Fascism as a result of failures of the left

[Rooster]

It is of my understanding that fascism results from a failure of the left to take over the narrative in regards to economic and social crises. Before Hitler and Mussolini, there were strong left movements. But in modern days, the left have become much more marginalised because I think we have failed to show our own narrative to the situation. We have gotten a rise in right wing groups in Europe, over things like immigration and work, the failures of liberalism and even Communist Parties has resulted in fundamentalist Islamic groups, the Spanish Civil War and very nearly, the Russian Civil War. Just to say that fascism is reactionary ignores the revolutionary aspects of it.


Well without a doubt fascism and "extreme" elements in general get a bit of a boost when the economy's in a bad way, but I don't think we have to worry about the BNP ever taking the majority without the pressure of a working class revolt forcing the bourgeoisie into throwing their lot in with the Fascists.

But who knows and we are digressing.

The fact is, while the BNP have increased their base, the left have decreased and have become more fractured. The main base of the BNP are people who used to vote along class lines, such as Old Labour and what not, but now they vote BNP or Conservative. I think this says a lot about how we have failed to take advantage of the situation. Why is this the case? Is it because it's impossible (or at least, very difficult) for the left to mobilise these days? Is it because most people believe we live in the "end of history"?

I'm also interested in the main ideas of what fascism is. Are these ideas connected?

By the by, I'm not against religion, I just don't think the enemy of our enemy is our friend is a good enough argument for supporting for religious groups just because they're anti-capitalist.

[#FF0000]

The fact is, while the BNP have increased their base, the left have decreased and have become more fractured. The main base of the BNP are people who used to vote along class lines, such as Old Labour and what not, but now they vote BNP or Conservative. I think this says a lot about how we have failed to take advantage of the situation. Why is this the case? Is it because it's impossible (or at least, very difficult) for the left to mobilise these days? Is it because most people believe we live in the "end of history"?

Mhm, well I wouldn't say that Fascism needs a strong leftist movement around just to exist. Fascist groups can exist with or without a militant working class threatening capitalism. What I meant to say is that Fascism really can't take power without a strong working class movement (This has been the case historically, at least). The BNP might get a lot more support and groups like the EDL might pop up, but I think it's safe to say that they won't be taking power, and we won't have governments falling to Fascism anytime soon. Liberal democracy is just working too well for the ruling class.

And, as for the question of why working class people are moving to the right and voting BNP or Conservative or whatever, I think it's just reflective of the state of the class struggle at the present time, and I don't think there's much we can do as Leftists or as Communists or as Revolutionaries. Like I said in the other thread, I don't think it's the job of Revolutionaries to try and create struggle.

[Tommy4ever]

Fascism is essentially a reaction against two forces:

Marxism (or leftism in general if you like)

and Liberal laissez faire capitalism

When Fascism arose in Europe capitalism was in a state of collapse (Great Depression) and it seemed clear to many that liberalism could not hold back the tide of the Left. Marxism aimed to topple this seemingly weak system and this terrified people.

Fascism promised a alternative to a discredited ideology in collapse (Liberalism) and the terrifying change of Marxism. Whilst often blustering about defeating ''high finance'' and Marxism Fascism was an ideology to protect the old order.

The state, the coporation and the church were to unite in order to strengthen all three.

As for the blame of the Left. Well you can blame the Left in the sense that Fascism was a reaction against it. But really we must be blamed for our division. In Germany the abject failure of the KPD and SPD (both are to blame equally) to work together was one of the most important reasons for the successful assention to power of the Nazi Party. The divisions in the Left in Spain are well docuemented. I am unsure about the situation of the Left in Italy but I assume that it was similar.

The BNP isn't fascist. Just because something is racist and reactionary doesn't mean it is fascist. However you have the reasons for its relative rise (3% of the vote in the General Election and 6% in the European Election) are pretty accurate. Essentially a significant portion of the working class has become dissatisfied with Labour's abandonment of them and are starting to look for a new party with their interests at heart. As the British far left is pretty impotent the BNP is regarded as a good option by many.

Finally we move on to Islamism - its rise is suprisingly similar to the rise of fascism in Europe in the 20s and 30s. In the Islamic world the collapsing force of Liberalism is represented by the tyrannical capitalistic dictatorships that the West has long backed. Traditionally the opponent to a force such as this should be the Left. However the Left has proven itself impotent in overthrowing these regimes and holding the interests of the people of the region at heart. People wanting liberation from these regimes are thus sent into the arms of radical Islamism. The Western powers hardly help the situation with their aggressive foriegn policy in the region which helps galvanise the Islamists against a perceived invading enemy.

[#FF0000]

The BNP isn't fascist.

This is p. much true, I think. They are ultranationalist and all that, but I don't think they are fascist as per the classical definition of it.

It makes me wonder what constitutes Fascism in the modern day?

[h0m0revolutionary]

I think it's far too easy to blame the left for the rise of the far-right. I mean sure the left's shit attitude towards tackling the far-right plays a part (UAF "nazi scum" etc etc) and a left that is more interested in building their sect group than taking a meaningful part in industrial and community agitation doesn't help either. But the short-comings of the left aren't the main reason the far-right is growing at our expense.

The far-left (or at least most of us *sectarian jibe*) are anti-establishment, we are at odds with the state, we seek a complete transformation of society and to greater or lesser extents, oppose capitalism. That is not the same of the far right - rather the far-right are part and parcel of capitalism, they serve many functions within a liberal democratic [capitalist] state, they police the working class at no cost to the bourgeoisie (enforcing traditional social attitudes), they challenge, often physically, revolutionary activity but of course their most obvious function is exactly why we can contrast the states oppression of the left (unions, self-activity, left wing parties) with that of the far-right.

Fascism is useful to the capitalist class in a way communism is not, when faced with an upsurge in class consciousness and subsequently a threat to the status quo and the rule of profit accumulation, the capitalist class rely on fascism, as a last resort, to destory the workers movement and restore order in ther interests of capital.

So it's not entirely our fault, but there are many, many shortcomings of the left we could do without. But in this analysis, i'd argue our fixation on anti-fascist work is just such a shortcoming, capitalism and fascism are 'two cheeks of the same arse' (to misuse a Galloway quote :cool:). We'd do better to remmeber that and fight consistantly for communism rather than watered down anti-fascism under the guise of 'united fronts'.

[Rooster]

Mhm, well I wouldn't say that Fascism needs a strong leftist movement around just to exist. Fascist groups can exist with or without a militant working class threatening capitalism.

I'm of the opinion that fascism and socialism have the most potential to install their own narrative at the times of greatest economic crisis. Not as a result of a strong working class movement. Look over the last couple of years. The rise of neo-nazi groups and right wing ultra-nationalism came about with a lack of working class movement.


What I meant to say is that Fascism really can't take power without a strong working class movement (This has been the case historically, at least). The BNP might get a lot more support and groups like the EDL might pop up, but I think it's safe to say that they won't be taking power, and we won't have governments falling to Fascism anytime soon. Liberal democracy is just working too well for the ruling class.

True enough, but we're all about class struggle against capitalism. The fact the the left have failed over the board compared to right wing groups shows otherwise. They're more able to work within the Liberal democratic frame work than we appear to. What went wrong? Looking back over my local area's voting turn out, you'd get things like the revolutionary workers party, the communist party, the socialist workers party, getting large amounts of votes. Now there's nothing. You'd be lucky to get half or even a quarter of that these days.


And, as for the question of why working class people are moving to the right and voting BNP or Conservative or whatever, I think it's just reflective of the state of the class struggle at the present time, and I don't think there's much we can do as Leftists or as Communists or as Revolutionaries. Like I said in the other thread, I don't think it's the job of Revolutionaries to try and create struggle.

I think there is a lot we can do. The people today are the same people from 20 years ago. I think the main problem is that much of the left has alienated itself from it's base. Something which right wing groups have seized upon.

[Rooster]

Lol, shit. I have to go to bed for work tomorrow and I only managed to reply to one post. I'll try to get back to this after work. :laugh:

[Pravda Soyuz]

Lenin-"Fascism is capitalism in decay."

[danyboy27]

fascism is verry often the result of the failure of capitalism itself.

Its the self correcting method of capitalism.

WHen capitalism spin out of control, anger become widespread and its only a matter of time before an entrepreneur who have a lot of ressources use that to take over the contry and put the economy ''under control''

the end result, after ton of death and the end of the regime is a more stable capitalist system.

Spain, germany, Italy, Portugal, the end result was pretty similar for everyone.


Fascist is basicly the RESET button of capitalism.

See how insane it is?

[Rooster]

Fascism is essentially a reaction against two forces:

Marxism (or leftism in general if you like)

and Liberal laissez faire capitalism

When Fascism arose in Europe capitalism was in a state of collapse (Great Depression) and it seemed clear to many that liberalism could not hold back the tide of the Left. Marxism aimed to topple this seemingly weak system and this terrified people.

Fascism promised a alternative to a discredited ideology in collapse (Liberalism) and the terrifying change of Marxism. Whilst often blustering about defeating ''high finance'' and Marxism Fascism was an ideology to protect the old order.

The state, the coporation and the church were to unite in order to strengthen all three.

As for the blame of the Left. Well you can blame the Left in the sense that Fascism was a reaction against it. But really we must be blamed for our division. In Germany the abject failure of the KPD and SPD (both are to blame equally) to work together was one of the most important reasons for the successful assention to power of the Nazi Party. The divisions in the Left in Spain are well docuemented. I am unsure about the situation of the Left in Italy but I assume that it was similar.

I think this is historically at Stalin's feet for calling all other left parties "fascists" at the time.


The BNP isn't fascist. Just because something is racist and reactionary doesn't mean it is fascist. However you have the reasons for its relative rise (3% of the vote in the General Election and 6% in the European Election) are pretty accurate. Essentially a significant portion of the working class has become dissatisfied with Labour's abandonment of them and are starting to look for a new party with their interests at heart. As the British far left is pretty impotent the BNP is regarded as a good option by many.

Explain to me your idea of fascism then. I'm pretty interested.


Finally we move on to Islamism - its rise is suprisingly similar to the rise of fascism in Europe in the 20s and 30s. In the Islamic world the collapsing force of Liberalism is represented by the tyrannical capitalistic dictatorships that the West has long backed. Traditionally the opponent to a force such as this should be the Left. However the Left has proven itself impotent in overthrowing these regimes and holding the interests of the people of the region at heart. People wanting liberation from these regimes are thus sent into the arms of radical Islamism. The Western powers hardly help the situation with their aggressive foriegn policy in the region which helps galvanise the Islamists against a perceived invading enemy.

I'm just going on what I know. Afghanistan was a largely secular country during the.... 70s? where it had a powerful communist party in charge. I'm too tired to look this up but: communist party > liberal stuff + America + taliban > a repressive state. I'm trying to best to answer this but I'm guffed from work. It was the failure of that particular state's CP and left to counter act fundamentalism. The same can be said for any number of Arab countries.

[Rooster]

fascism is verry often the result of the failure of capitalism itself.

And socialism should be the solution, but why isn't it taken as such?


Its the self correcting method of capitalism.

Hmm, I think that's dismissing the revolutionary aspects of it. Many corporations and capitalists were waved aside during Nazism and such, for the good of the state.


WHen capitalism spin out of control, anger become widespread and its only a matter of time before an entrepreneur who have a lot of ressources use that to take over the contry and put the economy ''under control''

the end result, after ton of death and the end of the regime is a more stable capitalist system.

Spain, germany, Italy, Portugal, the end result was pretty similar for everyone.

I think that's a generalisation and I don't think those countries experienced exactly the same thing. Spain was more of a religious conservative, Italy a corporate state, Germany a militaristic state based on race and I'm not too sure on Portugal. But, in Spain, Germany and Italy, there were large communist parties trying to implement their own rule.


See how insane it is?

The world is a pretty crazy place sometimes, comrade.

[Tommy4ever]

Explain to me your idea of fascism then. I'm pretty interested.

Okey dokey.

An all embracing all encompassing state. The most important facet of Fascism is the ideal of unifying church, state and corporation. Mussolini is claimed that fascism would be better labeled as coportationism. This is basically my definition of fascism, that said there are several other prominent characteristics:

Ultra-Nationalism
Militarism
Expansioism
The creation of a national fraternity (in the article I posted in the other thread this is described like a US college fratnerity emcompassing the entire nation)
The hatred of a significant minority in society - this is linked directly to the fraternity idea above. Essentially the minority (in Germany they were Jews) is a group that is excluded from the fraternity and believed to be a direct threat to it - this is the root of the hatred of the minority.
Populism
Anti-Socialism

That's what I call fascism. The BNP shares many characteristics, yet the most important part of fascism (the idea of the unification of state, church and corporation) is not present.

[renzo_novatore]

In my opinion, fascism arose when the left was indeed needed the most. But, as Wilhelm Reich had pointed out, although a left revolution was needed desperately, seeing how capitalism and liberalism had failed, the authoritarian upbringing of people prevented them from being able to accept the type of freedom that a revolution would bring and indeed people were too afraid to overthrow their capitalist masters because of this upbringing. So, it wasn't only the fault of the left, it was the fault of the people themselves. Fascism was a mass movement. I think it's wrong to say that it was simply just the way for the bourgeoisie to reinforce themselves. It wasn't necessarily about that - the people wanted the bourgeoisie to remain in power. They didn't want freedom. I mean, we're dealing with thousands of years of being taught to hate freedom and to be scared of freedom. The masses felt anxiety with the possibility of a revolution, but at the same time, there was indeed a huge economic depression that had made everyone impoverished, include the petite bourgeoisie. That's why the Nazis were able to combine one of the most reactionary ideas (nationalism) with one of the most liberating ideas (socialism).

I mean, the Italian people loved Mussolini - and he was telling them that freedom was a bad thing and that the 20th century shall be the century of authority. Kinda tells you something's up with the people who cheered at that.

Not to say that a revolution is impossible. We've just got to fight against the logic of authority and show people the limitless possibilities that are available for them when they live in freedom.

[Baseball]

It is of my understanding that fascism results from a failure of the left to take over the narrative in regards to economic and social crises. Before Hitler and Mussolini, there were strong left movements. But in modern days, the left have become much more marginalised because I think we have failed to show our own narrative to the situation. We have gotten a rise in right wing groups in Europe, over things like immigration and work, the failures of liberalism and even Communist Parties has resulted in fundamentalist Islamic groups, the Spanish Civil War and very nearly, the Russian Civil War. Just to say that fascism is reactionary ignores the revolutionary aspects of it.



The fact is, while the BNP have increased their base, the left have decreased and have become more fractured. The main base of the BNP are people who used to vote along class lines, such as Old Labour and what not, but now they vote BNP or Conservative. I think this says a lot about how we have failed to take advantage of the situation. Why is this the case? Is it because it's impossible (or at least, very difficult) for the left to mobilise these days? Is it because most people believe we live in the "end of history"?



Perhaps part of the problem is the assumption that there is a tremendous philosophical, ideological, political divide between fascism and socialism.
That assumption might explain the difficulty in understanding why workers and the 'working class' seems so often to be attracted to fascism.
Look to what 'unites' fascism and socialism, rather than what divides it.

[#FF0000]

Perhaps part of the problem is the assumption that there is a tremendous philosophical, ideological, political divide between fascism and socialism.

Er, but there is. Fascism is idealist and Socialism is materialist, which puts them in different worlds from the get go. Then, Fascists are ultra-nationalist, traditionally support National Syndicalism as an economic model, and are based on the idea of class collaboration, with every class taking their place in the hierarchy for the well being of the Nation.

Meanwhile Socialism is internationalist, support, er, Socialism, and are based on the idea of class warfare with the Working Class overthrowing the ruling class, and removing the barriers to control over the means of production.

What is similar?

[Ocean Seal]

This is p. much true, I think. They are ultranationalist and all that, but I don't think they are fascist as per the classical definition of it.

It makes me wonder what constitutes Fascism in the modern day?
I don't really know much about the BNP but I think that they describe themselves as both fascists and white nationalists.
At least according to their wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nationalist_Party

[zeppelin935]

italian fascism rose the ashes of a tattered left benito was himself a socialist before starting fascism, fascism and communism are neither left nor right but command economic government systems that should embrace if the want to have any possibility of overthrowing capitalists. the only reason they consider themselves polar opposits is because the are competeing for a finite number of people to follow their simular but differant doctrines. the true polar opposite of a totalitarian fascists or communists is a libertarain, for the libertarian doesnt believe the socialist when they say thay you can organization and freedom he believes them to be contradictory

[#FF0000]

Benito Mussolini was never a "socialist" as we would understand it. He was one of the so-called socialists who had a hard-on for nationalism and world war 1.


fascism and communism are neither left nor right but command economic government systems that should embrace if the want to have any possibility of overthrowing capitalists.

lol yeah dude. United Fronts with capitalists end with us dead in rivers, so I could just imagine what a "United Front" with Fascists would do for us.

This nonsense. Please.

[Baseball]

Benito Mussolini was never a "socialist" as we would understand it. He was one of the so-called socialists who had a hard-on for nationalism and world war 1.

Mussolini was a rising star not only in Italian socialist circles but in European ones, prior to WW I (he had also received an honorary degree at I believe University of Lausane). Mussolini had written a wrote a study of John Hus, praising his nationalism, sentiments which the Czeck National Socialist Party shared (the latter having been formed as a result of a schism within the Czeck Social Democratic Party). The notion that socialism, in general, has been, or is hostile to nationalism, is baseless.

[#FF0000]

Mussolini was a rising star not only in Italian socialist circles but in European ones, prior to WW I (he had also received an honorary degree at I believe University of Lausane). Mussolini had written a wrote a study of John Hus, praising his nationalism, sentiments which the Czeck National Socialist Party shared (the latter having been formed as a result of a schism within the Czeck Social Democratic Party). The notion that socialism, in general, has been, or is hostile to nationalism, is baseless.

There have been strands of socialism that have been friendly to nationalism. I'm not denying that. However, Marxist Socialism, or the socialism anyone on this forum has to do with, is opposed to Nationalism.

And he was a rising star amongst the weird sort of utopian nationalist syndicalists that were in the party, but he was not universally liked. He was taken off the staff of Avanti, if I remember correctly. He definitely ended up being expelled from the Italian Socialist Party, though.

How about you respond to my other post, too?

[zeppelin935]

fascists are not anti socialists nazi's ar national socialists and george bernard shaw (yes the playwrite) a fabaian socialists admired benito mussolini when he held power

[Baseball]

Er, but there is. Fascism is idealist and Socialism is materialist, which puts them in different worlds from the get go.

The fascists were highly materialistic. It is difficult to describe the socialists as anything but idealist.


Then, Fascists are ultra-nationalist,

True. The nationalism of socialism tends to take on a less milder edge.


traditionally support National Syndicalism as an economic model, and are based on the idea of class collaboration, with every class taking their place in the hierarchy for the well being of the Nation.

True. However there is no doubt that the workers are the main driving force in such an arrangement.


Meanwhile Socialism is internationalist

Except when its not (seen the thread regarding Leftism and nationalism that has been active over the past couple of weeks or so).


support, er, Socialism, and are based on the idea of class warfare with the Working Class overthrowing the ruling class, and removing the barriers to control over the means of production.

And then fascists spoke of national warfare with the members of a particular nation overthrowing a particular class or nation, and removing the barriers to control over the means of production. A wealthy Jew was just as much a target of the socialists as he was of the fascists; and the arguments both used in justifying such targeting is interchangeable.

Or in modern parlance, the demand by both for local control of the means of production, hostility toward globalism and foreigners controlling ect ect. Only the villians are (slightly) different.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=The Artist Formerly Known As Best Mod;1998012]There have been strands of socialism that have been friendly to nationalism. I'm not denying that. However, Marxist Socialism, or the socialism anyone on this forum has to do with, is opposed to Nationalism.

OK. But what does that have to do with anything? The OP here was talking about socialism in general, not members of a particular socialist party. As a non-socialist, I see no reason why I need to take sides in such inter-party squabbles.


And he was a rising star amongst the weird sort of utopian nationalist syndicalists that were in the party, but he was not universally liked. He was taken off the staff of Avanti, if I remember correctly. He definitely ended up being expelled from the Italian Socialist Party, though.

And how many communists were expelled by a Stalin or a Mao? Did it mean that those people were therefore no longer communists or socialists? Or was this simply inter-party squabbling?

[#FF0000]

The fascists were highly materialistic. It is difficult to describe the socialists as anything but idealist.

Absolutely wrong. We're talking philosophical idealism and materialism here. Marxism is based on a critique of the actual, concrete, physical conditions of the Capitalist system, while Fascism is based on an idealized image of the Nation or culture. They are on completely opposite and diametrically opposed spheres.


True. However there is no doubt that the workers are the main driving force in such an arrangement.


No, absolutely not. First off, Fascists had very limited support from the working class when compared to contemporary socialist groups. Second, the most Fascists do is worship the idealized image of a "good, strong, *insert national identity here* worker". They certainly do not advocate for working class rule, as workers hold a subservient position on the hierarchy to whoever is above them. Fascists do this because every person of every class has "their place" but they are all important to the overall glory of "The Nation".


Except when its not (seen the thread regarding Leftism and nationalism that has been active over the past couple of weeks or so).


Though I disagree with people who support so-called left-wing nationalism on anti-imperialist grounds, it has to be said that this "left-wing nationalism" is, again, based on totally different ground from fascist ultra-nationalism. Left-wing nationalism (probably more accurately described as "Regionalism?") is based on economic independence and self-determination. Fascist nationalism is based on chauvinism and a mythic, idealized view of "the Nation", with enemies of the nation being people who are of a different culture, or religion, because their culture or religion within the borders of "the Nation" somehow harms the unity of the Nation.

They are worlds apart, again.


And then fascists spoke of national warfare with the members of a particular nation overthrowing a particular class or nation, and removing the barriers to control over the means of production. A wealthy Jew was just as much a target of the socialists as he was of the fascists; and the arguments both used in justifying such targeting is interchangeable.


Absolutely wrong. First off, Marxists wouldn't target the wealthy Jew because he was Jewish, while the Fascist would.

Marxists target the "ruling class" because they see them as people who benefit from an inherently undemocratic, unfair, exploitive system. Fascists will target certain members of the ruling class, such as financiers, for how their lending practices affect the middle class, or because they aren't working in the best interests of, again, The Nation.

Both the socialist and the fascist could use similar populist rhetoric but so could anybody. And when it comes down to what they actually stand for and what the actual basis of the argument is, again, Fascists and Socialists are completely different.


Or in modern parlance, the demand by both for local control of the means of production, hostility toward globalism and foreigners controlling ect ect. Only the villians are (slightly) different.

That's hardly fair. I mean, everyone hates bankers and aside from that, no, the enemies are very, very different.

[#FF0000]

[QUOTE]

OK. But what does that have to do with anything? The OP here was talking about socialism in general, not members of a particular socialist party. As a non-socialist, I see no reason why I need to take sides in such inter-party squabbles.

It's not inter-party, though. Socialism now refers to Marxist socialism. If you aren't talking about Marxist socialism, then you're talking about something that has absolutely nothing to do with us.


And how many communists were expelled by a Stalin or a Mao? Did it mean that those people were therefore no longer communists or socialists? Or was this simply inter-party squabbling?

Er, no. You can look at their beliefs and say "Yup, they were Marxists and Socialists". Mussolini was not. He was a National Syndicalist. Simple as.

[#FF0000]

fascists are not anti socialists nazi's ar national socialists and george bernard shaw (yes the playwrite) a fabaian socialists admired benito mussolini when he held power

Oh man you better get in a time machine and tell that to the Freikorps before they make a terrible mistake!

[renzo_novatore]

The fascists were highly materialistic. It is difficult to describe the socialists as anything but idealist.


How in the hell were the fascists materialistic in any sense of the word??? I mean Giovanni Gentile, the philosopher behind fascism, was the LEADING idealist philosopher in Europe at that time. And how are socialists idealists??? I guess you could say Marx - but he wasn't all the way a Hegelian - he was a part of the young hegelians ffs - and he was a god damned dialectical materialist!


fascists are not anti socialists nazi's ar national socialists and george bernard shaw (yes the playwrite) a fabaian socialists admired benito mussolini when he held power


That doesn't show that nationalist socialism was left wing - that only goes to show how right wing the fabians were. George Bernard Shaw was what is called a useful idiot. He was a brilliant playwright, I'll admit that, but I mean he supported Hitler and Stalin at the same time - Hitler always denouncing the bolsheviks and everything, I don't know, that's not very consistent. And I believe that his comments about the fascists was just trying to get the left to act and get moving - trying to say: "Hey - look at what these fascists are doing - we should be doing better!" But then again, yeah, these are reformists we're talking about and george bernard shaw wasn't actually that far to the left, imo. Ffs the man was a eugenicist - and you'd be hard pressed to find any other socialist who supports eugenics.


The nationalism of socialism tends to take on a milder edge.


:thumbdown:

Crap. Why am I an anarchist then???

Um yeah - I don't know any socialist at all who is a nationalist. It seems quite the opposite. It seems that almost every socialist here in America for instance always opposes everything that their country does. I don't know. I'm just saying I've never found an instance where someone on the left in america - even democrats who are left only in name - has been an all out patriot.


And then fascists spoke of national warfare with the members of a particular nation overthrowing a particular class or nation, and removing the barriers to control over the means of production. A wealthy Jew was just as much a target of the socialists as he was of the fascists; and the arguments both used in justifying such targeting is interchangeable.


First off, fascists never talked about "removing the barriers to control over the means of production." They wanted to maintain private property. They weren't socialists - they always called themselves a third way - neither socialism nor capitalism. They wanted the two classes to get along (meaning the slaves should get along with their slave masters). And as I said before, people embraced this because capitalism was definitely not working, but they weren't willing to go all the way with a socialist revolution, so they stuck with something that was a "third way."

And then a wealthy Jew being the target of socialists - what - socialists like emma goldman??? Wonder how noam chomsky was able to be a socialist when he was a kid back then also...and damn, what's with all those kibbutzim in israel then? I never ever ever ever ever EVER read a socialist talking about a wealthy jew. EVER. Anywhere at all! Well, yes some anti semitism I mean Proudhon and Bakunin - blah blah blah blah blah. I'm not even going to get into that.

Jonah Goldberg is really a bad person to learn socialism from. I mean seriously - oh George Bernard Shaw was a socialist and he liked fascism, therefore all socialists liked fascism! The dumbest argument from the book has got to be when he was talking about veganism. Oh, Hitler was a vegan, therefore since there are some vegans on the left, all people on the left are fascists. What in the hell kind of logic is this! It's not even a = b, b = c, therefore a = c - it's more like a (sometimes) = b, b (sometimes) = c, therefore a (all the time) = c.

Let's be clear here: socialism has nothing at all to do with eugenics, authoritarianism, perfecting the race, and has nothing to do with nationalism - or at least revolutionary socialism. Some reformists can be a tad bit reactionary (that's a bit of an under statement), but that's why they're reformists and not real socialists.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Where's TheCultOfAbeLincoln to repeat the point that fascism is neither "far-right" nor "far-left" but rather the politics of the *hard* center? I mean, there is a reason why fascist theorists liked to dub themselves as a "third way" or "beyond left and right."

Also, given where "social democracy" is actually placed on the political compass or in the political cube... :D

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

This is p. much true, I think. They are ultranationalist and all that, but I don't think they are fascist as per the classical definition of it.

It makes me wonder what constitutes Fascism in the modern day?

It makes me wonder why we ban people for being fascists when the definition is so up in the air. Agreeing with a couple things the BNP says make you fascist or doesn't it? Is it really all that different from what some parts of the GOP believe?

(not to call you or the site mods out really, just saying)



Where's TheCultOfAbeLincoln to repeat the point that fascism is neither "far-right" nor "far-left" but rather the politics of the *hard* center? I mean, there is a reason why fascist theorists liked to dub themselves as a "third way" or "beyond left and right."

I'm here, and I agree with myself. I don't really see the fascism of Italy or Germany as a far right ideology, it was Hitler after all who took on the junkers in Prussia and instituted some land reform. Also, the programs of combating high unemployment via massive government spending seems a lot less like the libertarian or mises approach to economics and much more like a Keynsian nightmare. The mammoth defense spending, the public works like the autobahn or what was being planned in different cities was being built by the state and not by private corporations. One thing is certain in my opinion, the Nazis were not tools of some backroom cabal made up of business leaders. The Nazis were tools of their own leader and his ideology.

[#FF0000]

It makes me wonder why we ban people for being fascists when the definition is so up in the air. Agreeing with a couple things the BNP says make you fascist or doesn't it? Is it really all that different from what some parts of the GOP believe?

People aren't usually banned for only agreeing with a couple of things the BNP. But that kind of depends on what "couple of things" it is.

People who get banned for being fascists are out-and-out fascists, members of fascist organizations and parties, not people who flirt with nationalism.


One thing is certain in my opinion, the Nazis were not tools of some backroom cabal made up of business leaders. The Nazis were tools of their own leader and his ideology.

I don't think anyone in this thread suggested that. Or is that just something you hear around?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

People who get banned for being fascists are out-and-out fascists, members of fascist organizations and parties, not people who flirt with nationalism.

Is there a list somewhere? I'm just curious, I remember a flemish guy a while back for being banned for supporting people and parties which he didn't consider fascist but the site did. Like we've all stated the term 'fascism' has gotten to the point it can be used to accuse anyone of anything malicious, from fascist cops to fascist parties to the fascist principal at school.


I don't think anyone in this thread suggested that. Or is that just something you hear around?

Yeah, more of something you hear once in a while, not in this thread so much. That Hitler was 'the tool of business elites to fight off the leftists.' It may be true that the business class supported the Nazis from the begining, but I personally think it's clear as to who was truly being used by whom.

[ComradeMan]

Just to add....

Mussolini's nationalism was not the nationalism of Hitler. Mussolini did not believe in things like races and racial purity, in fact he was quite contemptuous of such ideas and once, if I recall, remarked saying that sort of things should be left to the "blonds", i.e. i tedeschi, the Germans!

Mussolini's idea was more of nations/races etc being a state of mind and not a state of genetics and thus the Italian nationalism under Mussolini and the Germanic nationalism under Hitler were different in their ideological basis. This is not to say that some fascisti did not have ideas about being aryans etc, but let's face it in a lot of Italy it's a bit hard to build up an ideal of square-jawed, blue-eyed aryan masterrace types! :laugh: Most Italians did not speak Italian as their first language and many could not speak Italian very well at all until the 1950s so a lot of Mussolini's nationalism may also be seen in the light of building an Italian nation more than Hitler's ideas of saving a Germanic one.

Of course in the end Mussolini succumbed to German pressure and racial laws were intigated etc so in the end it worked out the same way...:(

[Baseball]

No, absolutely not. First off, Fascists had very limited support from the working class when compared to contemporary socialist groups.

True. That is, before they were elected into office.


Second, the most Fascists do is worship the idealized image of a "good, strong, *insert national identity here* worker". They certainly do not advocate for working class rule, as workers hold a subservient position on the hierarchy to whoever is above them. Fascists do this because every person of every class has "their place" but they are all important to the overall glory of "The Nation".

Yep. All germans are equal; all shall rule.



Left-wing nationalism (probably more accurately described as "Regionalism?") is based on economic independence and self-determination.

The National Socialists demanded that Germany should not be dependent upon other countries for needed goods. They also demanded that all Germans should be part of the same nation.


Fascist nationalism is based on chauvinism and a mythic, idealized view of "the Nation", with enemies of the nation being people who are of a different culture, or religion, because their culture or religion within the borders of "the Nation" somehow harms the unity of the Nation.

The great example of a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious country in Europe was Austria-Hungary. i am not aware of tears spilled by socialists at its collapse and its division into various states based upon (at least in effort) national boundaries.

After WW II the communists supported expelling thousands of Germany from their homes as that land was being given to Poland.



Absolutely wrong. First off, Marxists wouldn't target the wealthy Jew because he was Jewish, while the Fascist would.

But he would target him because he was wealthy. The point being that a German who was so inclined to accept that he was being exploited by -somebody- would se a two-fer here.


Marxists target the "ruling class" because they see them as people who benefit from an inherently undemocratic, unfair, exploitive system. Fascists will target certain members of the ruling class, such as financiers, for how their lending practices affect the middle class, or because they aren't working in the best interests of, again, The Nation.

Not much of a difference explained. Both sets of villains can easily be the same.

[#FF0000]

True. That is, before they were elected into office.

Source.




Yep. All germans are equal; all shall rule.

There was clearly a class system in Nazi Germany.


The National Socialists demanded that Germany should not be dependent upon other countries for needed goods. They also demanded that all Germans should be part of the same nation.


Meanwhile "Left Nationalists" contend that their countries should not be sources of cheap labor for Western businesses. In the context of a third world country I don't think there is anything remotely "Fascistic" about this. Economic protectionism is a really common policy in developing countries in the 20th century.


The great example of a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious country in Europe was Austria-Hungary. i am not aware of tears spilled by socialists at its collapse and its division into various states based upon (at least in effort) national boundaries.
After WW II the communists supported expelling thousands of Germany from their homes as that land was being given to Poland.

Yeah I have no idea what this has to do with anything.


But he would target him because he was wealthy. The point being that a German who was so inclined to accept that he was being exploited by -somebody- would se a two-fer here.

Except that Fascists don't target the upper class entirely and when they do target financiers, they do it because they claim they are working in opposition to the good of the Nation. Meanwhile Marxists target the upper class because the class system is based on the extraction of surplus value from the working class. You can twist words and rhetoric to make it sound the same, but they are not.


Not much of a difference explained. Both sets of villains can easily be the same.

I'm really boggled at the fact that I have to explain that Fascism and Communism are different at this point. Fascists drew support from the wealthier and more conservative or religious of society, especially when they used their paramilitary arms to attack and break up Socialist meetings. Fascists uphold the concept of private property. Fascists uphold the concept of class society within the Nation and outside of it.

I really can't make it any more simple.

[L.A.P.]

I think we're all going to tell you the same thing in a different way and I would say like this. fascism is what happens when a capitalist system collapses and the ruling class want to distract the working class from taking control so they started movements such as national syndicalism which distracted the workers from class struggle to instead focus on racial struggle and national identity. National syndicalism eventually became fascism, and fascism isn't a political ideology as much as it is a political strategy to deter the workers to blame ethnic minorities as a scapegoat for the reasons for their troubles instead of economic minorities which is why Hitler said Germany's biggest enemy was "Jewish Marxism". This is why I hope that when the economy of the United States collapses I hope some guy doesn't run for president promising us perfect lives if we give him power because the Tea Party movement will be the first to vote for him/her.