generates the movement. The movement generates the symbol.
Trump did not create or sustain Amerikkkan fascism. He was selected by it. The same contradictions: capitalist crisis, settler panic, institutional decay, imperial decline would simply elevate another figure if he vanished. Often that replacement is more disciplined, less chaotic, and more dangerous.
This is exactly why Marxism rejects great-man theory as liberal idealism. Individuals can accelerate or concentrate tendencies, but they cannot produce or sustain them. Capital replaces leaders easily. Only organization, institutions, and class power endure.
Fascists loving a leader does not make that leader the source of fascism. History has already buried that argument along with every fascist who supposedly held their movement together.
Greatman theory is reactionary
The substitution of the individual for the class, of the hero for the masses, is a profoundly reactionary idea. -Lenin
The cause of social phenomena must not be sought in the minds of men, but in the conditions of material life of society. -Stalin
It's a shame so many of these people made it home from their pillaging to have this many people be able to post crackkker shit like this.
The pit hungers for more fascists
The same as a standard ICE piggie I'd assume.
Amerikkkan thingss happening Amerikkkanly in Amerikkka.
The one true western orthodox maoist alex kkkarp and his plan on reviving the peasantry in the imperial core as they are the most revolutionary class capable of protracted peoples war. I salute you comrade kkkarp!
That still doesn’t contradict the critique. In Japan, right-wing religious and nationalist organizations embedding themselves in the LDP is a structural feature of the postwar political system, not an aberration caused by Abe or the Moonies alone. His killing forced temporary public distancing from one cult because it became politically toxic, but it did not dismantle the broader ecosystem of religious-right groups, nationalist NGOs, corporate donors, and political families that mutually reinforce each other inside Japanese bourgeois politics. The LDP didn’t lose power, the funding structures didn’t change, and no permanent mechanism was created to prevent the same relationships from reappearing under different names. So yes, one cult was punished and one figure was removed, but the system that produces those connections in Japan remained untouched, which is exactly why the outcome was cathartic rather than transformative.
Fascism isn’t sustained by Trump’s personality but by institutions, capital, media, police, and the state itself. Remove the figurehead and the structure remains, often more radicalized and unified. History shows isolated violence doesn’t frighten the bourgeoisie, it gives them justification to repress, consolidate, and expand surveillance while destroying real movements. Power isn’t built through spectacle or revenge but through mass organization capable of surviving retaliation. Without that, you don’t weaken fascism, you strengthen it.
I'll be sure to put it to good use.
I’m not confusing insufficiency with futility, I’m pointing out that political struggle is not additive. Ten, a hundred, or a thousand uncoordinated individual actions do not accumulate into power. That’s the core issue. The problem with adventurism isn’t that it “does nothing,” it’s that it cannot scale, cannot consolidate, and cannot reproduce itself in a way that threatens bourgeois rule. Without organization, actions remain episodic and dissipate as quickly as they appear.
When you say individual acts can still have “impact,” that’s true in the loosest sense but impact is not the same thing as material change. Media attention, fear, symbolism, or moral satisfaction are not power. Power means durable leverage over social relations: control of labor, institutions, territory, and political direction. Individual violence outside organization produces none of this, which is why the system can absorb it indefinitely while continuing to function normally.
The idea that a “multiplicity of individual actions” can generate long-term positive change reproduces methodological individualism, not Marxism. Historical materialism doesn’t treat history as the sum of personal acts; it treats it as the motion of organized social forces. Classes make history only when they organize themselves as classes. Without that transformation, individuals remain politically atomized no matter how sincere or numerous they are.
Individual acts only become politically meaningful when they are absorbed into an organizational structure, when they are strategically directed, politically interpreted, materially supported, and connected to mass struggle. Outside of that context, they are uncontrollable and incoherent. This isn’t a moral claim; it’s exactly why Lenin, Chairman Mao, and every successful revolutionary movement drew a hard line against adventurism despite fully endorsing revolutionary violence itself.
You say individual acts can play a “supportive role,” but supportive to what, exactly? Which organization, under what line, with what coordination and accountability? Without answers to that, “support” becomes purely rhetorical. Support without strategy is indistinguishable from chaos, and chaos does not challenge a state whose primary advantage is organization and monopoly over force.
Historically, unorganized violence tends not to weaken bourgeois power but to strengthen it, justifying repression, expanding police powers, isolating militants from the masses, and allowing the state to reassert legitimacy. The bourgeois state is structurally advantaged in isolated confrontations; meeting it on that terrain without mass backing is self-defeating.
None of this is moral finger-wagging. Anger is justified. Violence is not inherently wrong. But catharsis is not revolution, and sincerity does not substitute for strategy. Revolutionary politics requires discipline precisely because the enemy is disciplined. This question isn’t abstract, it’s been settled repeatedly through blood, defeat, and experience. Every successful revolution subordinated individual action to organization; every movement that didn’t was crushed or neutralized. That’s not dismissing individual resistance it’s insisting that without organization, it cannot become power.
As I said tons of blood, sweat and ink have been poured out in answering this question and the answer is clear that adventurism is not positive.
Im the words of Lenin:
Revolutionary adventurism is the attempt to substitute one’s own desires for the objective conditions of the revolution.
Stalin:
Adventurism is the opposite side of opportunism. Both depart from Marxism, one by capitulation, the other by reckless assault.
and Chaiman Mao:
Without the masses, the most heroic actions become adventurism.
Because adventurism without organisation to back it up will never affect real change and is far more likely to simply act as a pressure valve for people to feel good about x, y or z bad "greatman" getting what he deserves.
It diverts from the systemic issues and struggle. For example if you killed Trump today all that would change is he'd become a martyr for the worst people while he is simply replaced by the system, since history is driven by systemic forces not individuals (materialism 101).
Are we really trying to relitigate adventurism in 2026 has enough blood sweat and ink not been spilled over this already.
It would still be neutral at best because more adventurism doesn't fix the core problem of adventurism?
Yeah in the short term but it's not like this guy killing him is going to affect any real long-term change. Adventurism is bad not because the action is wrong but because without any real organization it won't materially change anything at best and at worst acts as a cathartic pressure valve.
By any vote necessary - Libcolm X