Politics from a Fascist POV

[Nolan]

I was going through some old emails and I found this. I think this is a valuable insight into the fascist mindset, and how they actually view other ideologies. Too often leftists (not necessarily on RevLeft) seem to think fascists are absolutely in love with capitalists and are attached by puppet-strings. Ideally, this isn't so. Other rightists seem to not want to understand it as an ideology and sometimes (more common with the rise of the teabaggers) even "pass the hot potato" to the left, so to speak. I had this conversation with an actual fascist around a year ago. The person this is from isn't a nazi or bonehead, like the kind of fascist you antifas are most familiar with. They're a fascist more or less directly out of the Mussolini school, and they have more intellectual/theoretical politics than your average stormfront grunt. They identify as fascist and national synarchist.


When I asked about the differences between fascist states and some other little points, they wrote me an essay:


Fascism varies so much because it's linked with nationalism; therefore, it's going to vary greatly depending on whichever country it inhabits, because different countries have different cultures.

For instance, many Fascist regimes persecuted Freemasons; I am pro-Freemason. Why? Because Freemasons are part of the heritage of the U.S.A., as is Deism, and persecuting them would be insulting to our heritage.

It's relative to the nation, as opposed to Communism or Laissez-faire Capitalism which is pretty much universal. Some Fascists like to call themselves "Peronists" or "Falangists" or "Italian Fascists", regardless of what nation they're from. It's okay to admire Fascist leaders, but in my opinion any form of Fascism should be uniquely adapted to your own country.

Now about capitalism, I despise capitalism, at the very least, hypercapitalism. It causes decadence and it destroys culture. You brought up McDonalds, for instance, I see that as capitalism at it's worse, at least in one way. Fake mass produced garbage versions of American food. Want a real burger? Go to a diner, not "fast-food", which is just fake garbage. Such is one way capitalism is destructive to a nation. "Consume consume consume"; it's decadent and gross.

Most Fascists agree that a small amount of capitalism is okay as long as it's not big corporations unregulated by the Corporatist system and it's just small family businesses (provided they're not destructive to the nation), but in the grander scheme of things, the ruling economic system is not capitalism, it is Corporatism, or at least some form of Third-Way economics.

We agree with Communists that Capitalism is unfair, and people are left in the working class even when they don't belong there. To a Fascist, in the ideal Fascist/Corporatist system, it's pure meritocracy, and any class anyone is in they deserve to be in based on their merit in skill.

That said, we believe that the working class is just as integral to society as any other class, and I believe they should be treated with respect, and I believe that humanity just naturally organizes itself into a class system - just that the capitalist system is greatly flawed, and as you would agree, is unfair. It's not based on merit but on wealth, wealth that can be gained even when one does not deserve it.


A little while later:



I agree that Laissez-Faire capitalism is a problem, and I'm against such as it causes greed, such is why people think nothing of outsourcing; outsourcing is destructive to the nation and weakens it.

And I agree with you on fast food; not only is it destruction of cultural foods but it it also unhealthy.

And I do passionately hate capitalism...in fact, if I were given the choice between Laissez-Faire Capitalism and a Nationalist form of Communism/Socialism, I would choose the latter...it's just that it seems 90% of the time Communism is internationalist and globalist, so most Fascists are generally more mild towards capitalists.

So, what do leftists and OIers make of this?

[Revolution starts with U]

Is he a democratic fascist? :laugh:
It's just apologising for the system, ultimately. This guy seems more sincere than most nationalist and corporatist righties, I admit. But that's could just be him that is reasonable, rather than fascism as a whole. Also, "People are in the working class even when they don't belong.." when in reality you don't need seperate classes.
The nationalism as well is unappealing. It creates a seperation, them vs us. When in reality that is just us vs ourselves, giving someone else the oppurtunity to come in and exploit that.
I would also like to know what his social values and enforcement policies are.

[Cham_Empire]

Fascists should be permanbanned, like psychopathological phillistines they are!

[Baseball]

Well, the author starts out by defining fascism which should be familiar to any Revlefter: He or she basically says fascism will develop differently in each country based upon the historical circumstances. Right wingers understand this as the standard dodge: "We have no idea how things are going to look so we really can't explain how anything will actually work."

The author continues to denounce capitalism in ways which no self-respecting revlefter could oppose. Of course, the difference comes about in the general approach in how to solve the problems which both uniformly agree is caused by capitalism, and will disappear with the disappearance of capitalism.

[Nolan]

Well, the author starts out by defining fascism which should be familiar to any Revlefter: He or she basically says fascism will develop differently in each country based upon the historical circumstances. Right wingers understand this as the standard dodge: "We have no idea how things are going to look so we really can't explain how anything will actually work."

No that's not what they're talking about. I asked why Nazism in Germany, Italian Fascism in Italy, etc. all took on very different forms as to racial worldviews and such.


The author continues to denounce capitalism in ways which no self-respecting revlefter could oppose. Of course, the difference comes about in the general approach in how to solve the problems which both uniformly agree is caused by capitalism, and will disappear with the disappearance of capitalism.

Except if you pay attention, they're not making a critique of class society or private property - the solution lies in creating an isolationist economy. They attack globalization and the neoliberal advent of huge MNCs and confuse those phenomena with all of capitalism.

It's the same empty anti-capitalism you see with christians when they preach against what they call materialism. It attacks symptoms and not the essence of the system.

[ComradeMan]

No that's not what they're talking about. I asked why Nazism in Germany, Italian Fascism in Italy, etc. all took on very different forms as to racial worldviews and such.

Perhaps because fascism in Italy was about creating an Italian nation whereas Nazism in Germany was about saving the Germanic master race?

Italy was a multi-ethnic, recently united state with huge social, ethnic, regional and class divisions a largely agricultural/rural population and "foreign" king. Most Italians did not speak standard Italian as their first language and/or at home until the 1950's. During the First World War it was said that many Italians did not understand each other or their officers in the trenches because of dialect differences. To this day there are Italians who don't speak Italian, or struggle at best.

I don't know if this could be said about Germany.

From the beginning Italian fascism did not have the racial element to be found in German Nazism, indeed some notable Italian fascists were Jewish. Although there were probably many anti-Semites in Italy, as in most of Europe at the time, the focus of Italian fascism wasn't anti-Semitism and racial eugenics. In Germany these ideas had already been put into practice in the disastrous experience of German South West Africa and one of the leading proponents of racial hygiene was a man called Eugene Fischer, whose works Hitler admired. Hitler of course also wrote a bible of fascism in "Mein Kampf" in which many of his anti-Semitic views were expounded and thus formed a kind of basis for this in his movement.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Red America;1918425]No that's not what they're talking about. I asked why Nazism in Germany, Italian Fascism in Italy, etc. all took on very different forms as to racial worldviews and such.

yes. And the answer given was because countries have different historical conditions. Which is, as I added, the same argument one hears from the more obvious socialists for how non-fascist socialism would develop.




Except if you pay attention, they're not making a critique of class society or private property

Its true the National Socialists focused on race rather than class. They thought class divided the race. So it was for their view an irrelevency.

And the author did indeed critique private property- by complaining how the capitalists use it.

-
the solution lies in creating an isolationist economy.

Yes. All goods and services should be provided the country. During the 30s, big business complained that National Socialist economic policy made it next to impossible to export their goods. The nazis didn't care since they figured those goods should be for the benefit of Germans and not others.

It is difficult to take a revlefter critique of this policy of the National Socialists seriously. After all, one of the critiques of capitalism by revleft types is its needs for markets and to exploit others. Goods in one country should be for the benefit of the people of that country, and not for the benefit of others elsewhere.


They attack globalization and the neoliberal advent of huge MNCs and confuse those phenomena with all of capitalism.

Did not Marx himself foresee MNC's as a result of capitalism?

[Thirsty Crow]

Just some remarks on the tiny essay Red America posted:

"We agree with Communists that Capitalism is unfair, and people are left in the working class even when they don't belong there."

This is a puzzling statement. Very much so. But let's try to disentangle some of the more straightforward implications embedded in this mysticism of "belonging".

It seems to me that this person objects to what he/she thinks is an unfair lack of possibilities for social mobility. In fact, he/she does not deny that there is an essential human character (or types of character) which "translates" into social class. I would be willing to bet that he/she would argue that there are people essentially disabled in the sense that they have no innate capacities for climbing the social ladder.

"Most Fascists agree that a small amount of capitalism is okay as long as it's not big corporations unregulated by the Corporatist system and it's just small family businesses (provided they're not destructive to the nation), but in the grander scheme of things, the ruling economic system is not capitalism, it is Corporatism, or at least some form of Third-Way economics."

Again, something puzzling and mystifying, especially when it comes to the first sentence. A small amount of capitalism? Here we have a lack of understanding of socio-economic formations and the history behind economic development. It is not possible to turn back time, if you wish to maintain the level of productivity and maintain technological advances. Moreover, this person also does not take into account Mussolini's famous celebratory proclamation that Fascist Italy has managed to keep private property intact, while other nation-states have not. If Fascists have historically based their economic practice (i.e. national political economy) in protection of private property, that is, private appropriation and management of surplus value, then this person obviously does not conform to historical Fascism OR he/she rhetorically emphasizes a "critique" which has no basis in reality or a proper understanding of what capitalism is.

And it is evident that he/she does not possess a proper understanding of capitalism in the last sentence. Capitalism is defined by three phenomena:

1) generalized commodity production

2) private appropriation and management of surplus value - be it personal, as in an individual capitalist's case, or incorporated, as in corporation's (with its internal hierarchies which, if generalized within a national economy, still produce social relations characteristic of capitalism - i.e. a class society)

3) the existence of the class which possesses no property - the proletariat, and the class is free only in that it may freely sell their labour power to the highest bidder - that is, free competition

That is my opinion, and I think it is grounded in history.
Now, we can clearly see that only one of this aspects have been influenced by Fascist practice - the free competition. Others remain intact.
"Third Way" economics does not abolish capitalism. Rather, it is a form of the management of capitalist economy. It is a form of capitalist political economy.

And here is the grand finale of this mysticism of the organic community organized along nationalist/ethnically exclusive lines:

"That said, we believe that the working class is just as integral to society as any other class, and I believe they should be treated with respect, and I believe that humanity just naturally organizes itself into a class system - just that the capitalist system is greatly flawed, and as you would agree, is unfair. It's not based on merit but on wealth, wealth that can be gained even when one does not deserve it."

Natural organization of humanity into classes?
The so called pre-history refutes this nonsense. Only when there appeared social surplus did communities slowly start to form class divisions and hierarchies. And any argument which clouts itself into "naturalism" is myth, in fact. However, if it were natural, to human species inherent, that we form class divisions, one would have to find these at all stages of human historical development. But the evidence suggests otherwise.
Politically, this pile of shit that would like to pass for an argument has an important function: at the same time bemoan the cultural and political results of contemporary capitalist economy and curse "capitalism" (by that, they mean lassez faire, and believe that this is "the only true capitalism", everything other than lassez faire being "non-capitalist"), on one hand, and on the other arguing for a natural class hierarchy and against a possible dissolution of class societies (which would bring about something that they cannot accept: that mental capacities are a phenomenon with a natural basis, but also in permanent, historically bound, interrelation with structural social phenomena; in other words, the better the condition for the development of human mental capacities, the more people will actually develop and expand on these).

They are a wet dream of every capital owner who is not blind and dumb. Idiots who manage to delude themselves into believing they stand in historical opposition to capitalism while most viciously defending the existence of class division, its hierarchical social relations and social discrimination and oppression.

Scum of the Earth.

[Thirsty Crow]

And the author did indeed critique private property- by complaining how the capitalists use it.

Really?
It seems that logic is beyond you.

One cannot critique private property when he/she, in fact, critiques concrete historical use of private property.
Ask yourself, what is the object of the critique?
The institution of private property?
But the "author" does not advocate the abolition of private property, which would be a logical consequence of a radical (meaning: all-encompassing, thorough) critique of private property.

Or maybe the author just bemoans the "use" of private property?

[Kiev Communard]

Fascists do not definitely "oppose the private property", they oppose the encroachment of foreign capitalists on the economic interests of the "national" ones, and they denounce the supposedly "cosmopolitan", "parasitic" financial capital in favour of "healthy", "productive" one (all the time ignoring the reality of fusion of financial and industrial capital since at least 1900 and the impossibility to separate them). As Daniel Woodley put it, "fascism opposes the Marxian critique of the historical character of labour as a socially mediating activity, positing instead an idealized, post-historical conception of the national ‘work community’ based on class collaboration and the production of ‘concrete’ value... fascism is based on a fallacy present in romantic anti-capitalism, namely that the objectification of commodity-determined societies can be resolved by negating the ‘parasitic’ sphere of unregulated, spontaneous exchange through a fictive re-enchantment of industrial culture." (Daniel Woodley, Fascism and Political Theory: Critical Perspectives on Fascist Ideology - Routledge, 2010. - p.141).Their opposition to free market is solely due to the fact that laissez-faire unregulated market, because of its inherently chaotic nature, may harm the interests of oligopolistic capitalist producers in time of the crisis, and the fascists are all too happy to save capitalists from the capitalism in that case!

[Fawkes]

The person's argument is predicated entirely on the validity of a nation-state as a legitimate means by which to structure populations. There is no "our heritage" in regards to the U.S.A. or any country for that matter, because "we" as Americans are not one uniform, united body of people with a shared history. Culture is a transient thing, and by its very definition (or one of the many) "a set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group", an assumption is made that all people within a certain geographic region share these aforementioned things, which is total bullshit. The borders of states are totally arbitrary and to assume that those born and living within those boundaries share anything in common that is not shared with those from other states is like stating that all those who are wearing blue shirts share something in common. Yes, they have one thing in common, that they are wearing blue shirts, or in the case of the state, that they are, in this case, American, but that is predicated upon an arbitrary, unscientific distinction, and subsequently, any policies or actions partaken in the name of those distinctions are just that: arbitrary and unscientific, and as a result, are of no political value.

While there may be an aesthetic basis for "pride" in your country of origin/residence, that is largely the result of an engendering of that attitude by those for whom it is of great benefit: namely, property owners.

[Baseball]

Really?
It seems that logic is beyond you.

One cannot critique private property when he/she, in fact, critiques concrete historical use of private property.
Ask yourself, what is the object of the critique?
The institution of private property?
But the "author" does not advocate the abolition of private property, which would be a logical consequence of a radical (meaning: all-encompassing, thorough) critique of private property.

Or maybe the author just bemoans the "use" of private property?

To own property means you can dispose of it as you wish. The Fascists and National Socialists did not believe the capitalist should dispose of property as the capitalist wishes. They thought property should be disposed of as the Fascist and National Socialist wished. The Fascist and National Socialist figured it made no sense to get rid of people who knew how to organize and run a particular industry.

The error of the Fascists and National Socialists on this score is the same error one sees from socialists of other parties- they think the role of the capitalist in production is one of a pencil pusher.

[Nolan]

Your line of argument is incredible dumb. To own property means (in the Marxist sense) to own means of production. It has nothing to do with neoliberalism, free market economics, "liberty," or any other value propertarian ideologues want to ascribe to it.

Secondly, calling the fascists "socialists" really shows how much of an understanding you have of the political spectrum. Fascism is a right-wing, nationalist political doctrine that, just in case anyone has any doubts, supports private property. The corporatist system is a system of state-sanctioned cartels.

Turn off FOX and come back to earth.

Furthermore, they're not talking about material conditions in a given country - they're saying fascism will vary because the political background of each country is different. In some it will be theocratic, in some it will materialize as very racist, in others it will draw on the appeal of the labor movement.

[ComradeMan]

Your line of argument is incredible dumb. To own property means (in the Marxist sense) to own means of production. It has nothing to do with neoliberalism, free market economics, "liberty," or any other value propertarian ideologues want to ascribe to it.

Agreed in a sense.


Secondly, calling the fascists "socialists" really shows how much of an understanding you have of the political spectrum. Fascism is a right-wing, nationalist political doctrine that, just in case anyone has any doubts, supports private property. The corporatist system is a system of state-sanctioned cartels.

Look in the Communist Manifesto and see what is written about Bourgeois Socialist revolutions, think about the fascists....

They are not socialists in a proletariate sense, "our" sense if you like.

If you change the class axiom in proletarian socialism to a nation/state or race axiom as in fascism/national socialism and follow the logical consequences you might understand why Italian fascists considered themselves "socialists". I'm not saying I agree with them or their ideals either.


Turn off FOX and come back to earth.

And lose all that valuable entertainments and "lulz".


Furthermore, they're not talking about material conditions in a given country - they're saying fascism will vary because the political background of each country is different. In some it will be theocratic, in some it will materialize as very racist, in others it will draw on the appeal of the labor movement.

So you concede that fascism is indeed a heterodox ideology with no clear definition, because between theocracy, racial supremacy and "labour" fascism there is a lot of difference isn't there?.

[Nolan]

Look in the Communist Manifesto and see what is written about Bourgeois Socialist revolutions, think about the fascists....

They are not socialists in a proletariate sense, "our" sense if you like.

I don't know if they'd count as the petit-bourgeois socialists Marx speaks of, though you could make a comparison:


In countries like France, where the peasants constitute far more than half of the population, it was natural that writers who sided with the proletariat against the bourgeoisie should use, in their criticism of the bourgeois régime, the standard of the peasant and petty bourgeois, and from the standpoint of these intermediate classes, should take up the cudgels for the working class. Thus arose petty-bourgeois Socialism. Sismondi was the head of this school, not only in France but also in England.
This school of Socialism dissected with great acuteness the contradictions in the conditions of modern production. It laid bare the hypocritical apologies of economists. It proved, incontrovertibly, the disastrous effects of machinery and division of labour; the concentration of capital and land in a few hands; overproduction and crises; it pointed out the inevitable ruin of the petty bourgeois and peasant, the misery of the proletariat, the anarchy in production, the crying inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the industrial war of extermination between nations, the dissolution of old moral bonds, of the old family relations, of the old nationalities.
In its positive aims, however, this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian.
Its last words are: corporate guilds for manufacture; patriarchal relations in agriculture.
Ultimately, when stubborn historical facts had dispersed all intoxicating effects of self-deception, this form of Socialism ended in a miserable fit of the blues.
But ultimately the way in which Marx uses "socialism" here is long outdated and/or doesn't apply anymore, as the "primitive communism" of Amazonian tribes isn't communism either. Today we'd call it communalism.


If you change the class axiom in proletarian socialism to a nation/state or race axiom as in fascism/national socialism and follow the logical consequences you might understand why Italian fascists considered themselves "socialists". I'm not saying I agree with them or their ideals either. Few fascists considered themselves socialists of any sort, and none of the biggest names did. Ultimately the "socialism" of the likes of Strasser or Jung boils down to something like the above, and they had little influence beyond some rhetoric and party name.

Fascism in all its cases was a form of capitalism reorganized into a guild system.


And lose all that valuable entertainments and "lulz". Like the time they told us Chavez woke up to cocaine.


So you concede that fascism is indeed a heterodox ideology with no clear definition, because between theocracy, racial supremacy and "labour" fascism there is a lot of difference isn't there?.I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Extreme nationalism, corporatism, etc. are what make a fascist ideology. And not necessarily, there's nothing theoretically stopping a fascist movement from being all three. Franco's Spain was 1 and 3, and Nazi Germany was 2 and (to some extent) 3.

Anyway, had Hitler gone with his first instinct about the party name we wouldn't be talking about "national socialism." It would probably be Aryan fascism, German fascism, or something like that.

[ComradeMan]

But ultimately the way in which Marx uses "socialism" here is long outdated and/or doesn't apply anymore, as the "primitive communism" of Amazonian tribes isn't communism either. Today we'd call it communalism.

I denounce your revisionism!

We need Fox to see how stupid people can be- know your enemy! ;)

[L.A.P.]

I don't care what any Fascist says, the third position (economics of fascism) is pretty much a more barbaric corporatist form of state capitalism. They may say they are opposed to capitalism but their economic doctrines are very similar to capitalism. They're against neoliberalism/globalization but not when it's their nation doing it as forming an empire was a core idea of italian fascism influencing the rest of their world to follow their "superior" ideas.

[Kiev Communard]

Anyway, had Hitler gone with his first instinct about the party name we wouldn't be talking about "national socialism." It would probably be Aryan fascism, German fascism, or something like that.

Actually Hitler wanted to call his party "Social Revolutionary", but Strasser brothers persuaded him to go with "national socialism". Otto Strasser's economic policies was little distinguishable from plain social democracy (especially in his positions on co-operative and workers' participation in the profits of enterprise, but without the abolition of the owner's right to control his capital, etc.), but his stance on national question was, of course, extremely xenophobic. So I think, if one is to exaggerate, one can call Strasserism a "anti-semitic social democracy", but not "socialism" in any case.

[Nolan]

Actually Hitler wanted to call his party "Social Revolutionary", but Strasser brothers persuaded him to go with "national socialism". Otto Strasser's economic policies was little distinguishable from plain social democracy (especially in his positions on co-operative and workers' participation in the profits of enterprise, but without the abolition of the owner's right to control his capital, etc.), but his stance on national question was, of course, extremely xenophobic. So I think, if one is to exaggerate, one can call Strasserism a "anti-semitic social democracy", but not "socialism" in any case.

I know. It's that I doubt we'd be calling it "social revolutionism." Aryan fascism is probably what most people would have called it had "national socialism" and "nazi" never been used. It sums up the ideology pretty well - fascism and "aryan" supremacy, which includes Hitler's raving anti-semitism.

I thought it was Rudolf Jung that persuaded Hitler to call it national socialism.

I agree with you on Strasserism.

[Baseball]

[
QUOTE=Red America;1922537]Your line of argument is incredible dumb. To own property means (in the Marxist sense) to own means of production.

And which the "owners" (the workers) can do with as they please. That is what "ownership" is all about.



Secondly, calling the fascists "socialists" really shows how much of an understanding you have of the political spectrum. Fascism is a right-wing,

As they are socialists, this would make the fascists left wing.


nationalist political doctrine

A"Hoaxist" heir to a legacy that shut down an entire country to foreigners, is calling a "nationalist political doctrine" right wing?? Surely, you jest!!


that, just in case anyone has any doubts, supports private property.

As long as that property was used as dictated by the National Socialists. But we also know the National Socialists supported and developed "publically owned" industries.


Furthermore, they're not talking about material conditions in a given country - they're saying fascism will vary because the political background of each country is different. In some it will be theocratic, in some it will materialize as very racist, in others it will draw on the appeal of the labor movement.

The "historical background" is what was mentioned.

[Baseball]

I don't care what any Fascist says, the third position (economics of fascism) is pretty much a more barbaric corporatist form of state capitalism. They may say they are opposed to capitalism but their economic doctrines are very similar to capitalism. They're against neoliberalism/globalization but not when it's their nation doing it as forming an empire was a core idea of italian fascism influencing the rest of their world to follow their "superior" ideas.

No, they were against it even when "it's their nation" doing it. The idea is that depending upon foreign countries for goods and services is an economic weakness (part of the reason why the the National Socialists demanded the return of Germany's pre-war colonial possessions in South Pacific et. al. is that those islands could provides foodstuffs which could not be provided in Germany). Relying upon foreigners for goods and services means risks in being exploited by those foreigners. It also protects homegrown industries and resources from being looted by foreigners. Naturally, such thinking has far more in common with socialist theories than with any recognizable "neoliberalism" or "globalization."

[#FF0000]

As they are socialists, this would make the fascists left wing.

Oh lord here we go again. Fascism is not left-wing. Being vaguely collectivist does not equate to being left wing. Interventionist economic policy does not equate to being left wing. The vast majority of political scientists will tell you that Fascism is right wing. Others will say it is "radical centrist". Almost everyone who will say it is left-wing has an agenda to push.

I'm sorry man but it's just that simple. You are wrong.

[Revolution starts with U]

YOu can call a chicken a horse, but it's still a chicken.

[Skooma Addict]

People should just drop the terms "left-wing" and "right wing." They are so vague to the point where they really don't mean anything.

[Nolan]

[

And which the "owners" (the workers) can do with as they please. That is what "ownership" is all about.

Ownership means owning.

Even in free market countries, capitalists can't simply just do anything they please. There are regulations that give the system some modicum of humanity.


As they are socialists, this would make the fascists left wing.

Oh is Obama a socialist too?




A"Hoaxist" heir to a legacy that shut down an entire country to foreigners, is calling a "nationalist political doctrine" right wing?? Surely, you jest!!

Doesn't make it nationalist.


As long as that property was used as dictated by the National Socialists. But we also know the National Socialists supported and developed "publically owned" industries.

As did evil socialist countries like South Korea, Japan, and probably every normal capitalist country at some point.


The "historical background" is what was mentioned.

I fail to see where you're going with this. The fascist quoted is not talking about anything remotely similar to what you're saying. Fascist has to adapt to the nationalism already present in a given country, which is dictated by its history obviously. For instance fascism in Japan would view the Chinese as the most important enemy, and vice versa.

[Nolan]

No, they were against it even when "it's their nation" doing it. The idea is that depending upon foreign countries for goods and services is an economic weakness (part of the reason why the the National Socialists demanded the return of Germany's pre-war colonial possessions in South Pacific et. al. is that those islands could provides foodstuffs which could not be provided in Germany). Relying upon foreigners for goods and services means risks in being exploited by those foreigners. It also protects homegrown industries and resources from being looted by foreigners. Naturally, such thinking has far more in common with socialist theories than with any recognizable "neoliberalism" or "globalization."

So anti-consumerist, nationalist, Christian fundamentalists are socialists?

Are you seeing the pattern here? Not everything that questions free market dogma is automatically leftist.

[Nolan]

People should just drop the terms "left-wing" and "right wing." They are so vague to the point where they really don't mean anything.

Welcome to rev----.com.

[Kiev Communard]

So anti-consumerist, nationalist, Christian fundamentalists are socialists?

Are you seeing the pattern here? Not everything that questions free market dogma is automatically leftist.

Yes, many German inter-war conservatives were "anti-capitalist" in the sense of wanting to restore idealised small-scale artisanal production and absolutist political institutions, but that hardly made them "socialists" (unless The Communist Manifesto rather ironic definition of "feudal socialism" is used).

[Nolan]

Yes, many German inter-war conservatives were "anti-capitalist" in the sense of wanting to restore idealised small-scale artisanal production and absolutist political institutions, but that hardly made them "socialists" (unless The Communist Manifesto rather ironic definition of "feudal socialism" is used).

It's not even that.

For instance, in sermons they'll get all red in the face over "the money changers on wall street" and how they're part of the liberal-atheist-gay-secular agenda and distract us from god by materialism. Then they'll tell us all about the great Christian Founding Fathers and other nationalist fantasies.

What the fascists brought to the table was nothing out of the ordinary.

[ComradeMan]

Has anyone thought that perhaps the whole notion of rightwing and leftwing is a little bit redundant?

We use it as a point of reference but for in-depth analysis it doesn't work- as we can see here. The definitions of what counts a left, right, socialists, national socialist, liberal and libertarian etc etc etc seem to vary a lot too.

Perhaps we should move away from the narrow 2-dimensional poltical cliché of left and right when it comes to these arguments.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Red America;1924222]Ownership means owning.

Even in free market countries, capitalists can't simply just do anything they please. There are regulations that give the system some modicum of humanity.

You know to what I refer. In the USSR the workers "owned" the means of production. So why do so many socialists nowadays deny that the USSR was a socialist community? Because the workers could not, in any practical sense, control those means of production. Even though there was a piece of paper somewhere saying the workers owned them.

In national Socialist Germany, the "owners" had a piece of paper saying they "owned" a piece of property, but in practical sense somebody else decided its use.




I fail to see where you're going with this. The fascist quoted is not talking about anything remotely similar to what you're saying. Fascist has to adapt to the nationalism already present in a given country, which is dictated by its history obviously. For instance fascism in Japan would view the Chinese as the most important enemy, and vice versa.

I was simply pointing out that the argument being made by the fascist cited, was that fascism would develop differently in each country. Socialists of other parties will say the same thing about how other forms of socialism will develop across the world. Will socialism in the UK develop and function the same as socialism in Botswana? The answer i usually hear is "no."

[Baseball]

So anti-consumerist, nationalist, Christian fundamentalists are socialists?

Are you seeing the pattern here? Not everything that questions free market dogma is automatically leftist.

The National Socialists can scarcely be called anti-consumerist. Nor can socialism in general, since it opposes poverty.

It is certainly true that questioning "free market dogma" does not make one, in and of itself, "leftist" (the Catholic Church long questioned it).

[trivas7]

I've come to believe that anyone who doesn't agree with the non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) is politically fascist. By this criteria most who identify as left revolutionary on this forum are fascist. One could argue that historically fascism is allied with the left, not the right.

[trivas7]

It is certainly true that questioning "free market dogma" does not make one, in and of itself, "leftist" (the Catholic Church long questioned it).
Indeed, the Church has long been one more institution that has always been leary of the individual and has promoted collectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism) as the moral social principle.

[Thirsty Crow]

The Fascist and National Socialist figured it made no sense to get rid of people who knew how to organize and run a particular industry.Are you suggesting that the simple fact of owning the property equates with the possession of skills needed to operate and coordinate the production?



The error of the Fascists and National Socialists on this score is the same error one sees from socialists of other parties- they think the role of the capitalist in production is one of a pencil pusher.
First of all, National Socialists are bourgeois socialists in that they advocate the protection of private appropriation of produced value, that is, private property. And Fascists certainly did not think the role of the capitalist is one of the pencil pusher since they left the social hierarchy based on divisions within the process of production intact. Moreover, their insistence on organic, natural hierarchy is perfectly compatible with a defense of the capitalist class, even though there were restrictions when compared to the previous period of lassez faire. But hell, we may even call Clement Attlee a Fascist if that is a defining factor.
On the other hand, nether do revolutionary socialists view capitalists as mere pencil pushers. I tend to view them as social parasites which hinder potential social development, and their skills and knowledge do not really concern me. Skills and knowledge are a universal good, and it can be acquired by many human beings.
Moreover, it has been historically proven that your ideologically charged lack of any distinction between Fascists and revolutionary socialists is a bankrupt position:

"However, Mussolini claimed that the industrial developments of earlier "heroic capitalism" were valuable and continued to support private property as long as it was productive."

Revolutionary socialists do not support private property even when it is productive.

"Fascist governments exercised control over private property but did not nationalize it.[247] They pursued economic policies to strengthen state power and spread ideology, such as consolidating trade unions to be state- or party-controlled.[248] Attempts were made by both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to establish "autarky" (self-sufficiency) through significant economic planning, but neither achieved economic self-sufficiency.[249]"

Autarky is not what socialists advocate. Historically, autarky has been a characteristic of feudalism, and any socialist with an ounce of brain in his/her head would realize that someone is necessarily a xenophobic chauvinist and a proponent of economically reactionary attitudes (since the goal of revolutionary socialism is to create a society of abundance, in which each member has free access to the means of his/her livelihood, both material and "spiritual") when he/she advocates autaky.

"According to historian Tibor Ivan Berend, dirigisme was an inherent aspect of fascist economies.[273] The Labour Charter of 1927, promulgated by the Grand Council of Fascism, stated in article 7: "The corporative State considers private initiative, in the field of production, as the most efficient and useful instrument of the Nation", then continued in article 9: "State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when are at stakes the political interest of the State. This intervention may take the form of control, encouragement or direct management."[274]"

Private initiative (that is - private appropriation of the surplus value) as the most useful instrument of the Nation? That is just the gist of Socialism.

You may find all the quotes here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism


As long as that property was used as dictated by the National Socialists. But we also know the National Socialists supported and developed "publically owned" industries.So, you are complainig about the fact that the nazis let the capitalists reap the profits, but made them produce what they were willing to pay, namely, war magchinery?
Poor capitalists, they must have felt really oppressed with all that war profits.


I've come to believe that anyone who doesn't agree with the non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) is politically fascist. By this criteria most who identify as left revolutionary on this forum are fascist. One could argue that historically fascism is allied with the left, not the right.

So, one could argue that massive repression and mass murder of communists in Fascist regimes historically prove the alliance between Fascism and left wing politics?
So, the fact that both Italian Fascists and nazis protected private property in its most dire crisis is proof of the interconnection between those two and revolutionary socialism?

You are truly and idiot.

Oh yeah, and the non-agression principle does not apply when one is forced to sell his/her labour under conditions he cannot possibly influence, a fact that will decide the entire potential course of his life, and all of this because his mommy and daddy themselves did not own capital or enough money to start their kid up.
Fuck you and your non-aggression principle.

[Nolan]

[QUOTE]

You know to what I refer. In the USSR the workers "owned" the means of production. So why do so many socialists nowadays deny that the USSR was a socialist community? Because the workers could not, in any practical sense, control those means of production. Even though there was a piece of paper somewhere saying the workers owned them.

The argument is that nationalization in itself doesn't abolish capitalist property relations. To that I would agree. Others say the state is inherently a ruling class in and of itself and it the enemy of the workers.


In national Socialist Germany, the "owners" had a piece of paper saying they "owned" a piece of property, but in practical sense somebody else decided its use.

No, it wasn't the same. In Germany the same old companies were around and still exist to this day. They had great autonomy, as scholars have noted. (http://buchheim.vwl.uni-mannheim.de/inhalt/mitarbeiter/bio_buchheim/publikationen_buchheim/jeh_aufsatz/jehartikel.pdf)Your idea of German companies being completely subservient to the state is quite simply, incorrect. Corporatism is not nationalization.




I was simply pointing out that the argument being made by the fascist cited, was that fascism would develop differently in each country. Socialists of other parties will say the same thing about how other forms of socialism will develop across the world. Will socialism in the UK develop and function the same as socialism in Botswana? The answer i usually hear is "no."

It won't because material conditions are different between the UK and Botswana.

[Revolution starts with U]

NAP is for faux intellectuals to justify capitalism. No actual capitalist gives two shits about it. It's a fantasy that has no place in civilized society. It is the church telling the people to accept the feudal system because god wanted it that way.
I scarcely see an NAP tool who advocates land reform in central/south america. That tells you exactly what they think about aggression.:thumbdown:
and a double :thumbdown:

[trivas7]

NAP is for faux intellectuals to justify capitalism. No actual capitalist gives two shits about it. It's a fantasy that has no place in civilized society. It is the church telling the people to accept the feudal system because god wanted it that way.
I scarcely see an NAP tool who advocates land reform in central/south america. That tells you exactly what they think about aggression.:thumbdown:
and a double :thumbdown:
I completely respect your right to hold your political views. If you could act on your beliefs would you accord me the same respect and consideration to hold my beliefs without the threat of violence?

[Revolution starts with U]

I completely respect your right to hold your political views. If you could act on your beliefs would you accord me the same respect and consideration to hold my beliefs without the threat of violence?

If I'm homeless and I squat in an unused part of your back yard will you afford me the same right?

I'm not saying the NAP is a bad idea. In fact I'm saying the opposite. It is too good. No capitalist (real capitalists, not just people who support capitalism) will adhere to it.

[#FF0000]

I've come to believe that anyone who doesn't agree with the non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) is politically fascist. By this criteria most who identify as left revolutionary on this forum are fascist. One could argue that historically fascism is allied with the left, not the right.

You could argue that, sure.

But you'd be completely wrong.

[trivas7]

If I'm homeless and I squat in an unused part of your back yard will you afford me the same right?

As long as I am free to make the decision whether or not to allow you to squat the unused part of my (nonexistent) backyard, you're free to use it. But that choice assumes property rights and would probably not be afforded me if we both lived under socialism, would it? Again I ask: would you be willing to take me to prison with a gun to my head if you could act on your beliefs?


I'm not saying the NAP is a bad idea. In fact I'm saying the opposite. It is too good. No capitalist (real capitalists, not just people who support capitalism) will adhere to it.Now you just confuse me. Plenty of capitalists -- not just people who support capitalism -- agree with NAP. Are you now arguing that no one believes in NAP, so why even consider it?

[#FF0000]

As long as I am free to make the decision whether or not to allow you to squat the unused part of my (nonexistent) backyard, you're free to use it. But that choice would probably not be afforded me if I live under socialism, would it?

No you would not be forced to allow people to live in your house under socialism.

[Nolan]

I've come to believe that anyone who doesn't agree with the non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) is politically fascist. By this criteria most who identify as left revolutionary on this forum are fascist. One could argue that historically fascism is allied with the left, not the right.

Hi there, fascism is not a buzzword you throw at politics you don't like. Fascism is an ideological family.

[Revolution starts with U]

As long as I am free to make the decision whether or not to allow you to squat the unused part of my (nonexistent) backyard, you're free to use it.
That's the point tho, we have wildly different views on one's right to "own" land. Even NAP wise, I merely homesteaded your land (as it was unused).

But that choice assumes property rights
Exactly. You can refer to the numerous arguments for the aggression behind property rights. You may not agree, but the argument is there.
and would probably not be afforded me if we both lived under socialism,
would it? Would you be willing to take me to prison with a gun to my head if you could act on your beliefs?
And if I didnt' respect your right to property you would do the same. Like you said, your argument assumes property rights, mine doesn't (it assumes community rights and individual rights).


Now you just confuse me. Plenty of capitalists agree with NAP.


Tell that to Coca Cola, or the Koch bros, or DeBeers, etc.

[Sir Comradical]

Most Fascists agree that a small amount of capitalism is okay as long as it's not big corporations unregulated by the Corporatist system and it's just small family businesses (provided they're not destructive to the nation), but in the grander scheme of things, the ruling economic system is not capitalism, it is Corporatism, or at least some form of Third-Way economics.

Even if we assume the existence of a petty-bourgeois economy made up of small businesses with small property at time-zero, the competitive nature of the market would eventually lead to monopolies and to powerful capitalists using the state to advance their own interests. In other words, following their utopian-ideal to its logical conclusion will inevitably produce results that negate their ideal. That's how I'd argue this nonsense without even getting into the fact that fascism IS corporatism. Case in point:

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - B.Mussolini.

[trivas7]

That's the point tho, we have wildly different views on one's right to "own" land. Even NAP wise, I merely homesteaded your land (as it was unused).

No, NAP-wise you have aggressed against me.


And if I didnt' respect your right to property you would do the same.
Nope; I just told you I completely respect your right to your political beliefs. Curious; you refuse to answer the question I put to you. You don't have the balls to act on your non-NAP principles.

[Nolan]

No, NAP-wise you have aggressed against me.
Nope; I just told you I completely respect your right to your political beliefs. Curious; you refuse to answer the question I put to you. You don't have the balls to act on your non-NAP principles.

It's a stupid question. I wouldn't play your game either.

[Revolution starts with U]

No, NAP-wise you have aggressed against me.
Nope; I just told you I completely respect your right to your political beliefs. Curious; you refuse to answer the question I put to you.

-The homestead principle in law is the concept that one can gain ownership of a natural thing that currently has no owner by using it or building something out of it. Along with self-ownership (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Self-ownership), the right to homestead is one of the foundations of deontological libertarianism (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Libertarianism)...
The homestead principle (or original appropriation) is part of libertarian (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Libertarianism) and anarcho-capitalist (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism) ethics (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Ethics). The homestead principle is a theory of how a fresh, or new, resource becomes legitimate property...
Murray Rothbard (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Murray_Rothbard) says (in Justice and Property Rights): "All existing property titles may be considered just under the homestead principle, provided

(a) that there may never be any property in people;
(b) that the existing property owner did not himself steal the property; and particularly
(c) that any identifiable owner (the original victim of theft or his heir) must be accorded (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Contract) his property".
I was referring to use rights specifically. A sub take on homesteading, but not part of the major theory. Either way, are you now in support of land reform in s america? (Rothbard was, btw).

I did answer your question by pointing out that you would neither afford me the right because our views are directly in conflict w one another. My workers and I would sit-in your factory, and you would cry foul. I assume individual and community rights.