The Comintern abandoned the term in the interwar period essentially to beg for alliances with the Social-Democrats and calling them “Social-Fascists” was completely antagonistic to Soviet foreign policy during that period

And what happened? Did the Social-Democrats force their governments to ally with the Soviets?

No, we saw Chamberlain collude with Hitler to try and turn the Nazi army east, we saw Daladier do the exact same.

France, under so-called “Socialist” Daladier, ratfucked Czechoslovakia by not activating the defence treaty that France and the Soviet Union had signed. (France and USSR signed a treaty with Czechoslovakia to come to her defence. However due to the anticommunism of the period the Czech President said that the Soviet Union could only defend Czechoslovakia if France came first to her defence. The reason he did this was because he suspected if only the Soviets came to his defence the capitalist pigs in France/UK would ally with the fascists and display this as “Communist aggression” and wage war on the Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union.) Instead France allowed Czechoslovakia to be carved up because they thought they were playing 5d chess to get Hitler to go east into the Soviet Union.

Social democratic parties all over Europe collaborated with Hitler.

Take Hungary, Hungarys Succdem party was never even banned under Hitlerite occupation so instep with fascism they were

Let’s not beat about the bush - It was correct Soviet foreign policy once the Nazis had risen in 1933 to stop calling SuccDems Social-Fascists but doesn’t make it any less true

This is all ironic of course on a page where we are discussing a Social-Democrat that supports fascism “over there”.

“Firstly, it is not true that fascism is only the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc. It would therefore be a mistake to think that “pacifism” signifies the liquidation of fascism. In the present situation, “pacifism” is the strengthening of fascism with its moderate, Social-Democratic wing pushed into the forefront.”

J. V. STALIN, from , “Concerning the International Situation,” 1924.

5 sentences…Cant do that as you’re asking a lot but I’ll be as brief as poss

Kruschev came to power in a military coup and repressed (either removed or killed) the loyal Marxist-Leninists after Stalin tried to implement a bill that would democratise Soviet society . In his last year in power he wrote Economic problems of the USSR attacking the revisionists

Enver Hoxha (leader of Communist Albania) said that that one of the Kruschevites told him they had Stalin killed (1)

Kruschev represented the nascent bourgeois but with Stalins popularity in the Ussr he could not implement his reforms. He does a secret speech that immediately gets leaked to the West (funny that) heaping all the problems in Soviet society on Stalin which was entirely falsified. The Secret speech itself was leaked in such a way to pour poison through the Communist party - it was disseminated to the top leaders and cadres of the millions of Communist Party members (something like 0.9% of the Party). Meaning it was not out in the open that could be honestly fought and corrected. If that speech had been public the revisionists would’ve swung from lampposts

He let out numerous counter revolutionaries from prisons and “rehabilitated” those shot during the Moscow trials like Tukhachevsky who we know now were guilty beyond doubt.

With Stalin denigrated he was free to implement the reforms (post Stalin Soviet textbooks would legit have stuff like "profit is needed and the central planning system is a Stalinist hold over. Kruschev even declared the primacy of profit in industry in1961) starting with the privatisation of the tractor stations where the farmers basically collectively owned their means of production and by 1965 the Kosygin reforms were implemented which

• reinstated the profit motive and the market

• attacked the central planning system and directive system

• allowed for the firing and hiring of people

• gave more power to the managerial class (who previously could basically be fired by the workers and the manager couldnt fire them)

It is this restoration of capital forces in Soviet society that led to a hypernormalisation within Soviet society (ie. They’re told “we’re building socialism” as socialism is being destroyed) until eventually they reached a point where they just pulled down the red flag, sold state industries to pennies to the nascent oligarchs and mafia in waiting and gave up the entire thing altogether

Despite this many people fought to keep Soviet socialism alive and Yeltsin could only come to power by shelling the parliament with tanks, supported by the West and massacring 3000 Communists in the streets. To this the Western press praised Yeltsin who is now uni formally described as the worst Russian ruler in history in Russia.

Yeltsin never would’ve won an election were it not for the West who proudly boasted about it

For the other non-shitlib on this site that is capable of reading more than 5 sentences I would recommend reading

The Complete Collapse Of Revisionism by Harpal Brar

RESTORATION of CAPITALISM in the USSR by Martin Nicholaus

THE RESTORATION OF CAPITALISM IN THE SOVIET UNION. by Bill Bland

References

(1) “All this villainy emerged soon after the death, or to be more precise after the murder, of Stalin. I say after the murder of Stalin, because Mikoyan himself told me . . . that they, together with Khrushchev and their associates, had decided . . . to make an attempt on Stalin’s life”. (E. Hoxha, With Stalin: Memoirs, p. 31).