The Falangist model...left variety?

[Fabrizio]

(http://www.revleft.com/wiki/National_Syndicalism)National Syndicalism (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/National_Syndicalism) (nacionalsindicalismo) was to be the official ideology of the State.

(http://www.revleft.com/wiki/National_Syndicalism)Corporate state (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Corporate_state) in which (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/National_Syndicalism)class struggle (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Class_struggle) would be superseded by the (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/National_Syndicalism)Vertical Trade Union (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Spanish_Trade_Union_Organisation), forcing (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/National_Syndicalism)workers (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Workers) and (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/National_Syndicalism)owners (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Owners) into one organization. (see (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/National_Syndicalism)class collaboration (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Class_collaboration))
(http://www.revleft.com/wiki/National_Syndicalism)Roman Catholicism (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Roman_Catholicism)
Attention to the (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/National_Syndicalism)Castilian (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Castile_(historical_region)) (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/National_Syndicalism)farmers (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Farmers)
Nationalist pride in the history of the (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/National_Syndicalism)Spanish Empire (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Spanish_Empire)
Anti-separatism
(http://www.revleft.com/wiki/National_Syndicalism)Anti-communism (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Anti-communism), anti- (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/National_Syndicalism)anarchism (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Anarchism) and anti- (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/National_Syndicalism)capitalism (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Capitalism)
(http://www.revleft.com/wiki/National_Syndicalism)Anti-democratic (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Aristocracy_(government)), anti-liberal, anti-parliamentarian ideology
(http://www.revleft.com/wiki/National_Syndicalism)Paramilitarian (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Paramilitary)
(http://www.revleft.com/wiki/National_Syndicalism)

I like the sound of Falangism in the ideal sense, with any possible racial component taken out.

Peronism under Peron would be a good example. Certainly there were left and right wing roots and followers of this doctrine. Many from that movement became revolutionary advocates of what was essentially a Falangist state model.

In international positioning, as well as socio-economic model, the "Third Position" was followed. This unrelated to the European fascist groups who use the same name. By this term Peron meant "neither capitalism nor communism".

Does this manifestation of Falangism count as fascism? Even if it is directed at ethnic equality and redistribution of wealth? I hope not, I don't want to be restricted as a fascist. Many followers of this movement were killed for being left-wingers, by US backed "liberal" regimes.

For reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falange
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position

[Os Cangaceiros]

I like the sound of Falangism in the ideal sense, with any possible racial component taken out.

You like the sounds of a nationalist anti-communist movement?

[Fabrizio]

Anti-communism, not anti-communists as individuals. I think I share the same aims as most communists, and hopefully if such a model was building something progressive, they would voluntarily become supporters.

Under an enlightened ruling class surely the need for communism would disappear. Even Marx recognized that communism as an ideology would not be needed once capitalism had been surpassed.

[#FF0000]

Under an enlightened ruling class surely the need for communism would disappear.

if the world was made of pudding we wouldn't need little plastic cups!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[#FF0000]

Anyway, yeah, do you advocate class collaboration? Nationalism? Traditionalism? Militarism? Do you think everyone should drop their class interests (or believe that capitalists in Fascism aren't pursuing theirs) and work towards the greater glory of some arbitrarily defined, mythical, idealist conception of a Nation with a history that never was?

If so, yeah you're a fascist, sorry brah.

If not, well, what is so appealing about the Falange to you?

[RGacky3]

Under an enlightened ruling class surely the need for communism would disappear.

Are you high?

Or a fascist?

AN "englightened ruling class" is impossible, because people will always work in their interests first.

Class collaboration is impossible, becuase you have unequal power distribution and totally different economic interests, its like king/peasent collaboration.

[GPDP]

Fascists don't get restricted, they get banned.

That said, I do hope you get restricted and not banned. You sound like a reactionary, but no more so than your average neo-con, who would only be restricted (though we have not had one such poster restricted in a long time, just social-democrats and libertarians).

[RGacky3]

The banning of fascists is a wierd rule because the definition can be so many things.

Are nationalists/coporatists fascists? Technically, yeah, but they arn't the traditoinal jack boot nazis, are plain old racists fascists? Not neccessarily, but they might be the jack boot nazis.

[Fabrizio]

Fascists don't get restricted, they get banned.

That said, I do hope you get restricted and not banned. You sound like a reactionary, but no more so than your average neo-con, who would only be restricted (though we have not had one such poster restricted in a long time, just social-democrats and libertarians).

Yes, I meant to say "I hope I don't get banned", not restricte, in my OP.

When I joined here I was honest that I should be restricted. However, I don't think I should be banned. I believe there can be a left-Falangist model which is progressive for humanity, and does not rest on ethnic divisions.

Yes it is nationalist. However, "nationalism" in this case can imply unity of underdeveloped nations against imperialism, and even alliances with workers and the poor in imperialist countries. See the "Third Position" link in my OP.

[Fabrizio]

Class collaboration is impossible, becuase you have unequal power distribution and totally different economic interests, its like king/peasent collaboration.

History says otherwise, many successful societies have een built on the basis of class collaboration. Where would you prefer to have lived, Japan, Scandinavia, South Korea and Germany, or the USSR?

[Apoi_Viitor]

1919 Fascist Manifesto by Filippo Tommaso Marinetti


Italians! Here is the program of a genuinely Italian movement. It is revolutionary because it is anti-dogmatic, strongly innovative and against prejudice.

For the political problem: We demand:

a) Universal suffrage polled on a regional basis, with proportional representation and voting and electoral office eligibility for women.

b) A minimum age for the voting electorate of 18 years; that for the office holders at 25 years.

c) The abolition of the Senate.

d) The convocation of a National Assembly for a three-years duration, for which its primary responsibility will be to form a constitution of the State.

e) The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industy, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers.

For the social problems: We demand:

a) The quick enactment of a law of the State that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers.

b) A minimum wage.

c) The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions.

d) To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants.

e) The rapid and complete systemization of the railways and of all the transport industries.

f) A necessary modification of the insurance laws to invalidate the minimum retirement age; we propose to lower it from 65 to 55 years of age.

For the military problem: We demand:

a) The institution of a national militia with a short period of service for training and exclusively defensive responsibilities.

b) The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories.

c) A national policy intended to peacefully further the Italian national culture in the world.

For the financial problem: We demand:

a) A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth.

b) The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor.

c) The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.

[#FF0000]

labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy)

Read: Labor unions that don't fight too hard/at all and will shut the fuck up.

[Nolan]

It is possible for some variant of third positionism to be oriented in a more progressive direction if you strip it of its most reactionary parts and emphasize other parts. The same is true of liberalism, as in movements like social democracy. The progressive neo-peronism you see today in Latin America is a good example. Even Che had sympathy for Peron.

As for fascism - and keep in mind not all third positionism is fascism - I'm not sure.

You're still operating on a capitalist framework, though.

And Peron wasn't a falangist.

[#FF0000]

It is possible for some variant of third positionism to be oriented in a more progressive direction if you strip it of its most reactionary parts and emphasize other parts. I think this was true in the 18th and maybe 19th century, maybe, but not anymore.

/ultraleftist

[Nolan]

History says otherwise, many successful societies have een built on the basis of class collaboration. Where would you prefer to have lived, Japan, Scandinavia, South Korea and Germany, or the USSR?

Who does this sound like. Any takers?

[#FF0000]

History says otherwise, many successful societies have een built on the basis of class collaboration. Where would you prefer to have lived, Japan, Scandinavia, South Korea and Germany, or the USSR?


GEE WOULD I HAVE RATHER LIVED IN A MODERN, TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED SOCIETY OR IN EARLY 20TH CENTURY RUSSIA WHERE EVERYTHING WAS EQUAL PARTS MUD AND TUNDRA.

btw if we're going by contemporary comparisons, then the USSR beats Japan and South Korea by a looooooooooooooooooong shot.

And Germany, actually, hahaha.

And maybe Scandinavia.

[Fabrizio]

And Peron wasn't a falangist.

Obviously you couldn't make a replica of the original Falange outside of Spain. However he certainly based Peronist structure and values on the Falange.

If you mean by this to point out the key difference that Argentina had no Empire hwile Spain did, I agree.

If you mean something else, please explain.


Who does this sound like. Any takers?

:confused:

[Nolan]

I think this was true in the 18th and maybe 19th century, maybe, but not anymore.

/ultraleftist

Alright, but I don't really see how a corporatist economic arrangement by itself is more inherently reactionary than anything social democracy proposes. I mean the laws of the universe don't require one to want to gas Jews once they believe in a guild system.

I'm talking about third positionism in general, not fascism. There's also things like distributism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism).

[#FF0000]

Alright, but I don't really see how a corporatist economic arrangement by itself is more inherently reactionary than anything social democracy proposes. I mean the laws of the universe don't require one to want to gas Jews once they believe in a guild system.

I'm talking about third positionism in general, not fascism. There's also things like distributism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism).

Fair 'nuff. I agree with you there.

[Fabrizio]

GEE WOULD I HAVE RATHER LIVED IN A MODERN, TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED SOCIETY OR IN EARLY 20TH CENTURY RUSSIA WHERE EVERYTHING WAS EQUAL PARTS MUD AND TUNDRA.

btw if we're going by contemporary comparisons, then the USSR beats Japan and South Korea by a looooooooooooooooooong shot.

And Germany, actually, hahaha.

And maybe Scandinavia.

My point is: those models of corporatism, or "class collaboration", led to greater prosperity, freedom, peace, equality and sustainability, than the Soviet model.

You can reject class war by both the neoliberal oligarchy, and the far-left.

[Nolan]

Obviously you couldn't make a replica of the original Falange outside of Spain. However he certainly based Peronist structure and values on the Falange.

If you mean by this to point out the key difference that Argentina had no Empire hwile Spain did, I agree.

If you mean something else, please explain.



:confused:

Peronism isn't falangism more than it is generic third positionism. It doesn't have all the extra baggage of falangism, which is a fascist movement adapted to Spain.

[#FF0000]

My point is: those models of corporatism, or "class collaboration", led to greater prosperity, freedom, peace, equality and sustainability, than the Soviet model.

You can reject class war by both the neoliberal oligarchy, and the far-left.

You can, but it's naive as all hell to think that people with a lot of money and power over me and people like me won't pursue their class interests just because you've got a system called "class collaboration".

And these third-positionist states don't exist in a vacuum. Where would they be if not for the hyper-exploitation of third world workers?

Dress it up however you want, but as long as you've got capitalism, you've got people suffering and people with unjustifiable power.

[Fabrizio]

Peronism isn't falangism more than it is generic third positionism. It doesn't have all the extra baggage of falangism, which is a fascist movement adapted to Spain.

A fair enough position. It is not a widely held truism though - many people talk of "Falangism" outside of Spain. For example the Phalange in Lebanon is a large party.

[Nolan]

A fair enough position. It is not a widely held truism though - many people talk of "Falangism" outside of Spain. For example the Phalange in Lebanon is a large party.

National socialism was also an adaption to a particular country but it has spread as well. I'm not sure if Lebanon's phalange is falangist in the Spanish tradition or it just likes the name. "Falangist" movements have spread to Latin America though. That jump isn't too big.

[Fabrizio]

You can, but it's naive as all hell to think that people with a lot of money and power over me and people like me won't pursue their class interests just because you've got a system called "class collaboration".

And these third-positionist states don't exist in a vacuum. Where would they be if not for the hyper-exploitation of third world workers?

Dress it up however you want, but as long as you've got capitalism, you've got people suffering and people with unjustifiable power.

True. I didn't put them there though. I wish I could click my fingers and make Imperialism and inequality go away.

However, that's impossible. How is a government supposed to act when faced with these interests? Under someone like Peron, and other comparable states, there were massive increases in living standards and social and economic modernization.

Inequality is bad. But I would rather have a country where people have food, work and peace, alongside managed inequality, than a communsit revolution. This means civil war, isolation from the whole world, massive destruction. One of Peron's favourite sayings was "there is no war worse than a civil war".

Maybe communism is morally justified and superior to what I am proposing. However I can't see the people supporting such an option, except for in truly extreme cases (like Russia, Cuba, China). Possibly Third Positionist Corporatism was not viable in those situations, and maybe things had exacerbated to such an extent that class interests could not be reconciled. However, this does not mean we should wish for, ro work towards, such a state of affairs. Most countries will never reach that combination of factors however, and proposing this option makes you impotent politically.

In contrast, Peronism for example, acheived truly revolutionary acheivements, without the pain of a civil war.

[BIG BROTHER]

No offense but what Revolutionary achievements? As far as I know there still poverty in Argentina, inequality, economic crisis and class struggle. For such revolutionary changes, it sure did not leave any ever lasting legacy :lol:



True. I didn't put them there though. I wish I could click my fingers and make Imperialism and inequality go away.

However, that's impossible. How is a government supposed to act when faced with these interests? Under someone like Peron, and other comparable states, there were massive increases in living standards and social and economic modernization.

Inequality is bad. But I would rather have a country where people have food, work and peace, alongside managed inequality, than a communsit revolution. This means civil war, isolation from the whole world, massive destruction. One of Peron's favourite sayings was "there is no war worse than a civil war".

Maybe communism is morally justified and superior to what I am proposing. However I can't see the people supporting such an option, except for in truly extreme cases (like Russia, Cuba, China). Possibly Third Positionist Corporatism was not viable in those situations, and maybe things had exacerbated to such an extent that class interests could not be reconciled. However, this does not mean we should wish for, ro work towards, such a state of affairs. Most countries will never reach that combination of factors however, and proposing this option makes you impotent politically.

In contrast, Peronism for example, acheived truly revolutionary acheivements, without the pain of a civil war.

[danyboy27]

in before the ban..i guess.

[Sasha]

(http://www.revleft.com/wiki/National_Syndicalism)

I like the sound of Falangism in the ideal sense, with any possible racial component taken out.

Peronism under Peron would be a good example. Certainly there were left and right wing roots and followers of this doctrine. Many from that movement became revolutionary advocates of what was essentially a Falangist state model.

In international positioning, as well as socio-economic model, the "Third Position" was followed. This unrelated to the European fascist groups who use the same name. By this term Peron meant "neither capitalism nor communism".

Does this manifestation of Falangism count as fascism? Even if it is directed at ethnic equality and redistribution of wealth? I hope not, I don't want to be restricted as a fascist]

Fascists get banned, you are on the other hand for now restricted.
Wich is, not coincidently, an good answer to your question. Not all 3th positionist are all-out fascists but they are in general awfully close and for sure considerd reactionary by leftists.

[Kiev Communard]

Fascists get banned, you are on the other hand for now restricted.
Wich is, not coincidently, an good answer to your question. Not all 3th positionist are all-out fascists but they are in general awfully close and for sure considerd reactionary by leftists.

I would propose that those Third Positionists who do not uphold overtly racialist views, as well as National Bolsheviks, be restricted, while "traditional" fascists, Nazis, white supremacists, etc. be banned. If we do not ban "simple" national conservatives (some of whom may be pretty much pro-fascist) and anarcho-capitalists together with fake "libertarians", then we should logically just restrict Nazbols / Strasserites as well.

[Nolan]

I would be for dropping the 'ban all fascists' policy all together and move it to 'ban all racists.'

After all,

1. not all neo-nazis can be considered "fascists" in any meaningful sense. They often never address economics or class at all.

2. many white nationalists, if not the majority of them, adhere to free market economics in the US. You find them sprinkled in movements like the Tea Party or things like the Mises Institute.

3. why ban fascists anyway? Nazis yes, since they are racists but there's no reason to ban, say, Italian fascists or falangists. They're no worse than the liberal people we restrict already.

[Sasha]

We ban fascists and nazis (and that includes strasserists) because of two reasons.

1. No platform, leftists don't facilitate people who would kill us given the chance.

2. The owner of this board is German, in germany there is an whole lot of anti-nazi laws that could get him in legal trouble if he would give room to fascists.

[Fabrizio]

No offense but what Revolutionary achievements? As far as I know there still poverty in Argentina, inequality, economic crisis and class struggle. For such revolutionary changes, it sure did not leave any ever lasting legacy :lol:

I consider the industrialization of a country, the creation of a middle class, high living standards even for workers, economic independence, to all be revolutionary.

The far-left, like some others here, considered all this to be "fascist". This is why the working class in Argentina to this day cannot bear the sight of commies. It's one of the few countries where in a factory openly syaing you are a communist, will likely get you chased out by the workers themselves. Why? Simple: the communists marched against all of these acheivements, denouncing them as "fascism".

A Peronist MP from the 1970's, called John William Cooke, used to say that "in Argentina, the Peronists are the real communists".

[Kiev Communard]

I consider the industrialization of a country, the creation of a middle class, high living standards even for workers, economic independence, to all be revolutionary.

The far-left, like some others here, considered all this to be "fascist". This is why the working class in Argentina to this day cannot bear the sight of commies. It's one of the few countries where in a factory openly syaing you are a communist, will likely get you chased out by the workers themselves. Why? Simple: the communists marched against all of these acheivements, denouncing them as "fascism".

A Peronist MP from the 1970's, called John William Cooke, used to say that "in Argentina, the Peronists are the real communists".

Well, actually it was FORA (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/FORA_del_V_Congreso) who were real communists in Argentina. The Peronists managed to gain foothold in the working class only due to the disintegration of revolutionary syndicalism in the 1930s and the complete haplessness of reformist trade unions, and had it not been for Peronist and generally statist illusions, the outcome of 2001-2002 socio-political crisis would be much more different.

As to the Peronists of the 1970s, the best that could be said about them is that their opportunism paved the road for Videla's dictatorship.

[Fabrizio]

Well, actually it was FORA (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/FORA_del_V_Congreso) who were real communists in Argentina. The Peronists managed to gain foothold in the working class only due to the disintegration of revolutionary syndicalism in the 1930s and the complete haplessness of reformist trade unions, and had it not been for Peronist and generally statist illusions, the outcome of 2001-2002 socio-political crisis would be much more different.

As to the Peronists of the 1970s, the best that could be said about them is that their opportunism paved the road for Videla's dictatorship.

You've read your history and I'm genuinely happy to see someone who knows so much about Argentina, so I gave you a positive reputation.

However, your historical analysis is pure reductionism.

By your same logic I could say that Peronism helped to bring about the 2001-02 rebellion which ended neoliberalism in Argentina until this day. Therefore we only have Peron to thank for the fact that Argentina today has a centre-left government, whereas Chile and Colombia do not!

You're clearly a clever guy, but as long as you reduce everything to the "crisis of leadership" of the proletariat, you'll be completely politically ineffective. Peronism has, and still continues to, make real acheivements. You reject it because it does not conform to a pre-conceived model of Bolshevik revolution. However countless groups have advocated this in every country, and acheive nothing tangible for the masses. Peronism on the other hand has proven much more progressive than most of the other actually existing options. And it continues to be so.

[Kiev Communard]

You're clearly a clever guy, but as long as you reduce everything to the "crisis of leadership" of the proletariat, you'll be completely politically ineffective. Peronism has, and still continues to, make real acheivements. You reject it because it does not conform to a pre-conceived model of Bolshevik revolution. However countless groups have advocated this in every country, and acheive nothing tangible for the masses. Peronism on the other hand has proven much more progressive than most of the other actually existing options. And it continues to be so.

I am not a supporter of the Trotskyist theory of the "crisis of leadership" of the proletariat", or even an Orthodox Marxist, so you have missed your point here :D. As to the historic analysis, I must say that it is yours that proves rather superficial. By the same logic, the Argentinian workers of the 1910s should have uncritically and faithfully followed the "progressive" bourgeois Radical Civic Union, believing in its good will and refraining from any independent actions. And you know how ineffectual the promises of UCR turned out. In fact, if not for the failure of social liberalism (to which kirchnerismo is much closer than to the left-wing Peronism), the Justicialist Party would have never been able to become a mass movement.

Argentina has much richer and radical tradition than any kind of left-wing Peronism, with its confused Third Positionist slogans, has ever been. The actions of the workers in 2001-02 and the movement for the seizure of the factories show that this tradition is by no means dead. The workers should re-evaluate the past of the Argentinian labour movement, restoring the best traditions of FORA while avoiding its mistakes (such as its apoliticism) and steering clear of paternalist solutions to the social problems, which are always temporary and unreliable.

[Thug Lessons]

Anyway, yeah, do you advocate class collaboration? Nationalism? Traditionalism? Militarism? Do you think everyone should drop their class interests (or believe that capitalists in Fascism aren't pursuing theirs) and work towards the greater glory of some arbitrarily defined, mythical, idealist conception of a Nation with a history that never was?

If so, yeah you're a fascist, sorry brah.

Do you believe Mao Zedong was a fascist?

[Crux]

I am not a supporter of the Trotskyist theory of the "crisis of leadership" of the proletariat", or even an Orthodox Marxist, so you have missed your point here :D. As to the historic analysis, I must say that it is yours that proves rather superficial. By the same logic, the Argentinian workers of the 1910s should have uncritically and faithfully followed the "progressive" bourgeois Radical Civic Union, believing in its good will and refraining from any independent actions. And you know how ineffectual the promises of UCR turned out. In fact, if not for the failure of social liberalism (to which kirchnerismo is much closer than to the left-wing Peronism), the Justicialist Party would have never been able to become a mass movement.

Argentina has much richer and radical tradition than any kind of left-wing Peronism, with its confused Third Positionist slogans, has ever been. The actions of the workers in 2001-02 and the movement for the seizure of the factories show that this tradition is by no means dead. The workers should re-evaluate the past of the Argentinian labour movement, restoring the best traditions of FORA while avoiding its mistakes (such as its apoliticism) and steering clear of paternalist solutions to the social problems, which are always temporary and unreliable.
Just out of curiosity how is any kind of actually left wing peronism possible?

[Thug Lessons]

I don't have the least bit of sympathy for fascism, or falangism, or white supremacism, or whatever name you want to give it. But, regardless, the most influential communists here have this very weird and mechanistic conception of political struggle where class consciousness is supposed to be the only thing that matters. It might be important to hammer home the importance of class struggle to people who are just learning about communism, but it's far from the whole picture. People cannot be reduced to classes. In the long run, focusing on it to the exclusion of other factors is a bad strategy, and a successful communist movement needs to entice the people in a thousand ways, even if class identity remains central.

[Fabrizio]

I am not a supporter of the Trotskyist theory of the "crisis of leadership" of the proletariat", or even an Orthodox Marxist, so you have missed your point here :D.

Whatever you call it, it appeared to be the essence of your position.


As to the historic analysis, I must say that it is yours that proves rather superficial. By the same logic, the Argentinian workers of the 1910s should have uncritically and faithfully followed the "progressive" bourgeois Radical Civic Union, believing in its good will and refraining from any independent actions.

The UCR didn't acheive anything comparable to Peronism. The fact that workers did follow Peronism en mass, and not the UCR, proves my point. I am not here to tell workers what they should do. It is enough to say that the popular classes in Argentina have been Peronist ever since October 1945. And that progressive foreign intellectuals should understand this, and give their support to this process.


In fact, if not for the failure of social liberalism (to which kirchnerismo is much closer than to the left-wing Peronism), the Justicialist Party would have never been able to become a mass movement.

I agree, but what is your point? Peronism acheive what no-one else coul d, and stillr emains the best vehicle for doing so.

The proof of this is that the Kirchners came out of, and depend on, the Peronist structures to stay in power and implement their project: the CGT and the Peronist Mayors.

Cristina Fernandez and her follwoers are the true Peronists today, they represent a project of national economic independence. They have favored productive investment, national businesses, the small farmer (who sadly, is generally ungrateful to them), and above all, the lower middle classes, the workers and the poor.


Argentina has much richer and radical tradition than any kind of left-wing Peronism, with its confused Third Positionist slogans, has ever been.

The greatest gains for the country, and the people of the country, be they farmers, workers, small businesses or middle classes, are those implemented by Peron.


The actions of the workers in 2001-02 and the movement for the seizure of the factories show that this tradition is by no means dead. The workers should re-evaluate the past of the Argentinian labour movement, restoring the best traditions of FORA while avoiding its mistakes (such as its apoliticism) and steering clear of paternalist solutions to the social problems, which are always temporary and unreliable.

I have to disagree. The workers movement in 200/02 remained udner Peronist leadership, and the general strikes of the Moyano wing of the CGT were instrumental in bringing down the government. But this on its own could not have led the country, an alliance with the middle classes and productive capitalist sectors was necessary to take political power. An in power, this alliance has brought about significant real progress for the country. You call this temporary and unreliable, but Peronism has lasted for nearly 70 years.

The far left had no real involvement at the time of 2001/02, and has not grown since, as its electoral results show.

[thälmann]

and by the way its total useless to compare the ussr with germany etc, because of their very different development. although the masses in the socialist countries had achievments, people in the imperialist countries never had.
you can compare ussr with todays russia for example, and i guess the result is clear.

ps.: falangists and strasserists are of course fascists.strasser was one of the hardcore antisemites in the fascist movement.

[Imposter Marxist]

History says otherwise, many successful societies have een built on the basis of class collaboration. Where would you prefer to have lived, Japan, Scandinavia, South Korea and Germany, or the USSR?

The USSR.

[Fabrizio]

The USSR.

lol

[Fabrizio]

and by the way its total useless to compare the ussr with germany etc, because of their very different development. although the masses in the socialist countries had achievments, people in the imperialist countries never had.
you can compare ussr with todays russia for example, and i guess the result is clear.

Fair enough. But South Korea is a good example of economic nationalism and corporatism.

[Imposter Marxist]

I'm pretty sure you asked me if I'd rather live in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union after attempting to say that falangism isn't so bad, then lol'ed at my awnser. How cute.

[RGacky3]

History says otherwise, many successful societies have een built on the basis of class collaboration. Where would you prefer to have lived, Japan, Scandinavia, South Korea and Germany, or the USSR?

What are you talking about, Scandanavian and German social-democracies were build on decades of class struggle.

[Kiev Communard]

Just out of curiosity how is any kind of actually left wing peronism possible?

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

They were really hated and persecuted both by right-wing Peronists (and disliked by Peron himself) and Videla's neoliberals, while co-operating with the Workers' Revolutionary Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_Revolutionary_Party_(Argentina)) (the latter were affiliated to the "official" Fourth International).

[Bright Banana Beard]

South Korea used US money in order to beat North Korea's economy. The result is the US still pay South Korea and already beating North Korea.

[Rafiq]

History says otherwise, many successful societies have een built on the basis of class collaboration. Where would you prefer to have lived, Japan, Scandinavia, South Korea and Germany, or the USSR?

Where would you live, pre bolshevist Russia or the USSR?

[Fabrizio]

I'm pretty sure you asked me if I'd rather live in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union after attempting to say that falangism isn't so bad, then lol'ed at my awnser. How cute.

I didn't say Nazi Germany.

[Tim Finnegan]

Under an enlightened ruling class surely the need for communism would disappear.
Are we talking priests, warlords, burghers or bureaucrats? All of them have had a go at playing the "enlightened ruling class", but it's never really worked out that way.

[Crux]

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

They were really hated and persecuted both by right-wing Peronists (and disliked by Peron himself) and Videla's neoliberals, while co-operating with the Workers' Revolutionary Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_Revolutionary_Party_%28Argentina%29) (the latter were affiliated to the "official" Fourth International).
Thanks, but that does not really answer the how. My impression is that modern day peronism is similar to modern day social democracy.

[Fabrizio]

Are we talking priests, warlords, burghers or bureaucrats? All of them have had a go at playing the "enlightened ruling class", but it's never really worked out that way.

There are plenty of examples of enlightened rulers, I gave many in this thread. For the sake of example, Peron would be one. You should look up his acheivements

On the other hand there are no examples of true workers democracies. If you ask 99% of workers, they simply do not want to run a country themselves, and certainly do not want a bloody civil war. It's not hard to see why, it's a daunting task to run a country. Even Lenin understood this, hence the need for a vanguard party (which is another term for "ruling class").

[Fabrizio]

Thanks, but that does not really answer the how. My impression is that modern day peronism is similar to modern day social democracy.

This is mislaeding. Peronism as a doctrine mixes economic nationalism, Catholicism, syndicalism, redistribution of wealth, social reform, third positionism, and state-led development. Some of these things are emphasized more at certaint imes than others (for example today Third Positionism is a good ideology, but not very relevant in terms of foreign policy. Likewise while Peronism retains its Catholic influence, the Church today has become so corrupted, that it is often hard to work with official Catholicism).

[Tim Finnegan]

There are plenty of examples of enlightened rulers, I gave many in this thread. For the sake of example, Peron would be one. You should look up his acheivements
I'm not sure that pandering to the masses constitutes "enlightened rule", at least not in the traditional sense. Nero did that, ferchissake, and he's the archetypal mad despot.


On the other hand there are no examples of true workers democracies. If you ask 99% of workers, they simply do not want to run a country themselves, and certainly do not want a bloody civil war. It's not hard to see why, it's a daunting task to run a country.
That hardly tells us about the capability of the working class to run society, though, does it? Merely their historical lack of opportunity and their contemporary lack of will. All the "enlightened ruling classes" in history have had limitless supplies of both, and they still fell short of your imagined grandeur.


Even Lenin understood this, hence the need for a vanguard party (which is another term for "ruling class").
...Pardon? :confused:

[Fabrizio]

If we are to believe Marx then the working class has had the "opportunity" to run society since 1848, however, as of yet they haven't stepped up to the challenge. You can keep believing unfoundedlly that they are capable of doing so and will do so one day. I will go on the current evidence. When that changes, I might change my mind.

Regarding the failings of the "ruling class": it's easy to be morally pure if we reject everything, and just keep waiting on the impossible ideal. However, between the many different options presented historically, I can differentiate between a good one like, say, Peronism, and a bad one like, say, the Republican Party.

You say Peron pandered to the masses. Funilly enough this is exactly what the right-wing anti-peronists say. You should think about which side that puts you on with regards to the masses.

[Tim Finnegan]

If we are to believe Marx then the working class has had the "opportunity" to run society since 1848, however, as of yet they haven't stepped up to the challenge. You can keep believing unfoundedlly that they are capable of doing so and will do so one day. I will go on the current evidence. When that changes, I might change my mind.
Well, firstly, "1848" is a clear misreading of Marx- if, in fact, any reading was involved.
Secondly, Marx is well-established to have seriously over-estimated the self-emancipatory capacity of the working class during his era. Marx was, to put it bluntly, wrong; that is not news to Marxists.
Thirdly, I'm not really convince that pointing out that something has happened yet is grounds for claiming that it could never happened at all. After all, one could, on those grounds, have spent the morning of December 17th, 1903, claiming that man would never see powered flight, but you'd be a demonstrable twit by tea-time. If you wish to contest Marxism, then you have to engage with the theory itself, not issue trite dismissals based on the superficial "evidence" of popular apathy.


Regarding the failings of the "ruling class": it's easy to be morally pure if we reject everything, and just keep waiting on the impossible ideal. However, between the many different options presented historically, I can differentiate between a good one like, say, Peronism, and a bad one like, say, the Republican Party.But both those groups operated entirely in the interests of the ruling class, the very antithesis of the traditional understanding of enlightened dictatorship. That some historical incarnations of bourgeois rule have been less oppressive, exploitative or otherwise criminal than others does not legitimise them, any more than the benevolence of Cyrus the Great justifies the institution of absolute monarchy.


You say Peron pandered to the masses. Funilly enough this is exactly what the right-wing anti-peronists say. You should think about which side that puts you on with regards to the masses.I'm not sure why the Peronist bread-and-circuses campaign puts them on the side of the proletariat. One may as well suggest that the man turning the organ grinder is on the side off the monkey, because he would feed it better than another owner might.

[Rooster]

prosperity, freedom, peace, equality and sustainability

Lots of kinda vague words here, fella. Fancy tellin' us what you by all of this?

[Fabrizio]

Thirdly, I'm not really convince that pointing out that something has happened yet is grounds for claiming that it could never happened at all. After all, one could, on those grounds, have spent the morning of December 17th, 1903, claiming that man would never see powered flight, but you'd be a demonstrable twit by tea-time. If you wish to contest Marxism, then you have to engage with the theory itself, not issue trite dismissals based on the superficial "evidence" of popular apathy.

I didn't say it could never happen. The onus of proof isn't on me. However I see no reason at all to believe this is viable. Even in Russia after the revolution they had to import skilled engineers and managers because the workers could not carry out these tasks themselves. Trotsky himself admitted this as the basis of the "bureaucracy", which became a ruling class. Showing that the "bureaucracy" was not just based on repression, but that it was needed.



But both those groups operated entirely in the interests of the ruling class, the very antithesis of the traditional understanding of enlightened dictatorship. That some historical incarnations of bourgeois rule have been less oppressive, exploitative or otherwise criminal than others does not legitimise them, any more than the benevolence of Cyrus the Great justifies the institution of absolute monarchy.

I'm not sure why the Peronist bread-and-circuses campaign puts them on the side of the proletariat. One may as well suggest that the man turning the organ grinder is on the side off the monkey, because he would feed it better than another owner might.


A lot of idoelogical bluster. Full employment is not bread and circus. Nationalization of the infrastructure? The vote for women? Housing estates? Industrialization of a country?

You deride empirical opposition to Marxism, on the basis that "just because something has never happened doesn't mean it cannot". But then when shown evidence of real social progress, you say this is not basis for faith in an ideology?

Sorry Tim, you aren't going to convince any proletarians like that.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Anti-communism, not anti-communists as individuals. I think I share the same aims as most communists, and hopefully if such a model was building something progressive, they would voluntarily become supporters.

Under an enlightened ruling class surely the need for communism would disappear. Even Marx recognized that communism as an ideology would not be needed once capitalism had been surpassed.

Under socialism the working class is the ruling class, and , hopefully in a fully communist society there would be no classes.

What is an "enlightened ruling class"? Social classes always act in their own self interest, by definition. The two principle classes under capitalism are the working class and the bourgeoisie.They are in conflict by definition.The constraits of capitalism are becoming narrower by the day. Have you read The shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein? There isn't any more room for an "enlightened" ruling class.

Communists want tio end class society. The reason why the ruling is the rulking class is that they control the means of production. Wealthy people have become wealthy off the surplus value produced by the working class.Communists want to change this.Expropriate the expropriators!

[Robespierre Richard]

Wouldn't left-falangism just be very similar to social-democracy or "social-fascism" as Comrade Stalin called it?

[Rooster]

Communism, being left and Marxism is more to do than just a list of bullet points about having the vote and nationalising the industries. It's more about the ending of exploitation in the work place and having free groups of people coming together with all the veils of oppression and all of the actual oppression removed. If you still have the means of production out of the hands of the workers then it's not going to be left at all. Just another bourgeois ideology.

[Fabrizio]

Communism, being left and Marxism is more to do than just a list of bullet points about having the vote and nationalising the industries. It's more about the ending of exploitation in the work place and having free groups of people coming together with all the veils of oppression and all of the actual oppression removed. If you still have the means of production out of the hands of the workers then it's not going to be left at all. Just another bourgeois ideology.

So in other words, Real Acheivements vs A Fantasy.

There's a saying in Argentina, fittingly. "Es lo que hay". It means "it's what there is".

You can't choose a non-existant option, you can only choose the best existing option. You can work towards communism if you want, but until then you can at least support the real progress made by real movements.

[Rooster]

So in other words, Real Acheivements vs A Fantasy.

There's a saying in Argentina, fittingly. "Es lo que hay". It means "it's what there is".

You can't choose a non-existant option, you can only choose the best existing option. You can work towards communism if you want, but until then you can at least support the real progress made by real movements.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about. Fantasy vs Reality? The whole bourgeois system is based on fantasies, it's how it happily goes around and around, stocks crashing, people losing jobs and all at a loss and completely blind to why it happens. But that fantasy continues because it's just the surface illusions that they all want to look at. All the people at the top don't need or care to see what happens below the levels of the surface, of money, or capital, or circulation, so they pedal crap like this to make working people buy into it with false words like stability, freedom, equality. Those things are just nonsense. And we don't choose a non-existent option, don't be so stupid. How do you think capitalism came about? Do you think that it has always existed? Or as you put it, a couple of guys just picked a non-existent option one day and decided lo, and behold, this fantasy comes true!

[Crux]

You say Peron pandered to the masses. Funilly enough this is exactly what the right-wing anti-peronists say. You should think about which side that puts you on with regards to the masses.
If we are talking about the same kind of right-wing that tries to claim that Hitler was left-wing I think I have an idea.

[Fabrizio]

You don't seem to know what you're talking about. Fantasy vs Reality? The whole bourgeois system is based on fantasies, it's how it happily goes around and around, stocks crashing, people losing jobs and all at a loss and completely blind to why it happens. But that fantasy continues because it's just the surface illusions that they all want to look at. All the people at the top don't need or care to see what happens below the levels of the surface, of money, or capital, or circulation, so they pedal crap like this to make working people buy into it with false words like stability, freedom, equality. Those things are just nonsense. And we don't choose a non-existent option, don't be so stupid. How do you think capitalism came about? Do you think that it has always existed? Or as you put it, a couple of guys just picked a non-existent option one day and decided lo, and behold, this fantasy comes true!

You can rant all you like about capitalism, and I mostly agree. However, this doesn't change the fact that there is no serious challenge to it currently, and that the "working class" is not giving any sign of wanting to run the world. So why would you say that progressives should reject actually existing progressive movements, in favour of a theory.

Like I say, I have no problem with communists who support the existing left against the right, and argue for communism in the future. My problem is the ones who denounce it all as "bourgeois ideology".

[The Grey Blur]

you should read up on how left-falangism worked out in practice*

*here's a hint: they were all murdered or sidelined by franco, long-knives style.

[Tim Finnegan]

I didn't say it could never happen. The onus of proof isn't on me. However I see no reason at all to believe this is viable. Even in Russia after the revolution they had to import skilled engineers and managers because the workers could not carry out these tasks themselves. Trotsky himself admitted this as the basis of the "bureaucracy", which became a ruling class. Showing that the "bureaucracy" was not just based on repression, but that it was needed.
If we're referencing the commentary of the Bolsheviks, then wouldn't it be worth noting that both Lenin and Trotsky held that this period was one of controlled transition- Lenin described it as "state capitalism"- necessitated by the fact that the USSR, in the absence of a Western European revolution, was too underdeveloped able to transition directly to socialism?


A lot of idoelogical bluster. Full employment is not bread and circus. Nationalization of the infrastructure? The vote for women? Housing estates? Industrialization of a country?Given that, under Peronist governments, these only exist to maintain support (or, more precisely, a lack of opposition) from the working class for the economic and political status quo, I would say that, yes, they are mere "bread and circuses". A reformist socialist or even social democratic government may be a different story, but one that would tend to contradict your utopian talk of an "enlightened ruling class".


You deride empirical opposition to Marxism, on the basis that "just because something has never happened doesn't mean it cannot". But then when shown evidence of real social progress, you say this is not basis for faith in an ideology?Noting that a particular ideology is capable of improving the material lot of the working class does not for a moment suggest that it illustrates genuine progress towards their collective self-emancipation- the only kind of "social progress" really worthy of applause. It may put them in a better position to do so, and that's to be welcomed, but it doesn't suggest that we ought to defer to it in any way.


You can rant all you like about capitalism, and I mostly agree. However, this doesn't change the fact that there is no serious challenge to it currently, and that the "working class" is not giving any sign of wanting to run the world. So why would you say that progressives should reject actually existing progressive movements, in favour of a theory.

Like I say, I have no problem with communists who support the existing left against the right, and argue for communism in the future. My problem is the ones who denounce it all as "bourgeois ideology".
And I would agree- I did, after all, vote Labour last year. However, that we should lend support does not mean that this support should be unconditional, and certainly not that it should be uncritical. That's a path that leads us to the Blairites and their "post-class" politics, which is hardly "progress" of any substantial sort.

[Fabrizio]

I don't accept that post-class analysis necesarilly lends to Blairism. Just across the sea from you you have a good example, Sinn Fein, who are neither class warriors, nor Blairites, but nationalists.

Peronism is a good example. You claim to see Social Demcoracy as more progressive. I think this comes from a very rigid methodology inherited from Lenin and Trotsky about "critical support", which maybe had validity at the time. But to hold onto this in the face of the acheivements of left-wing nationalist regimes in the developing world, which Lenin and Trotsky could not have predicted, is IMO perverse.



If we're referencing the commentary of the Bolsheviks, then wouldn't it be worth noting that both Lenin and Trotsky held that this period was one of controlled transition- Lenin described it as "state capitalism"- necessitated by the fact that the USSR, in the absence of a Western European revolution, was too underdeveloped able to transition directly to socialism?



And yet, the western working class showed then and has shown now, that it's not going to make such a revolution. So while their hypothesis was perhaps reasonable at the time, to cling to it 90 years later after it was disproved, is not reasonable.

[eric922]

I'm just going to throw my 2 cents in. Nationalism in any form is a very dangerous ideology. I'd be willing to work with social-democrats and democratic socialists, but nationalists? Nationalism seems to be based on the belief that our nation is superior to all others and that is the road to imperialism.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't accept that post-class analysis necesarilly lends to Blairism. Just across the sea from you you have a good example, Sinn Fein, who are neither class warriors, nor Blairites, but nationalists.
Sinn Féin do not a post-class analysis, but, rather, one which is indifferent to class, or at least subordinates it to nationality. They've always couched their nationalism in borrowed quasi-leftism, even as the Blairites sought to distance themselves from the concept. The fact that they haven't lived up to their posturing is a testament to their nationalist and social conservative heart, rather than a concious rejection of class.


Peronism is a good example. You claim to see Social Demcoracy as more progressive. I think this comes from a very rigid methodology inherited from Lenin and Trotsky about "critical support", which maybe had validity at the time. But to hold onto this in the face of the acheivements of left-wing nationalist regimes in the developing world, which Lenin and Trotsky could not have predicted, is IMO perverse.My suggestion was that social democracy increases the general liberty of the working class, and so puts them in a better position to advance towards revolutionary activity. Authoritarianism, even when left-wing, hampers this by its very nature, and so can only be considered when no viable alternatives exist. Class struggle can only be waged by the working class itself, and not by some benevolent father-state.


And yet, the western working class showed then and has shown now, that it's not going to make such a revolution. So while their hypothesis was perhaps reasonable at the time, to cling to it 90 years later after it was disproved, is not reasonable.You keep saying this, but you really haven't substantiated it. You just keep saying "it didn't happen, so it can't happen", which represents a failure to employ even the most elementary rigour.


I'm just going to throw my 2 cents in. Nationalism in any form is a very dangerous ideology. I'd be willing to work with social-democrats and democratic socialists, but nationalists? Nationalism seems to be based on the belief that our nation is superior to all others and that is the road to imperialism.
I'm not sure that this is accurate. Nationalist-imperialist is a particular form of nationalism, not its natural conclusion. In many forms- specifically, the "nationalism of the oppressed" discussed earlier- it advocates the mutual respect of national sovereignty, an explicitly anti-imperialistic line. The English far-right, for example, may still have its eye on reincorporating the Republic of Ireland into the Union, but I don't think that even the most jingoistic Fine Gaelers have any particular designs on Buckinghamshire.

[Fabrizio]

Sinn Féin do not a post-class analysis, but, rather, one which is indifferent to class, or at least subordinates it to nationality.

Fine, this is what I meant. Let's not become semantic.



My suggestion was that social democracy increases the general liberty of the working class, and so puts them in a better position to advance towards revolutionary activity. Authoritarianism, even when left-wing, hampers this by its very nature, and so can only be considered when no viable alternatives exist. Class struggle can only be waged by the working class itself, and not by some benevolent father-state.


"Authoritarianism" is often the only way to bring in such progressive reforms. Ask yourself why no Trots ahve ever succeeded in giving the working class anything.


You keep saying this, but you really haven't substantiated it. You just keep saying "it didn't happen, so it can't happen", which represents a failure to employ even the most elementary rigour.

My point is that you can't use Lenin and Trotsky's argument about "transition to socialism" without acknowledging that the very founding hypothesis of that argument - revolution in the west - was disproven.

Fine, you can have your blind faith in the future, but what, concretely, are progressives in the developing world supposed to do in the here and now, in the absence of that "revolutionary factor"


I'm not sure that this is accurate. Nationalist-imperialist is a particular form of nationalism, not its natural conclusion.

Correct.

Also, I am not "third world nationalist". When the nationalism of the developed world is isolationist, rather than imperialist, I believe we can work with it. In fact such a doctrine is more in the interests of the people than the fake "nationalism" of the neocons, which is really pro-globalization.

[Tim Finnegan]

Fine, this is what I meant. Let's not become semantic.
It's not semantics, it's a pretty basic distinction in ideology. Sinn Féin have not, as the Blairites have, abandoned class politics, but merely subjugated them to nationalistic politics, as is typical of anti-colonial left-populism. Sinn Féin seeks to conflate the working class with the Irish nation (even if it will rather frequently run rough-shod over that by indulging in sectarianism), while New Labour seeks to expunge the very notion of class from the popular imagination.


"Authoritarianism" is often the only way to bring in such progressive reforms. Ask yourself why no Trots ahve ever succeeded in giving the working class anything.
But my argument is that the reformism of populist patricians is objectively non-progressive, in that, whatever material improvements it may offer the working class, it does not advance them towards self-emancipation, which is the only substantial measure of "progress" worth entertaining.


My point is that you can't use Lenin and Trotsky's argument about "transition to socialism" without acknowledging that the very founding hypothesis of that argument - revolution in the west - was disproven.
Firstly, I'm not sure why you're explicitly referencing Lenin and Trotsky. They're hardly the only people in history to have advocated proletarian revolution.
Secondly, revolution in "the West", whatever that means this week, was never the crucial tipping point, but revolution in the industrialised world, wherever that may be.
Thirdly, in what sense was that disproven? That a particularly revolution movement fails does not suggest the impossibility of the revolution- or, I would suggest, you will find yourself obliged to explain how you reconcile the failure of 17th century Dutch and English radicals to establish lasting democratic political systems with the contemporary existence of democratic political systems in the Netherlands and the UK.


Fine, you can have your blind faith in the future...
:rolleyes:


...but what, concretely, are progressives in the developing world supposed to do in the here and now, in the absence of that "revolutionary factor"
As I have said, they are to defend and, where possible, expand the labour movement and social democratic state. However, if that is only achieved through authoritarian, corporatist means, it becomes a dead end, and one which will, as the 1980s demonstrated, ready the ground for its own demolition.


Correct.

Also, I am not "third world nationalist". When the nationalism of the developed world is isolationist, rather than imperialist, I believe we can work with it. In fact such a doctrine is more in the interests of the people than the fake "nationalism" of the neocons, which is really pro-globalization.
Well, this much, I agree with.

[DDR]

Yeah, it is so leftist that they also did this:

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