Communism and fascism

[The Cheshire Cat]

Some guy I know (a capitalist, although he also has many Anti-Capitalist views; ít's just very weird) said to me that Communism and fascism are very close related. He had some bullshit arguments and it didn't make any sense at all, he was just extremely badly informed and very much under the influence of propaganda.

But it did make me wonder why fasiscm often uses Communism as some sort of disguise (national bolshevism for example. In school I learned there were also a lot of Socialists who joined the NSDAP because they thought it was a Socialist party. Also, Hitler used some idea's that seems quite socialist, but were probably just Anti-Capitalist.)

Does anyone know why fascism can diguise itself sometimes rather easily as Communism?

[Franz Fanonipants]

i think it has something to do w/understanding proletarian desire for revolution and coopting the language thereof

[Ostrinski]

During times of crisis, the bourgeoisie will protect their class power by seizing political power which can be done in the form of fascist ideology. Using socialist aesthetic and terminology is to appeal to workers.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The two are polar opposites-communism and fascism will forever wage a war until one or the other is defeated.

Hitler used some leftist rhetoric because prior to his rise to power Germany nearly had a socialist revolution where most of the workforce was unionized. In such a climate fascism had to disguise itself as something that it wasn't. A wolf in sheep's clothing, one could say.

The same with National Bolshevism: it is aiming at past-glories of socialist eras in an effort to attract ignorant newcomers. In such countries where socialism was once the dominant constructive force, the radical right must use deceiving tactics to survive.

Disguising itself is easily in part because of the bourgeois propaganda against socialism which tries and relates both as one in the same.Such claims are absurd to any student of history and political economy.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Thank you for the answers.

A short conclusion, correct me if I'm wrong please:
So the reason why fascism can disguise itself so easily as communism is mainly because in the bourgeoisie propaganda, socialism is often portraited as some kind of fascism.

And the reason why they are doing that, is to gain popularity among the workers.

The second thing brings me to a new question. If fascism gains so much popularity by pretending to be Communist, then why do Communists don't get much popularity by being Communist? I mean, there have been more fascist countries than Communist ones. Is it because Fascism is easier to esablish?

[Ostrinski]

A short conclusion, correct me if I'm wrong please:
So the reason why fascism can disguise itself so easily as communism is mainly because in the bourgeoisie propaganda, socialism is often portraited as some kind of fascism.

The second thing brings me to a new question. If fascism gains so much popularity by pretending to be Communist, then why do Communists don't get much popularity by being Communist? I mean, there have been more fascist countries than Communist ones. Is it because Fascism is easier to esablish?Think about it. Fascism only becomes relevant when there is a high level of class consciousness among the workers (as there was in Germany and Italy. By steering that class consciousness toward the path of the fascist parties, the bourgeoisie effectively co-opt the worker's struggle while still maintaining their class hegemony.

The bourgeoisie does not need fascism now, as there is a low level of class consciousness. Fascists can only gain popularity with socialist imagery if socialism is a popular idea in the first place.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Thank you for the answers.

A short conclusion, correct me if I'm wrong please:
So the reason why fascism can disguise itself so easily as communism is mainly because in the bourgeoisie propaganda, socialism is often portraited as some kind of fascism.

And the reason why they are doing that, is to gain popularity among the workers.

Pretty much.


The second thing brings me to a new question. If fascism gains so much popularity by pretending to be Communist, then why do Communists don't get much popularity by being Communist? I mean, there have been more fascist countries than Communist ones. Is it because Fascism is easier to esablish?Because legitimate communists aren't in power. Many fascists who speak about socialistic promises are already in some sort of power position.It is either this or the conservative media is more willing to give the radical right-wingers a voice because they know that fascists can be useful in eliminating leftist agitation.

[Blake's Baby]

Fascism is capitalism. It is allowed to exist because it is useful to capitalism as a whole. Think about the radical right in the USA - it uses populist language, all that 'we're in it for the little guy', 'decent working people with decent values' and all that. To those clued up on that language, that means 'we'll cut welfare schemes, it's lazy Mexicans coming and working for free to get welfare that are keeping you poor'. To people not clued up to it, it sounds reasonable - who isn't in favour of decency? Who wants to see the little guy crushed by the uncaring wheels of an out-of-control economy?

Whereas 'you're a wage slave, you're being conned', which is essentially our message, is actually quite a tough one to sell to people (or even, to give away).

So it's not so much that fascists pretend to be socialists so much as they pretend they have a social conscience - if you're the right race/creed etc. They say that 'you' (if you're you know, not black or Jewish or Muslim or gay or female or Catholic or unemployed or differently-abled or just Not From Round Here or ... etc) are being put upon by 'them'. Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Arabs, Gays, whoever it is that's responisible for your life being shit. They never say 'it's capitalism' - even the Nazis who claimed to be anti-capitalist blamed everything on 'Jewish bankers'. It was never German capitalists, oh no, not the German capitalists that were bankrolling the Nazi Party for instance.

So yeah; they're liars, and as Goebbels said, if you repeat a lie long enough, people will believe it. So now people believe that the Nazis were socialists. But that isn't unique to the Nazis, people are capable of believing all sorts of things are 'socialism'.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Capitalism isn't fascism. It is useful only to the extent of acting as a proxy in curbing leftism. Other than that the bourgeoisie stand in opposition to Fascist ideology.

[Blake's Baby]

Do we have a 'banging one's head against a wall' emoticon?

What economic system does fascism operate pray tell?

Is it capitalism?

Is it feudalism?

Is it antique slavery?

Is it... communism, either primitive or advanced, lower stage or higher?

Is it oriental despotism?

Enlighten me. I am actulally agog to know what you think fascism is.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Wikipedia is a good start.

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

I know what you are going to say about using Wikipedia and,seeing as how the authors of the fascism page used many sources,I don't care.

[NewLeft]

Capitalism isn't fascism. It is useful only to the extent of acting as a proxy in curbing leftism. Other than that the bourgeoisie stand in opposition to Fascist ideology.
Remember that the bourgeois aren't a united class, they are represented differently based on their needs.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Remember that the bourgeois aren't a united class, they are represented differently based on their needs.

They fight amongst themselves constantly, yes. Sometimes they will give power to fascist so as long as it doesn't directly threaten their rule (or give them wholesale power if socialist revolution is imminent).

[Leo]

Fascism is capitalism.Capitalism isn't fascism.Leo is human, yet not all humans are Leo.

This response demonstrates either a total lack of basic logic, or is a conscious distortion of the comment responded to.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Leo is a man, yet not all men are Leo.

This response demonstrates either a total lack of basic logic, or is a conscious distortion of the comment responded to.

Fascism uses capitalist mode of production, yes, but capitalism in itself is not fascism.

[Red Commissar]

This kind of mindset isn't surprising with people lumping together Marxism and Fascism into one boat. Typically off this mindset when they compare nations like Soviet Union, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany,

-Totalitarian System (they love the horseshoe theory)
-Lack of 'rights'
-Economic interference if not outright control by the government
-One-party dominance
-Collectivism over Individualism

Typically it's one of those or a combination when people try to lump them together.

I think much of it comes with people viewing political ideology in a two-dimensional manner. EX Economic 'left' vs Economic 'right', a divide between 'free market' and not free market. There isn't much consideration to the actual social relations in a country, the nature of the state, private property, who controls what, etc. Just a very superficial 'analysis'.

Fascists and Nazi's were able to co-opt this sort of thing since they took advantage of the economic woes at the time. The populist demagogues of the day, particularly those that were not able to start within existing political groups, were typically passing condemnations of both capitalism and socialism as being either A. "Unpatriotic" or B. "screwing over the little guy". Program wise, they basically ripped off some social-democratic platforms and the 'immediate' demands of some Communist groups which typically had language that seemed to be pro-labor. The effectiveness of this sort of language is questionable though, since for the most part they were never able to effectively win over working class votes that were typically split between the social democratic and communist groups- they found greater reception among the petite-bourgeoisie and certain industrial giants, who were in turn able to influence votes and opinions of their workplaces. Great overriding factor here was a desire to protect the values of private property and prevent 'revolution' from destroying their country, which worked well with nationalist rhetoric.

People incorrectly associate such populist rhetoric with socialism- like Blake said you can just look at the American political cycle and see the same themes. The Republican Primaries going on right now with Super Tuesday you can see Romney and Santorum appealing to blue-collar workers, talking about how they need to get rewarded for their 'hard work', how it is 'main street' not 'wall street' that holds up America, how it is important to prop up small businesses, etc. Hell, you could notice how folk like Gingrich and Santorum were making a big deal about Romney's economic status and background- out of touch with the 'regular American'- which they would otherwise negatively refer to class warfare when other people bring up this problem. Obama is saying the same stuff too- it's just populist smokescreens. Existed before fascists, and has continued since then. Anyone in the states can remember the so-called "REAL AMERICA" that Republicans refer to that stand in opposition to some liberal cosmopolitan elite, consisting of 'working Americans'.

Despite the fact that they may've appeared as such, one just has to look at how business observers of the day typically viewed Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in a more warm than negative manner, while doing the opposite with the Soviet Union. The corporatism that was being constructed in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy was something capitalists were comfortable with- it's not the laissez-faire wetdream of some lolbertarians, but it's capitalism and helped to diffuse and repress socialist movements in those countries.

As other posters mentioned Fascists and Nazi's don't have a concrete program or stance that a left group might have had. They just knew what to spew out and warp people's minds, and what they needed to do to earn the trust of the major power players in their respective countries. It was really more of a manipulative affair that took advantage of the conditions of those times and the attempts of the bourgeoisie to deal with the crisis.

[Brosip Tito]

Trotsky's "What is fascism, and how to fight it" is a good place to look.

(I'm aware that may not be the exact title phrasing.

[Blake's Baby]

Fascism uses capitalist mode of production, yes, but capitalism in itself is not fascism.

Leo's right.

Not everything that is right is Leo.

I didn't say all capitalism is fascism, but all fascism is capitalism. Capitalism doesn't care about the flavour of the governmetn it has as long as money is made, the working class is disciplined and 'the national interest' is protected.

[Zulu]

Although fascism, and Hitler's version of it in particular, is uber-reactionary, the fascists need to conform to the realities of life, one of which is that you (your party/movement/state) need to be efficient and economically out-perform your political rivals (such as the "traditionally" capitalist bourgeois ideologies: the liberals, the conservatives and the social democrats). Naturally, they need to mimic some of what the communists stand for, as the economic efficiency is the is the cornerstone of the communist ideology and practice.

Partially, the petty bourgeois thesis that "all totalitarian ideologies are in essence the same" was best expressed in by Karl Popper, who also stated that it all dated back to the "Republic" by Plato, who was the principal enemy of the so called "open society".

[hatzel]

Although fascism, and Hitler's version of it in particular, is uber-reactionary, the fascists need to conform to the realities of life, one of which is that you (your party/movement/state) need to be efficient and economically out-perform your political rivals (such as the "traditionally" capitalist bourgeois ideologies: the liberals, the conservatives and the social democrats). Naturally, they need to mimic some of what the communists stand for, as the economic efficiency is the is the cornerstone of the communist ideology and practice.

Okay, so that's one similarity we've found: both believe that 'efficiency' is not only a necessity but - it seems - a noble ambition. For some reason. Anybody got anything else to add to the list?

[Blake's Baby]

Economic efficiency? Fuck that. Communism will glory in inefficiency. If I can't take the afternoon off, I'm not having a bloody revolution mate.

[hatzel]

Economic efficiency? Fuck that. Communism will glory in inefficiency. If I can't take the afternoon off, I'm not having a bloody revolution mate.

...though technically your being able to take the afternoon off is actually a direct result of increased efficiency of labour in the morning...

[Thirsty Crow]

Some guy I know (a capitalist, although he also has many Anti-Capitalist views; ít's just very weird) said to me that Communism and fascism are very close related. He had some bullshit arguments and it didn't make any sense at all, he was just extremely badly informed and very much under the influence of propaganda.

Such bullshit arguments are probably based on the notion of a common idea of "collectivism". In other words, this view is deeply idealist and sorely mistaken, in fact, on the existence of a common ideological framework of collectivism (it seems that libertarians love that stereotype particularly) as something uniting fascism with communism.

[Zulu]

Okay, so that's one similarity we've found: both believe that 'efficiency' is not only a necessity but - it seems - a noble ambition.

Not exactly. For the fascists efficiency is not a noble ambition. For example, in one place in "Mein Kampf" Hitler actually lamented at the prospect of turning the Nazi movement into a bureaucratic machine that would supersede the will of the individuals it was comprised of, although he had to accept that prospect as long as he wished for the success of the movement. Still he regarded it as a controversy.



Economic efficiency? Fuck that. Communism will glory in inefficiency. If I can't take the afternoon off, I'm not having a bloody revolution mate.

You're not a communist then. Labor in the interests of the whole society will be the primary need of every individual in communism, so people will never think of leaving their workplaces early.

[hatzel]

For the fascists efficiency is not a noble ambition.

Good. It shouldn't be. And if - as you so scandalously claimed - "efficiency is the cornerstone of the communist ideology and practice," then I'm sorry but the fascist is on to something that you most certainly are not.


You're not a communist then. Labor in the interests of the whole society will be the primary need of every individual in communism, so people will never think of leaving their workplaces early.Heh, bare japes. This really isn't doing it for me, you know...

[Blake's Baby]

...

You're not a communist then. Labor in the interests of the whole society will be the primary need of every individual in communism, so people will never think of leaving their workplaces early.

You're not a human then, being human means being a creative playful being with urges and desires. Taking the afternoon off will be the primary need of every human being under communism, so people will never think of mindless drudgery as their duty. Screw your barracks communism, I reject it and the horse it rode in on (not a Marxist horse, a Nechayevist horse by the way).

[Zulu]

Good. It shouldn't be. And if - as you so scandalously claimed - "efficiency is the cornerstone of the communist ideology and practice," then I'm sorry but the fascist is on to something that you most certainly are not.

Heh, bare japes. This really isn't doing it for me, you know...



You're not a human then, being human means being a creative playful being with urges and desires. Taking the afternoon off will be the primary need of every human being under communism, so people will never think of mindless drudgery as their duty. Screw your barracks communism, I reject it and the horse it rode in on (not a Marxist horse, a Nechayevist horse by the way).


Yeah, the fascists are certainly onto something. For them communism is even worse than capitalism, seeing how the communists regard capitalism as the necessary precursor of communism and its edifice of economic efficiency. As such, communism is certainly even worse enemy of fascism than capitalism, especially seeing how it denies the human beings their nature of being playful and creative oppressors of their fellow humans...

[hatzel]

Yeah, the fascists are certainly onto something. For them communism is even worse than capitalism, seeing how the communists regard capitalism as the necessary precursor of communism and its edifice of economic efficiency. As such, communism is certainly even worse enemy of fascism than capitalism, especially seeing how it denies the human beings their nature of being playful and creative oppressors of their fellow humans...

See I don't usually like just flinging wild insults around but you've put me in a really difficult situation because after this post you're the very definition of a joke and I'd feel pretty bad if I didn't let you know that. How does any of this have anything to do with the discussion at hand? Or any discussion, for that matter? :confused:

[gorillafuck]

But it did make me wonder why fasiscm often uses Communism as some sort of disguise (national bolshevism for example. In school I learned there were also a lot of Socialists who joined the NSDAP because they thought it was a Socialist party. Also, Hitler used some idea's that seems quite socialist, but were probably just Anti-Capitalist.)it almost never does.

if socialism is a popular concept in a country, a lot of parties will call themselves socialist to get support. it's pretty simple.

[Zulu]

See I don't usually like just flinging wild insults around but you've put me in a really difficult situation because after this post you're the very definition of a joke and I'd feel pretty bad if I didn't let you know that. How does any of this have anything to do with the discussion at hand? :confused:

How does a post about the fascists' reaction to communism has anything to do with the discussion of "communism and fascism"? Well, yeah, let's see... I'd say the answer will be: "fully". Speaking of definitions of jokes seems to be more of your thing than logic.

[Revolutionair]

The bourgeoisie does not need fascism now, as there is a low level of class consciousness. Fascists can only gain popularity with socialist imagery if socialism is a popular idea in the first place.

I think it was one of the Spanish fascists who said:
"The CNT flag, the workers' flag, was red and black. We wanted ours to be similar."

CNT:
http://libcom.org/files/images/history/750px-bandera_cnt-ait-svg.png

Falange:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_uIwtFAynZKg/TOhUNZqkSAI/AAAAAAAABiI/xv3RPa84IuQ/s320/falange_spanish.gif


edit:
Grrrrr. I edited both flags to be a bit smaller, but it doesn't work.

[hatzel]

How does a post about the fascists' reaction to communism has anything to do with the discussion of "communism and fascism"? Well, yeah, let's see... I'd say the answer will be: "fully".

Hmm...nope, I still don't see it, sorry. Not least because it wasn't just a vague comment on communism and fascism, but a direct retort to a) the suggestion that maximising efficiency at all costs certainly shouldn't be the ambition of any self-respecting socialist; and b) the suggestion that communism entails the liberation of the worker from the slavery of working 9-5. To which you blabbered on about I don't know what (I assumed it was a shitty 'if you don't bow down at the alter of efficiency you're a fascist!' kind of statement) and then implied that liberation causes oppression and that's why people should be locked in the factory all day. Or at least that's how I understand your argument, though I'm not entirely sure. So I ask again: what's your point?

[danyboy27]

Some guy I know (a capitalist, although he also has many Anti-Capitalist views; ít's just very weird) said to me that Communism and fascism are very close related. He had some bullshit arguments and it didn't make any sense at all, he was just extremely badly informed and very much under the influence of propaganda.

But it did make me wonder why fasiscm often uses Communism as some sort of disguise (national bolshevism for example. In school I learned there were also a lot of Socialists who joined the NSDAP because they thought it was a Socialist party. Also, Hitler used some idea's that seems quite socialist, but were probably just Anti-Capitalist.)

Does anyone know why fascism can diguise itself sometimes rather easily as Communism?
Its all about the appearences. without some sort of pretention of being on the side of the worker, fascists would not have been able to get into power.

Fascists in the 30s where verry good at changing their tune to climb the ladder of support to get into power. At first, the fascist propaganda was dirrected against the big corporation who they claimed, where controlled by the jews. Then when they got enough money from the petty bourgeois, they just changed their tune again and supported the big corporation.

to get the support of the conservative, hitler without rejected a lot of people who where initially big fan of it, and then when it was over turned against the conservatives.

fascist are usually sick and twisted chess player who will finally reveal their true intentions when they get into power.

[Zulu]

So I ask again: what's your point?

My point is that the economic efficiency is the cornerstone of communism.

In the communist society there will be no oppression because it adversely affects efficiency. However, the lack of oppression will be gained not in small part due to all individuals voluntary working as much as necessary to meet all the needs of the society (which will be less than what the working class people need to work now, due to higher productivity of labor). And, of course, there is socialism - the long transitory period to communism, when not all people will be willing to work hard building communism, which will result in their not getting as much social benefits as the others (or being outright punished/banished), so oppression will be remaining in this period (and it will be well justified as long as the losses in efficiency due to oppression are less then the potential losses due to people's leaving workplaces early because they are lazy).

[Ocean Seal]

Thank you for the answers.

A short conclusion, correct me if I'm wrong please:
So the reason why fascism can disguise itself so easily as communism is mainly because in the bourgeoisie propaganda, socialism is often portraited as some kind of fascism.

And the reason why they are doing that, is to gain popularity among the workers.

The second thing brings me to a new question. If fascism gains so much popularity by pretending to be Communist, then why do Communists don't get much popularity by being Communist? I mean, there have been more fascist countries than Communist ones. Is it because Fascism is easier to esablish?


Think about it. Fascism only becomes relevant when there is a high level of class consciousness among the workers (as there was in Germany and Italy. By steering that class consciousness toward the path of the fascist parties, the bourgeoisie effectively co-opt the worker's struggle while still maintaining their class hegemony.

The bourgeoisie does not need fascism now, as there is a low level of class consciousness. Fascists can only gain popularity with socialist imagery if socialism is a popular idea in the first place.
I will claim the following. The idea that fascists merely steal our rhetoric is incomplete. Fascists not only steal our rhetoric, but they also add in some very conservative ala Glenn Beck rhetoric. Conspiracy theorist, anti-progressive, and against "radical" change.

[Armchair War Criminal]

Here's one of my favorite Nazi posters:

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_XG3OfhQl5T8/S4yYX-gps-I/AAAAAAAAC4E/Hb51AnzSsgk/German%20War%20Posters%20(311)%5B2%5D.jpg

The Red War!
Mother or Comrade?
Man or Machine?
God or Satan?
Blood or Gold?
Race or Race-Mixing?
Folksongs or Jazz?
National Socialism or Bolshevism?

Although the poster doesn't mention capitalism or liberalism, what we have here is a world where communism and liberalism (in the broad sense) are indistinguishable, because they agree on the really important things - that is to say, neither of them are Naziism. Sure, there are all these superficial differences about how material wealth should be produced and divided up, but what does it say that that's what they define their philosophy around? Everything solid is going to melt into air, you'll forget who you were, you'll become a utility-maximizing rational agent interchangeable with every other rational agent instead of a human being defined by ties to your particular family and community.

The idea of totalitarianism is, more or less, the liberal version of that poster. Sure, there are all these superficial differences over material equality and sexual equality and racial equality and education and religion and modernism and ultimate goals, but both shoot their political opponents to get there, so they're basically the same thing.

[hatzel]

My point is that the economic efficiency is the cornerstone of communism.

And here we've already parted. A veritable schism. A chasmic divide has opened up between us which surely cannot be bridged...

Now, maybe I've just read too much Ellul, but as far as I'm concerned the incessant demand for ever-increasing efficiency - so prevalent in capitalism and our techno-industrial society, with its alienating division of labour and Fordist assembly lines - is precisely what the socialist seeks to overcome; far from being the cornerstone of the movement, it is its very antithesis. There can be no meaningful liberation which cannot bring itself to embrace inefficiency in its fullest sense.

As such I don't think it's really worth addressing the rest of your argument, as I don't see any point in struggling for a society in which the individual and social spirits remain wholly subservient to a brutally coercive economic system, whilst you clearly hold this up as your goal - economic primacy, the perfect functioning of your proposed economy at the expense of everything else. When the difference of opinion is so stark, debate over the finer details won't lead anywhere, and as much as I may revel in inefficiency...not this time, I'm afraid...

[Armchair War Criminal]

I think the efficiency debate would be helped if people defined their terms. The only technical meaning of efficiency that I am aware of is within bourgeois economics, and within that framework all aggregate distributional questions are efficiency-neutral and production-leisure tradeoffs are efficiency-agnostic (unless we've predetermined whether people prefer more consumption goods or leisure.)

[daft punk]

Some guy I know (a capitalist, although he also has many Anti-Capitalist views; ít's just very weird) said to me that Communism and fascism are very close related. He had some bullshit arguments and it didn't make any sense at all, he was just extremely badly informed and very much under the influence of propaganda.

But it did make me wonder why fasiscm often uses Communism as some sort of disguise (national bolshevism for example. In school I learned there were also a lot of Socialists who joined the NSDAP because they thought it was a Socialist party. Also, Hitler used some idea's that seems quite socialist, but were probably just Anti-Capitalist.)

Does anyone know why fascism can diguise itself sometimes rather easily as Communism?

Hitler was not anti capitalist. He made a few vague anti-capitalist statements early on in his career, later he wrote to them to tell them he didnt mean it!

It was just a way of trying to win some workers in a country where most of the working class voted for one of the two nominally Marxist parties.

Hitler was helped into power by the capitalists, and from 1933 to 1940 American capitalists increased their investment in Germany by 50%. They didnt just help him build his war machine, they even helped during the war, and made profits.

Hitler came to power in 1933 and the first thing he did was stick all the workers leaders in concentration camps.

He hated communism as much as he hated Jews.

[daft punk]

Thank you for the answers.

A short conclusion, correct me if I'm wrong please:
So the reason why fascism can disguise itself so easily as communism is mainly because in the bourgeoisie propaganda, socialism is often portraited as some kind of fascism.

And the reason why they are doing that, is to gain popularity among the workers.

The second thing brings me to a new question. If fascism gains so much popularity by pretending to be Communist, then why do Communists don't get much popularity by being Communist? I mean, there have been more fascist countries than Communist ones. Is it because Fascism is easier to esablish?

The two Marxist parties combined were bigger than the fascists, even up to the last minute they could have stopped them.

The reason why they didnt was they refused to unite.

The SPD (Social democrats) was nominally Marxist but had become reformist. The KPD (Communists) was also nominally, but discredited themselves in many ways including an alliance with the fascists in 1931 and refusing to unite with the SPD to block the fascists. Also in 1923 they had called off a revolution which made them look a bit pathetic. Yes, Stalinism was at the root of pretty much all the rot.

It's complicated to explain. Stalin's Comintern adopted a position of pseudo ultrafeftism in 1928, a sectarian attitude to the SPD. They called them 'social fascists' and broke off their relationship.

The reason was that the Comintern believed world revolution was brewing, at exactly the wrong time. 1928 was the start of the rise of fascism not revolution.

Partly it was connected to Stalin's having to swing over to a pretend left position in Russia after all the Left Opposition's predictions came true. he had to forcibly collectivise to prevent being chucked out by the rising bourgeois. Also he was covering up the fact that he had screwed up the Chinese revolution, pretending the revolution was in full swing when it had been crushed.

Bear in mind that the Nazis base was middle class and that the middle class was large, half the population.

[Zulu]

Now, maybe I've just read too much Ellul, but as far as I'm concerned the incessant demand for ever-increasing efficiency - so prevalent in capitalism and our techno-industrial society, with its alienating division of labour and Fordist assembly lines - is precisely what the socialist seeks to overcome;

Yes, overcome it by driving it up to the point where it will no longer matter.

And you know, Hitler was technophobic too. The cornerstone of his ideology was that the German nation must not seek to intensify its mode of production (particularly the agriculture), but must prevent its rivals in the West from intensifying theirs as well as acquire new lebensraum in the East. The conquest would also provide the Germans with plenty of slaves to do all the work, while the masters would be on permanent vacation. Basically it'd be the Roman Empire in the 20th century... inefficiency in its fullest sense.



I think the efficiency debate would be helped if people defined their terms. The only technical meaning of efficiency that I am aware of is within bourgeois economics, and within that framework all aggregate distributional questions are efficiency-neutral and production-leisure tradeoffs are efficiency-agnostic (unless we've predetermined whether people prefer more consumption goods or leisure.)

And Marx just argues that those distributional trade-offs are not neutral and the same trade-offs that are beneficial early on will later become adverse to efficiency. That's why the historical development and revolutions have objective character and don't occur just because somebody wishes them to.


.

[Strannik]

I'd like to point out that economic efficiency means different things in capitalism and socialism. In bourgeois society being efficient means working harder (you won't get home early, just because you work more). In socialist society being efficient means working less (when you have achieved your goal, go home or do something else).

But in addition to that, "work" also means different things in capitalism and socialism. In capitalism you work for benefit of someone else. In socialism you work for the benefit of your community and yourself. Nothing that doesn't benefit you and your society can qualify as work under socialism.

Therefore it is entirely consistent to be against efficiency and work under capitalism while supporting efficiency and work under socialism. Socialist economic efficiency does not mean locking people into factory, it means not keeping them in there longer than necessary.

[daft punk]

Think about it. Fascism only becomes relevant when there is a high level of class consciousness among the workers (as there was in Germany and Italy. By steering that class consciousness toward the path of the fascist parties, the bourgeoisie effectively co-opt the worker's struggle while still maintaining their class hegemony.

The bourgeoisie does not need fascism now, as there is a low level of class consciousness. Fascists can only gain popularity with socialist imagery if socialism is a popular idea in the first place.
But fascism can only gain power when the working class are in defeat.



Trotsky's "What is fascism, and how to fight it" is a good place to look.

(I'm aware that may not be the exact title phrasing.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/index.htm

Timeline of rise of Nazis with links to Trotsky's writings at the time.

Leon Trotsky on

THE RISE OF HITLER
AND DESTRUCTION OF THE GERMAN LEFT

[Zulu]

I'd like to point out that economic efficiency means different things in capitalism and socialism. In bourgeois society being efficient means working harder (you won't get home early, just because you work more). In socialist society being efficient means working less (when you have achieved your goal, go home or do something else).

But in addition to that, "work" also means different things in capitalism and socialism. In capitalism you work for benefit of someone else. In socialism you work for the benefit of your community and yourself. Nothing that doesn't benefit you and your society can qualify as work under socialism.

Therefore it is entirely consistent to be against efficiency and work under capitalism while supporting efficiency and work under socialism. Socialist economic efficiency does not mean locking people into factory, it means not keeping them in there longer than necessary.

Economic efficiency is characteristic of the society as a whole, so it can't be applied to an individual worker. From what you said it may be concluded that under capitalism the "efficiency" of an unemployed person is zero, whereas it's not. Unemployment is very beneficial for the economic efficiency from the capitalist point of view (as it helps keep the wages low).

The struggle against efficiency under capitalism is pointless unless it is actually the struggle for efficiency, which cannot longer be achieved under capitalism.

[hatzel]

And you know, Hitler was technophobic too. The cornerstone of his ideology was that the German nation must not seek to intensify its mode of production (particularly the agriculture), but must prevent its rivals in the West from intensifying theirs as well as acquire new lebensraum in the East. The conquest would also provide the Germans with plenty of slaves to do all the work, while the masters would be on permanent vacation. Basically it'd be the Roman Empire in the 20th century... inefficiency in its fullest sense.

Oh look, yet more totally irrelevant and unrelated crap. I mean do you actually think you're anything like on topic? And even when you do dare to touch the issue...all I see is some kind of crappy notion that the best way to tackle alienation is to make everybody so alienated that it for some strange reason doesn't matter any more. Probably some kind of orthodox Marxist pro-capitalist bullshit. Really? That's the solution to all this? And anything else is suddenly some Nazi-esque call for slavery? Pathetic. I don't see why I should bother replying to any of this, hence I won't continue doing so.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Hitler was helped into power by the capitalists, and from 1933 to 1940 American capitalists increased their investment in Germany by 50%. They didnt just help him build his war machine, they even helped during the war, and made profits.

I even thought the family Bush sold weapons to the Nazi's?


He hated communism as much as he hated Jews.

He might have hated them equally, he was more concerned about the communists than the jews. Like you kinda said, as soon as he got some power, he arrested tens of thousands of communists. The prisons were too small in Germany, so he had to come up with a solution. So he forced the communists to build the first concentration camps. It wasn't until later the Nazi's came up with the idea to exterminate jews and gypsies etc. in concentrations camps.

So the concentration camps were actually meant for communists.

[Yefim Zverev]

Some guy I know (A) said to me (X) ....

Any guy can say anything... there are unlimited possibilities mathematically. This thread makes no sense in the first place just because of that.

Actually that said it is a waste of time to talk but. The simple anti-communist propaganda it is. If a person gives credit to anything he hears from someone else during a chit-chat needs more education than he can receive under this thread so I refuse to write on the matter further.

[The Cheshire Cat]

First of all, there are not unlimited possibilities as there are not unlimited words.

Second of all, it wasn't a chit-chat. We were having a discussion as both of us are members of political parties in our country. We are both following the highest form of education. Combine those two things and most people will draw the conclusion that he will probably know the important things of politics. Atleast, I drew that conclusion but I was wrong.

Third, I don't give credit to anything I hear and this thread isn't even about what he said. What he said made me think. Read the first post and you will understand.

Fourth, everyone always needs more education. Especially more education that you can receive from this thread. It would be ridiculous if you would have said someone needs less education.

Anf fifth, if all you do is complain and refuse to help, why comment on this forum in the first place?

[OnlyCommunistYouKnow]

"Fascism is capitalism in decay."
-Vladimir Lenin

[Luís Henrique]

Wikipedia is a good start.

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

I know what you are going to say about using Wikipedia and,seeing as how the authors of the fascism page used many sources,I don't care.


From it:


While fascism opposes Bolshevism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevism), both Bolshevism and fascism have been noted to hold significant ideological similarities: both advocate a revolutionary ideology, both believe in the necessity of a vanguard elite, both have disdain for bourgeois values, and both had totalitarian ambitions.[/URL] In practice, fascism and Bolshevism have commonly emphasized revolutionary action, proletarian nation theories, single-party states, and party-armies.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-Blamires.2C_Cyprian_2006_p._95-96-45"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-Blamires.2C_Cyprian_2006_p._95-96-45) Fascism's relations with Bolshevism changed over time. In 1917, Mussolini as leader of the Fasci of Revolutionary Action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasci_d%27Azione_Rivoluzionaria) praised the October Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution) that brought Vladimir Lenin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin) and the Bolshevik movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik) to power in Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia), as Mussolini himself desired a revolution in Italy to bring the Fascists to power.

As usual for Wikipedia, that's a bunch of garbage.

Fascism does not advocate a revolutionary ideology in any meaning sence, unless we confuse revolution with rioting. Bolshevism believes in the necessity of a vanguard - not an elite - of the downthrodden in order to shake the rule of the bourgeoisie; fascism misrepresents the common man as a member of a pretense elite - thence racism, for the one thing you can say about the rabble of a country without puting it directly at odds with the actual elite is that they belong to a chose nationality/race/ethnicity. Fascism has absolutely no contempt for bourgeois values, on the contrary, it enshrines them. Bolshevism degenerated into a totalitarian dictatorship, but it had no such ambition; fascism ambitioned to build a totalitarian dictatorship, and often resulted in polyarchic confusion. Fascism has emphasised action in and of itself, regardless of aim or result; Bolshevism has always subordinated action to results, and regarded it as no more than means for its ends. Bolshevism never "emphasised" "proletarian nations", not even in its most degenerate Stalinist form; it always regarded 'nations' as divided entities. Single-party State is a dogma of Fascism since its inception, but Bolshevism only became involved with single-party systems much after it took power, via a quite gradual progression indeed.

And Mussolini may have "desired" a revolution to bring him into power in Italy, but he was brought there by a quite farcical coup d'Etat, not by no means by anything even remotely similar to a revolution.

Talking about "even remotely similar", Wikipedia remains not even remotely similar to a balanced source of knowledge, much less to an encyclopedia.

Down with Wickedpedia, the sum of all human ignorance! :D

Luís Henrique

[Eagle_Syr]

As a former self-proclaimed Fascist, I have read the Manifesto of Fascism by Mussolini, Mein Kampf, as well as other works addressing Fascist ideology and the differences between Fascism and communism are fundamentally in the approach to class struggle.

Fascism advocates class collaboration - it is corporatism, but not the "corporatism" that you think of, as in CEO's and Wall Street bribing politicians and controlling the government. In Fascism, a corporation is an institution with an economic aim, under the control of the state, and in co-operation with the workers. These are the three classes: corporation, workers, and state. They collaborate to achieve economic ends.

The moral problem with this is the inherent unfairness of deciding who is to belong in which camp. Fascism promotes elitism. Elitism is an integral part of the ideology - "natural hierarchy". Unfortunately, this is rarely based on merit because of corruption.

Fascism may or may not be racist - it doesn't have to be. It is very much a nationalist ideology, however, embracing the concept of the "volk", the singular peoples of a region who constitute one nation.

Fascism is reactionary, but it is as opposed to laissez-faire capitalism as it is to communism, and indeed is often called a third ground beyond the traditional left-right spectrum.

[Ismail]

Fascism is reactionary, but it is as opposed to laissez-faire capitalism as it is to communism, and indeed is often called a third ground beyond the traditional left-right spectrum.And yet it is capitalist all the same. Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Salazar and various other fascists pandered consistently to the bourgeoisie. Their primary goal in attaining and holding onto power was to crush communist movements.

Quite a few capitalists in the 1920's and 30's admitted this at the time.

“Against the weapons of the Bolsheviks, weapons must be used in reprisal, and it would be a mistake to display weakness before murderers. . . . Fascism can triumph today because universal indignation at the infamies committed by the socialists and communists has obtained for it the sympathies of wide circles. . . . It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.”
(Ludwig Von Mises. Liberalism: A Socio-Economic Exposition. Kansas City, MO: Sheed Andrews and McMeel. 1978. pp. 49-51.)

Replace "European civilization" (a common euphemism used by fascists and their sympathizers) with capitalism and noting that "indignation" comes from the bourgeoisie, and you got the Marxist view of fascism.

[Eagle_Syr]

Fascism is nonetheless fundamentally opposed to the idea of the free market and laissez-faire capitalism. If by "capitalism" you are simply referring to exclusive ownership and control over the means of production and social wealth, then yes, Fascism preserves "capitalism". But it's not about free markets, it's about planned economies.

Fascism differs from libertarianism, for example.

[Blake's Baby]

Is there a difference between fascism and the system that existed in the Soviet Union, Eagle Syr? Because the Soviet Union was a planned economy. You seem to be suggesting that the SU was actually fascist.

Is 'capitalism' the same as 'free-market capitalism'? If it is, why have different terms or qualifiers to the term?

What is capitalism? If, as Marxists generally believe, it is a historically constituted economic form characterised by wage labour and commodity production, then yes fascism is capitalism because fascism has little to do with the economy. State contracts for infrastructure projects and military production don't stop the economy being capitalist.

[NewLeft]

Fascism is nonetheless fundamentally opposed to the idea of the free market and laissez-faire capitalism. If by "capitalism" you are simply referring to exclusive ownership and control over the means of production and social wealth, then yes, Fascism preserves "capitalism". But it's not about free markets, it's about planned economies.

Fascism differs from libertarianism, for example.
Fascism was not always opposed to free markets. From 1922 to 1925, Mussolini appointed finance minister Alberto De Stefani, a liberal economist.

[Geiseric]

Fascism is simply a different type of bourgeois state that has the same economic policies as any other capitalist state in a war economy. the difference is that in liberal democracy, destruction of workers organizations is impossible whereas in fascism, it's basically the same goal. You guys are overcomplicating things, the state may manage some sections of the econonomy in fascism as it can in liberalism, however protecting private property is the cornerstone of fascism. Also the base of fascism comes from the declassed petit bourgeois, who are inevitably descending into the working class. however, in order to be radicallised into fascism, usually the ex petit bourgeois descends into pauperism, skipping past the working class phase.

[Desperado]

Fascism is nonetheless fundamentally opposed to the idea of the free market and laissez-faire capitalism.

Indeed. I think the point is that often, pandering to the bourgeoisie and being "capitalist" means opposing laissez-faire capitalism, especially in the 1930s.

That is likewise another difference between the idealists and our class approach - fascism being just as capitalist as laissez-faire capitalism - whereas most self-proclaimed defenders of "capitalism" tend to think of Europe/Obama/taxes as socialist.

[Eagle_Syr]

Is there a difference between fascism and the system that existed in the Soviet Union, Eagle Syr? Because the Soviet Union was a planned economy. You seem to be suggesting that the SU was actually fascist.

Is 'capitalism' the same as 'free-market capitalism'? If it is, why have different terms or qualifiers to the term?

What is capitalism? If, as Marxists generally believe, it is a historically constituted economic form characterised by wage labour and commodity production, then yes fascism is capitalism because fascism has little to do with the economy. State contracts for infrastructure projects and military production don't stop the economy being capitalist.

Capitalism means private and exclusive ownership of the means of production. However, this can exist under a market, where there is free trade, or under state control, where trade is controlled.

Fascism is as opposed to free trade as communism - despite being pro-bourgeoisie, or perhaps, because of that. After all, the wealthy don't like the free market.


Fascism was not always opposed to free markets. From 1922 to 1925, Mussolini appointed finance minister Alberto De Stefani, a liberal economist.
Mussolini also used to be a pacifist. Things change.

[Geiseric]

"free markets," don't even exist in liberal democracies. there has never been a "free market," and you guys are making a mistake by putting that as the other end of the fascist-liberal dichotomy. Liberal democracies purpose is to give an illusion of democracy, and maybe here and there give a reform when the working class makes you do it. Fascism is shooting, torturing, assassinating, destroying the working class when it demands anything. The early fascist economy had basically no differences between the Roosevelt era economy. It was Kenyesianism on steroids, however with more mortal blows to the working class.

[Eagle_Syr]

I agree that Fascism is a capitalist ideology. What I am saying, however, is that "the right" is not a very good classification for all capitalists. Fascists would have alot of problems with libertarians, for example. They aren't unified, but they both promote capitalism.

[Geiseric]

Well fascists have a whole lot in common with other hardcore reactionaries, libertarians included. I might consider circles of the tea party in the US to be neo fascists. But fascism isn't always Nazi imagery. Ford and other leading capitalists in the US planned a coup over the "class traitor," kenyesian capitalist roosevelt, after ford and other capitalists were rich enough take measures against workers organizations like slight joint ownership of companies, paying workers more before they unionized, and supporting the red scares against communists. Most people with radical populist rhetoric end up being hardcore reactionaries as well.

[Eagle_Syr]

I agree. Which is my point, the traditional left-right spectrum incorrectly lumps Fascists with libertarians. They are both "reactionary" in the sense that they preserve the bourgeoisie, but they are completely at odds in every respect.

[Misanthrope]

Some guy I know (a capitalist, although he also has many Anti-Capitalist views; ít's just very weird) said to me that Communism and fascism are very close related. He had some bullshit arguments and it didn't make any sense at all, he was just extremely badly informed and very much under the influence of propaganda.

But it did make me wonder why fasiscm often uses Communism as some sort of disguise (national bolshevism for example. In school I learned there were also a lot of Socialists who joined the NSDAP because they thought it was a Socialist party. Also, Hitler used some idea's that seems quite socialist, but were probably just Anti-Capitalist.)

Does anyone know why fascism can diguise itself sometimes rather easily as Communism?


Your 'friend' is obviously delusional. Fascism and communism historically and continually oppose each other in theory and "action" (for lack of a better word). Hitler was in no way socialist and there are no words to stress that enough...Nat Bols are nationalist bone heads and fuck them. Yup.

[Luís Henrique]

Fascism is nonetheless fundamentally opposed to the idea of the free market and laissez-faire capitalism.

In fact, any ideology that defends capital has to be against "free market" and/or "laisse-faire capitalism" - if for no other reason because laissez-faire destroys "free markets" through increased monopolisation and destruction of competition.


If by "capitalism" you are simply referring to exclusive ownership and control over the means of production and social wealth, then yes, Fascism preserves "capitalism".

Not so. Fascism preserves the basically anarchic nature of capitalist production, preserves the market as the basic instrument for allocation of resources, as well as private property.


But it's not about free markets, it's about planned economies.

"Free markets" are a fantasy, so no, fascism isn't about free markets; it is about directed markets - as any capitalist markets necessarily are. But it is not about a "planned economy" in any meaningful sence, except in that it uses the State's power as a consumer - basically of weaponry - as an instrument to politically direct the markets.


Fascism differs from libertarianism, for example.

And the main difference it that "libertarianism" is complete and utterly incompatible with capitalism. Indeed, it is a set of fantasies about people who own one acre of land and a mule (or two cows), in a world were private corporations don't exist, or even about wage workers being small capitalists that manage their own bodies and souls as a capitalist manages capital.

Fascism may rely on similar petty-bourgeois fantasies when it is a movement in opposition, but once it takes over the State, it has to function as a good manager of capitalism.

Luís Henrique

[Eagle_Syr]

It appears we are using different definitions of capitalism.

Free markets are risky for the bourgeoisie; thus, they typically oppose them (which is why no country in the world has a free market). Fascism opposes free markets. Libertarianism supports free markets. They are fundamentally at odds.

[Luís Henrique]

It appears we are using different definitions of capitalism.

Free markets are risky for the bourgeoisie; thus, they typically oppose them (which is why no country in the world has a free market). Fascism opposes free markets. Libertarianism supports free markets. They are fundamentally at odds.

"Libertarianism" supports a fiction that they call "free market" that is a practical impossibility because they don't realise that without a State to keep rule of law, there is no market, "free" or otherwise. Which is the reason that "libertarianism" isn't an actual bourgeois pro-capitalist ideology, but rather a petty-bourgeois anti-capitalist ideology, that, for historic reasons, calls actual capitalism "corporatism" (or even "socialism"), while calling their own pre-capitalist dystopia "capitalism".

Luís Henrique

[Lokomotive293]

I'm surprised no one has brought up Dimitrov yet. I've always thought of this as THE Marxist definition of fascism.


Fascism in power is the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/dimitrov/works/1935/08_02.htm#s2

[Thirsty Crow]

With regard to Dimitrov, it would be very interesting to see this thesis of a correspondence between Fascism as a political force and finance capital substantiated.
What I'm getting at is that it is far from clear that a self-evident historical connection between the fascist borugeois state/political organizations and exclusively finance capital exists, and moreover, this connection is merely asserted, it is not elaborated upon. The impression it leaves is that of a facile reference to the "parasitic" finance capital.

For instance (from the same text):


Fascism is not a form of state power "standing above both classes -- the proletariat and the bourgeoisie," as Otto Bauer, for instance, has asserted. It is not "the revolt of the petty bourgeoisie which has captured the machinery of the state," as the British Socialist Brailsford declares. No, fascism is not a power standing above class, nor government of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations.
(emphasis added)
After asserting that fascism is the power of finance capital itself, the author doesn't actually follow through with this analysis as this line of thought, class analysis, isn't actually explored in more detail.
Sure, there are some cautious remarks like


Comrades, the accession to power of fascism must not be conceived of in so simplified and smooth a form, as though some committee or other of finance capital decided on a certain date to set up a fascist dictatorship.

But there's nothing here, as far as I can tell, which would justify such an important distinction between finance capital and other forms of capital with regard to their complicity with Fascism. There's nothing explaining how finance capital had gotten enmeshed with Fascism, while industrial captial hasn't, at least to that extent (since this is a clear implication of continous mentioning of finance capital, as opposed to the capitalist class in general or industrial capital).

[Lokomotive293]

But there's nothing here, as far as I can tell, which would justify such an important distinction between finance capital and other forms of capital with regard to their complicity with Fascism. There's nothing explaining how finance capital had gotten enmeshed with Fascism, while industrial captial hasn't, at least to that extent (since this is a clear implication of continous mentioning of finance capital, as opposed to the capitalist class in general or industrial capital).

I believe there is some misunderstanding here. Dimitrov is basing his analysis of fascism on Lenin's theory of Imperialism. Lenin there defines "finance capital" as the merging of bank capital and industrial capital, which appears as a result of the concentration of production and the emergence of monopolies. In the Imperialist state of capitalism, the rule of capital as a whole is replaced by the rule of finance capital. Keeping this in mind, it becomes clear why Dimitrov speaks of finance capital as the driving force behind fascism, not capital as a whole.

[Eagle_Syr]

I'm surprised no one has brought up Dimitrov yet. I've always thought of this as THE Marxist definition of fascism.



http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/dimitrov/works/1935/08_02.htm#s2

But the Marxist definition of Fascism isn't as important as the Fascist definition of Fascism. You have to understand the appeal and scope of the Fascist ideology from the point of view of Fascists.

[Lokomotive293]

But the Marxist definition of Fascism isn't as important as the Fascist definition of Fascism. You have to understand the appeal and scope of the Fascist ideology from the point of view of Fascists.

I would disagree there. Of course we should read what fascists themselves wrote, but we should always have in mind what is behind all this. You shouldn't forget that Marxism is the scientific view on things, and only from there can we have a correct analysis of fascism, which is essential for a correct strategy against it. How do you want to fight fascism if you don't know what it is and where it comes from?

[Eagle_Syr]

I would disagree there. Of course we should read what fascists themselves wrote, but we should always have in mind what is behind all this. You shouldn't forget that Marxism is the scientific view on things, and only from there can we have a correct analysis of fascism, which is essential for a correct strategy against it. How do you want to fight fascism if you don't know what it is and where it comes from?

The everyday people who followed Fascism did not do it because they saw it as a bourgeois reactionary ideology. Fascists genuinely believe in their ideology; Fascism is well-connected to futurism.

Thus we must understand Fascism from the perspective of the Fascist to understand its appeal, and ultimately, how to beat it.

Just go take a look on any Fascist forum and read through the threads, you will see.

[Blake's Baby]

Eagle Syr, do you agree with the statement... the Marxist definition of religion isn't as important as the religious definition of religion. You have to understand the appeal and scope of the religious ideology from the point of view of the religious... ?

If you do, I'd disagree somewhat but you are at least being consistent. If you don't, what is the difference between religious ideology and political ideology (eg fascism)?

[Eagle_Syr]

Eagle Syr, do you agree with the statement... the Marxist definition of religion isn't as important as the religious definition of religion. You have to understand the appeal and scope of the religious ideology from the point of view of the religious... ?

If you do, I'd disagree somewhat but you are at least being consistent. If you don't, what is the difference between religious ideology and political ideology (eg fascism)?

I would agree, because in order to help others understand, you have to see it from their perspective.

[Lokomotive293]

The everyday people who followed Fascism did not do it because they saw it as a bourgeois reactionary ideology. Fascists genuinely believe in their ideology; Fascism is well-connected to futurism.

Thus we must understand Fascism from the perspective of the Fascist to understand its appeal, and ultimately, how to beat it.

Just go take a look on any Fascist forum and read through the threads, you will see.

I think we need both. We need a scientific, class-based analysis of fascism, and we need an analysis of what exactly it is that makes fascist ideology so appealing. Only then can we develop the right strategy and tactics against it. In my opinion, Dimitrov does this pretty well.

[Raskolnikov]

Fascist Ideology can be 'appealing' from a standard of how one views the class-relationships, and how one's own position within the Class system is presented. Along with the contradictions within this whole Class System. (Such as contradictions between the african and white worker, between proletariat and bourgeois and so on and so forth)

That's the first step - understanding that there are contradictions with Capitalist society and class society overall. Now with these contradictions there can be intensifications and then shifts of blame. For example J Sakai's "The Mythology of the White Proletariat" shows the majority of KKK members came from a poor white background but were shifted to blame their problems on the upbringing of a new class - the Proletariat of the Oppressed Minorities. (The New african workers)

It was this already evident contradiction as well as the using of both the situation the poor white men themselves were placed in that created this oppressive tool to further divide the classes.

Plus, when you think about it, becomes very easy. Just blame the Jews, or blame the communists or blame a specific set of people and have a 'Strong, Authoritarian Leadership' that doesn't take shit.

It sounds appealing for when put into a desperate situation - anything may sound appealing to one attempting to salvage what they have. This is very evident in the Labour Aristocracy in America as well as petite-bourgeois children whom have a sense to 'protect' what is 'rightfully theirs'.