Why is the bourgeoisie afraid of nazis?

[Dimentio]

As far as I see, while I do not know one single European country which bans communist groups, I know several which have made laws against neonazi symbols, groups and propaganda. Nazis often end up in jail.

I agree that the police in general is more violent towards left-wing activists, but the state machinery as a whole seems more hostile to right-wing extremists.

As a representative of a left-wing organisation (NET), I have experienced coopderation with authorities and semi-authorities, and experienced nothing but friendliness from their side.

I could impossibly imagine a nazi group receiving the same treatment. Often, the state and society actively stop nazi groups from renting rooms, having seminars or getting a public display of their opinions.

Now I am not talking about fascists groups, but generally antisemitic fascist groups founded on "race biology" (nazis). Is this just something which happens in for example Sweden, or is it a general trend?

In what way is nazism a threat to the bourgeoisie? I could not see them being a genuine threat.

[YKTMX]

It's probably a hangover from WW2. The War and Holocaust are topics for endless books, films, documentaries, rememberance days etc. Everyone knows who the Nazis are and what they did, and everyone agrees that it was wrong. So I think the laws against outright Hitlerites more expresses this 'moral' and cultural distaste rather than some 'fear' of these groups on behalf of the ruling classes.

[Bitter Ashes]

I'm not sure how much of the sterotype is true, but isnt it that the Jewish population is well represented by the bourgeois? I can imagine them bieng concerned about the anti-semitic activities of the far right.
There's also the pressure on them from liberal groups to fight facism and the liberals are more numerous than the facists, so probably get listened to more.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As far as I see, while I do not know one single European country which bans communist groups

Check out some Eastern European countries. I know the Czechs have such a ban.

[Dimentio]

It's probably a hangover from WW2. The War and Holocaust are topics for endless books, films, documentaries, rememberance days etc. Everyone knows who the Nazis are and what they did, and everyone agrees that it was wrong. So I think the laws against outright Hitlerites more expresses this 'moral' and cultural distaste rather than some 'fear' of these groups on behalf of the ruling classes.

I think I could be in agreement there. But would'nt that be a very idealist raison?

[Dimentio]

Check out some Eastern European countries. I know the Czechs have such a ban.

I was mostly thinking about western Europe there. In some eastern European countries, they honour Waffen SS with statues and street names...

[YKTMX]

I think I could be in agreement there. But would'nt that be a very idealist raison?

Well, it would be an effect of a war on people's behaviour, which isn't really an 'idealist' explanation.

[JimmyJazz]

Isn't it because a little communism = social democracy, whereas a little fascism = rampant racism? So my guess is that the states of Western Europe simply find racism more harmful than helpful to their rule at the moment.

[Yehuda Stern]

I'm not sure how much of the sterotype is true, but isnt it that the Jewish population is well represented by the bourgeois? I can imagine them bieng concerned about the anti-semitic activities of the far right.

Well, to your credit, that sounded only slightly anti-Semitic.

To the OP: after WWII, it became clear to the ruling class that it does not need fascism to rule anymore, but can rely on the occasional support of the social-democratic and Stalinist parties to reign in any threats from the working class. This is the reason why reformist parties are tolerated at most times by the bourgeoisie. Let's not forget, though, that they are also suppressed at times by capitalist states - in the USA during McCarthyism, for example.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Yeah, i'd say it being a hangover from WW2 is the most correct answer on a basic level. But the whole premise of this question is incorrect I think the bourgiose feign fear of fascism, but in reality they are tolerent.

Here in Britain for example the immigration reform brought in under the Labour government was little short of that within the BNP manifesto, fascism is on the rise here percisely because of the immigration-fear whipped up by our bougiouse

I don't tihnk it's true then to suggest that the reformist left have it easier than do the nazi's. Sure Stalinism offers no real treat to the bougiose, but in a time of crisis it is the fascists who are granted patronage to destroy working class orginisation. This has been shown in Italy, Greece etc as well as in Austria and more recently in israel where when in crisis (economic or otherwise) the far-right are accomodated by the bourgiouse for only an idoloegy as overtly anti-worker as fascism can crush organic workers initiatves - and such workers initiatives are the REAL threat to capitalism.

So fascism, is a mere extension of the bourgiose, not something separate from it. I'd go as far as to suggest these laws prohibiting fascists the right to organise are mere facades, in reality you can bet your life on the rulign class colluding witht he fascists well before they do witht he left.

[Dimentio]

Yeah, i'd say it being a hangover from WW2 is the most correct answer on a basic level. But the whole premise of this question is incorrect I think the bourgiose feign fear of fascism, but in reality they are tolerent.

Here in Britain for example the immigration reform brought in under the Labour government was little short of that within the BNP manifesto, fascism is on the rise here percisely because of the immigration-fear whipped up by our bougiouse

I don't tihnk it's true then to suggest that the reformist left have it easier than do the nazi's. Sure Stalinism offers no real treat to the bougiose, but in a time of crisis it is the fascists who are granted patronage to destroy working class orginisation. This has been shown in Italy, Greece etc as well as in Austria and more recently in israel where when in crisis (economic or otherwise) the far-right are accomodated by the bourgiouse for only an idoloegy as overtly anti-worker as fascism can crush organic workers initiatves - and such workers initiatives are the REAL threat to capitalism.

So fascism, is a mere extension of the bourgiose, not something separate from it. I'd go as far as to suggest these laws prohibiting fascists the right to organise are mere facades, in reality you can bet your life on the rulign class colluding witht he fascists well before they do witht he left.

I don't know how it is Britain. The last Social Democrat government of Sweden was practically anti-immigrationist, but rhetorically, it was pro-immigrationist. Also, no political party want anything to do with the largest fascist party.

[Prairie Fire]

In what way is nazism a threat to the bourgeoisie? I could not see them being a genuine threat.


In my country, it is completely different . The cops organize and form these Nazi gangs. In Canada, CSIS Agent Grant Bristow organized the largest white supremacist organization in Canada, the Heritage front, with government funds and implicit state support.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/canadian/league-for-human-rights/heritage-front/csis.html

This is the connection between these beardy so-called "Fringe" fascist groups and the bourgeois state.

Even if you look at the "mighty" Ku Klux Klan in the US, you will see that it was at the height of it's power, influence and membership, when the policies of the American state were conductive to their goals. As soon as there ceased to be official segregation, and the Klan ceased to be a conduit for the domestic policies of the American bourgeoisie, the Klan almost immediately dwindled into the handful of strange characters that you see now in documentaries.

It must be made clear that the bourgeois State, not the people, is racist. At every turn, you will find that the seeding of racist ideas among the population (in a so-called "grass-roots" way) is done through the official channels with the blessing of the propertied classes.

Tim wise,anti-racist author and activist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Xe1kX7Wsc&feature=related

The bourgeois state forms these organizations, and also protects them from harm.


http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20090322/i/r3792688494.jpg

Here we can see a few of the many instances when the police in Calgary, Alberta (Canada), form a defensive wall around the Calgary Nazi gang ,the Aryan Guard, whenever they try to poke their head up in public.

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20090322/i/r420855465.jpg

You can see, at this recent action in Calgary which stopped the aryan guard from marching in public, there are the Nazis, the anti-racists, and the cops in the middle. The cops, and therefore the bourgeois state, present themselves as "the voice of reason" between two 'violent" sides (the cops were the most violent ones at that action), the "impartial arbiter of peace and justice", but the fact is that the cops have yet to 'protect' any of the anti-racist forces in the city from the Aryan guard, even when the homes of anti-racist activists (who were also communists) were firebombed by this gang.

When these police gangs are in real danger of being ripped into shreds by the masses of people, the pigs in Calgary appear to make sure that this does not happen. When the Nazis were forced to flee and abandon their action that day, the state chartered busses for them to escape in.

Yehuda Stern:


To the OP: after WWII, it became clear to the ruling class that it does not need fascism to rule anymore, but can rely on the occasional support of the social-democratic and Stalinist parties to reign in any threats from the working class. This is the reason why reformist parties are tolerated at most times by the bourgeoisie. Let's not forget, though, that they are also suppressed at times by capitalist states - in the USA during McCarthyism, for example.


I would have agreed with that analysis, if not for your use of arbitrary pejoratives.

I know that Trotskyists favour binary political analysis of the 'left', and hence any organization that isn't Trotskyist is therefore "Stalinist", but either words have meaning or they don't. Unless you can cite a party that supports the line, theory and politics of the Stalin era-USSR, and simultaneously comes out in support of bourgeois initiatives, then be quiet.

In the future, the word you are searching for is Kruschevite, to refer to the "official" and largely parliamentary communist parties in bourgeois countries.

[Psy]

Mostly the bourgeoisie fears that they can't control fascists, for example the FBI came down with brute force against fascists when they robbed a armoured car (to pay for weapons) way back in the late 1970's and the FBI "corrected" the fascists groups (by using violence against fascists) that led to the fragmentation of the fascists in the USA that the fascists in the US never recovered from.

[Rjevan]

Here in Germany groups like the NPD are facing massiv opposition, which is of course a relief from WWII. The swastika symbol and the Hitler salute are illegal, Nazi videos and speeches by Hitler are blocked on youtube and you don't get "Mein Kampf" (which is actually no big problem since many nazi groups on the internet have it as download and you get it galore in Italy, but well...) or many other "Nazi goods" here, which I saw on holidays in other countries.

This is a neverending source for Nazi groups to blame the "opressive and freedom of speech-cutting state" which is "controlled by the Zentralrat der Juden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zentralrat_der_Juden_in_Deutschland)".
Although nazi ideas get more and more socially acceptable here again, most people still connect a very oppresive injustice state, which killed millions, caused WWII and unbelievable suffering for "the German people" with terms like "nationalism" "proud German" and "fatherland" so that neo-nazis face huge protests from the local people when they get too present as it was the case in 2006 when Jürgen Rieger, a famous neo-nazi, holocaust denier and NPD member tried to buy a hotel and make it into a hostel and training centre for "German youths" (= neo-nazi centre).

On Tuesday the neo-nazi youth organistaion HDJ ("Homeland-loyal German Youth", did anyone notice what HDJ looks like if you leave away the "D"? :rolleyes:) which has strong connections to the NPD, was declared illegal by Minister of the Interior Schäuble, after the shocking news of rising popularity of right-wing ideologies with the German youth, promoted by groups like the HDJ under the cloak of "spare time activities".

I guess the reason why we don't face that much opposition from the state is that they simply don't take us seriously. They think that people are alienated by the "terrible crimes and living conditions" in the USSR, GDR and PRC, that we don't represent a serious threat since "nobody would like to change to this opressive systems as long as they can live under glorious capitalism". We also act mostly peaceful, unlike the Nazis and I think they see us as strange dreamers, who only debate about economy and love to wear Che Guevara-shirts. ;)

[Dimentio]

The main question is whether a modern liberal-democratic western state could be seen as a monolithic entity? As far as I'll know, the Swedish police for example, is genuinly right-wing. On many nazi sites I have surfed, I have seen Swedish nazis being very thankful to the police, mentioning that the police have said that they support their cause.

Swedish security agencies have three groups they focus on. Islamists, nazis and the autonomous left.

But the "soft" parts of the state, like the schools, the universities, the integration authorities and the cultural departments, as well as the entire state bureaucracy, feels very pro-leftist.

I don't know in Canada though.


In my country, it is completely different . The cops organize and form these Nazi gangs. In Canada, CSIS Agent Grant Bristow organized the largest white supremacist organization in Canada, the Heritage front, with government funds and implicit state support.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/canadian/league-for-human-rights/heritage-front/csis.html

This is the connection between these beardy so-called "Fringe" fascist groups and the bourgeois state.

Even if you look at the "mighty" Ku Klux Klan in the US, you will see that it was at the height of it's power, influence and membership, when the policies of the American state were conductive to their goals. As soon as there ceased to be official segregation, and the Klan ceased to be a conduit for the domestic policies of the American bourgeoisie, the Klan almost immediately dwindled into the handful of strange characters that you see now in documentaries.

It must be made clear that the bourgeois State, not the people, is racist. At every turn, you will find that the seeding of racist ideas among the population (in a so-called "grass-roots" way) is done through the official channels with the blessing of the propertied classes.

Tim wise,anti-racist author and activist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Xe1kX7Wsc&feature=related

The bourgeois state forms these organizations, and also protects them from harm.


http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20090322/i/r3792688494.jpg

Here we can see a few of the many instances when the police in Calgary, Alberta (Canada), form a defensive wall around the Calgary Nazi gang ,the Aryan Guard, whenever they try to poke their head up in public.

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20090322/i/r420855465.jpg

You can see, at this recent action in Calgary which stopped the aryan guard from marching in public, there are the Nazis, the anti-racists, and the cops in the middle. The cops, and therefore the bourgeois state, present themselves as "the voice of reason" between two 'violent" sides (the cops were the most violent ones at that action), the "impartial arbiter of peace and justice", but the fact is that the cops have yet to 'protect' any of the anti-racist forces in the city from the Aryan guard, even when the homes of anti-racist activists (who were also communists) were firebombed by this gang.

When these police gangs are in real danger of being ripped into shreds by the masses of people, the pigs in Calgary appear to make sure that this does not happen. When the Nazis were forced to flee and abandon their action that day, the state chartered busses for them to escape in.

Yehuda Stern:


I would have agreed with that analysis, if not for your use of arbitrary pejoratives.

I know that Trotskyists favour binary political analysis of the 'left', and hence any organization that isn't Trotskyist is therefore "Stalinist", but either words have meaning or they don't. Unless you can cite a party that supports the line, theory and politics of the Stalin era-USSR, and simultaneously comes out in support of bourgeois initiatives, then be quiet.

In the future, the word you are searching for is Kruschevite, to refer to the "official" and largely parliamentary communist parties in bourgeois countries.

[Psy]

The main question is whether a modern liberal-democratic western state could be seen as a monolithic entity? As far as I'll know, the Swedish police for example, is genuinly right-wing. On many nazi sites I have surfed, I have seen Swedish nazis being very thankful to the police, mentioning that the police have said that they support their cause.

Swedish security agencies have three groups they focus on. Islamists, nazis and the autonomous left.

In the USA the FBI didn't care about fascists till a fascist group robbed a large armoured shipment of cash causing the FBI to came down on fascist groups like a ton of bricks ending with the Waco Seige of 1993 (during Waco the FBI considered all fascists enemies of the state due to the robbery back in the early 80's) after which the FBI decided it beat the shit out of fascists long enough (for over a decade) and that fascists in the US got the message not to steal from the ruling bourgeoisie or the FBI will fuck all of them up again.

[PoWR]

It's pretty simple. If they need them they use them if they don't they push them out of public life (to greater or lesser degrees depending on their outlook at the time, which wing of capital is dominant, the economic situation and so on). They usually don't wipe them out entirely. They keep them around. When/if the bourgeoisie needs "shock troops" they have these incipient movements (neo-Nazi and other rightists) around to bring forward.

There are also cases in which they ban political symbols and such to quiet all dissent and challenges to the status-quo from left or right. That's the case with laws like the Public Order Act in the UK which was originally used against uniformed fascists but later against striking miners.

[Yehuda Stern]

I would have agreed with that analysis, if not for your use of arbitrary pejoratives... In the future, the word you are searching for is Kruschevite, to refer to the "official" and largely parliamentary communist parties in bourgeois countries.

Please, do not expect to care about your miserable attempt to separate Stalin from Khrushchev - the petty differences are only meaningful to Stalinists like yourself.

[punisa]

As far as I see, while I do not know one single European country which bans communist groups,

Except if they are a so called "post socialist" countries. In Croatia there is a ban on all "totalitarian symbols" which also include hammer & sickle and the red star.
It sucks, I know...

[Cumannach]

For America, you might find these interesting:

http://www.radio4all.net/responder.php/download/2084/2035/2941/?url=http://mbanna.radio4all.net/pub/archive2/MP3/parenti-security_state.mp3

It's a talk by Michael Parenti that partly covers police responses to right-wing groups in contrast to left-wing groups.

[synthesis]

This is a big question with multiple answers that are equally correct. First, I don't know if it would be wise to attribute an emotion such as "fear" to the machinations of an entire class, which like all other classes is not monolithic.

I think there has always been an element of the bourgeoisie that feels threatened by reactionaries in the original sense of the word - i.e., not anti-socialist capitalists, but anti-democratic right-wingers. (c.f. the French Revolution)

Also, I don't think we can simply equivocate every single ideology that is opposed to socialism. Although we describe capitalists as "self-interested" and sometimes as "fascists," some of them try to be decent people in part because they perceive socialism as having "failed" and because, well, no decent person supports Nazism.

Again, the bourgeoisie is not monolithic. Some of them - we call them "liberals" in the U.S. - agree that Stalin was "better than Hitler" and see socialism as misguided yet possessed of a moral basis, absent in fascism. The flip side of the coin - "conservatives" - try to put everything in the framework of genocide and argue that "Stalin was worse than Hitler" because the Holomodor supposedly killed more people than the Holocaust.

Finally, one could argue that the system that exists today is the one that's best for the bourgeoisie, which includes bourgeois democracy, cheap immigrant labor, families with two working parents, and a welfare system to keep the working class complacent. Reactionaries are opposed to all of this.

For all of these reasons, and certainly there are more that I have not addressed, it seems pretty obvious that most of the modern bourgeois have pretty divergent interests from the Nazis.

[Trystan]

Nazis might scare away tourists . . .???

[communard resolution]

Except if they are a so called "post socialist" countries. In Croatia there is a ban on all "totalitarian symbols" which also include hammer & sickle and the red star.
It sucks, I know...

Really? I saw a shop in a Croatian shopping centre where they let you choose a motif of to print on your tee. One of the templates on offer was a hammer & sickle print. Another one said CCCP.

Lots of commie kitsch in tourist shops by the seaside too - right next to German WW2 era battle flags.

[Prairie Fire]

Serpent:

The main question is whether a modern liberal-democratic western state could be seen as a monolithic entity?

Well, there are still perhaps internal frictions between the bourgeoisie, hence the bourgeois parliament for working out those frictions.

The general class aspirations, and the desire to oppress and exploit domestic and foriegn workers, on the other hand, is the guiding star of all the bourgeoisie though, so they will collaborate and stand united in the face of any attempt by the workers to achieve political power for themselves, and they unanimously support any initiatives and actions taken in favour of capital.

Serpent, a few things:

1. Differentiating between "Left wing" and "Right Wing", in the context of the bourgeoisie that hold political power in a bourgeois state, is a silly illusion of pluralism where there is none.

For example, in the history of Alglo-American Capitalist countries, like the United States and Canada, you see that it is generally the "Left wing" of the bourgeoisie who initially begin most of the wars of imperialism abroad: American soldiers were first sent to Vietnam under the leadership of the Democratic party, and Canadian troops were first sent to Afghanistan under the Liberal party (with the Social Democratic NDP continuously voting unanimously in favour of continuing the occupation to this day).

When you see that most "left wing" initiatives begun in bourgeois parliaments are unanimously supported by the "right wing", and vice versa, and that wars of aggression begun by the "Left" bourgeoisie are continued on by a succesive administration of the "Right" bourgeoisie (and vice-versa), you can see that "left" and "right" really mean next to nothing.

A bourgeoisie is a bourgeoisie, and their state will reflect their class aspirations.

2. A few rouges within the apparatus of the bourgeois state do not negate the general aspirations and goals of the bourgeois state.

Many of my comrades are teachers, but a few socialist teachers spread out across the country do not negate the bourgeois curriculum, organization and methods of the capitalist state.

As I said earlier, while you say that the bourgeoisie in your country are "afraid" of the fascists, I simply see it as the same "carrot and stick" tactics that the capitalist state uses in regards to everyone. To use the United States as an example, initially when the Ku Klux Klan were an arm of the domestic policies of the United States government, the Klan enjoyed respectability, growth and political clout.

As soon as the Klan ceased to reflect the aspirations of the bourgeoisie, and also became unruly and hard to control, they were targetted by the FBI operation COINTELPRO, and the organization was torn apart.

It's carrot and stick. Also, you have to consider that maybe there is a reason that the nazis are being put in prison. In my country, the prisons are un-officially "segregated" in some parts of Ontario in order to pit the prisoners against each other, and the prisons try to 'sic' their nazi inmates on non-white prisoners.

Yehuda Stern:

Please, do not expect to care about your miserable attempt to separate Stalin from Khrushchev - the petty differences are only meaningful to Stalinists like yourself.

:rolleyes: I guess 1+1 truly does equal 3, so long as you believe that it does and refuse to hear otherwise.

I still can't understand most of the "logic" behind Trotskyism. Many of the more contemporary Trots at least have read some Lenin (let alone Marx and Engels), and I have known many who are quite knowledgable and generally take a prinicpled stand on issues.

On the other hand, when it comes to the USSR circa 1924-1991, most of them become instantly indistinguishable from the most naive social-democrat.

If you don't want to see J.V. Stalin as a Marxist-Leninist(and it is a matter of want; your ignorance is willful,), you don't have to, but how do you plan on equating the the USSR of 1924-1953 with the USSR of 1954-1991? Economically, there is no similarity (The late fifties, under the Kruschev era, saw the re-introduction of the profit motive, export of finance capital, re-introduction of some forms of private property.. in essence, the reintroduction of all of the hallmarks of a capitalist economy), politically there is no similarity ( The "peaceful coexistence" thesis and casting aside the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in favour of the class-vague "party of the whole people" were two of the many theoretical turns that stood in stark contrast to the previous theoretical development of the USSR) and socially there is no similarity ( reintroduction of nationalism, great Russian chauvenism, gender chauvenism and oppression, etc).

So, if there are no similarities between the methods, the theory and economic models of the Kruschev clique, and those of his predecessors (which there are not,), then logically calling the Kruschevites (both historic and contemporary) "Stalinists" is innacurate at best, vile slander at worst.

There is no logic to the arbitrary political analysis of Trotskyism, so don't even try and defend your ridiculous political line.

[Dimentio]

This is a big question with multiple answers that are equally correct. First, I don't know if it would be wise to attribute an emotion such as "fear" to the machinations of an entire class, which like all other classes is not monolithic.

I think there has always been an element of the bourgeoisie that feels threatened by reactionaries in the original sense of the word - i.e., not anti-socialist capitalists, but anti-democratic right-wingers. (c.f. the French Revolution)

Also, I don't think we can simply equivocate every single ideology that is opposed to socialism. Although we describe capitalists as "self-interested" and sometimes as "fascists," some of them try to be decent people in part because they perceive socialism as having "failed" and because, well, no decent person supports Nazism.

Again, the bourgeoisie is not monolithic. Some of them - we call them "liberals" in the U.S. - agree that Stalin was "better than Hitler" and see socialism as misguided yet possessed of a moral basis, absent in fascism. The flip side of the coin - "conservatives" - try to put everything in the framework of genocide and argue that "Stalin was worse than Hitler" because the Holomodor supposedly killed more people than the Holocaust.

Finally, one could argue that the system that exists today is the one that's best for the bourgeoisie, which includes bourgeois democracy, cheap immigrant labor, families with two working parents, and a welfare system to keep the working class complacent. Reactionaries are opposed to all of this.

For all of these reasons, and certainly there are more that I have not addressed, it seems pretty obvious that most of the modern bourgeois have pretty divergent interests from the Nazis.

I must admit that Sweden is a bit of a special case. Many in the higher bureaucratic echelons of the Swedish state are former maoists and marxist-leninists, or still cling on to their ideals. Even though they are quite defensive nowadays and quite disillusioned, I must say that Sweden is generally a very leftist-friendly country.

I mean, the municipalities actually tend to sponsor autonomous leftist social forums, and give them halls and places to sleep on.

As for Sweden's relation with nazism, a lot of the Swedish military-aristocratic establishment back in the 40;s, were German friendly. But from the 50;s and onward, nazism has been generally despised, and pushed farther and farther from being even a marginal ideology. Even though nazi groups have been reestablished during the 90;s, I think that the political and bureaucratic establishments, with the possible exception of the police and some migration authorities, as well as some right-wing liberal political figures, are vehemently opposed to fascism.

I mean, even the Swedish christian democrats would be considered as left-wing liberal in relation to Anglo-American standards.

[communard resolution]

I must admit that Sweden is a bit of a special case. Many in the higher bureaucratic echelons of the Swedish state are former maoists and marxist-leninists, or still cling on to their ideals.

I think this is actually the case in many Western European countries such as France and Germany, where the student protesters and dissidents of 1968 now constitute a large section of the political, economic, and cultural establishment.

If you have sold out to the point where you actively contribute to the exploitation of workers, third world countries etc, anti-fascism is the last thing you can still cling on to. It gives you a moral legitimacy of sorts and, besides, has the useful effect of uniting the bourgeoisie and the workers against some irrelevant fringe group demonised as the ultimate evil (ironically, this is the exact effect that historical fascism aimed to achieve). As one previous poster pointed out, no decent person supports Nazism, so token anti-fascism is an easy way to present your system as essentially humane (perhaps even to yourself).

Countries that are not governed by a left-liberal bourgeoisie with a bad conscience couldn't care less about fascistm. Murderous neo-nazism runs rampant in Russia, but the bourgeoisie there isn't particularly bothered about it.

I also think that the crude nationalism and 19th century racial theories that Nazis advocate would be somewhat detrimental to the smooth running of a globalised economy - again, a previous poster hinted at cheap immigrant labour, and generally put it into words better than I could.

[Mike Morin]

Let's see, the only thing close to Nazis that I know about are States that partner with the International Capitalist set (ICSis).

The Stars and Stripes are probably the closest thing that the world has to a Swatstika, and that of it's fifty first state, The Star of Goliath...

:crying:

Mike Morin
Peoples Equity Union

[Yehuda Stern]

Prairie Fire, I must admit to not really have read what you wrote - I have no more interest in you defending Stalin than in a Nazi defending Hitler. What you want to believe is your business - all I'm saying is, don't tell me what to call a certain political tendency, and please don't think that it impresses me that you tell me to be quiet about anything. Maybe you should find someone else to boss around to increase your self-confidence, maybe a small pet or a child.

[punisa]

Really? I saw a shop in a Croatian shopping centre where they let you choose a motif of to print on your tee. One of the templates on offer was a hammer & sickle print. Another one said CCCP.

Lots of commie kitsch in tourist shops by the seaside too - right next to German WW2 era battle flags.

You can also find tee's, lighters, wallets etc with Hitler's face on it in Croatia if you look really hard :laugh:

As for the official law, perhaps it is still not enforced to an extent (its rather new). But there was a lot of hype about it recently.
In short: government had to ban Nazi symbols that were appearing at the well known pro fascist concerts of M.P. Thompson. BUT, in order not to displease the great part of the voting population (the right wingers), they pushed the law that would ban all "totalitarian" and, get this - "Bolshevik" symbols.
By doing so they state that communism and fascism are equally bad :(

Again same thing happend in neighbouring Hungary where "red star" was banned.
During the campaign, the president of the Hungarian worker's party Atili Vajnaiu wore red star symbol on his shirt and police intervened on him to remove it.

The whole thing went all the way to European Court of Human Rights (in Strasbourg) which ruled out: "The court acknolwdges that crimes of communism dicredited the symbol of the Red Star and that wearing it may provoke tension among its victims. Still, the feeling of disturbance although understood, may not set the limits for human rights"

Sorry for sliding to the off-topic lane on this one, if you guys wanna debate more on it, I suggest we open a specific topic.

ps.
Nero: I can PM you several sources in Croatian language that describe the controversial law in more details if you want.

[Dimentio]

I think this is actually the case in many Western European countries such as France and Germany, where the student protesters and dissidents of 1968 now constitute a large section of the political, economic, and cultural establishment.

If you have sold out to the point where you actively contribute to the exploitation of workers, third world countries etc, anti-fascism is the last thing you can still cling on to. It gives you a moral legitimacy of sorts and, besides, has the useful effect of uniting the bourgeoisie and the workers against some irrelevant fringe group demonised as the ultimate evil (ironically, this is the exact effect that historical fascism aimed to achieve). As one previous poster pointed out, no decent person supports Nazism, so token anti-fascism is an easy way to present your system as essentially humane (perhaps even to yourself).

Countries that are not governed by a left-liberal bourgeoisie with a bad conscience couldn't care less about fascistm. Murderous neo-nazism runs rampant in Russia, but the bourgeoisie there isn't particularly bothered about it.

I also think that the crude nationalism and 19th century racial theories that Nazis advocate would be somewhat detrimental to the smooth running of a globalised economy - again, a previous poster hinted at cheap immigrant labour, and generally put it into words better than I could.

I think that you nailed it spot on there. I think that the repression of neonazis in western Europe represents a sort of therapeutic ritual to unite the establishment and the people against a common foe, and to legitimise parts of the establishment in its own eyes.

[Dr Mindbender]

I think the beourgiose use the 'extremist' groups against each other, depending on the material conditions of the day.

Perhaps the beourgiose feel there is currently greater chance of fascists or neo-nazis gaining power, which is why they give some margin to communists to bring the political situation back into equilibrium. If communists were to gain greater leverage among public opinion, i think you would quickly see the bans against fascists being lifted.

[Dimentio]

I think the beourgiose use the 'extremist' groups against each other, depending on the material conditions of the day.

Perhaps the beourgiose feel there is currently greater chance of fascists or neo-nazis gaining power, which is why they give some margin to communists to bring the political situation back into equilibrium. If communists were to gain greater leverage among public opinion, i think you would quickly see the bans against fascists being lifted.

That is clearly not the case in Sweden. We have large institutionalised left-wing groups, an entire left-wing infrastructure, which is partially connected to the state apparatus.

[Dr Mindbender]

That is clearly not the case in Sweden. We have large institutionalised left-wing groups, an entire left-wing infrastructure, which is partially connected to the state apparatus.

Well as you've already stated, Sweden is a special case, having former marxists and maoists within it's government.

The UK labour party are social democrats and liberals at best, there isnt a whiff of marxism in the ruling cabinet.

[Dimentio]

Well as you've already stated, Sweden is a special case, having former marxists and maoists within it's government.

The UK labour party are social democrats and liberals at best, there isnt a whiff of marxism in the ruling cabinet.

The current government of Sweden is conservative, but it would probably have been considered "socialist" in America or Britain. It must manuveur really cautiously to not be seen as too right-wing.

But the bureaucratic establishment feels overtly and covertly socialist. Sometimes, it is even attempting to half-heartedly obstruct government-policy.

[synthesis]

1. Differentiating between "Left wing" and "Right Wing", in the context of the bourgeoisie that hold political power in a bourgeois state, is a silly illusion of pluralism where there is none.

For example, in the history of Alglo-American Capitalist countries, like the United States and Canada, you see that it is generally the "Left wing" of the bourgeoisie who initially begin most of the wars of imperialism abroad: American soldiers were first sent to Vietnam under the leadership of the Democratic party, and Canadian troops were first sent to Afghanistan under the Liberal party (with the Social Democratic NDP continuously voting unanimously in favour of continuing the occupation to this day).

When you see that most "left wing" initiatives begun in bourgeois parliaments are unanimously supported by the "right wing", and vice versa, and that wars of aggression begun by the "Left" bourgeoisie are continued on by a succesive administration of the "Right" bourgeoisie (and vice-versa), you can see that "left" and "right" really mean next to nothing.

A bourgeoisie is a bourgeoisie, and their state will reflect their class aspirations.

Is the proletariat monolithic? Can we really say "a proletarian is a proletarian, and what they do will reflect their class aspirations"? Obviously not.

The image of a monolithic enemy is useful for propaganda, but not for sober discussion. Politically, the bourgeoisie can swing in either direction; just look at Engels. Some of them ("liberals" here) see socialism as well-intentioned but misguided, while others (conservatives) would say the same thing about Nazism.

[black magick hustla]

Just wanted to reply to something serpent said which I thought was important:



1. Differentiating between "Left wing" and "Right Wing", in the context of the bourgeoisie that hold political power in a bourgeois state, is a silly illusion of pluralism where there is none.

All political groups develop left wings and right wings, regardless of the nature of the former. Even the fascists had a left wing - like ledesma's national syndicalists of the JONS and the strasserite left wing of the NDSAP. The workers' movement had a left wing and a right wing too. (Although the right wing quickly deteriorated into a counterrevolutionary wing). Understanding the inherent factionalization of movements is crucial to have a somewhat sophisticated analysis on political situations.

[communard resolution]

Nero: I can PM you several sources in Croatian language that describe the controversial law in more details if you want.

Thanks, but I wouldn't be able to understand it.

Given that Croatia is the kind of country where bar staff smoke in pubs that have a 'no smoking' sign on the wall, I'm not too worried the law will be enforced any time soon. :)