Fascism

[28350]

I've been reading this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Marxist_definition), but still have a few questions:



Does Fascism have the same mode of production as Capitalism?
Whose class interests does Fascism represent?
Why was there such an upsurge of neo-nazism after the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc?

[ContrarianLemming]

* yes, fascism is corporate capitalism, non market capitalism.

* the rich, always the rich, fascism preachs "class colaboration" the opposite of class struggle, which bascially says "be happy with what you've got"

* there wasn't really.

[scarletghoul]

Does Fascism have the same mode of production as Capitalism?
Whose class interests does Fascism represent?

Yes fascism is a type of capitalism. It emerges as the political expression of large industrial monopoly capitalism, or 'corporate capitalism'. As capital becomes more concentrated and monopolies are formed, there is less point in 'free market' and more need for a centralised capitalism tied right to the state. This cements the monopoly capitalists' control of society and lets them crush the workers once and for all. George Jackson described it as a 'scientific capitalism', in response to scientific socialism (Marxism). (Jackson's analysis of fascism is awesome and the best proper marxist analysis I've read, I wish he'd written more on it)

This is the economic basis of Fascism. It carries with it a lot of ideology (ie nationalism) and this is the most visible part of it, and what we usually think of as Fascism is the ideological face of traditional Fascism of 20s/30s Europe. But Fascism is something bigger than that, and must be understood by its economic essence. The fact is this fascism has manifested itself in many ways in many countries, from 1920s classical Italian Fascism to the cold war puppet-fascism of Latin America, to racist imperialist corporate Amerika.

The main problem I have with the modern Anti-Fascism movement is that it focusses only on the overtly racist groups, when infact Fascism is something much bigger than that. Anti-Fascists spend so much time campaigning against NeoNazi fringe groups, and not enough time on the Fascism of for example Israel. They identify only the ideological face of oldschool fascism, and not the material economic essence of fascism, which has changed in its appearance.

So yeah, scientific statist monopoly capitalism, with all of its baggage (extreme and ridiculous nationalism, imperialism, institutional racism, gestapo suppressionism etc).



Why was there such an upsurge of neo-nazism after the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc?

It was an ideological expression of the brutal new capitalist era, in its most vulgar form among the working class. A reflection of the economic transformation that took place. Perhaps it wasn't directly tied to the monopoly capitalist oligarchs, but it was a part of the ideology that emerged with them.

[28350]

Is the concentration of capital stabilizing?

[scarletghoul]

Stabilising in what way ? not sure what you mean
A secure monopoly obviously allows for fixed prices as there's no real market competition.
If you mean it stabilises the economy in general then yes it can do that when the cappie state has a lot of economic power. For example Mussolini's Italy was able to cope with the Great Depression much better than places like the US where fascism had not really taken root, because Italy's economy was coordinated and 'scientific'. Much like the USSR's was, though of a completely differant class nature.

[FriendlyLocalViking]

I don't know why there're so many Fascists in the former USSR, I just know there are, and it needs to be dealt with ruthlessly and without time or space for mercy.

[Tablo]

Does Fascism have the same mode of production as Capitalism?
Yes, Fascism is Capitalist except they maintain a corporatist economy and take the already over the top nationalism we have now to a whole new level of stupidity.


Whose class interests does Fascism represent?
Class interests of the bourgeoisie, primarily the industrialist bourgeoisie.


Why was there such an upsurge of neo-nazism after the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc?
Largely because the Soviet Union promoted radical nationalism to begin with. Also because the Soviet Union was very ethnically diverse and upon the economic collapse that region went through there was a lot of finger pointing.

[FriendlyLocalViking]

Class interests of the bourgeoisie, primarily the industrialist bourgeoisie.


Here I, as a non-Communist, disagree with you. Fascism doesn't serve any class's interests, it merely serves the ideological group that has control. Lest you forget, Fascism takes away everything from everyone, be they poor workers or rich industrial barons.

[Tablo]

Here I, as a non-Communist, disagree with you. Fascism doesn't serve any class's interests, it merely serves the ideological group that has control. Lest you forget, Fascism takes away everything from everyone, be they poor workers or rich industrial barons.
No, fascism is designed to protect the wealth of the Capitalists. Just take a brief look at the support the Nazi party received from corporations.

[FriendlyLocalViking]

No, fascism is designed to protect the wealth of the Capitalists. Just take a brief look at the support the Nazi party received from corporations.

They recieved that support before they then removed any chance the capitalists had to have any authority over their own affairs.

Fascism inadvertently protects capitalists' wealth (by placing it in the hands of others), but it wasn't designed to do that. Thinking so would be silly conspiracy nonsense.

[#FF0000]

They recieved that support before they then removed any chance the capitalists had to have any authority over their own affairs.

Fascism inadvertently protects capitalists' wealth (by placing it in the hands of others), but it wasn't designed to do that. Thinking so would be silly conspiracy nonsense.

Fascists have generally had a lot of support among the petit-bourgeois and bourgeoisie in times of crisis.

Fascism suits the interests of the upper classes when class struggle is a pressing threat to them.

[Tablo]

They recieved that support before they then removed any chance the capitalists had to have any authority over their own affairs.

Fascism inadvertently protects capitalists' wealth (by placing it in the hands of others), but it wasn't designed to do that. Thinking so would be silly conspiracy nonsense.
When does it place it in the hands of others? The only time that happened was when they nationalized financial shit to protect the industrial capitalists. It is totally about protecting Capitalist wealth, primarily those in the industrial sector.

[scarletghoul]

They recieved that support before they then removed any chance the capitalists had to have any authority over their own affairs.

Fascism inadvertently protects capitalists' wealth (by placing it in the hands of others), but it wasn't designed to do that. Thinking so would be silly conspiracy nonsense.
You seem to have a poor understanding of class struggle, and the way classes interact with eachother, the state and so on. I suggest you read more works of Marx, Lenin and Mao, to gain a greater understanding of class.

[FriendlyLocalViking]

You seem to have a poor understanding of class struggle, and the way classes interact with eachother, the state and so on. I suggest you read more works of Marx, Lenin and Mao, to gain a greater understanding of class.

I see you haven't read my bio. I've read and rejected most of that stuff.

[Agnapostate]

Fascism, bluntly summarized, is the combination of extremely authoritarian state and corporate capitalist power, with jingoistic/chauvinistic features such as racism and nationalism typically being characteristics of the fascist regime. To consider the elements of fascist political and cultural ideology and economy, we might look at Umberto Eco's conception of "Eternal Fascism," or Zanden's Pareto and Fascism Reconsidered (thanks, Reiver), which provide important insights.

As Zanden puts it, "obedience, discipline, faith and a religious belief in the cardinal tenets of the Fascist creed are put forth as the supreme values of a perfect Fascist. Individual thinking along creative lines is discouraged. What is wanted is not brains, daring ideas, or speculative faculties, but character pressed in the mold of Fascism." Eco agrees, writing that, "there can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message." Fascism also has a necessarily anti-democratic nature because its class structure emphasizes elitism, and the natural arrangement of a select few governing the masses for their own good. As Zanden notes, "the mass of men is created to be governed and not to govern; is created to be led and not to lead, and is created, finally, to be slaves and not masters: slaves of their animal instincts, their physiological needs, their emotions, and their passions." Similarly, Eco writes that "the Leader, knowing his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler."

Fascism is based on populist rhetoric, however, very clearly exhibited in the radio broadcasts of Depression-era pro-fascist demagogue Father Charles Coughlin. That might even include appeals to socialist and syndicalist ideology (along with plain appeals to democracy and liberty, ironically enough), so as to entice the working class, though I wouldn't expect that particular sort of rhetoric to manifest itself in the U.S. Regardless, however, the economic structure of the most significant fascist regime to ever exist remained decidedly capitalist. We can consult Buccheim and Scherner's The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=449534):


Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and profiles. Even regarding war-related projects, freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency.

Rationing and licensing activities are carried out by state bodies in every capitalist economy, since "free market" capitalism is a utopian abstraction with no history of existence. The fascist economy is thus fundamentally capitalist, and I wouldn't expect deviation from that, in light of the necessity of elitism in fascist society.

[FriendlyLocalViking]

Fascism, bluntly summarized, is the combination of extremely authoritarian state and corporate capitalist power, with jingoistic/chauvinistic features such as racism and nationalism typically being characteristics of the fascist regime. To consider the elements of fascist political and cultural ideology and economy, we might look at Umberto Eco's conception of "Eternal Fascism," or Zanden's Pareto and Fascism Reconsidered (thanks, Reiver), which provide important insights.

As Zanden puts it, "obedience, discipline, faith and a religious belief in the cardinal tenets of the Fascist creed are put forth as the supreme values of a perfect Fascist. Individual thinking along creative lines is discouraged. What is wanted is not brains, daring ideas, or speculative faculties, but character pressed in the mold of Fascism." Eco agrees, writing that, "there can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message." Fascism also has a necessarily anti-democratic nature because its class structure emphasizes elitism, and the natural arrangement of a select few governing the masses for their own good. As Zanden notes, "the mass of men is created to be governed and not to govern; is created to be led and not to lead, and is created, finally, to be slaves and not masters: slaves of their animal instincts, their physiological needs, their emotions, and their passions." Similarly, Eco writes that "the Leader, knowing his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler."

Fascism is based on populist rhetoric, however, very clearly exhibited in the radio broadcasts of Depression-era pro-fascist demagogue Father Charles Coughlin. That might even include appeals to socialist and syndicalist ideology (along with plain appeals to democracy and liberty, ironically enough), so as to entice the working class, though I wouldn't expect that particular sort of rhetoric to manifest itself in the U.S. Regardless, however, the economic structure of the most significant fascist regime to ever exist remained decidedly capitalist. We can consult Buccheim and Scherner's The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=449534):



Rationing and licensing activities are carried out by state bodies in every capitalist economy, since "free market" capitalism is a utopian abstraction with no history of existence. The fascist economy is thus fundamentally capitalist, and I wouldn't expect deviation from that, in light of the necessity of elitism in fascist society.

That's a decent exposition of it.

[ContrarianLemming]

The idea that fascism has gotten an upsugre afeter 1991 is pretty baseless here, societies could have become more authoritarian, but that's not fascism, and socities hve in fact moved away from fascisms non market capitalism to more free market capitalism. Tjis seems pretty obvious to me, fascism is dead, it seems to me that you guys just want to think that fascism is alive and well and that it's still a major threat, it's not, get real.

[RebelDog]

Fascists have generally had a lot of support among the petit-bourgeois and bourgeoisie in times of crisis.

Fascism suits the interests of the upper classes when class struggle is a pressing threat to them.

Exactly. The fascists are needed when the bourgeois state alone can no longer supress the workers movements. They are their firemen in an emergency. They don't care that fascism is a weapon of mass destruction, their only concern is that their economic dominance is preserved.

[Agnapostate]

The idea that fascism has gotten an upsugre afeter 1991 is pretty baseless here, societies could have become more authoritarian, but that's not fascism, and socities hve in fact moved away from fascisms non market capitalism to more free market capitalism. Tjis seems pretty obvious to me, fascism is dead, it seems to me that you guys just want to think that fascism is alive and well and that it's still a major threat, it's not, get real.

I understood the reference as being to grassroots advocacy and underground movements, in the sense of an outgrowth of fascist ideology being more common than its implementation these days.

[Nolan]

they then removed any chance the capitalists had to have any authority over their own affairs.

This is simply not true. Look at my blog which has an excerpt from Italian law at the time. The industrialists gained more power and influence than ever before under fascism.


Fascism inadvertently protects capitalists' wealth (by placing it in the hands of others), but it wasn't designed to do that. Thinking so would be silly conspiracy nonsense.Do you understand what the fascist concepts of class collaborationism and guild capitalism (corporatism) entail?

[ContrarianLemming]

I understood the reference as being to grassroots advocacy and underground movements, in the sense of an outgrowth of fascist ideology being more common than its implementation these days.

I tihnk, perhaps you mean a fascist "culture" as opposed to political thought, like the punk culture being different from the actual anarchist movement.

either way, it hasn't really grown, it was at it's hight during the 80's, the skinhead culture grew out of working class families which was eventually taken over by neo nazis, but that was strongest during the 80's.

[durhamleft]

* yes, fascism is corporate capitalism, non market capitalism.

* the rich, always the rich, fascism preachs "class colaboration" the opposite of class struggle, which bascially says "be happy with what you've got"

* there wasn't really.

Surely national socialism had some left wing elements in there policy? Such as investing heavily in German industry in the 30s?

[FriendlyLocalViking]

Surely national socialism had some left wing elements in there policy? Such as investing heavily in German industry in the 30s?

No. Nothing about the Nazis was Left-wing. If they did anything that appears to be left, it's merely because it's successful and they were after three things: guns, money, and power. If It got any of those three things, they'd give it a try.

[28350]

Socialist concessions are often part of depression politics, in that they keep the populace happy and keep the economy afloat for a bit longer.

[durhamleft]

No. Nothing about the Nazis was Left-wing. If they did anything that appears to be left, it's merely because it's successful and they were after three things: guns, money, and power. If It got any of those three things, they'd give it a try.

Well all I'd say is having studied Nazism is good detail, I personally think you're wrong.

If everything they did was extreme right, then you would surely have found very low taxes, and something of a free market, but in fact the opposite happened. Hitler had a huge public sector and employed millions of people in all sorts of jobs (some of stupid as digging holes and filling them in again). Naturally his social policy was extreme right wing, but I would personally suggest his economic policy wasn't always, and he used some economic tools at the time that were left wing (let's not forget, he had Shact in charge of office for about 6 years, who was a fantastic economist).

[FriendlyLocalViking]

Well all I'd say is having studied Nazism is good detail, I personally think you're wrong.

If everything they did was extreme right, then you would surely have found very low taxes, and something of a free market, but in fact the opposite happened. Hitler had a huge public sector and employed millions of people in all sorts of jobs (some of stupid as digging holes and filling them in again). Naturally his social policy was extreme right wing, but I would personally suggest his economic policy wasn't always, and he used some economic tools at the time that were left wing (let's not forget, he had Shact in charge of office for about 6 years, who was a fantastic economist).

Well all I'd say is having studied Nazism in good detail, I personally think I'm right.

Is it cuz I'm using a non-Marxist analysis that you don't like my findings?

[durhamleft]

Well all I'd say is having studied Nazism in good detail, I personally think I'm right.

Is it cuz I'm using a non-Marxist analysis that you don't like my findings?

I'm not a Maxist. Or a communist of any sort for that matter.

If you have studied Nazism so well, then will you please explain to me how Hitler's economy was right wing in many of the tools they used and how you can say that socialist policy did not make up a large amount of Hitler's economic policy.

The evil of National Socialism was the Nationalism, not the Socialism.

[Agnapostate]

If you have studied Nazism so well, then will you please explain to me how Hitler's economy was right wing in many of the tools they used and how you can say that socialist policy did not make up a large amount of Hitler's economic policy.

The absence of collective ownership of the means of production and fierce persecution of those who advocated it would be the reason for the non-socialism of Nazi Germany. That there were state interventions and controls is a facet of every capitalist economy, particularly every wartime capitalist economy. Since they are macroeconomic stabilizers, and since Buccheim and Scherner's empirical research did confirm that capitalist property relations were an integral facet of industrial production, there is no conceivable justification for reference to Nazi economic policy as "socialist."

[Nolan]

If everything they did was extreme right, then you would surely have found very low taxes,

http://sonic.net/~doretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/M%20P/Parenti%20on%20Fascism.html
(http://sonic.net/%7Edoretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/M%20P/Parenti%20on%20Fascism.html)

Taxes were increased for the general populace, but lowered or eliminated for the rich and big business. Inheritance taxes for the wealthy were greatly reduced or abolished. Both Mussolini and Hitler showed their gratitude to their business patrons by handing over to them publicly owned and perfectly solvent steel mills, power plants, banks, steamship companies ("privatization," it's called here).



Hitler had a huge public sector and employed millions of people in all sorts of jobs (some of stupid as digging holes and filling them in again). Naturally his social policy was extreme right wing, but I would personally suggest his economic policy wasn't always, and he used some economic tools at the time that were left wing (let's not forget, he had Shact in charge of office for about 6 years, who was a fantastic economist).

The size of the public sector has nothing to do with left or right wing. Unless you somehow want to suggest China or Iran are leftist.

[28350]

unless you somehow want to suggest china or iran are leftist.

Or the Vatican!

[FriendlyLocalViking]

http://sonic.net/~doretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/M%20P/Parenti%20on%20Fascism.html
(http://sonic.net/%7Edoretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/M%20P/Parenti%20on%20Fascism.html)





The size of the public sector has nothing to do with left or right wing. Unless you somehow want to suggest China or Iran are leftist.

China you could make some kind of argument for. Iran not so much.

[The Gallant Gallstone]

The absence of collective ownership of the means of production and fierce persecution of those who advocated it would be the reason for the non-socialism of Nazi Germany. That there were state interventions and controls is a facet of every capitalist economy, particularly every wartime capitalist economy. Since they are macroeconomic stabilizers, and since Buccheim and Scherner's empirical research did confirm that capitalist property relations were an integral facet of industrial production, there is no conceivable justification for reference to Nazi economic policy as "socialist."

I don't think anyone could reasonably disagree with that.

But if Nazi economic policy was never socialist, what was it late in the World War? The capitalists at Krupp were clearly in a subservient position to Speer; the centralization of the economy at that point was certainly not for the benefit of the workers, so it wasn't socialistic, but the increased "co-ordination" was undoubtedly a process of centralization.

[FriendlyLocalViking]

I don't think anyone could reasonably disagree with that.

But if Nazi economic policy was never socialist, what was it late in the World War? The capitalists at Krupp were clearly in a subservient position to Speer; the centralization of the economy at that point was certainly not for the benefit of the workers, so it wasn't socialistic, but the increased "co-ordination" was undoubtedly a process of centralization.

At that point they were just so desperate to not get killed that they'd do anything that might keep the war going and maybe turn it in their favour.