Log in

No account? Create an account

Colonel Cassad (in English)

Bullhorn of Totalitarian Propaganda

Disclose Next Entry
On Terminology

Once more about the essence of the Kiev junta, which is something that some of us tend to deny.
Let's take the classic definition of fascism from Georgi Dimitrov, which was considered as the clearest definition of fascism from the point of view of the communist theory in the USSR.

"Fascism is an open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, the most imperialistic elements of the financial capital... Fascism is neither the government beyond classes nor the government of the petty bourgeois or the lumpen-proletariat over the financial capital. Fascism is the government of the financial capital itself. It is an organized massacre of the working class and the revolutionary slice of peasantry and intelligentsia. Fascism in its foreign policy is the most brutal kind of chauvinism, which cultivates zoological hatred against other peoples."

Among various definitions, this is the one that I consider to be the most correct and this is the one that I personally look at when considering the degree of fascism in a regime.

Let's look at correspondences between different features of the Kiev junta and this definition.

1. As we can see, the opponents of the Kiev junta are openly terrorized, which includes physical extermination, intimidation, hostage-taking, warrantless arrests, abductions, torture, and other elements of terror. A small group of people that got into power by the way of a coup authorizes and supervises this terror. This dictatorship is narrowly reactionary and represents the most radical forms of the Ukrainian integral nationalism and fascism, which, as declarations made by Yarosh imply, do not hide their imperialist tendencies, primarily at the expense of the capitalist Russian Federation.

2. Ukraine is governed by the representatives of major financial capital. Billionaires run against millionaires for president. The most probable candidates are Poroshenko the billionaire and Tymoshenko the millionaire. The billionaire Kolomoisky is a major power in Ukraine. Billionaires Taruta and Akhmetov were sent to pacify the rebellion in Donbass. In other words, we can see a clear implementation of the government by the representatives of major financial capital. Isn't Poroshenko a major financial capitalist? Isn't Kolomoisky a major financial capitalist? Therefore, denying the essence of the key beneficiaries of the coup suggests either flagrant misunderstanding of the essence of capitalism or the desire to preserve the battered templates.

3. The government is implemented through both oppression of the unconscious masses of the proletariat and open terror against the part of the working class, intelligentsia, and petty bourgeoisie that openly spoke out against the fascist dictatorship and the monopoly of major capital in the government. The major capital becomes the regime itself and the fascist squads become its instruments for building the fascist system of government, which is built on a terrorist dictatorship.

4. It is not very difficult to recognize that the Ukrainian fascism cultivates hatred towards other peoples in its domestic and foreign policy – primarily towards the Russians, and towards the Poles to a lesser degree. There is also considerable antisemitism. Russophobia is actually the cornerstone in the ideology of the Kiev regime, which openly advocates oppressing and exterminating people based on their ethnicity, culture, and language.

So, as we can see, the situation in Ukraine is a 100% match for Dimitrov's classical definition. This is exactly fascism, in its most classical and pure form.

P.S. The image in the header is the famous photo collage "Large Dimitrov, small Goering".

  • 1

question on definition of terms


I am trying to fully understand the definition of fascism, and am unsure of what exactly you mean by the term "Financial capital".

For example, it states, " Fascism is the government of the financial capital itself." Can you please explain the meaning of "financial capital" as it is used here?


Re: question on definition of terms

Wikipedia gives a decent definition:

Financial capital is any economic resource measured in terms of money used by entrepreneurs and businesses to buy what they need to make their products or to provide their services to the sector of the economy upon which their operation is based, i.e. retail, corporate, investment banking, etc.

The definition is given in the Marxist framework, where the identity of classes derives from their relation to the means of production. Thus, when it says "Fascism is the government of the financial capital itself." it means the government by, for, and in the interest of the financial capitalists, where the traditional attributes of democratic governance such as representation and majority rule are either nonexistent or exist purely for decoration.

Re: question on definition of terms

Thank you for the clarification.

It is interesting to me that there seems to be no generally agreed upon definition of fascism that appears in Western dictionaries these days. Fascism seems to be generally described as essentially a form of authoritarian rule, but not linked to financial or corporate control. For example,

Merriam-Webster says fascism is "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

However, Mussolini said, “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”. I find this to be a better working definition, at least in a historical concept.

And it seems quite appropriate to most Western governments today, although I would say that I think the real financial control rests with the bankers, those in control of the fiat currencies. I think the Western bankers are the ultimate fascists, since they seem willing to put the entire world at risk in order to maintain their control of the global reserve currency.

Re: question on definition of terms

Yes, it is interesting. Marxism, despite all its flaws, was a scientific research program in the traditions of political economy.
So it had a set of postulates, a set of methods, a set of rules for applying these methods and so forth. It had its problems of course, probably because some of the core assumptions weren't exactly right. So, many of its predictions didn't come true and they always had to come up with some additional helper theories, e.g., they had to invent the Marxian theory of imperialism in order to explain the fact that no absolute impoverishment of the working class actually happened.

But Marxism was scientific in the same sense as theory of relativity or the Newtonian theory are scientific. I'm not sure that this applies to modern social sciences as practiced in the west – if anything, I would rather compare them to pre-Darwinian and pre-Lamarckian biology.

So, the definitions given in Marxian framework tend to have the crispness of true scientific definitions. Unlike the ersatz-definitions accepted in the contemporary western social sciences.

M-W definition is an utter failure. It is accepted that the black colonels regime of Greece's 1967-74 military junta was fascist, but neither Papadopoulos nor Ioannidis qualify as authoritarian leaders of the same type as Hitler or Mussolini. If anything, I would compare Papadopoulos with Poroshenko and Ioannidis with Turchinov (certainly the comparison isn't perfect, but it does capture such essentials as being a CIA agent).

  • 1