Fascist Revolution?

[KarlMarx1989]

With the rising numbers in neo-Nazis and believers in totalitarianism and fascism; could there be a revolution of Nazis again? This doesn't necessarily apply to only christian-America, but I think it is more likely for it to happen there; what with its freedom of speech and such.

[rebelmouse]

I don't think nazi can make revolution, but official authorities already long time realize fascist politics against foreigners. it can make nazi stronger, because they will get chance to repeat their time of mussolini and hitler. berluskoni allowed patrols of citizens on the streets, which are patrol of fascists. I think in Italy is very strong waking up of fascism.

[Holden Caulfield]

With the rising numbers in neo-Nazis and believers in totalitarianism and fascism; could there be a revolution of Nazis again? This doesn't necessarily apply to only christian-America, but I think it is more likely for it to happen there; what with its freedom of speech and such.

Again?
Can you tell me when there has been a fascist 'revolution'

[JohannGE]

Again?
Can you tell me when there has been a fascist 'revolution'

Definitions of "revolution" will obviously vary but:-

Tuscany, 1919–22?

http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521528666
-

[Holden Caulfield]

Fascism can never be revolutionary because it is inherently reactionary. It protects the organs of the state, of class opression and it's very purpose is that of counter revolution.

I don't know the Tuscan example well enough to comment but in Italy fascism was supported by the established order when it became a necessity, the march on Rome was neither a military event or a revolutionary event, it was a victory march. Fascism is not revolutionary, look at all the European and other examples, they have been the fail safe of the capitalist system being put into power on the will of the Ancien Regime, now consider real revolutionary politics: Could you imagine a real communist revolutionary being 'put into a position of power', even less so being put their by the pillars of the system they attest to revolt against?

What makes a revolution is what we stand for, the economic and societal revolution we push for in all aspects of life, not simply replacing another capitalist (albeit a different form of capitalist) for another no matter how much suport the have gained from the manipulated and deceived working classes.

[JohannGE]

Fascism can never be revolutionary because it is inherently reactionary. It protects the organs of the state, of class opression and it's very purpose is that of counter revolution.

Hey, im'e not trying to argue over this, just trying to answer your question. As I said..."Definitions of "revolution" will obviously vary "

1.an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.2.Sociology. a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, esp. one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence. Compare social evolution (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=social+evolution&db=luna).3.a sudden, complete or marked change in something: the present revolution in church architecture. 4.a procedure or course, as if in a circuit, back to a starting point.5.a single turn of this kind.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/revolution

And good/bad old wiki:-



A revolution (from the Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin) revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_change) in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle) described two types of political revolution:
Complete change from one constitution to another
Modification of an existing constitution.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution#cite_note-0)
Revolutions have occurred through human history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_history) and vary widely in terms of methods, duration, and motivating ideology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology). Their results include major changes in culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture), economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy), and socio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_institution)-political institutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_institution).
Scholarly debates about what does and does not constitute a revolution center around several issues. Early studies of revolutions primarily analyzed events in European history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_history) from a psychological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological) perspective, but more modern examinations include global events and incorporate perspectives from several social sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science), including sociology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology) and political science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science). Several generations of scholarly thought on revolutions have generated many competing theories and contributed much to the current understanding of this complex phenomenon.

List of "revolutions":-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions

But of course, you are entitled to stick with any definition you may choose. I am not too fussed, there is only one type of revolution I am interested in. :)
-

[New Tet]

Given the fact that fascism is incapable of revolutionizing society, that is, of transforming its fundamental relations in any way, the question is defective.

However, I think that the question's intention is sound: Is fascism a real possibility, especially in the U.S., where capitalism has reached its highest and possibly final stage?

I think the answer is "yes". In fact, I believe that the present state of the U.S. working class' consciousness (or lack thereof) and unpreparedness for a revolutionary situation makes fascism almost inevitable.

[Die Rote Fahne]

If it is possible I suggest the beginning of the Marxist revolution as soon as the fascists lose or win.

[KarlMarx1989]

Fascism can never be revolutionary because it is inherently reactionary. It protects the organs of the state, of class opression and it's very purpose is that of counter revolution.
So, what happened in Germany wasn't a revolution?

Also, by definition; what some Americans tried to do in the 1960's was not a revolution for it was never achieved. I disscussed just this in another thread that, I think, was about some asking whether or not there could be a "right-wing revolution." I think that I have asked a similar question, here.

I think that the question's intention is sound: Is fascism a real possibility, especially in the U.S.
I agree, it is scary to think about for us who actually live in christian-America and are supporters of equality. After the failed attempt to change christian-America into a more fair state; the right-wing government members got rid of Kennedy, took over again, and made christian-America more Capitalist and corporate then ever after killing some of the most powerful people in the movement, i.e. Martin Luther King Jr and/or John Lennon. Then the USSR collapsed, so now there is no more hope or determination for a revolution like there was over 40 years ago.

[Rjevan]

So, what happened in Germany wasn't a revolution?
Good lord, no! Hitler's NSDAP had 33.1% in the 1932 elections and Hitler was appointed Reichskanzler by Reichspresident Hindenburg on behalf of a conservative/fascist clique who wanted stability, personal revenge on current chancellor von Schleicher and thought they can control Hitler and "push him in the corner till he squeaks". Hitler had a small burgeoise-conservative-fascist majority but only two nazi ministers in his cabinet and the NSDAP wasn't able to rule alone.

So in 1933, when Hitler was appointed he asked for new elections, hoping his party would gain absolute majority this time. The KPD (communists) was forbidden and the SPD (social-democrats) faced massive harassment but still the NSDAP got only 43.9%! So Hitler was forced to join a coalition with the fascist DNVP (German National Volks Party) which had 8%.

Shortly after this he used the "Enabling Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933)" to disslove all parties (the DNVP understood that they are lost and dissolved "voluntarily") and to start the "Gleichschaltung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung)" - the beginning of his dictatorship and the nazi regime.

So, see: there was absolutely no revolution! Mussolini mad a coup with his "March on Rome" but this was also no revolution and in Germany it was simply getting into power by "smashing democracy with it's own weapons" (Joseph Goebbels).

[Holden Caulfield]

Muss didn't do a coup, the march on Rome could have been crushed at any time by the army or the powers that were at the time, however the powerful men capable of crushing Mussolini infact supported him.

[KarlMarx1989]

I assume we can say the same for Adolf Hitler, too.

[Melbourne Lefty]

Is Fascism possible?

Maybe not in its historical form, and probably not in its racist form, but in its political and economic [corporatist] form? Hell yes, much of the world seems to be moving towards those positions anyway.

[KarlMarx1989]

much of the world seems to be moving towards those positions anyway.
Like the US...:scared:

[Tjis]

Is Fascism possible?

Maybe not in its historical form, and probably not in its racist form, but in its political and economic [corporatist] form? Hell yes, much of the world seems to be moving towards those positions anyway.

I don't think a modern fascist state would take the historical form, but I think racism would be very much part of the ideology. In order to create national unity, a fascist state needs a common enemy with properties that are different from the majority of the people in this fascist state. This can then be used in comparisons showing how superior their nationality is (by comparing perceived good properties with perceived bad properties of the hated group), and they can use this other group to blame all problems on.
It doesn't have to be the same old anti-semitism of course. These days, using arabs as the hated group is far more likely.

[Killfacer]

I actually think this is more likely to occur in a country such as Italy than America.

[Holden Caulfield]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1348/1376088539_caead5a036.jpg

In America? (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm)

[Tiocfaidh Ar La]

Well in Scotland I don't see a march on Edinburgh anytime soon. From what I know the BNP are nowhere near as big in Scotland as they are in England and the use of violence by them and Combat 18 here is not as likely as it is in the north of Ireland. See what they and Loyalist did in Belfast, can't see it here IMO.

[Holden Caulfield]

Combat 18


No such group exists at the current time. Its a scary nazi bogey man that people often spray paint around to scare people, but the only existing groups that attest to be like C18, are muppets like BFF/RVF and ****s like the people around B&H.

They exists as much as Antifascist Action (AFA) in its hayday would exist today if I put a BNP window through and sprayed A.F.A on a wall

[MilitantAnarchist]

I have a question... about AFA... I no Antifa is like, shortened antifascist.... but i've also heard people say it is the 'new' AFA, they just say ANTI.F.A as one word... if u get me?
So, im saying is Antifa 'the same' as AFA was? (if you get me?)

[Holden Caulfield]

I have a question... about AFA... I no Antifa is like, shortened antifascist.... but i've also heard people say it is the 'new' AFA, they just say ANTI.F.A as one word... if u get me?
So, im saying is Antifa 'the same' as AFA was? (if you get me?)

AFA was more a coalition made up of the people who you find in Antifa in its present form, mainly anarchists, and of other left wing militant antifascists, mainly the (vaguely) Trotskyist group RedAction (militant antifascists kicked out the SWP for being 'squadists', alot of these people are now in the IWCA a group with pretty good politics).

Antifa theoretically plays the same role as AFA, however, in my opinion, it is not the same or as good. AFA was bigger, more effective and was a working (albeit with problems) alliance of revolutionary militant antifascists of all tendencies.

[mannetje]

There already was a similar thread like this I believe.

[KarlMarx1989]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1348/1376088539_caead5a036.jpg



Ha ha, that's exactly America.

[Killfacer]

BFF bogey man? Sounding fairly similar to the ANTI FA saviour.

[KarlMarx1989]

There already was a similar thread like this I believe.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/there-right-wing-t117594/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../there-right-wing-t117594/index.html)?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Eh...? Where is this great tide of fascism that you speak of? Sure, there are fascist tendencies within the Republican Party, and fascist parties in Europe, but their influence is marginal.

Let's be clear about one thing: Fascists can only come to power with the help of the existing ruling class. That's how Mussolini and Hitler came to power. At the present time, the ruling class does not favour fascism anywhere in the Western world. Therefore, fascists cannot come to power.

[KarlMarx1989]

Are you sure about that. Some of the things that the ruling class supports--especially, here, in the US--are characteristics and practices of Fascism. Sure, maybe they don't support full-blown Fascism; but if there were someone who came to power in the US and used these characteristics and practices, they could also use the other half of Fascism that no one supports without much protest at all. It could happen quite easily, especially with the state the US is in now.

[Holden Caulfield]

BFF bogey man? Sounding fairly similar to the ANTI FA saviour.


Thats a massive leap of logic, if you want us to go into detail on why your wrong I would be more than happy to.

[ComradeOm]

Definitions of "revolution" will obviously vary but:-

Tuscany, 1919–22?

http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521528666
-What occurred in Tuscany, and indeed across northern Italy, during those years cannot be described as a 'revolution' by any but the most general or banal definition. It was an intense campaign of violence and intimidation by the fascist militias directed not at the state structures but at the socialist and trade union opposition. This was done so in cooperation (at least passive) of the state authorities (police, magistrates, landlords, etc) and was intended to crush socialist opposition to the bourgeois state. Despite the influence gained, at no point did the Fascists openly control this region, institute a new regime/order, or challenge the authority of the Italian state

[KarlMarx1989]

OK, I think we can all agree that a Fascist government is always more likely to be realized than a Socialist government and an Anarchy with combined likelihood.

[Partizani]

Fascists dont revolt, Fascism would not exsist without communism as its purely based on anti-communist ideas.
In the 1920-30's socialist parties across Europe were gaining power and the Upper classes where shitting them selves after seeing what happened in Russia. Along comes the Fascists with thier paramilitaries 'Oh Hai guys, yeah put us in power and we'll keep those commies at bay'
The upper class then thought they could control these fascists and thus supported and funded thier electoral campaigns, obviously not forseeing what would happen once they got in power.