this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
168 points (98.8% liked)
Chapotraphouse
14243 readers
865 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
At the same time, at least to an outsider, Takaichi seems like an even worse version of Abe's politics.
Another concrete example of how adventurism while cathartic is a bad time.
I don't think "you shouldn't kill fascists in case their replacement is a worse fascist" is a great line of thought though
No the line of thought is form a proper organization to make your fascist killing not only morally correct and cathartic but meaningful.
Proper organization is absolutely necessary and we will never achieve meaningful and lasting results without it. However that doesn't mean that individual acts are therefore inherently wrong or that they are ineffective. Don't confuse insufficiency with futility.
I realize you acknowledged in another comment that individual action is not inherently wrong but the constant fingerwagging and pooh-poohing at people who have made significant impact via individual action implies that it is. As LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins alluded to, a multiplicity of individual actions, even if not tied to one specific organization, very much can and will effect long term positive change even if it will ultimately never be enough on its own to "win the war." Organizational efforts and individual acts of resistance can (and often do) exist in tandem, with the latter playing a supportive role for the former. That's still true even if the individual's energy would ultimately be better off channeled directly into the organization, again that doesn't mean it doesn't help or that is serves no purpose whatsoever, which is just bad analysis.
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:
Stalin:
and Chaiman Mao:
yea i think if this guy did that shinzo abe would probably still be alive
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.
what if there were more adventurism and instead of just one prime minister it were more than 1 and by saying adventurism is bad you've now saved a bourgeois prime minister's life
propaganda of the deed didn't pan out last time. more recently we haven't seen a rash of insurance adjustments, and only a couple losers took (or got in position to) a pop at trump. minneapolis is not currently getting de-iced with bullets and molotovs.
most people aren't ready to go to war like that, and the ones who are generally don't want to, and the last little sliver is racist mass shooters.
Yeah but is telling people it's useless helping or hindering that
i don't think it changes anything either way. killing somebody is hard. there's old studies from militaries where people would miss on purpose
It would still be neutral at best because more adventurism doesn't fix the core problem of adventurism?
idk i think the more bourgeois heads roll the more terror is inspired in the class which deserves it which I would be hard pressed to categorize as a neutral outcome
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.
No, he'd also be dead, and I really don't think the fascists have a figurehead with enough sauce in their hoss to rally their hogs like trump does, so that's a double win there, on top of the bourgeoisie being made to know their vulnerability and fear, wow a triple threat
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.
no im pretty sure it's very heavily sustained by trump at this moment
Greatman theory is reactionary
let me disbelieve my lying eyes and ears as I watch hogs revere him in a way none of the sauceless losers in his administration could ever hope to cultivate
sorry you don't understand that while fascist tendencies are rising due to material conditions trump, his personality and how he's seen by hogs provides a nucleus around which they crystallize
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.
Are you a debate pervert because it really seems like yea
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.
Lol
Eat my dick you fucking nerd
ok nerd enjoy my block list i know i will
Damn libroyjenkins you really don't like being called out on applying liberal idealism and moralism to your analysis not very dialectical or materialist of you
He killed Abe over a specific issue (the Moonies) and the resulting public outrage actually forced the government to do something about it (cut ties with the Moonies, at least publicly). I don't think his goal was to revolutionize Japanese society, as far as assassinations go I'd say it was successful.
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.
Yep. At best it has the potential to make a funny meme for a year. Reaction is already organised to seize on a crisis while adventurists aren't. A lifetime in Japanese prison to demolish one evangelical cult, probably replaced by a dozen splinter churches since, is not at all worth whoever he thought would replace Abe. At least from casually following it I haven't even seen a bigger political plan for Abe's replacement, same for both the Trump shooters and the guy who was doing target practice near Charlie Kirk during his fentanyl overdose.
The unfortunate truth is at least currently in the imperial core and its client states any left wing organisation is either non existent or has been neutered into innefectuality at least for now. The rearming of the BPP is promising but I think is yet to be indictive of any wider trend.