Is Raw Fascism a working class ideology?

[Partizani]

Is Raw Fascism a working class ideology?
My question arises from the fact that Mussolini who was a dedicated socialist, created fascism along socialist lines (apart from the strongly anti-communist part of it obviously). So in its early days was it a working class ideology before it was "corrupted"?

inb4 omg hes a fascist

[bailey_187]

Is Raw Fascism a working class ideology?
My question arises from the fact that Mussolini who was a dedicated socialist, created fascism along socialist lines (apart from the strongly anti-communist part of it obviously). So in its early days was it a working class ideology before it was "corrupted"?

inb4 omg hes a fascist

it's intended to have cross-class appeal opposing both liberal bourgeois society and the prospect of socialism, however, in practice it has led to declining wages and living standards of workers and rise in profits for capitalists.

[Widerstand]

If a worker advocates capitalism, does that make capitalism a working class ideology? No, because capitalism does not emancipate and empower the worker. Is fascism fundamentally different from capitalism in that regard? No, in fact it is more extremely opposed to worker emancipation.

[Partizani]

that could have been caused by corruption? the same perhaps how russian communism turned into state communism with the new bourgeois being the party.
Another reason i was intrigued by this is because upon reading up on some more Spanish civil war, the old falangists were disliked by the newcomers because of their leftist ideas.

[L.A.P.]

the idea that fascism really has anything to do with socialism is really just a complete bullshit lie from fascists and third positionists and was expanded upon during the McCarthy era of the Cold War. In a thread of mine I explained (not saying I'm some world renowned theorist) that the economics of fascism (third position) is really just state capitalism. By no means is fascism a worker's ideology, it's just that a lot of the worker's were quick to follow fascism because of xenophobic fear mongering. Kind of like the tea party movement.:D

[spice756]

Is Raw Fascism a working class ideology?
My question arises from the fact that Mussolini who was a dedicated socialist, created fascism along socialist lines (apart from the strongly anti-communist part of it obviously). So in its early days was it a working class ideology before it was "corrupted"?

inb4 omg hes a fascist


There is a move turn Fascism in the US they are more conservative and also demad that people need government to tell them what is good for them or not .They support a police state and big army .

They feel the need to teach god in school and media .They love laws and big police state.

[Zanthorus]

Is Raw Fascism a working class ideology?
My question arises from the fact that Mussolini who was a dedicated socialist, created fascism along socialist lines (apart from the strongly anti-communist part of it obviously).

Mussolini was a member of the Italian Socialist Party prior to World War One, but he was a member of the pro-war current which, almost uniquely among Second International parties, was a minority. For that reason he split from the PSI, and when he became a fascist he was anti-socialist.


Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle... Fascism [is] the resolute negation of the doctrine underlying so-called scientific and Marxian socialism, the doctrine of historic materialism which would explain the history of mankind in terms of the class struggle and by changes in the processes and instruments of production, to the exclusion of all else.- Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism

[#FF0000]

What do you think is remotely socialist or pro-working class about fascism?

[Nolan]

No, but fascism typically makes a lot of effort to gain support from the working class. Oftentimes you see a "pro-labor" wing, such as the Strasser brothers in the Nazi Party, or as was mentioned above, the Falangists. The wing built from petit-bourgeois members and disgruntled soldiers always comes out on top, like the SS destroyed the SA.

It is often misunderstood by more established right-wing movements (this happened in Germany and Spain) because at one time it was so different from any "traditional" right-wing ideology in existence.

Mussolini created fascism after he broke with the left entirely, but fascism is influenced by leftist concepts and tactics. For instance, fascism recognizes class struggle. This is one of their core features. But instead of advocating the abolition of private property, they advocate "class collaboration."* To them, the existence of class is a good thing and is a natural or "organic" part of society. Orthodox fascism also recognizes the role of war, and to the naive this would be a leftist view. However, they embrace it war and conflict. Fascism is especially dangerous because it was built from the ground up with anti-socialism in mind.


*this isn't really new at all. The "National System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_%28economics%29)" of the Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton included this. I bet most teabaggers don't know about this. By modern standards you might even consider a lot of the American founding fathers third positionists of sorts.



Henry C. Carey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_C._Carey), a leading American economist and adviser to Abraham Lincoln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln), in his book Harmony of Interests, displays two additional points of this American School economic philosophy that distinguishes it from the systems of Adam Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith) or Karl Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx):


Government support for the development of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) and public education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education) through a public 'common' school system and investments in creative research through grants and subsidies.
Rejection of class struggle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_struggle), in favor of the "Harmony of Interests" between: owners and workers, farmer and manufacturers, the wealthy class and the working class.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_%28economics%29#cite_note-Carey_Harmony-16)

Other proponents include George Washington, John Q. Adams and Henry Clay. God help us all if this movement ever came back and fused with Reaganist nationalism.

[L.A.P.]

What do you think is remotely socialist or pro-working class about fascism?

CLASS COLLABORATION!:D::thumbup::rolleyes:

[Widerstand]

No, but fascism typically makes a lot of effort to gain support from the working class.

This. You could, I guess, simplify and say that fascist movements 'abuse' class struggle mechanics. See how NSDAP means "National Socialist German Workers Party".

[Dimentio]

Is Raw Fascism a working class ideology?
My question arises from the fact that Mussolini who was a dedicated socialist, created fascism along socialist lines (apart from the strongly anti-communist part of it obviously). So in its early days was it a working class ideology before it was "corrupted"?

inb4 omg hes a fascist

Methodology has to be separated from ideology.

[Baseball]

Is Raw Fascism a working class ideology?
My question arises from the fact that Mussolini who was a dedicated socialist, created fascism along socialist lines (apart from the strongly anti-communist part of it obviously). So in its early days was it a working class ideology before it was "corrupted"?

inb4 omg hes a fascist

Yes. And being "anti-communist" is not proof of it not being along socialist lines. There are plenty of revlefters here who would agree with the Fascists that somebody like Stalin is not a real socialist.

[#FF0000]

Yes

How do you figure that Fascism, an ideology that is based on class collaboration, and that supports organizing a society along a strict hierarchy based on class, is remotely a "working class ideology".

I mean, Fascism was never even popular among the working class where it was in power. There was a whopping total of one union in all of Spain that supported the Fascists, and Hitler had almost no support from the working class in Germany.


There are plenty of revlefters here who would agree with the Fascists that somebody like Stalin is not a real socialist.

Fascists say Stalin isn't a real socialist? Really? That's news to me.

[Bud Struggle]

Fascism really isn't an occupation or class based ideology. It's primary orientation is nationalistic or racist. Now workers can be nationalistic of course but the key to Fascism is some sort of group membership othan than class.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=The Best Mod In Revleft History;1911056]How do you figure that Fascism, an ideology that is based on class collaboration, and that supports organizing a society along a strict hierarchy based on class, is remotely a "working class ideology".

Its organised on race, not class. Class is irrelevent. All people of a particular race or ethnic group are equal.Nor is that particularly unsocialist. Even Marx supported German and Italian nationalism.


I mean, Fascism was never even popular among the working class where it was in power

This is false. Hitler for example was extremely popular amongst the workers. Indeed that popularity caused problems for those various coup d'etat plans of the 30s.

[#FF0000]

Its organised on race, not class. Class is irrelevent.

That's completely wrong. Class collaboration is a key element in Fascist ideology. Racism isn't even necessarily a part of it. Italian fascism, for example, didn't worry about race. They worried about whether or not a person was "culturally" Italian.


All people of a particular race or ethnic group are equal.

No, not according to Fascism. There is a clear and distinct hierarchy that is strongly enforced. If workers have a voice, it's to air professional concerns only. That is, it is so the workers can let the ruling class know what needs to be done so they can better fulfill their role as workers.


Even Marx supported German and Italian nationalism

1) Source
2) What was the context? In the transition from feudalism to capitalism, nationalism is indeed a progressive thing that socialists would support. Nationalism in the mid 19th century is a very different animal than nationalism in the 20th century.


This is false. Hitler for example was extremely popular amongst the workers. Indeed that popularity caused problems for those various coup d'etat plans of the 30s.


No, that's flatly untrue. Hitler had limited support among the working class. Most of his support came from peasants in the Southeast and the military.

And regardless, having a lot of working class supporters doesn't make fascism or nazism a working class ideology. The Nazis did not present themselves as a revolutionary socialist party. They were a pro-business party and a stabilizing party.

By your logic the Republican party is the Vanguard.

[FuckDianetics]

If you read the Communist Manifesto, Marx discusses different socialist ideologies that had already arisen by his time, and why all but his own idea of socialism were fundementally flawed. Fascism was a form of socialism, brainchild of Mussolini, fashioned as a response to his personal dissillusionment with Marxist socialism. And of course, it again was fundementally flawed. It attempts to create a third way between capitalism and communism and fashions itself as the opposite of Marxism, hence the anti communist element. It is a bizzare mix of incompatible ideologies. It attempts to tackle the same problems as Marxism does, but does it in an inadequate, illogical way.

The obvious confusion comes from the fact that many of the 'communist' regimes of the 20th century had distinctly fascist elements to them, and obvious elements of dictatorship and class divides. Ah well... In terms of ideology, fascism attempts to be an all encompassing ideology (very idealistical attempt I must add), whereas communism focuses on the working class, who are the true driving force of society. :)

[Bud Struggle]

The obvious confusion comes from the fact that many of the 'communist' regimes of the 20th century had distinctly fascist elements to them, and obvious elements of dictatorship and class divides. .


Some may say--Communist still have those elements. :(

[Nolan]

If you read the Communist Manifesto, Marx discusses different socialist ideologies that had already arisen by his time, and why all but his own idea of socialism were fundementally flawed. Fascism was a form of socialism, brainchild of Mussolini, fashioned as a response to his personal dissillusionment with Marxist socialism. And of course, it again was fundementally flawed. It attempts to create a third way between capitalism and communism and fashions itself as the opposite of Marxism, hence the anti communist element. It is a bizzare mix of incompatible ideologies. It attempts to tackle the same problems as Marxism does, but does it in an inadequate, illogical way.

I don't think this is correct. Fascism cannot be considered a form of socialism because of the fact that it is not against private property. This is the main feature of socialism, and fascism lacks it. As I pointed out, fascist and Marxist analysis occasionally overlap but they end in completely different conclusions. Fascism is built from the platform of capitalism and has historically served to protect the pre-existing property relations against foreign and domestic socialist movements.

As I've said before, the birth of fascism marked Mussolini's break with the left and he goes out of his way to show how socialism is the bane of society.


The obvious confusion comes from the fact that many of the 'communist' regimes of the 20th century had distinctly fascist elements to them, and obvious elements of dictatorship and class divides. Ah well... In terms of ideology, fascism attempts to be an all encompassing ideology (very idealistical attempt I must add), whereas communism focuses on the working class, who are the true driving force of society. :)

They did have growing class divides in revisionism. This doesn't have anything to do with fascism, but their slide toward capitalism. Enver Hoxha was one of the ones that abused the word 'fascism' when referring to the USSR.

[Fabrizio]

There's no working class ideology. The middle classes form ideologies, the workers follow one variant or another, even Lenin admitted this much/ Mussolini, just like Marx and Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, was from the middle classes. .

Don't get me wrong, if the "working class" (to whatever extent we can still speak of such a thing) ever does form an ideology of its own, good luck to them, I may even back them. Until then I'll keep going on the historical evidence.

[Nolan]

[QUOTE]

Its organised on race, not class. Class is irrelevent.

Wrong, class is very relevant to fascism. They see it as a good thing. They advocate class collaboration, the idea that labor and capital should have the same interests through the state. Class is a "natural" part of society to them.


All people of a particular race or ethnic group are equal.Nor is that particularly unsocialist.

No. Their ideal society is like a military barracks. See above.


Even Marx supported German and Italian nationalism.

At one time nationalism played a progressive role in the transition from feudalism to capitalism.




This is false. Hitler for example was extremely popular amongst the workers. Indeed that popularity caused problems for those various coup d'etat plans of the 30s.

No, this is an overstatement. He had some popularity early on with the working class, but lost it as he started to favor big business over labor. Most support for the nazis came from the middle class. Even mainstream history books teach this. The SA was the party's only real connect to the working class, and it was purged.

[Nolan]

There's no working class ideology. The middle classes form ideologies, the workers follow one variant or another, even Lenin admitted this much/ Mussolini, just like Marx and Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, was from the middle classes. .

Don't get me wrong, if the "working class" (to whatever extent we can still speak of such a thing) ever does form an ideology of its own, good luck to them, I may even back them. Until then I'll keep going on the historical evidence.

What the hell are you talking about?

[Bud Struggle]

There's no working class ideology. The middle classes form ideologies, the workers follow one variant or another, even Lenin admitted this much/ Mussolini, just like Marx and Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, was from the middle classes. .

Don't get me wrong, if the "working class" (to whatever extent we can still speak of such a thing) ever does form an ideology of its own, good luck to them, I may even back them. Until then I'll keep going on the historical evidence.

Great post. You nailed how real life works.


What the hell are you talking about? This is why Communisn has been relegated to minor posts on minor websites.

It's about the REAL WORLD. Really. Don't you ever wonder why Capitalism always wins?

Aren't you even curious?

[Fabrizio]

[QUOTE=Baseball;1911156]
The SA was the party's only real connect to the working class, and it was purged.

I thought the SA was mainly deviant lumpen types. Probably they were less popular among the workers than the "mainstream " Nazi party. They were there more to terrorize than to win support.

[Nolan]

This is why Communisn has been relegated to minor posts on minor websites.

It's about the REAL WORLD. Really. Don't you ever wonder why Capitalism always wins?

Aren't you even curious?

I'm sorry to inform you, but communism is a major movement and exists outside of RevLeft. Capitalism doesn't always win. It lost in 1917, 1945, and other dates. Eventually it'll have another losing streak. He made a nonsensical post about the 'middle class' making ideologies or whatnot.

[Fabrizio]

I'm sorry to inform you, but communism is a major movement and exists outside of RevLeft. Capitalism doesn't always win. It lost in 1917, 1945, and other dates. Eventually it'll have another losing streak. He made a nonsensical post about the 'middle class' making ideologies or whatnot.

Nonsensical to you. I think most people not ideologically blinkered would recognize the truth of it.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm sorry to inform you, but communism is a major movement and exists outside of RevLeft. Capitalism doesn't always win. It lost in 1917, 1945, and other dates. Eventually it'll have another losing streak. He made a nonsensical post about the 'middle class' making ideologies or whatnot.

I can see where you are comming from Cormrade. I don't agree, but I wish the best to you.

[#FF0000]

Nonsensical to you. I think most people not ideologically blinkered would recognize the truth of it.

Yeah, that's fair. :rolleyes:

And I think he means it's nonsensical because ideologies aren't deemed "working class" or "middle class" or whatever based on who thinks of it. It's based on whose class interest it serves.

[Bud Struggle]

It's based on whose class interest it serves.

It's based on the fact he believes that Proletarian stuff just as a Baptist believes in Jesus and a Moslem believes in Allah and a Capitalist believes in the market system. All equally valid view of reality.

It's just another belief for those that have "the faith."

[Thirsty Crow]

It's based on the fact he believes that Proletarian stuff just as a Baptist believes in Jesus and a Moslem believes in Allah and a Capitalist believes in the market system. All equally valid view of reality.

It's just another belief for those that have "the faith."

There is no need to "believe" in that "Proletarian stuff". You just have to follow your self interest. And it happens that my interest lies within the overarching interest of the proletariat as a class (and other exploited and oppressed groups) - abolition of capitalism.
Also, lumping together members of organized religions and proponents of diffrent kinds of social structure is...not the brightest of ideas.

[Bud Struggle]

There is no need to "believe" in that "Proletarian stuff". You just have to follow your self interest. And it happens that my interest lies within the overarching interest of the proletariat as a class (and other exploited and oppressed groups) - abolition of capitalism. So here's the problem: my self interest may not be the same as your self interest. When I was a up and comming Proletarian--I saw there was no future in it for me, so I switched sides and became a Capitalist. THAT was my self interest. I also think there is something to this whole afterlife business--so I'm a Catholic. So following my self interest I am a Catholic Capitalist. It works for me. Obviously this whole materialist Communist thing works makes you happy--good for you.

Your plan just doesn't take into account the different needs and desires of different people.


Also, lumping together members of organized religions and proponents of diffrent kinds of social structure is...not the brightest of ideas. It's all a matter of how you find your bliss. Some find it in one thing, some in another.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's based on the fact he believes that Proletarian stuff just as a Baptist believes in Jesus and a Moslem believes in Allah and a Capitalist believes in the market system. All equally valid view of reality.

It's just another belief for those that have "the faith."How are they equally valid? Some can be tested while others can not. Religion can not really be tested, so it can not be lumped in with things which can.

As far as what you can test: you can believe that capitalism is efficient and the gulf of Mexico still fills up with oil, the economy crashes, you get your house foreclosed because banks made bad gambles, and your company lays you off. That view is empirically not as valid as people who argue that the profit system causes problems because of its very nature. Marxism has not be right all the time and there have been many new developments and adjustments, but on the basic things, Marxism has proven in THE REAL WORLD to be more true than what most apologists for the system have argued. Or is it really the end of history right now and capitalism has perfected itself as was argued until a couple of years ago?


There's no working class ideology. The middle classes form ideologies, the workers follow one variant or another, even Lenin admitted this much/ Mussolini, just like Marx and Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, was from the middle classes. .

Don't get me wrong, if the "working class" (to whatever extent we can still speak of such a thing) ever does form an ideology of its own, good luck to them, I may even back them. Until then I'll keep going on the historical evidence.My God, you mean to tell me that at a time when there was not mass public education and many working class people had basic reading skills at best, that the writers and full-time revolutionaries were often the people with the background and resources to write books and so on? Holy crap!

As was stated, ideologies are not based on who wrote the books and so on, but on what group's interests were being served. While Marx may have written the books and developed a way of understanding things, his writing can only exist in the context of real working class struggles going on during his lifetime. The questions Marx tried to understand and provide a way to answer, were brought up by these working class movements in concrete ways: can we win better working conditions, can capitalism provide a stable life for wage-earners, if we win higher wages do we end up hurting ourselves by raising prices, etc. Without these real world movements and actions by working class people like the Chartists, the Paris Communards, and the Revolutionaries of 1948, the general strikes in Italy, the soviets creaded by Russian workers themselves, there would be no Marx, or Lenin or Gramsci or anyone. The real world situations of working class movements fighting for people to have more control over their own lives are the source of marxism.

[Fabrizio]

There is no need to "believe" in that "Proletarian stuff". You just have to follow your self interest.

Fine, so why don't most workers do so if Marxism really is "their" ideology?


My God, you mean to tell me that at a time when there was not mass public education and many working class people had basic reading skills at best, that the writers and full-time revolutionaries were often the people with the background and resources to write books and so on? Holy crap!Well yes, I agree with you on the reason, but what's your point? In every society there has been an intellectual elite which guides the way for the rest. Maybe that will change, but let's not pretend that there already exists an ideology which has broken with that mould. Nor would it necessarilly be desirable - the "proeltariat" has not exactly proved it's capable of replacing that role. Look what happened to Russia, the educated classes had to be brought back after the revolution in order to carry out the intellectual labour


As was stated, ideologies are not based on who wrote the books and so on, but on what group's interests were being served. While Marx may have written the books and developed a way of understanding things, his writing can only exist in the context of real working class struggles going on during his lifetime. The questions Marx tried to understand and provide a way to answer, were brought up by these working class movements in concrete ways: can we win better working conditions, can capitalism provide a stable life for wage-earners, if we win higher wages do we end up hurting ourselves by raising prices, etc. Without these real world movements and actions by working class people like the Chartists, the Paris Communards, and the Revolutionaries of 1948, the general strikes in Italy, the soviets creaded by Russian workers themselves, there would be no Marx, or Lenin or Gramsci or anyone. The real world situations of working class movements fighting for people to have more control over their own lives are the source of marxism.

You can say the same for Social Democracy, Populism, the Islamic Revolution, Solidarnosc, and many other movements.

[Baseball]

Wrong, class is very relevant to fascism. They see it as a good thing. They advocate class collaboration, the idea that labor and capital should have the same interests through the state. Class is a "natural" part of society to them.

Yes. That is what I said. ALL were equally Germany. Class did not matter.




At one time nationalism played a progressive role in the transition from feudalism to capitalism.

The National Socialists were what... A couple of generations removed from Marx? You cannot just write off the nationalism inherent in socialism because it led to disaster.






No, this is an overstatement. He had some popularity early on with the working class, but lost it as he started to favor big business over labor.

Hitler was about the most popular chancellor in German history. That does not come from simply the "middle classes."

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Red America;1911242]

I thought the SA was mainly deviant lumpen types. Probably they were less popular among the workers than the "mainstream " Nazi party. They were there more to terrorize than to win support.


The SA were the shock troops of the National Socialists. Their job was to protect the nazis and to harass their competitors. They were modeled and structured upon the shock troops which served the Social Democrats and Communists (Hitler was always learning from his competitors on the Left. It should not be forgotten that it was Social Democrats who created the institutions which allowed the nazis to win and hold power).

[Jimmie Higgins]

Fine, so why don't most workers do so if Marxism really is "their" ideology?Well since slaves only rebelled sometimes, I guess the southern US slave-owners were right about slaves being happy with the system.:rolleyes:

Why would the US government among others spy on domestic unionists and marxists, sabotage them, imprison them, use the police and national guard against them, get them blacklisted from jobs, and conduct witch hunts (and all this happened before the Russian Revolution as well as in the context of the Cold War) if Marxism was not relevant to regular people?

Though we are at a low point in the class struggle - for workers that is - working people have constantly struggled against capitalism either the state or their own bosses since before Marx's time. There are many different ways people have attempted to "solve" this problem of conflicts between employer and worker... social-democracy, marxism, reformism, and even repression/fascism are attempts to end this elemental "problem" with this system. But just as leeches or penicillin can be used in the attempt to cure a fever, not all answers are equally valid. So you have to ask who wants these various "solutions", what can be achieved by them, and who will benefit from the new arrangement. Ultimately I think that no arrangement or balance between these groups is possible because when one has an advantage, the other suffers. So rather than supporting things that will keep the current state of affairs where the majority are the ones who suffer and are kept powerless, I support an arrangement where the majority rule rather than the minority.


You can say the same for Social Democracy, Populism, the Islamic Revolution, Solidarnosc, and many other movements.I agree - all these struggles along with the chartists are examples of people confronting the very structures and things that Marxism tries to address. But, for various political reasons, many of these movements were pushed back or regressed or coopted as is the case with the Iranian Revolution where the workers and working class issues lost out to another set of class interests - the conservative interests of the rural elite who were feeling threatened by Iran under the Shah like workers were, but for different class reasons (i.e. an erosion of semi-feudal traditional rural power).

The fact that these popular movements by regular people were able to challenge the status-quo... and even overthrow it, only to see that project fail, is an argument for radical socialist politics that see the need for independent working class politics. If more Iranian workers had been won to the idea of ruling society via the workplace councils that were created at the time of the Revolution, then they could have organized a social force much much stronger than the conservative forces. If the US populists had remained independent of the Democratic Party, then they might have been able to create a strong allience of black and white farmers and workers since shortly after populism there was a massive series of labor battles; they could have been a social force to counter the KKK in the south.


Nor would it necessarilly be desirable - the "proeltariat" has not exactly proved it's capable of replacing that role. Look what happened to Russia, the educated classes had to be brought back after the revolution in order to carry out the intellectual labourSo in other words, all that is necessary is a little bit of education and training in skills. Great, that's easy especially since most workers are much more educated than Russians right after coming back from WWI trench warfare.

The working class already runs society, the problem is that they are forcibly kept from being able to decide how to run that society.

[Thirsty Crow]

So here's the problem: my self interest may not be the same as your self interest. When I was a up and comming Proletarian--I saw there was no future in it for me, so I switched sides and became a Capitalist. THAT was my self interest. I also think there is something to this whole afterlife business--so I'm a Catholic. So following my self interest I am a Catholic Capitalist. It works for me. Obviously this whole materialist Communist thing works makes you happy--good for you.

Your plan just doesn't take into account the different needs and desires of different people.

Sure as hell that I won't take into account the desire to have the hiring and firing power, the desire to command social development by means of capital investment. That desire and that need is not legitimate and should be opposed. And that power should be abolished. And I don't care if that's what makes you happy since that is what makes many more people unhappy, subjugated and dehumanized.
However, that does not mean that I would advocate you being stripped of all your rights as a human being. I would only advocate you being expropriated (productive property, not personal possessions) and offered a chance to participate in the formation of a new kind of society. I would also advocate you being "re-educated" (into a new field of expertise/activity; if necessary and if you'd want to).

And as far as your Catholicism is concerned - good for you, you just go man.
Although, if you'd try to interfere with my wish - to be able to ask for euthanasia for example - then we'd have a problem.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=The Best Mod In Revleft History;1911166]That's completely wrong. Class collaboration is a key element in Fascist ideology. Racism isn't even necessarily a part of it. Italian fascism, for example, didn't worry about race. They worried about whether or not a person was "culturally" Italian.

That is fair enough. The Italian Fascists were somewhat different and far more milder than the National Socialists.
However, the National Socialists made great efforts through organisations like the Hitler Youth to stamp out not only regional rivalries (ie Prussians vs, Bavarians) but class ones (the children of aristocrats were no better than the children of coal miners).




1
) Source

Marx supported Bismark's efforts in that regard. It ought be recalled that Austria, not Prussia, was always the main German state. But German nationalists disliked the multi-ethnic character of the Hapsburg monarchy, and Prussia became the standard bearer for German nationalism.


2) What was the context? In the transition from feudalism to capitalism, nationalism is indeed a progressive thing that socialists would support. Nationalism in the mid 19th century is a very different animal than nationalism in the 20th century.

The French Revolution not only was the birth of internationalism, but also of nationalism. The efforts by the revolutionaries to support French nationalism (to eliminate "feudalism") was no different than what one saw by the national Socialists 150 years later (minus the more advanced technological state of affairs by the browns). And the butcheries of the French revolutionaries were in the open whereas the National Socialists tried to keep it secret.




No, that's flatly untrue. Hitler had limited support among the working class. Most of his support came from peasants in the Southeast and the military.

Hitler was extremely unpopular in the millitary. That's why there was constant plotting against him. And Hitler knew it, and he never trusted them.
The political support of the National Socialists came from northern, not southern, Germany.


And regardless, having a lot of working class supporters doesn't make fascism or nazism a working class ideology.

Such conclusions are simply in the mind of the beholder.


The Nazis did not present themselves as a revolutionary socialist party.

The National Socialists presented themselves as the people who would break Versaiiles, break Weimar, break the power of the Jews, and break the power of anyone or anything (including business ie the markets) which sought to subjugate the German people.

[Thirsty Crow]

The National Socialists presented themselves as the people who would break Versaiiles, break Weimar, break the power of the Jews, and break the power of anyone or anything (including business ie the markets) which sought to subjugate the German people.
...including Marxists, socialists and communists. The "socialist" part of the ideology was quickly abandoned once they achieved state power, and in name,it only functioned as lip service to a disillusioned, broken and disoriented workers' movement. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, socialist about NSDAP's ideology (that is, if you don't accept the social-corporatist approach to the notion of socialism; and there are very good reasons why you shouldn't approach this notion is such a manner).

[Nolan]

Yes. That is what I said. ALL were equally Germany. Class did not matter.

So I suppose class is irrelevant to liberal capitalism as well.




The National Socialists were what... A couple of generations removed from Marx? You cannot just write off the nationalism inherent in socialism because it led to disaster.And the period he was talking about was at least a generation before him. If one takes socialist ideology to its logical conclusion, strong nationalism is not possible. This is why every Marxist movement has been internationalist. On the other hand, capitalism and nationalism were born together as Marx noted and waltz hand in hand to this day. What distinguishes American nationalism from most nationalism is its complete infatuation with the rich.






Hitler was about the most popular chancellor in German history. That does not come from simply the "middle classes."Source? The middle class was the focus of their movement. This is common knowledge. The national socialist label compensated for this somewhat and they did try to appeal to the working class - no one denies this.

[Widerstand]

Source? The middle class was the focus of their movement.

I know of no marxist definition of 'Middle Class'. And if we go by the income-based class definition, their 'Middle Class' often is the same as the marxist 'Working Class'.

Anyway, if anything is common knowledge, it's that the NSDAP both in their name and early doings strongly focused on the working class (marxist sense), however they didn't really need their support to seize power due to the system of the Weimarer Republik. After they seized power, mostly restored the economy and ended the reparation payments, they were actually massively popular amongst the whole populace, until they entered war and conditions got worse again.

[Nolan]

I know of no marxist definition of 'Middle Class'. And if we go by the income-based class definition, their 'Middle Class' often is the same as the marxist 'Working Class'.

Anyway, if anything is common knowledge, it's that the NSDAP both in their name and early doings strongly focused on the working class (marxist sense), however they didn't really need their support to seize power due to the system of the Weimarer Republik. After they seized power, mostly restored the economy and ended the reparation payments, they were actually massively popular amongst the whole populace, until they entered war and conditions got worse again.

Middle class from the bourgeois view. I.e. non-union higher income workers, small business, etc. Of course early on they focused primarily on the working class. That's why they started as a "workers party."

[Thirsty Crow]

[QUOTE=Red America;1911604 Of course early on they focused primarily on the working class. That's why they started as a "workers party."[/QUOTE]
Since that was pretty much the only pragmatic option for a bunch of reactionaries out for state power, within the context of the Great Depression and the revolutionary upheaval of late 1910s and early 1920s.
However, it should be clearly noted, socialism as the ideology of the working class is based on proletarian internationalism, amongst other bases. The motto is "workers of the world - unite", not "workers of the world - pact with your national bourgeoisie and start a bloodshed".
Also, it should be clearly noted that the National_Socialists, as well as Fascists, strongly opposed the notion of workers' ownership and management of the means of production by means of workers' political institutions (that is, the soviets and various councils).
And on top of that, it should be noted that the ideology in question does not intend to abolish the social relations based on capital. They only manage capital differently.

[#FF0000]

[QUOTE=Fabrizio;1911245]


The SA were the shock troops of the National Socialists. Their job was to protect the nazis and to harass their competitors. They were modeled and structured upon the shock troops which served the Social Democrats and Communists (Hitler was always learning from his competitors on the Left. It should not be forgotten that it was Social Democrats who created the institutions which allowed the nazis to win and hold power).

Really? Communist and Social Democratic shocktroops? You sure about that? You sure it wasn't, you know, the Freikorps?

But really if this is true I'd just love to hear more about these communist shock-troops.


That is fair enough. The Italian Fascists were somewhat different and far more milder than the National Socialists.

Well, yeah, Nazism is slightly different than vanilla Italian Fascism (though no two iterations of Fascism were totally the same).


However, the National Socialists made great efforts through organisations like the Hitler Youth to stamp out not only regional rivalries (ie Prussians vs, Bavarians) but class ones (the children of aristocrats were no better than the children of coal miners).

You mean like the military does to people in Basic? Does this mean that the military is a revolutionary socialist outfit? Does this mean class doesn't exist in the Army?


Marx supported Bismark's efforts in that regard. It ought be recalled that Austria, not Prussia, was always the main German state. But German nationalists disliked the multi-ethnic character of the Hapsburg monarchy, and Prussia became the standard bearer for German nationalism.


Yeah but can you give me a source for this? I don't really doubt it's true but context is very, very important in this.



Hitler was extremely unpopular in the millitary. That's why there was constant plotting against him. And Hitler knew it, and he never trusted them.
The political support of the National Socialists came from northern, not southern, Germany.


It really depends on what period you're talking about, here. During the Nazi's rise to power, though, military and ex-military were a group they appealed to. As for the Northern/Southern issue, you might be right. For some reason I get the idea that the Nazis had a lot of support in Bavaria. I think they had strong appeal to the farmers in that region, or something.


The French Revolution not only was the birth of internationalism, but also of nationalism. The efforts by the revolutionaries to support French nationalism (to eliminate "feudalism") was no different than what one saw by the national Socialists 150 years later (minus the more advanced technological state of affairs by the browns). And the butcheries of the French revolutionaries were in the open whereas the National Socialists tried to keep it secret.

No, it is very different because 150 years before the Nazis, because French Nationalism during the Revolution served the purpose to demolishing what was left of Feudalism by centralizing power in a French state. German nationalism was naked populism that served no such purpose. This is why one is progressive, and one is not.


The National Socialists presented themselves as the people who would break Versaiiles, break Weimar, break the power of the Jews, and break the power of anyone or anything (including business ie the markets) which sought to subjugate the German people.

Yeah, but they weren't the only ones that were playing up the Versailles angle. They just managed to gain credibility as the stabilizing "strong man" by using militaristic imagery and calming down the middle class by using the SA to break up communist meetings.

[Bud Struggle]

How are they equally valid? Some can be tested while others can not. Religion can not really be tested, so it can not be lumped in with things which can. Sure religion could be tested. Billions of people test it every day and like the results they find. It completes their lives. IF religion didn't do it's job it wouldn't exist. As a matter of fact it certainly proved stronger than Communism in countries like Poland.


As far as what you can test: you can believe that capitalism is efficient and the gulf of Mexico still fills up with oil, the economy crashes, you get your house foreclosed because banks made bad gambles, and your company lays you off. That view is empirically not as valid as people who argue that the profit system causes problems because of its very nature. Marxism has not be right all the time and there have been many new developments and adjustments, but on the basic things, Marxism has proven in THE REAL WORLD to be more true than what most apologists for the system have argued. Or is it really the end of history right now and capitalism has perfected itself as was argued until a couple of years ago?
Marxism has been tested over and over again--and it waways looks like the Soviet Union or North Korea or Maoist China. Not exactly stellar results. The thing is that not all results that work best for humanity are quantitive some are qualitive--and that is something that Communism has a great trouble with. That's why the Communists in Russia never could dislodge religion from the populace through sixty years of trying. As far as Capitalism goes--in the US it is far more popular than any sort of Socialism. People, for the most part, have voted. I think in the third world--thing might be different.

[Bud Struggle]

Sure as hell that I won't take into account the desire to have the hiring and firing power, the desire to command social development by means of capital investment. That desire and that need is not legitimate and should be opposed. I can see how you would believe that--but other people have other opinions.


And that power should be abolished. And I don't care if that's what makes you happy since that is what makes many more people unhappy, subjugated and dehumanized. Except most people don't feel dehumanized by having a job. Most people when given the opportunity would rather work for someone than start their own business. You may not like it, but you have to give other people the right to live their lives they way they want.


However, that does not mean that I would advocate you being stripped of all your rights as a human being. I would only advocate you being expropriated (productive property, not personal possessions) and offered a chance to participate in the formation of a new kind of society. I would also advocate you being "re-educated" (into a new field of expertise/activity; if necessary and if you'd want to). Thank you. That is very kind of you.


And as far as your Catholicism is concerned - good for you, you just go man.
Although, if you'd try to interfere with my wish - to be able to ask for euthanasia for example - then we'd have a problem.Why sould your wish for society be any more important than my wish for society? You are just another me--with a slightly different agenda.

[RGacky3]

I can see how you would believe that--but other people have other opinions.


Just depends if you want to live in a democratic society or a autocratic one, I want to live in a democratic one.


Except most people don't feel dehumanized by having a job. Most people when given the opportunity would rather work for someone than start their own business.

You know this how? Are you saying most people would rather NOT have a say in their workplace?


Why sould your wish for society be any more important than my wish for society? You are just another me--with a slightly different agenda.

Because your wish (I'm assuming what he's talking about) is to impost your control on other people, our wish is to get rid of that control.


As far as Capitalism goes--in the US it is far more popular than any sort of Socialism. People, for the most part, have voted. I think in the third world--thing might be different.

Really? I never knew the issue of capitalism or socialism was ever up for a vote. When was that vote made?

[Thirsty Crow]

I can see how you would believe that--but other people have other opinions. Sure, that's perfectly legit. We'll just have to see what opinions will prevail.


Except most people don't feel dehumanized by having a job. Most people when given the opportunity would rather work for someone than start their own business. You may not like it, but you have to give other people the right to live their lives they way they want.I'm not talking about personal feelings, but rather structural traits of capitalism. And whoever said that starting one's own business isn't subjected to this dehumanization, which is a consequence of the structural traits of capitalism?
And even if I'd talk about personal feelings, I would point out the fact of real working conditions in the Third World.


Thank you. That is very kind of you.I'm not sure if you're being ironic, but I'd like to make something clear: I do not resent personal choices. I resent those that argue in favour of system which enables those choices. Consequently, I don't have negative feelings towards you as a person.


Why sould your wish for society be any more important than my wish for society? You are just another me--with a slightly different agenda.
Yes, I am human being, and you are as well.
But our wishes, and their realizations, have impact on the world and on other people. And they should be judged according to that impact.

[Bud Struggle]

Just depends if you want to live in a democratic society or a autocratic one, I want to live in a democratic one. Most people like some democracy--but not full Anarchy, I assume. I don't see a lot of people wanting to change the American way of government--they may want to change their leaders--but not the system.


You know this how? Are you saying most people would rather NOT have a say in their workplace? I didn't say people don't want a say in the workplace--they do. I said that most people would rather work for someone than go off and start their own businesses.


Because your wish (I'm assuming what he's talking about) is to impost your control on other people, our wish is to get rid of that control. That's fine.


Really? I never knew the issue of capitalism or socialism was ever up for a vote. When was that vote made? Gus Hall, of happy memory (and others like him) have been trying to run for President--and other positions for years. Nobody is much interested.

[Bud Struggle]

Sure, that's perfectly legit. We'll just have to see what opinions will prevail. I have no problem with that either. In the end I think it will be some sort of Social Democracy.


I'm not talking about personal feelings, but rather structural traits of capitalism. And whoever said that starting one's own business isn't subjected to this dehumanization, which is a consequence of the structural traits of capitalism? Yea, but few people even know that some economic systems posit that they are being dehumanized when they get a job--much less care about it.


And even if I'd talk about personal feelings, I would point out the fact of real working conditions in the Third World. In that area I would tend to agree with you.


I'm not sure if you're being ironic, but I'd like to make something clear: I do not resent personal choices. I resent those that argue in favour of system which enables those choices. Consequently, I don't have negative feelings towards you as a person. I'm not being ironic at all. I get killed off on a regular basis around Revleft. It's nice to see a Communist that doesn't take economics personally.



Yes, I am human being, and you are as well.
But our wishes, and their realizations, have impact on the world and on other people. And they should be judged according to that impact. I agree there, too.

[Nolan]

It really depends on what period you're talking about, here. During the Nazi's rise to power, though, military and ex-military were a group they appealed to. As for the Northern/Southern issue, you might be right. For some reason I get the idea that the Nazis had a lot of support in Bavaria. I think they had strong appeal to the farmers in that region, or something.
The nazi movement was largely protestant. Bavaria has a lot of catholics. You are correct about the farmers. Just wrong region. The nazis were a flop with urban workers and the unemployed. Rural peasants somewhat made up for this.



Although Hitler's political career began in Munich, in the elections of 1928 to November 1932 the NSDAP won a higher share of the vote in Protestant than in Catholic Germany. In the Catholic Rhineland and Bavaria (apart from Protestant Franconia) it polled disproportionately badly. In fact in July 1932 the Nazi share of the vote was almost twice as high in Protestant as in Catholic areas. The inability, of Nazis to attract the Catholic vote was demonstrated by the stable support for the Catholic Centre Party, which regularly gained between 11.8 and 12.5 per cent between 1928, and November 1932; and by that of its sister confessional party, the Bavarian People's Party (BVP), which stayed firm at around 3 per cent in those same elections.
In some places, of course, the NSDAP mobilised Catholic voters on a significant scale, as happened in Breslau and Liegnitz (towns in Silesia where conflicts between Germans and Poles coloured political identity), in the Catholic rural areas of the Palatinate, and among some Catholics in the Black Forest; but these cases were atypical.

Surprisingly, the first electoral breakthroughs enjoyed by the Nazis came in Protestant rural areas, such as Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony, where peasant voters had earlier registered discontent with their traditional representatives from the DNVP (German National People's Party or Nationalists). In fact this was more than a little ironical, as Nazi propaganda had initially targeted urban workers, and the Nazi agrarian programme developed in 1928 was only in response to the expansion of support in these areas. Subsequently the constituencies with the highest proportion of Nazi voters were in Protestant farming communities; and by 1932 the stream of peasant deserters to Hitler's party had become a torrent. Many rural labourers, often influenced by the estate managers, voted for the NSDAP in July 1932. Indeed, the scale of agrarian support for the party in that election suggests the Nazis were able not only to win the support of peasants and rural labourers but also that of some large landowners.

[ComradeMan]

Mussolini was certainly an ex-socialist and did base his ideas on a kind of national socialism but fundamentally speaking fascism was corporatist and more in the interest of the bourgeoisie and failed to garner much support amongst the working classes of Italy. But the fascisti were clever (sneaky) they gave the appearance of providing for the working classes, such as the slum clearances of Rome and the accommodation they built and provided- however they were interested in "improving" the worker for the sake of the bourgeoisie and the capitalists, they were not interested in creating a classless society at all- if anything- the opposite.

PS. I know it's a moot point, but can we perhaps separate fascism and nazism as being too related yet at the same time differing ideologies.

[Nolan]

No, we cannot. Nazism is a form of fascism.

[ComradeMan]

No, we cannot. Nazism is a form of fascism.

Fascism was a totalitarian regime/ideology based on the state whereas nazism was a totalitarian regime/ideology based on race. Fascism was corporatist and although avowed anti-capitalist was basically a totalitarian form of state-capitalism.

The two are parallel developments and interrelated by history yet to say that fascism is the same as nazism is factually incorrect. Nazis of course adhere to fascist ideological principles yet fascists are not necessarily nazis. It would be like saying anarchists and marxist-leninists are the same because of some ideological common ground.
.

[ComradeMan]

No, we cannot. Nazism is a form of fascism.
Server meltdown- double post- please trash.

[Nolan]

Fascism was a totalitarian regime/ideology based on the state whereas nazism was a totalitarian regime/ideology based on race. Fascism was corporatist and although avowed anti-capitalist was basically a totalitarian form of state-capitalism.

The two are parallel developments and interrelated by history yet to say that fascism is the same as nazism is factually incorrect. Nazis of course adhere to fascist ideological principles yet fascists are not necessarily nazis. It would be like saying anarchists and marxist-leninists are the same because of some ideological common ground.
.

No fascism was not state capitalism. It was a modified form of private capitalism. And while Hitler was more preoccupied with race, he still was a fascist. And yes, ML and anarchists are both socialists. The difference between nazis and vanilla fascists wasn't as wide as the differences you see on the left.

[ComradeMan]

No fascism was not state capitalism. It was a modified form of private capitalism. And while Hitler was more preoccupied with race, he still was a fascist. And yes, ML and anarchists are both socialists. The difference between nazis and vanilla fascists wasn't as wide as the differences you see on the left.

Mussolini's state-corportatism ultimately failed and Italy staggered along with interventionist capitalism.

Like I said, all nazis would be fascists but not all fascists nazis. Anyway, if we are going to have debate we need to be more accurate with terminology. Mussolini was not a Nazi.

On economic issues, Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini in 1933 claimed that fascism's "path would lead inexorably into state capitalism, which is nothing more nor less than state socialism turned on its head. In either event, [whether the outcome be state capitalism or state socialism] the result is the bureaucratization of the economic activities of the nation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism#Use_by_Italian_Fascists

[Nolan]

No one ever said Mussolini was a nazi.

[Nolan]

Mussolini's state-corportatism ultimately failed and Italy staggered along with interventionist capitalism.

Corporatism is a lot like interventionist capitalism. The difference is the Italian fascists tended to kiss ass while Nazism and interventionism pretended to act tough on capitalists.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/rsc/rsceui/2009-46.html

[ComradeMan]

No one ever said Mussolini was a nazi.

So if Mussolini, the "inventor" of fascism was not a nazi, then we can't use nazi and fascist synonymously.

[Nolan]

Um, we're saying nazism was a later variant. Pay attention.

[syndicat]

fascism is not a working class ideology because it seeks to preserve a society in which workers are subordinate and exploited. it's ideology is cross-class in its appeal...because it is extreme nationalist. Historically it has based itself on the small business and bureaucratic classes -- the "in between" classes in modern capitalism. Some fascist movements do espouse a nominally anticapitalist ideology..."national socialism". the "socialism" part is statist and authoritarian, the use of the state supposedly in the interests "of the whole nation."

Mussolini, who was a school teacher, had been part of the radical left wing of the Socialist Party. What he took from that wing of socialism & syndicalism was the emphasis on direct action....the use of armed vigilantes which were used to attack and smash the Left and the labor movement in Italy. when he broke from the Italian socialist movement in 1915 to support Italy's entry in World War 1 and became a nationalist, he was rejected by the overwhelming majority of socialists and syndicalists in Italy at that time. And his fascist movement really grew after it began to get funding from the Ansaldo brothers, owners of a major steel company, and other capitalists. What they were interested in promoting was the smashing of the radical labor movement.

[ComradeMan]

Um, we're saying nazism was a later variant. Pay attention.

A lot of modern historians have begun to question this. Some including Zeev Sternhall, a world expert on historical fascism seem to consider them as separate. Historically we know that Mussolini did not like Hitler at all, despite Hitler's admiration of Mussolini. But let's see what the scholars say....

A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things.

Stackleberg, Rodney Hitler's Germany, Routeledge, 1999, p. 3
Eatwell, Roger: "A 'Spectral-Syncretic Approach to Fascism', The Fascism Reader, Routledge, 2003 pp 71–80
Lipset, Seymour: "Fascism as Extremism of the Middle Class", The Fascism Reader, Routledge, 2003, pp. 112–116

The "Fascist Left" included Angelo Oliviero Olivetti, Sergio Panunzio, and Edmondo Rossoni, who were committed to advancing national syndicalism as a replacement for parliamentary liberalism in order to modernize the economy and advance the interests of workers and the common people.

**The Nazis did not ever have a "left".

The "Fascist Right" included members of the Fascist paramilitary "Squadristi" and former members of the right-wing Italian Nationalist Association (ANI). The Squadristi were intransigent Fascists who wanted the establishment of Fascism as a complete dictatorship, while the former ANI members, including Alfredo Rocco, desired the entrenchment of an authoritarian corporatist state to replace the liberal state in Italy, while retaining existing elites.
Stanley G. Payne. A history of fascism, 1914–1945. Oxon, England, UK: Routledge, 2001. p. 112.

The historians Eugen Weber, David Renton, and Robert Soucy view fascism as on the ideological right. Rod Stackelberg argues that fascism opposes egalitarianism, particularly racial egalitarianism, and democracy, which he considers characteristics that make it an extreme right-wing movement.

Weber, Eugen. Varieties of Fascism: Doctrines of Revolution in the Twentieth Century, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, [1964] 1982. p. 8.
Renton, David. Fascism: Theory and Practice, London: Pluto Press, 1999. Jenkins, Brian (ed). France in the Era of Fascis’, Oxford: Beghahan Books, 2005, p 66.
Stackleberg, Roderick: Hitler's Germany, London: Routeledge, 1999, p 17


Stanley Payne states that pre-war fascism found a coherent identity through alliances with right-wing movements Roger Griffin argues that since the end of World War II, fascist movements have become intertwined with the radical right, describing certain groups as part of a "fascist radical right".

Stanley G. Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition. University of Wisconsin Press, 1983, p. 3.
Roger Griffin, Interregnum or Endgame?: Radical Right Thought in the ‘Post-fascist’ Era, The Journal of Political Ideologies, vol. 5, no. 2, July 2000, pp. 163–78
‘Non Angeli, sed Angli: the neo-populist foreign policy of the "New" BNP', in Christina Liang (ed.) Europe for the Europeans: the foreign and security policy of the populist radical right (Ashgate, Hampshire, 2007

Walter Laqueur says that historical fascism "did not belong to the extreme Left, yet defining it as part of the extreme Right is not very illuminating either", but that it "was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right". Payne says "fascists were unique in their hostility to all the main established currents, left right and center", noting that they allied with both left and right, but more often with the right. However, he contends that German Nazism was closer to Russian communism than to any other non-communist system.

The position that fascism is neither right nor left is supported by a number of contemporary historians and sociologists, including Seymour Martin Lipset and Roger Griffin. Griffin argued, "Not only does the location of fascism within the right pose taxonomic problems, there are good grounds for cutting this particular Gordian knot altogether by placing it in a category of its own 'beyond left and right.'"
Griffin, Roger (1991). The Nature of Fascism. Palgrave Macmillan

Zeev Sternhell sees fascism as an anti-Marxist form of socialism, but he still places fascism on the political Right.

Falasca-Zamponi, Simonetta. Fascist Spectacle: The Aesthetics of Power in Mussolini's Italy. University of California Press, 2000. p. 136.
Sternhell, Zeev, in Laqueur (ed.), Fascism: A Reader's Guide, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976, pp. 315–76
Ignazi, Piero. Extreme right parties in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003

Mussolini claimed that Italian Fascism's economic system of corporatism could be identified as either state capitalism or state socialism, which in either case involved "the bureaucratisation of the economic activities of the nation."

Mussolini, Benito; Schnapp, Jeffery Thompson (ed.); Sears, Olivia E. (ed.); Stampino, Maria G. (ed.). "Address to the National Corporative Council (14 November 1933) and Senate Speech on the Bill Establishing the Corporations (abridged; 13 January 1934)". A Primer of Italian Fascism. University of Nebraska Press, 2000. pp. 158–159.

Roger Eatwell sees terminology associated with the traditional "left-right" political spectrum as failing to fully capture the complex nature of fascism's ideology.
Eatwell, Roger: "A Spectral-Syncretic Approach to Fascism", The Fascism Reader, Routledge, 2003, pp 79–80
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-68



Scholars, including Gilbert Allardyce, Zeev Sternhell, Karl Dietrich Bracher, and A.F.K. Organski, argue that Nazism is not fascism – either because it is different in character or because they believe fascism cannot be generically defined.

Gilbert Allardyce (1979). "What Fascism Is Not: Thoughts on the Deflation of a Concept". American Historical Review (American Historical Association) 84 (2): 367–388. doi (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.2307/1855138 (inactive 2010-08-04). http://jstor.org/stable/1855138.
Paul H. Lewis (2000). Latin Fascist Elites. Praeger/Greenwood. p. 9.
Karl Dietrich Bracher (1976). Fascism: A Reader's Guide. Harmondsworth. pp. 217–218

Nazism differed from Italian fascism in that it had a stronger emphasis on race, religion, and ethnicity, especially exhibited as antisemitism. Roger Griffin, a leading exponent of the generic fascism theory, wrote:

It might well be claimed that Nazism and Italian fascism were separate species within the same genus, without any implicit assumption that the two species ought to be well-nigh identical. Ernst Nolte has stated that the differences could be easily reconciled by employing a term such as 'radical fascism' for Nazism. ... The establishment of fundamental generic characteristics linking Nazism to movements in other parts of Europe allows further consideration on a comparative basis of the reasons why such movements were able to become a real political danger and gain power in Italy and Germany, whereas in other European countries they remained an unpleasant, but transitory irritant...
Griffin, Roger (2003). Fascism: Critical Concepts in Political Science. Taylor & Francis

Sternhell views Nazism as separate from fascism:

Fascism can in no way be identified with Nazism. Undoubtedly the two ideologies, the two movements, and the two regimes had common characteristics. They often ran parallel to one another or overlapped, but they differed on one fundamental point: the criterion of German national socialism was biological determination. The basis of Nazism was a racism in its most extreme sense, and the fight against Jews, against 'inferior' races, played a more preponderant role in it than the struggle against communism.
Sternhell, Zeev (1996). The Birth of the Fascist Ideology: From Cultural Rebellion to Political Revolution. Princeton University Press

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Nazism_.28National_Socialism.2C_Germany.29



*Do more research.:thumbup1:

[#FF0000]

The Nazis did have a "left" that was eliminated during the Night of the Long Knives.

And saying that Nazism was a variant of Fascism isn't that far off base at all, so cut the condescending tone.

[Fabrizio]

Why would the US government among others spy on domestic unionists and marxists, sabotage them, imprison them, use the police and national guard against them, get them blacklisted from jobs, and conduct witch hunts (and all this happened before the Russian Revolution as well as in the context of the Cold War) if Marxism was not relevant to regular people?


I think you're "protesting too much". I din't say Marxism is totally ireelevant, I'm saying it's just one of many ideologies which tries to win the support of "the masses. The state also spies on the far-right, Islamists, and in many states on any opposition at all. I'm opposed to all of that. But what we are arguing here is whether one movement or ideology can lay claim to being a "proletarian ideology". I don't think so, as all ideologies in history have sprung from the middle class intellectuals. Which is a fair thing to be, as long as one does not claim to speak for "the proletariat".



So in other words, all that is necessary is a little bit of education and training in skills. Great, that's easy especially since most workers are much more educated than Russians right after coming back from WWI trench warfare.

The working class already runs society, the problem is that they are forcibly kept from being able to decide how to run that society


You could as equally argue that many in the working class only work at all because of the "push factor" of the market. In reality we have no way of knowing, but I wouldn't place my faith waiting for them to take power and create a perfect society until they've indicated a desire and ability to. Until then I think the onus still rests with the middle classes to lead the way.

[#FF0000]

What do you mean by "middle class"?

[ComradeMan]

The Nazis did have a "left" that was eliminated during the Night of the Long Knives.

And saying that Nazism was a variant of Fascism isn't that far off base at all, so cut the condescending tone.

Don't be a tone troll. :lol:
All I am saying is that there is a lot of modern scholarship that has called into question this synonymity between Nazism and Fascism. Far off base means not on base, so let's try to be accurate too.

Who was the Nazi left? Strasser with his ethnic defence league? The Black Front? Ernst Röhm of the Freikorps who put down the Communists? The so-called socialists of the pre-Long Knives party were calling the conservatives and liberals reactionaries as they had already got rid of the socialists and communists. The Night of the Long Knives was not a purge of "leftists" whatsoever.

[#FF0000]

Don't be a tone troll. :lol:
All I am saying is that there is a lot of modern scholarship that has called into question this synonymity between Nazism and Fascism. Far off base means not on base, so let's try to be accurate too.

It's a point of contention and there's no consensus on it. Clearly, fascism and Nazism are different but they have enough similarities that it's not clear-cut at all.


Who was the Nazi left? Strasser with his ethnic defence league? The Black Front? Ernst Röhm of the Freikorps who put down the Communists? The so-called socialists of the pre-Long Knives party were calling the conservatives and liberals reactionaries as they had already got rid of the socialists and communists. The Night of the Long Knives was not a purge of "leftists" whatsoever.



Yeah, Strasser was a "Left" Nazi.

I'm not sure what your last paragraph's about.

[Bud Struggle]

All I am saying is that there is a lot of modern scholarship that has called into question this synonymity between Nazism and Fascism. Far off base means not on base, so let's try to be accurate too.

Who was the Nazi left? Strasser with his ethnic defence league? The Black Front? Ernst Röhm of the Freikorps who put down the Communists? The so-called socialists of the pre-Long Knives party were calling the conservatives and liberals reactionaries as they had already got rid of the socialists and communists. The Night of the Long Knives was not a purge of "leftists" whatsoever.



Excellent point. The Nazis seemed to be an overarching lifestyle (for aggressive blonds :D) beyond whatever economic plans the Fascists might have had.

FWIW: I still have a difficult time understanding the difference between the economy of China and that of Fascist Italy.

[ComradeMan]

Strasser was perhaps on the Left of the Nazis, but that would not be hard would it? Strasser led nationalist paramilitaries. Are you sure you are not confusing him with his "red" brother, Otto Strasser and the Rote Hundertschaft?

The Nazi "leftwing" does not mean that they were "left". In the case of fascism in Italy, well- one example Angelo Oliviero Olivetti a Jewish former member of the Italian Socialist Party- he was a revolutionary syndicalist. Then of course there was Sergio Penunzio, another revolutionary syndicalist who argued that syndicalism was the historical development of Marxism. Penunzio was also againt the later Nazi induced anti-Semitism of fascist Italy and strangely enough criticised the Soviet Union on the same grounds a lot of leftists do. Rossoni was also a syndicalist too. He later voted against Mussolini, was sentenced to death but escaped.

When talking of the "left" in terms of Italian fascism, i.e. fascism "proper" and the "left" in terms of Nazism- there is basically no comparison in historical terms.

[Fabrizio]

What do you mean by "middle class"?

I mean it more in the British sense of "defined by education and intellectual labour", than in the American sense of "anyone with a mortgage".

[Nolan]

Historically we know that Mussolini did not like Hitler at all, despite Hitler's admiration of Mussolini. But let's see what the scholars say....

So what?


A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things.

It's probably not a coincidence that this is exactly what the fascists said about themselves.


Stackleberg, Rodney Hitler's Germany, Routeledge, 1999, p. 3
Eatwell, Roger: "A 'Spectral-Syncretic Approach to Fascism', The Fascism Reader, Routledge, 2003 pp 71–80
Lipset, Seymour: "Fascism as Extremism of the Middle Class", The Fascism Reader, Routledge, 2003, pp. 112–116

There ya go, baseball. Look into the second one especially.


The "Fascist Left" included Angelo Oliviero Olivetti, Sergio Panunzio, and Edmondo Rossoni, who were committed to advancing national syndicalism as a replacement for parliamentary liberalism in order to modernize the economy and advance the interests of workers and the common people.

In all fascist movements a left faction (in that it was left of the right faction) started to pop up.


**The Nazis did not ever have a "left".

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. The left faction of the nazis was more visible than the left of Mussolini's fascists. This included the SA, the Strasserists, and some say Goebbels.


The historians Eugen Weber, David Renton, and Robert Soucy view fascism as on the ideological right. Rod Stackelberg argues that fascism opposes egalitarianism, particularly racial egalitarianism, and democracy, which he considers characteristics that make it an extreme right-wing movement.

Weber, Eugen. Varieties of Fascism: Doctrines of Revolution in the Twentieth Century, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, [1964] 1982. p. 8.
Renton, David. Fascism: Theory and Practice, London: Pluto Press, 1999. Jenkins, Brian (ed). France in the Era of Fascis’, Oxford: Beghahan Books, 2005, p 66.
Stackleberg, Roderick: Hitler's Germany, London: Routeledge, 1999, p 17


Ok. These ones are right.


Stanley Payne states that pre-war fascism found a coherent identity through alliances with right-wing movements Roger Griffin argues that since the end of World War II, fascist movements have become intertwined with the radical right, describing certain groups as part of a "fascist radical right".

Stanley G. Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition. University of Wisconsin Press, 1983, p. 3.
Roger Griffin, Interregnum or Endgame?: Radical Right Thought in the ‘Post-fascist’ Era, The Journal of Political Ideologies, vol. 5, no. 2, July 2000, pp. 163–78
‘Non Angeli, sed Angli: the neo-populist foreign policy of the "New" BNP', in Christina Liang (ed.) Europe for the Europeans: the foreign and security policy of the populist radical right (Ashgate, Hampshire, 2007

Ok.


Walter Laqueur says that historical fascism "did not belong to the extreme Left, yet defining it as part of the extreme Right is not very illuminating either", but that it "was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right". Payne says "fascists were unique in their hostility to all the main established currents, left right and center", noting that they allied with both left and right, but more often with the right. However, he contends that German Nazism was closer to Russian communism than to any other non-communist system.

The number one reason this is completely ridiculous is the fact that Nazi Germany preserved private property. But if you're going by some totalitarianism vs liberal democracy dichotomy, this has been done to death.


The position that fascism is neither right nor left is supported by a number of contemporary historians and sociologists, including Seymour Martin Lipset and Roger Griffin. Griffin argued, "Not only does the location of fascism within the right pose taxonomic problems, there are good grounds for cutting this particular Gordian knot altogether by placing it in a category of its own 'beyond left and right.'"
Griffin, Roger (1991). The Nature of Fascism. Palgrave Macmillan

Ok, if only free market capitalism is right wing. That means we'll have to put absolute monarchism and theocracy on the left...oh wait


Zeev Sternhell sees fascism as an anti-Marxist form of socialism, but he still places fascism on the political Right.

Done to death in this thread. If private property, x. If not, y. fascism is x. It's so fucking simple yet it seems people are desperate to call fascism socialism.


Mussolini claimed that Italian Fascism's economic system of corporatism could be identified as either state capitalism or state socialism, which in either case involved "the bureaucratisation of the economic activities of the nation."

Yes. Fascism is the merger of corporate and state power. This isn't corporation as in the corporations we know and love, but corporate as an economic planning body composed of industry representatives. This video actually explains it well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1n8ocbdPeI

It isn't state capitalism in the sense that the Soviet Union was state capitalist.



Nazism differed from Italian fascism in that it had a stronger emphasis on race, religion, and ethnicity, especially exhibited as antisemitism. Roger Griffin, a leading exponent of the generic fascism theory, wrote:

If you're using this as an argument that Nazism has nothing to do with fascism, you're splitting hairs. They were both corporatist, ultra-nationalist, one-party states. Nazism was the pupil of Italian Fascism. It adapted it to Germany and fused it with the things you mention above.


It might well be claimed that Nazism and Italian fascism were separate species within the same genus, without any implicit assumption that the two species ought to be well-nigh identical. Ernst Nolte has stated that the differences could be easily reconciled by employing a term such as 'radical fascism' for Nazism. ... The establishment of fundamental generic characteristics linking Nazism to movements in other parts of Europe allows further consideration on a comparative basis of the reasons why such movements were able to become a real political danger and gain power in Italy and Germany, whereas in other European countries they remained an unpleasant, but transitory irritant...
Griffin, Roger (2003). Fascism: Critical Concepts in Political Science. Taylor & Francis

Nothing quoted here supports your argument. Emphasis.


Sternhell views Nazism as separate from fascism:

Fascism can in no way be identified with Nazism. Undoubtedly the two ideologies, the two movements, and the two regimes had common characteristics. They often ran parallel to one another or overlapped, but they differed on one fundamental point: the criterion of German national socialism was biological determination. The basis of Nazism was a racism in its most extreme sense, and the fight against Jews, against 'inferior' races, played a more preponderant role in it than the struggle against communism.
Sternhell, Zeev (1996). The Birth of the Fascist Ideology: From Cultural Rebellion to Political Revolution. Princeton University Press

More hair splitting. If I put sugar on an apple, is it still an apple? The same applies with Hitlerite racism.

The struggle against the Jews and against socialism was made out to be the same.



*Do more research.:thumbup1:

You should take your own advice.

[#FF0000]

FWIW: I still have a difficult time understanding the difference between the economy of China and that of Fascist Italy.

Really? I have the same problem except with liberal democracies at the time.

[ComradeMan]

@Red America

Well you were already wrong on the comment about state-capitalism.

In all fascist movements a left faction (in that it was left of the right faction) started to pop up.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. The left faction of the nazis was more visible than the left of Mussolini's fascists. This included the SA, the Strasserists, and some say Goebbels.

Left of right amongst the far right does not make you "Left". In the case of Italian fascism, including Mussolini, the fascists came out of the historical left and held similar views on some issues. This cannot be said for Nazism.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. What you are calling "left" in Nazism was wiped out during the Long Knives, in Italian fascism it remained until the end.

The number one reason this is completely ridiculous is the fact that Nazi Germany preserved private property. But if you're going by some totalitarianism vs liberal democracy dichotomy, this has been done to death.

Take it up with the published scholars.... including a recognised world expert on fascism.

Ok, if only free market capitalism is right wing. That means we'll have to put absolute monarchism and theocracy on the left...oh wait

Take it up with the published scholars....

Done to death in this thread. If private property, x. If not, y. fascism is x. It's so fucking simple yet it seems people are desperate to call fascism socialism.

I am not calling fascism socialism.

If you're using this as an argument that Nazism has nothing to do with fascism, you're splitting hairs. They were both corporatist, ultra-nationalist, one-party states. Nazism was the pupil of Italian Fascism. It adapted it to Germany and fused it with the things you mention above.

Did I say "nothing to do with"?- I said not synonymous and pointed out some fundamental differences- I also conceded the common ground.

Nothing quoted here supports your argument.

It wasn't my argument- I was presenting some different views.... it's called not cherrypicking things to back your own argument up.

More hair splitting. If I put sugar on an apple, is it still an apple? The same applies with Hitlerite racism.

You said it- Hitlerite racism was not Mussolini's fascism because of the fundamental difference between the way the fascists looked at things and the way the Nazis did.

The struggle against the Jews and against socialism was made out to be the same.

Since when do we base everything on the propaganda posters of the 1930's? There were quite a lot of Jews who were originally fascists in Italy. In 1938 under pressure from Nazi Germany, Mussolini made the regime adopt a policy of anti-Semitism, which was extremely unpopular in Italy and in the Fascist Party itself. As a result of the laws, the Fascist regime lost its propaganda director, Margherita Sarfatti, who was Jewish and had been Mussolini's mistress.

There was also no check on the power of Hitler (constitutionally) whereas Mussolini was still technically subject to dismissal by the King of Italy- who indeed did dismiss him in the end.

Sorry- but you're over-simplifying things all over the place. At the same time you dismiss published scholarship....

[Nolan]

You're just choosing not to understand what I'm saying. I'm beginning to think you're trying to troll. "The common ground" you cede is what makes Nazism a form of fascism. Nazism isn't just racism and swastikas.

[ComradeMan]

You're just choosing not to understand what I'm saying. I'm beginning to think you're trying to troll. "The common ground" you cede is what makes Nazism a form of fascism. Nazism isn't just racism and swastikas.

Stop accusing people of trolling when they disagree with you!

I said that Fascism and Nazism were not the same, i.e. they are not identical and that there are some fundamental differences between the ideologies, their "practice" and their two main historical leaders/founders. I did not say they were not related, did I? I also presented some scholarly points of view from recognised authorities on the subject. What's the problem?

[Nolan]

Stop accusing people of trolling when they disagree with you!

I don't think you're trolling because you disagree, but because you're being incredibly dense about the issue.


I said that Fascism and Nazism were not the same, i.e. they are not identical and that there are some fundamental differences between the ideologies, their "practice" and their two main historical leaders/founders. I did not say they were not related, did I? I also presented some scholarly points of view from recognised authorities on the subject. What's the problem?

I'll repeat myself: Noone is saying Italian Fascism and Nazism are the exact same thing. Rather, they are two ideologies in the family of ideologies we call Fascism. I've already gone over why.

You copypasted some opinions from certain scholars. Then you make an appeal to authority - and a bad one at that since most scholars do consider nazism a form of fascism. I've already given my argument. Nazism is a form of fascism because it included all the features when in was in power. Before it was in power, it copied the tactics and organization of Italian Fascism. They both approached different classes in the same way, i.e. they told people what they wanted to hear. In both cases this included a fake platform to back it up. They both had left factions that tried to garner support from workers and rural laborers, and leaders that met with the rich behind closed doors to beg for donations. The difference in nazism lies in its pan-germanic ultra-nationalism, "Aryan" supremacy, and rabid anti-semitism. Nazis tend to consider economics unimportant and focus on their social politics. Also in some aesthetics, if that counts for anything whatsoever.

[Rainsborough]

Just to put in my thoughts.


Nicola, (also Nicolò) Bombacci (24 October 1879 – 28 April 1945), born at Civitella di Romagna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civitella_di_Romagna), was an Italian Marxist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist) socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist) who was a member of the Italian Socialist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Socialist_Party) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. A friend and disciple of Lenin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin), in 1921 he became one of the founding fathers of the Italian Communist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Communist_Party)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Bombacci#cite_note-smith1994-0). Bombacci was a friend of future Italian Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini) and met him when Mussolini was still a Marxist. Bombacci helped Mussolini legitimize the Italian Social Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Social_Republic) and relegitimize Italian Fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Fascism) as a left-wing movement after Mussolini was ousted as Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Italy_%281861%E2%80%931946%29).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Bombacci#cite_note-1)
He was the author of the economic theory of socialization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_socialization) in the 1943 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943).
Bombacci died on 28 April 1945 at Dongo (CO) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dongo_%28CO%29) where he had been captured along with Mussolini by Italian partisans. After his execution, he was hung upside down at Piazzale Loreto in a public display, along with Mussolini, his mistress Clara Petacci (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clara_Petacci), the head of the Republican Fascist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Fascist_Party) Alessandro Pavolini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandro_Pavolini), and others.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Bombacci#cite_note-2)


at his execution Bombacci screamed "Long live Mussolini, and long live Socialism". Strange that a Facsist would use his dying breath to shout that.

[ComradeMan]

I don't think you're trolling because you disagree, but because you're being incredibly dense about the issue.

You are the one who got the first fact wrong about corporatism and you are calling others dense? BTW being dense is not trolling.


I'll repeat myself: Noone is saying Italian Fascism and Nazism are the exact same thing. Rather, they are two ideologies in the family of ideologies we call Fascism. I've already gone over why.

And that so-called "fact" has been called into question.


You copypasted some opinions from certain scholars. Then you make an appeal to authority - and a bad one at that since most scholars do consider nazism a form of fascism.

Well presenting scholarly research on a subject by the leading scholars is what most people would do when discussing a subject. You accuse me of a logical fallacy and then commit one yourself- the appeal to consensus. :lol:
Seeing as Zeev Sternhall is considered to be one of, if not the, best scholars on fascism I am more inclined to listen to his views- critically of course.


I've already given my argument. Nazism is a form of fascism because it included all the features when in was in power. Before it was in power, it copied the tactics and organization of Italian Fascism. They both approached different classes in the same way, i.e. they told people what they wanted to hear. In both cases this included a fake platform to back it up.

Hitler admired the organisation of freemasonry (in terms of how it was organised, that doesn't make the Nazis freemasons).


They both had left factions that tried to garner support from workers and rural laborers, and leaders that met with the rich behind closed doors to beg for donations. The difference in nazism lies in its pan-germanic ultra-nationalism, "Aryan" supremacy, and rabid anti-semitism. Nazis tend to consider economics unimportant and focus on their social politics. Also in some aesthetics, if that counts for anything whatsoever.

That's quite a lot of difference and I have already pointed out that there is an abyss of difference between this presumed "left" faction of the Nazis and the left of the fascists. I have also pointed out how much of Italian fascism grew from the historical Italian left and how it survived- unlike in Nazism.

[#FF0000]

Every single fascist movement had distinct characteristics and were markedly different from one another. Brazilian Intergralism was different from Mussolini's Fascism and Romania's Iron Guard and Hitler's Nazism, but they are all still fascist. Nazism obviously has some very large differences from Italian Fascism, but to say that it is a form of fascism, while debatable, isn't incorrect. It's a moot point that scholars debate about all the time.

The point is: save it for another thread and stop being dumb and pedantic.

[Nolan]

You are the one who got the first fact wrong about corporatism and you are calling others dense? BTW being dense is not trolling.

I did not get anything wrong about corporatism. I gave the standard definition. It comes from an Italian term meaning guildism IRC, and that sums it up.

I mistook it for trolling because I was under the impression no one could be this dense. My bad.



And that so-called "fact" has been called into question.

Yeah, yeah we know. That's all you have - you have no argument so you quote a historian named Sternhall who simply says in this quote that he doesn't believe they can be grouped together. You then hope this holds water out of an appeal to authority. It doesn't work that way.



Well presenting scholarly research on a subject by the leading scholars is what most people would do when discussing a subject. You accuse me of a logical fallacy and then commit one yourself- the appeal to consensus. :lol:
Seeing as Zeev Sternhall is considered to be one of, if not the, best scholars on fascism I am more inclined to listen to his views- critically of course.

No, because my entire argument doesn't ride on it. I didn't even use it as an argument.




Hitler admired the organisation of freemasonry (in terms of how it was organised, that doesn't make the Nazis freemasons).

What? Hitler also admired Henry Ford, so what's your point? There's a difference between claiming admiration for something and imitating them in action. The old Words vs. Deeds.


That's quite a lot of difference and I have already pointed out that there is an abyss of difference between this presumed "left" faction of the Nazis and the left of the fascists. I have also pointed out how much of Italian fascism grew from the historical Italian left and how it survived- unlike in Nazism.

Once again, my explanation failed to penetrate the mud. Think of it this way: Nazism is fascism with extra garbage attached. Putting clothes on a dog doesn't make it not a dog.

This quote shows just how much of a grasp you have of the topic:


Who was the Nazi left? Strasser with his ethnic defence league? The Black Front? Ernst Röhm of the Freikorps who put down the Communists? The so-called socialists of the pre-Long Knives party were calling the conservatives and liberals reactionaries as they had already got rid of the socialists and communists. The Night of the Long Knives was not a purge of "leftists" whatsoever.


You do know what happened to socialists in Fascist Italy right? You do know Goebbels had some admiration for the Bolsheviks? (or at least said so on one occasion)

[ComradeMan]

It's interesting to see how you evade the main points.

Fascists came out of the ranks of the "historical" left. Some have pointed to this as "bourgeois" social revolution as outlined in the Manifesto. Mussolini was an ex-socialist. The Italian syndicalist movement gone wrong if you like. The national-syndicalists broke away from the syndicalist movement of the Unione Sindicale Italiana and formed the basis of Mussolini's fascist party. The USI was later outlawed under Mussolini. Another point of difference was that the national-syndicalists supported Italian involvement in WWI whereas the Nazis were against the allied forced of WWI in that they saw this as an attempt to destroy the German people.

Fascism and Nazism were two parallel developments that came into contact due to history and geography. They have similar policy areas but there is a school of thought that sees their relationship as no more (or less) than this.

As for your other comments- well, ad lapidem as they say. You belittle and negate the validity of the published and respected scholars on the subject but neglect to say why. The fact that you insist on your outdated and/or perhaps controversial/disputed interpretations of fascism being the "only facts" in the light of the fact that most scholars (perhaps the only thing) agree that fascism is something very hard to define seems rather narrow-minded.

The "fact" you refer to a world leading expert on fascism as "some historian" says it all....

[Nolan]

Lol. Well here's the standard view on Nazism:


Hitler's Nazism draw heavily on Italian Fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism): nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism) (including collectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism) and populism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism) based on nationalist values); Third Position (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position) (including class collaboration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_collaboration), corporatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism), economic planning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_planning), mixed economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy), national syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism), protectionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism), and the studies of socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) that fit the Nazi party ideologues and agendas); totalitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism) (including dictatorship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship), holism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism), major social interventionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_interventionism), and statism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism)); and militarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism).
Uniquely, Nazism added a non-rationalist racial dimension to this otherwise typically Fascist ideology:
“ Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science and technical skill, which we see before our eyes to-day, is almost exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power. This very fact fully justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded a superior type of humanity; therefore he represents the architype of what we understand by the term: MAN. He is the Prometheus of mankind, from whose shining brow the divine spark of genius has at all times flashed forth, always kindling anew that fire which, in the form of knowledge, illuminated the dark night by drawing aside the veil of mystery and thus showing man how to rise and become master over all the other beings on the earth. Should he be forced to disappear, a profound darkness will descend on the earth; within a few thousand years human culture will vanish and the world will become a desert. ”
— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
Basically what I've been telling you this whole time sans the "socialism." Saying they're just "parallel developments" doesn't make sense because Nazism includes all the elements of fascism. It simply adds racist and antisemitic garbage. By your logic if I dressed a dog in clothes it would stop being a dog.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Red America;1913625]
I'll repeat myself: Noone is saying Italian Fascism and Nazism are the exact same thing. Rather, they are two ideologies in the family of ideologies we call Fascism. I've already gone over why.

The reason "why" is because Stalin, the devoted socialist, insisted that be the case. His reasoning was was apparently to limit questions and associations.
After all, National Socialist party in Germany was formed before the Fascist Party in Italy. Furthermore the National Socialists can claim a longer pedigree than the Fascists in Italy.


Before it was in power, it copied the tactics and organization of Italian Fascism.

They also copied the tactics and organization of the Social Democrats. Hitler always praised the SPD for showing him how to run a political party.
After the nazis were in power, copying continued (we do know that the purges of Stalin were modeled after the Night of the Long Knives).

[Nolan]

[QUOTE]

The reason "why" is because Stalin, the devoted socialist, insisted that be the case. His reasoning was was apparently to limit questions and associations.
After all, National Socialist party in Germany was formed before the Fascist Party in Italy. Furthermore the National Socialists can claim a longer pedigree than the Fascists in Italy.

Yes, it wasn't always a fascist party. That's nice to know, but it's not really relevant to Nazi Germany or nazism the final product.


They also copied the tactics and organization of the Social Democrats. Hitler always praised the SPD for showing him how to run a political party.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. That's nice at any rate.


After the nazis were in power, copying continued (we do know that the purges of Stalin were modeled after the Night of the Long Knives).

Really.

[Baseball]

Yes, it wasn't always a fascist party. That's nice to know, but it's not really relevant to Nazi Germany or nazism the final product.

The desire to drive the Jews out of German life, and the call for greater german living space- the stuff what the National Socialists were famous for- was part of the scenery when they would meet in the back of a bar- and when there was no such party called the Fascists in Italy.
If anything, the Fascists Party of Italy moved toward the National Socialists of Germany, rather than the other way around.

[#FF0000]

I'm still curious as to what Social Democratic stormtroopers were and I'd also love a source for the purges = night of the long knives bit too.