this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
168 points (98.8% liked)
Chapotraphouse
14244 readers
650 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
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