Left-wing Fascism

[Proukunin]

What in the hell is this?

Okay so sometimes I type in paradoxical political beliefs in Google to see if there is any group claiming to be them..Well, Wikipedia has an article on Left Fascism.

Supposedly it something like left-wing terrorists who incorporate ideals of socialism into fascism..

Sounds like Glenn Beck wrote this article to me.

[Drosophila]

"Fascism" is a doctrine that rejects leftist ideals. "Left-Fascism" sounds like a bullshit ideology to me.

[NewLeft]

He argues that it operates through mystified language; attributes faults "everywhere and always in an imperial conspiracy of wealth, power or status"; and uses anti-Semitism as a pseudo-populist tool.
How is that Left? It's a bullshit term.

[Ostrinski]

Wikipedia also has a fucking article on "anarcho-nationalism." Doesn't mean it's at all coherent.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It is nonesense cobbled togehter by people who consider themselves mini-demagogues and "leaders." Ignore it, the two contradict each other.

Some groups, such as the National Socialist Libertarian Green Party, assuming they are still even around and if I remember correctly,accepted jews, homosexuals and other minorities into their party (or so I heard); so that might be what is meant by "elements of socialism," but in ideological Marxian terms, it is still nonsense.

[Bronco]

I often hear people use it as a derogatory term for organisations like Unite Against Fascism, when they try and forcibly prevent the BNP/EDL from having a public platform, the same people will also quote Churchill when he said "The Fascists of the future will be the anti-fascists."

As far as I know there aren't any people or organisations who would self-identify as "Left-wing Fascists"

[Proukunin]

That's what i've always thought..but I was just curious as to why people would put forth effort to even attempt to coin that term and give it definition.

Like isn't there some kind of controversy here with National Bolshevism? Can anyone elaborate on what that actually is? I've read and it seems like some Socialist ******* shit.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Like isn't there some kind of controversy here with National Bolshevism? Can anyone elaborate on what that actually is? I've read and it seems like some Socialist ******* shit.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/national-bolshevismi-t153834/index.html?t=153834&highlight=National+Bolshevism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/national-bolshevism-nazboli-t168701/index.html?t=168701&highlight=National+Bolshevism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/national-bolshevismi-t131512/index.html?t=131512&highlight=National+Bolshevism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/national-bolshevismi-t113073/index.html?t=113073&highlight=National+Bolshevism

...try those.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

This sort of nomenclature happens when the political scale is simplified into right/left and the right-wing doesn't want to admit it shares many of the same qualities as fascism.

[Revolutionary_Marxist]

Seems rather archaic that there is such a thing as "Left Fascism". Since leftists are universally against Fascism, the contradiction would be too great and would destroy the ideology itself. Same goes with the previously mentioned "Anarcho Nationalism".

[ColonelCossack]

"Hey guys, I have a great idea. I will be a communist... by rejecting communism!!!1111!!1!11!!11!!11one!!!"

[MaximMK]

I fell like when i saw some Far-Right Anarchist parties on eRepublik or when i saw a guy that led an Far-Right party on the same game and had a profile picture of Che Guevara.

[Rafiq]

It's not a real thing, it's an Insult toward "Authoritarian Terrorist" Leftists. Basically just more Liberal bullshit, nothing to see.

[Proukunin]

Lol, like a person who reads Marx but is a white nationalist that is against racism. Makes perfect sense I don't know what you guys are talking about...

[Proukunin]

What really gets me is that the first person to use the word is supposedly a 'Marxist' himself...Jurgen Habermas

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Closest thing I know of:


Strasserism refers to the strand of Nazism that called for, and the neo-Nazism that currently calls for, a more radical, mass-action and worker-based form of National Socialism, particularly hostile to finance capitalism from an antisemitic basis, to achieve a national rebirth. It derives its name from Gregor and Otto Strasser, the two Nazi brothers initially associated with this position. Opposed on strategic views to Adolf Hitler, Otto Strasser was expelled from the NSDAP in 1930, while Gregor Strasser was killed during the 1934 Night of the Long Knives.

(from Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism)

[#FF0000]

it's p. much just an epithet.

i remember the user Os Ctafhgbfhgbjdfbgjdfa made a p. good post about how there is def. a left wing of fascism though, that is very anti-clerical, has very anti-capitalist rhetoric, and which viewed the French Revolution in a positive light (a p. interesting distinction which i wouldn't have noticed) but which is still entirely opposed to socialism at its core, believing in strict, 'natural' hierarchies, a strong national state, etc. etc. etc.

EDIT: lol they're also always murdered every time fascists get around to taking power

[OHumanista]

Noxion is right. Most strasserists actually think they're leftists. (or so it seems from the thankfully brief contact I've had with those creatures)

[RGacky3]

The only time I've heard it in public discourse its been from people like Glenn Beck and Ann Culture, and as such I dismiss it immediately.

[Genghis]

What in the hell is this?

Okay so sometimes I type in paradoxical political beliefs in Google to see if there is any group claiming to be them..Well, Wikipedia has an article on Left Fascism.

Supposedly it something like left-wing terrorists who incorporate ideals of socialism into fascism..

Sounds like Glenn Beck wrote this article to me.

In my opinion, fascism is a branch of leftism.

[RGacky3]

In my opinion, fascism is a branch of leftism.

Ok, but your opinion is stupid and wrong.

Writing "In my opinion something is something." Means absolutely nothing here, make an argument.

[#FF0000]

In my opinion, fascism is a branch of leftism.

i guess in a world where you get to make things up that might be true but no, fascism is diametrically opposed to what folks around here want and believe.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

In my opinion, fascism is a branch of leftism.

That is funny, because a lot of people here believe that fascism is actually a branch of capitalism...

[#FF0000]

That is funny, because a lot of people here believe that fascism is actually a branch of capitalism...

Pretty sure Hayek himself said Fascism was an acceptable panic-room for capitalism, and talked about how Fascism saved the west from Communism.

[lombas]

It is not that surprising. Peronism is inspired by fascism, and by stressing workers' ideals withing the fascist ideology, it could be regarded as a "left-wing" fascist ideology.

Some elements within Peronism (the more nationalist, militarist minded) declared this "leftism" obsolete, that's why it is still split between a right and a left wing.

But that's just me and what I remember from the classes I took in history of political thought; we need someone from Argentina here to explain the details.

[lombas]

i guess in a world where you get to make things up that might be true but no, fascism is diametrically opposed to what folks around here want and believe.

Yes, ah, but ehm, this is supposed to be the revolutionary left. There are more leftist denominations than the "marxist-anarchist-trotskyist-..." people we have here. Marxism doesn't equal "left" and Capitalism doesn't equal "right", though both are respectively part of the said direction.

That said, I do not believe fascism can be considered a leftist ideology.

[Hexen]

"Left-Wing Fascism" is a oxymoron.

[daft punk]

In my opinion, fascism is a branch of leftism.

No it isnt. Fascism is a branch of conservatism. It's purpose is to save capitalism in extreme circumstances. I cant be arsed typing tons on this, but as a quick example, in 1927 Hitler sent a secret letter to industrialists reassuring him that all his anti-capitalist talk was just talk.

[lombas]

No it isnt. Fascism is a branch of conservatism. It's purpose is to save capitalism in extreme circumstances. I cant be arsed typing tons on this, but as a quick example, in 1927 Hitler sent a secret letter to industrialists reassuring him that all his anti-capitalist talk was just talk.

That is true, though I would like to point to the fact that there were/are significant differences between fascism and nazism. So quoting Hitler in this regard perhaps isn't too appropriate.

It might be interesting to examine however whether nazism itself might be interpreted as an attempt to approach fascism from a supposedly left wing perspective with a blend of völkischer Nationalismus...

[hatzel]

Genghis is a great troll all his posts are really good masterful work I approve.

[ed miliband]

there was a thread on libcom about ron paul that turned into a discussion sort of along these lines:

http://libcom.org/forums/north-america/ron-paul-24022012

basically a guy pointed out that nazis had social welfare programs and people got angry, but then there were some sensible posts that i'll reproduce:



I might be missing something (like the poster has form for defending fascism or something?) but simply pointing out that fascism has an economic policy that includes wide ranging public services and programs is hardly acting as an apologist for fascism. Any decent analysis of fascism should start from understanding it's roots as a bastardised form of socialism that rejected internationalism for a pact with it's native ruling classes.


It's certainly well worth highlighting these differences because as the crisis of capitalism deepens, there will be a rise in calls for national solutions, "for putting our own first", for attacking various scapegoats and even the possibility of states retreating back from international treaties into various blocs, ready to plunge into war. To overlook the carrot aspect of fascism that did win so many working class people over to it's barbarism is of little use to anyone, not least when it was the crippling "austerity" measures imposed on Germany at Versailles that did so much to produce a fertile breeding ground for fascism




it's far from bourgeois to understand the origins of fascism as arising from a bastardised form of socialism, I believe at the time many referred to it as "socialism for fools". Fascism's subsequent support from big business and it's rise to power does nothing to change it's origins, infact the violent purging of the SA only highlights it.
i mean, i agree with this 100%:


Any decent analysis of fascism should start from understanding it's roots as a bastardised form of socialism that rejected internationalism for a pact with it's native ruling classes.

fascism isn't related to socialism in any way that i understand it, but i don't see why it should be controversial to suggest that fascism had strong similarities with social democracy.

[NoPasaran1936]

I often hear people use it as a derogatory term for organisations like Unite Against Fascism, when they try and forcibly prevent the BNP/EDL from having a public platform, the same people will also quote Churchill when he said "The Fascists of the future will be the anti-fascists."

As far as I know there aren't any people or organisations who would self-identify as "Left-wing Fascists"

The funny thing is, Churchill never said that..:rolleyes:

[ColonelCossack]

In my opinion, fascism is a branch of leftism.

You know I think you're on to something. it must be your genius arguments again.

[Os Cangaceiros]

it's p. much just an epithet.

i remember the user Os Ctafhgbfhgbjdfbgjdfa made a p. good post about how there is def. a left wing of fascism though, that is very anti-clerical, has very anti-capitalist rhetoric, and which viewed the French Revolution in a positive light (a p. interesting distinction which i wouldn't have noticed) but which is still entirely opposed to socialism at its core, believing in strict, 'natural' hierarchies, a strong national state, etc. etc. etc.

EDIT: lol they're also always murdered every time fascists get around to taking power

Yeah I think I know what you're talking about. This (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2346732&postcount=60) post?


A lot of fascists, esp. in Italy, came from socialist traditions, that's true. A lot of them became disillusioned with the left after WW1. And there were left-leaning fascists, "class struggle fascists", both in Italy and elsewhere, who viewed the French Revolution favorably, spoke out vehemently against capitalism, and were fiercely anti-clerical/hated the Church. So ideologically they were similar to the left in those respects, but they replaced the left's emphasis on egalitarianism and worker's internationalism with an emphasis on hardcore nationalism, fetishization of militarism/violence, exhaltation of national culture, etc. which I consider to be a pretty big difference.

But ultimately these elements were mostly marginalized in Italy, where Mussolini didn't really go after the Catholic establishment, and purged in Nazi Germany with the night of the long knives.

(I was arguing with some tool who thought that fascism = communism or something like that.)

But yes, there were certain left-leaning fascists in Germany, like Rohm and Strasser, who's self-described aim was to liquidate capitalism, a supposed Jewish invention, along with Marxism, another Jewish invention. Jews are very inventive. It got so bad that Hindenburg ordered Hitler to take care of the problem, perhaps because German capital understood on some level that it had created a monster it hadn't fully understood, and the street level activism of the SA was going to turn around and bite them in the ass at some point. Thus the purge.

In other regimes where fascism had relevance: in Italy there were anti-clerical fascists, but ultimately the conservatives won out there and they never gained much power. In Spain there were some left-wing Falangists, but the death of Jose Primo de Rivera (and Manuel Hedilla, who was purged by Franco) removed any chance that there would be some sort of conflict between the left-wing fascists and the conservative/Catholic fascists. Not sure about Portugal. Here's what a book I have has to say on the topic:


National Syndicalism and Technocratic Fascism were both radical. They regarded themselves as the logical outcome of western Europe's revolutionary heritage, although they restored the emphasis on order and social harmony rather than individualism and liberal democracy. By contrast, Conservative or Nationalist Fascism rejected Europe's revolutionary tradition altogether; their purpose was not to rationalize the French Revolution but to do away with it.

[Franz Fanonipants]

its me

[ed miliband]

loren goldner piece that may be of interest:

http://libcom.org/history/anti-capitalism-or-anti-imperialism-interwar-authoritarian-fascist-sources-reactionary-i

[danyboy27]

Most fascist are rabid xenophobic nationalist, i think we can safely say it will always overshadow any pretention of social progress made by some of their left leaning elements.

Gobbels was in favor of having grandiose public appartement complex, but he really didnt really cared about the endless imperialist war or the millions of slave labor working for corporation like IG farben, he didnt cared about the gas chamber either.

Fascist will always be a bunch of deluded individual. Just like the Libertarian, they think they can have all the advantage of an overly exploitative system without the consequences.

[Ocean Seal]

What in the hell is this?
A stupid idea conceived by stupid people.


Sounds like Glenn Beck wrote this article to me.
Yes Beck and co uphold the Hanah Ardent worldview.

[DinodudeEpic]

Actually the article seems to imply that 'Left-fascism' is just a prerogative for the 'Anti-imperialist left' made by disgruntled leftists who accused such 'anti-imperialists' of being leftist in name only. (LINO for short.)

Of course, Revleft confuses that with Beckesque fear-mongering and/or actually hybrids of fascism and any leftist ideology. (Fascist liberalism? Fascist anarchism? Fascist classical liberalism? Remember, leftism is virtually any ideology that claims descent from the French Revolution's ideas.)

[Doflamingo]

In my opinion, fascism is a branch of leftism.

Well, your opinion is wrong.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

What in the hell is this?

Okay so sometimes I type in paradoxical political beliefs in Google to see if there is any group claiming to be them..Well, Wikipedia has an article on Left Fascism.

Supposedly it something like left-wing terrorists who incorporate ideals of socialism into fascism..

Sounds like Glenn Beck wrote this article to me.

You know what it sounds like to me? Otto Rühle. Some anarchist gave me all these links to books and I went through them. Basically the message i got from these is "Bolshevism=Fascism('and the first needs to be fought to defeat the latter'...)". Supposedly the Italian fascists were really LEFT Wing and came from the communist tradition (ignoring the fact that the reality is that they were lumpenproletariat). I know, What The Fuck! The second was about how Che Guevara was an evil murderer and really a proto-Fascist. Arguments used were that he was romantic (essentially the point, although not worded like that) and believed in masculinity and fighting the oppressors, and believed that there needs to be a hierarchy of knowledge, Che: "Fidel [Castro] knows more than me, so i listen to him. I know more than you [speaking to uneducated peasant revolutionaries in Bolivia] so you listen to me". Yes, this is obviously Fascism... I swear, some anarchists are real idiots.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

That is funny, because a lot of people here believe that fascism is actually a branch of capitalism...

NOT Only is it a branch of Capitalist private property and capitalist way of production, it was supported and financed by Capital to Save Capitalism. Fascism = domestic "War Capitalism" running from "War Communism".

[Bronco]

Has anyone read the Charter of Carnaro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Fiume)? Just wondering cos according to the wiki article it "combined anarchist, proto-fascist, and democratic republican ideas" so I guess it might be considered to be "Left-Fascist"

One of the authors, Alceste De Ambris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alceste_De_Ambris), was also a prominent Syndicalist and Unionist, but a big influence on Mussolini (whose regime he became an opponent of)

[lombas]

Has anyone read the Charter of Carnaro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Fiume)? Just wondering cos according to the wiki article it "combined anarchist, proto-fascist, and democratic republican ideas" so I guess it might be considered to be "Left-Fascist"

One of the authors, Alceste De Ambris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alceste_De_Ambris), was also a prominent Syndicalist and Unionist, but a big influence on Mussolini (whose regime he became an opponent of)

Anyone will have to admit article 64 concerning music (!) is quite charming.


Music
64. In the Italian province of Carnaro, music is a social and religious institution. Once in a thousand or two thousand years music springs from the soul of a people and flows on for ever.
A noble race is not one that creates a God in its own image but one that creates also the song wherewith to do Him homage.
Every rebirth of a noble race is a lyric force, every sentiment that is common to the whole race, a potential lyric; music, the language of ritual, has power, above all else, to exalt the achievement and the life of man.
Does it not seem that great music has power to bring spiritual peace to the strained and anxious multitude?
The reign of the human spirit is not yet.
‘When matter acting on matter shall be able to replace man’s physical strength, then will the spirit of man begin to see the dawn of libertv’: so said a man of Dalmatia of our own Adriatic, the blind seer of Sebenico.
As cock-crow heralds the dawn, so music is the herald of the soul’s awakening.
Meanwhile, in the instruments of labour, of profit, and of sport, in the noisy machines which, even they, fall into a poetical rhythm, music can find her motives and her harmonies.
In the pauses of music is heard the silence of the tenth corporation.

[Genghis]

Most fascists came from the Left. They were former Socialists or Communists. Here is a list:

France: Jacques Doirot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Doriot) led the Fascist Party Populaire Francais. He was a devout Communist prior to that. He collaborated with Hitler during the occupation. He was also a member of Parliament.


Marcel Deat (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/154409/Marcel-Deat) was elected to Parliament as a Socialist but quarreled with Leon Blum, a French statesman who became Prime Minister in 1936. He then left and helped form the Parti Socialiste de France (Socialist Party of France) and was an admirer of German National Socialism. Needless to say, he collaborated with the Nazi regime after France fell.


Belgium: There was a number of Fascist groups that were all proworker and anticapitalist. The most notable case was that of Henry de Man who became the President of the Socialist Party. He did not claim to be Fascist. However, he flirted with Fascists, exchanging warm letters with Mussolini. Also, when Belgium fell to the Nazis, he warmly welcomed them. He called the Belgium defeat as a “deliverance from capitalist plutocracy.” He called upon his comrades to cooperate with the Nazis to “realize the sovereignty of Labor.” When the Germans invaded Belgium, he urged his people not to resist. He said, “For the working-class and for the socialism, this annihilation of a decayed world is not a disaster but a deliverance.”


Hungary:

Ferenc Szalasi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferenc_Sz%C3%A1lasi) founded the Hungarian National Socialist Party which was later banned. He was able to get support for his cause by adopting views that appealed to the industrial workers and the lower economic classes. He became leader of the Arrow Cross Party. He also collaborated with the Nazis.


Norway: Vidkun Quisling attempted to establish the Red Guards for the Labor and Communist parties before becoming a Fascist and forming the National Union Party. He was so notorious in his collaboration with the Nazis that his name entered the English language as a synonym for “traitor.”


United Kingdom: Sir Oswald Mosley (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRmosley.htm) was a former Labour MP and the youngest member of the Labour cabinet. He broke with his party to protest its failure to intervene more vigorously in the economy. With other disaffected leftists he founded the more radical New Party, which later merged with the Imperial Fascist League to form the Union, which changed its name in 1936 to the British Union of Fascists and National Socialists.


Germany: Anton Drexler founded the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Drexler abandoned the Social Democratic Party, which was not nationalistic enough for him, and joined the Fatherland Party, which he eventually left. He felt that the Fatherland Party lacked concern for workers. That’s when he decided to form the German Workers’ Party. A few months later, Adolph Hitler joined and the name was changed to National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Hitler had considered himself a Socialist and never claimed to be a Fascist, though that term is commonly applied to him. His combination of nationalism and Socialism qualifies him to be a Fascist in my view.





Fascists and Socialists/Communists are cut from the same cloth. The same pathology that created one also created the other. I consider fascism to be a variant of Socialism.

[Omsk]

I am wondering why you aren't restricted yet.

[ColonelCossack]

Fascists and Socialists/Communists are cut from the same cloth. The same pathology that created one also created the other. I consider fascism to be a variant of Socialism.

Fascism was a reaction to socialism. I don't think you quite understand how either came about, or what either of them mean.

[Krano]

Wikipedia also has a fucking article on "anarcho-nationalism." Doesn't mean it's at all coherent.
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Anarcho-fascism

[Genghis]

I am wondering why you aren't restricted yet.

don't worry. i have restricted myself to OI.

[Genghis]

Fascism was a reaction to socialism. I don't think you quite understand how either came about, or what either of them mean.

That's the leftist party line. But is it true?

Many disagree. I suggest you read this book:

Liberal fascism by Jonah Goldberg. (http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841)

Here is a quote:


Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism.

[ed miliband]

You know what it sounds like to me? Otto Rühle. Some anarchist gave me all these links to books and I went through them. Basically the message i got from these is "Bolshevism=Fascism('and the first needs to be fought to defeat the latter'...)". Supposedly the Italian fascists were really LEFT Wing and came from the communist tradition (ignoring the fact that the reality is that they were lumpenproletariat). I know, What The Fuck! The second was about how Che Guevara was an evil murderer and really a proto-Fascist. Arguments used were that he was romantic (essentially the point, although not worded like that) and believed in masculinity and fighting the oppressors, and believed that there needs to be a hierarchy of knowledge, Che: "Fidel [Castro] knows more than me, so i listen to him. I know more than you [speaking to uneducated peasant revolutionaries in Bolivia] so you listen to me". Yes, this is obviously Fascism... I swear, some anarchists are real idiots.

1. otto ruhle was a marxist not an anarchist. a great marxist in fact.
2. comparing ruhle to beck would be bordering on offensive if it wasn't so laughable (and actually i quite like beck for a laugh so i'll let that slip).
3. ruhle's 'the struggle against fascism begins with the struggle against bolshevism', the text i assume you are referring to, only mentions italy in passing and was written when che guevara was like ten or something, so fuck knows why you have shoehorned him into your little narrative.
4. the young mussolini was in the psi, if i'm not mistaken quite a radical faction of it, and syndicalism cannot be seperated from the history of fascism in italy, so while it's untrue to say italian fascism emerged from communism, it's certainly not questionable that it had its routes in part of the italian left. (but as i said, ruhle isn't concerned with this so there's not point even commenting on it).

read it again, you seemed to miss the point massively the first time:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/ruhle/1939/ruhle01.htm

[Luís Henrique]

Liberal fascism by Jonah Goldberg (http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841)

You don't really take such ridiculous piece of ignorant ranting in serious, do you?

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

Fascists and Socialists/Communists are cut from the same cloth. The same pathology that created one also created the other. I consider fascism to be a variant of Socialism.

I guess if you are literally a baby you would think that despite the fact that they are diametrically opposed.

I think it's fair to say that they're both sort of a reaction to liberal democracy but they took two very different positions on it and if you don't recognize this then, well, frankly, i don't think you are very 1) honest 2) smart 3) both of those things.

[Ostrinski]

They're both a reaction to intensified class struggle, but their similarities end there I'm afraid. It's like saying water and carbon monoxide are similar because they both have oxygen atoms.

[La Comédie Noire]

You know it's pretty sad when communists get lumped in with fascists or blamed for scaring people into fascism, considering how many communists died fighting against it.

But hey if we are talking about people who joined the fascist parties lets not forget all the liberals, military leaders, and even business owners who also abandoned their principles for opportunistic gain.

Now while that doesn't excuse the cravenly conduct of those leftists who switched sides, it certainly does prove that it wasn't some comfortable affinity between the communists and fascists that made going over so easy. It was the atmosphere of the time which saw fascism triumphing and all other alternatives being denigrated as "ineffective". Some saw defeat and decided to either flee or negotiate the best terms possible given their individual situations.

If the Left can be faulted for anything it is the insidious belief in historical inevitability that forced the remaining communists into inactivity and eventual arrest and execution.

Not that this will get through to anyone who equates fascism with communism because they most likely ascribe to that hysterical brand of triumphalist horse shit that passes as political philosophy and analysis of history these days. A tradition that was inaugurated by Karl Popper in his 2 volume work The Open Society and Its Enemies. (Though I might add that Karl Popper was an honest and intelligent man who at least tried to engage Karl Marx's theories openly and every attempt since his has seen a marked decline in quality. Especially since the fall of the wall.)

It is quite useful in it's practical applications because it can be used to brand any social movement or popular resistance as "Totalitarian".

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=La Comédie Noire;2404334]You know it's pretty sad when communists get lumped in with fascists or blamed for scaring people into fascism, considering how many communists died fighting against it.

But hey if we are talking about people who joined the fascist parties lets not forget all the liberals, military leaders, and even business owners who also abandoned their principles for opportunistic gain.

It is isn't just a question of looking for the actual, enrolled party members who perhaps left the Communist Party and joined the National Socialist Party (which happened quite frequently during the 20s. After he was elected chancellor, Hitler allowed ONLY former Communist Party to enroll in the browns, as they had the "right stuff" for "revolution"). Its also looking at patterns of who voted for whom, when and where. So when one sees Tuscanny, in Italy, swing from being very red to very brown, very quickly (and the reverse after 1945) its obvious that the people on the ground saw no great diametric opposition.

Its a great myth to to claim that the rise of fascism was the result of some sort of conspiracy. The Italian Communist Party in Italy was about the largest in Europe in the early 20s. Why were they so ineffective in resisting Musolini? Because as the chairman of that party himself said, all the workers joined the browns


Now while that doesn't excuse the cravenly conduct of those leftists who switched sides, it certainly does prove that it wasn't some comfortable affinity between the communists and fascists that made going over so easy. It was the atmosphere of the time which saw fascism triumphing and all other alternatives being denigrated as "ineffective".

It is true the rise of fascism is impossible to conceive without the victory of the reds in Moscow. But I think its rather dishonest of leftists, who like to brag about how diverse of though and ideas their project is, to complain about the unfairness of non-Leftsis in taking them at their word.




If the Left can be faulted for anything it is the insidious belief in historical inevitability that forced the remaining communists into inactivity and eventual arrest and execution.

If "historical inevitability" is correct, then the actions, or "inactions," of the communists was entirely logical and reasonable. And while the National Socialists believed in historical inevitability, they differed as they sought to take steps to ensure it. They, after all, had presented themselves as being a more "effective" alternative to the socialism arising in Moscow.


It is quite useful in it's practical applications because it can be used to brand any social movement or popular resistance as "Totalitarian".

It probably would do no good here to remind people that the National Socialists claimed that they were seeking to protect the Germans from the onslaughts of the Jews, Versailles ect ect ect. The National Socialists were "resisting" those forces who sought to grind down the Germans. And the National Socialists were of course "popular" (at least until perhaps 1941-42).

[Luís Henrique]

After he was elected chancellor, Hitler allowed ONLY former Communist Party to enroll in the browns, as they had the "right stuff" for "revolution").

This is a blatant LIE. Are you trying to turn it into truth by Goebbelsian repetition? Where did you find such piece of disinformation?

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

(which happened quite frequently during the 20s. After he was elected chancellor, Hitler allowed ONLY former Communist Party to enroll in the browns, as they had the "right stuff" for "revolution")

yo i am going to have to see evidence of this


Why were they so ineffective in resisting Musolini? Because as the chairman of that party himself said, all the workers joined the brownsIt would be hella interesting to see a source for this since the exact opposite is true from everything I have ever ready in my life ever.


It is true the rise of fascism is impossible to conceive without the victory of the reds in Moscow.And their failure everywhere else in Europe.


If "historical inevitability" is correct, then the actions, or "inactions," of the communists was entirely logical and reasonable.Well it isn't, which is the point.


They, after all, had presented themselves as being a more "effective" alternative to the socialism arising in Moscow.Yo I am 110% sure the nazis presenting themselves as strongmen who could contain the madness that was Germany in the 1930s has more to do with it than how they looked compared to the leadership of Russia.

But in the end all of this is kind of silly since uh no one has yet explained to me how 'internationalism, classless society' is similar to 'rigid, hierarchical nationalism, flagrant anti-egalitarianism'. I mean, shit, even Hayek had the intellectual rigor to be able to tell the difference (and credit Fascism with saving western europe)

[Revolutionair]

Gustav Krupp was a commie, get over it.

More commies:
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Business/images-6/pope-hitler-youth.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/06/Alfonso_XIII_of_Spain.jpg
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-Ford-medal2.png


Proud fighters against fascism:

without American petroleum and American trucks, and American credit, we could never have won the Civil War-Jose Doussinague

Hmm, which segment of the American population is wealthy enough to carry one side to victory in a war that encompassed the entire Spanish population, the USSR, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Mexico, Ireland and German partisans? The working class of course!

[La Comédie Noire]

Its a great myth to to claim that the rise of fascism was the result of some sort of conspiracy. The Italian Communist Party in Italy was about the largest in Europe in the early 20s. Why were they so ineffective in resisting Musolini? Because as the chairman of that party himself said, all the workers joined the browns

I wasn't trying to imply that Fascism was a conspiracy, rather I was trying to show its popularity gave it an overwhelming moral and intellectual force that people of all political persuasions were unable to combat. Rather than fight it, most chose capitulation and while I wouldn't expect much from liberals or businessmen, the communists should have known better. I have no doubt it was the aforementioned belief in historical inevitability that led to some trying to ride the wave of history in a nihilistic attempt to just "get by."

But If I could speak in their defense, some of the best minds of the left were imprisoned or killed by the large scale repression that was carried out by the Italian and German fascists. In fact the first occupants of the concentration camps were leftists. To say they were the exact same or two sides of the same totalitarian coin is a lie that has grown steadily since the end of World War II. It started with the correct observation that both fascism and communism had Hegelian roots and has gotten more dishonest with each passing year.



It probably would do no good here to remind people that the National Socialists claimed that they were seeking to protect the Germans from the onslaughts of the Jews, Versailles ect ect ect. The National Socialists were "resisting" those forces who sought to grind down the Germans. And the National Socialists were of course "popular" (at least until perhaps 1941-42).

It is a dishonest political philosophy that attempts to paint the communists and national socialists with the same brush. The argument goes that both are political programmes of hatred which subscribe to a one villain theory of history. They take the ignorant masses (I should note here that a lot of liberals and conservatives today have lost that humanitarian creed so essential to politics and have become cynically elitist.) and mold their desires and passions, not into rational politics, but irrational destruction.

They both identified "enemies" of course, but the communists had the distinction of blaming the people who were actually in charge!

[OnlyCommunistYouKnow]

So... National Socialism?

[Revolutionair]

No.

[#FF0000]

So... National Socialism?

Nothing to do with Socialism in the Marxist sense.

But what people don't, uh, seem to realize is that "socialism" meant a lot of things. There were a lot of socialist ideologies up until the early 20th century. And p. much all of them were different from Marxist Socialism, if not totally against it.

For example: Yellow Socialism. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_socialism)

So like.

Yeah.

Whenever someone tries to bundle up Fascism in with Communism, that person is basically a simpleton of the highest caliber. And when they say "well fascism can be considered a form of socialism", it's already a pretty massive stretch and in the 21st century, where the only sort of 'socialism' that is anywhere close to relevant is Marxist socialism (or maybe social democracy if you want to include that), it's p. much an anachronism.

[Proukunin]

You know what it sounds like to me? Otto Rühle. Some anarchist gave me all these links to books and I went through them. Basically the message i got from these is "Bolshevism=Fascism('and the first needs to be fought to defeat the latter'...)". Supposedly the Italian fascists were really LEFT Wing and came from the communist tradition (ignoring the fact that the reality is that they were lumpenproletariat). I know, What The Fuck! The second was about how Che Guevara was an evil murderer and really a proto-Fascist. Arguments used were that he was romantic (essentially the point, although not worded like that) and believed in masculinity and fighting the oppressors, and believed that there needs to be a hierarchy of knowledge, Che: "Fidel [Castro] knows more than me, so i listen to him. I know more than you [speaking to uneducated peasant revolutionaries in Bolivia] so you listen to me". Yes, this is obviously Fascism... I swear, some anarchists are real idiots.

Um, IDK if that was a direct insult towards me or something but...I can assure you I haven't said anything even close to what you just posted.

I could also say the same thing about Marxists.

[Omsk]

No national-socialisms,socialist-nationalisms,national-communisms,or any other kind of dangereous deviations.

[Deicide]

Hmm. Didn't Comrade Stalin at one time, while being fuelled by paranoid delusions, obsessively label different ideologies and tendencies as ''Fascists''. He called Social Democrats ''Social Fascists'', etc, etc.

[Railyon]

So... National Socialism?

Only named themselves as such because "socialism" was a buzz word hip with the working class and the Nazis tried to cash in on that (in more sense than one).

I was part of the whole "fascism as bastardized socialism" shitfest over at libcom and I still think it's a) a mighty stretch and b) resting on false premises.

[Omsk]

Hmm. Didn't Comrade Stalin at one time, while being fuelled by paranoid delusions, obsessively label different ideologies and tendencies as ''Fascists''. E.G, he called Social Democrats ''Social Fascists'', etc, etc.


1. Unless you can show me the official medical sheat of Joseph Stalin,i will count this as simple provocative and 'insulting' words.It gives no weight to your,already false argument,so,if you could,no psychological analizing of various figures that are simply complex.

2.No,he didn't call different 'ideologies' Fascist.

3. The one who was actually really engaged in the theoretical foundations of "Social-Fascism" is Rajani Palme Dutt,and,the theory of Social-Fascism had roots in the past.

However,as this has little to do with the actual debate subject,i will count this as a provocation.

[#FF0000]

The social-fascism thing came from the fact that 1) social-democrats opposed revolution, and 2) they, like the fascists, had a corporatist vision for society -- which is true. Marxist socialism is all about class struggle, while fascism and, yeah, social democracy, are more about cooperation between the classes (just so happens that a lot of those 'yellow socialists' i mentioned earlier either went fascist or social-democrat as time went on).

But yeah.

[Omsk]

It does not mean that the Social-Democrats are de facto fascists.It can be said that the fascists,were the especially bloody and brutal enemies of the working class revolution,but on the other hand,the social-democratic deviationists were also a huge barrier,and they could not have been ignored. While the social-democratic circles were a barrier for the working class to fight fascism,they were not the ones who could establish themselves,an objectively fascists dictatorship,but,they could help to make that possible,and they did.

[Dzo Komunjara]

It's all about terms. If a fascist wants to be a left fascist - go on, i don't care. If anybody is so brutal to call him/herself a fascist and if they add left on it, it won't make them a less brutal person.

But, in practical use it is impossible to exist.

[l'Enfermé]

Um, what? It was Glorious Comrade Stalin that himself said that Social Democracy and Fascism are "twin brothers". The theory of "social fascism" became Comintern dogma after the 6th Comintern Congress, and Stalin was a great supporter of it. Surprisingly, this theory of "social fascism", supported by Stalin and forced on Communist Parties by Stalin's Comintern, didn't prevent the KPD from allying with the Nazis in Prussia on the Comintern's orders in 1931, in an attempt to remove the Social-Democrats from power.

That traitor Stalin would ally with the Nazis against the Social-Democracy, but he ordered his lackeys in the KPD not to fight against fascism with the SPD. What a scoundrel! If not for the disastrous and treacherous policy of the Stalinist Comintern, Europe would have been spared of Hitler and his Nazis, and tens of millions(27 million in the USSR alone!)would not have died at the hands of this bastard! And yet, some people have the nerve to defend and glorify this vile figure...it's beyond understanding.

[Omsk]

Um, what? It was Glorious Comrade Stalin that himself said that Social Democracy and Fascism are "twin brothers". The theory of "social fascism" became Comintern dogma after the 6th Comintern Congress, and Stalin was a great supporter of it. Surprisingly, this theory of "social fascism", supported by Stalin and forced on Communist Parties by Stalin's Comintern, didn't prevent the KPD from allying with the Nazis in Prussia on the Comintern's orders in 1931, in an attempt to remove the Social-Democrats from power.



I do not understand people who jump to the opportunity to show how little they know.

The theory of the twin-brothers,was not intended to somehow prove that social-democracy,and fascism are the same,but that they are similar in their opposition to the proletariat and the vanguard party,which was in Germany,the KPD,under Thalmann.Of course,Stalin never 'ordered' or 'forced' the KPD to follow it's line,in fact,that can be seen and proved from some of these lines: (Which you people never read,because you think you can 'criticize' Stalin based on a wiki article.)

"Social-fascism . . was the chief force making for the establishment of fascist dictatorship".
(E. Thalmann: Report to CC CPG, October 1929, in: J. Degras (Ed.): ibid.; p. 100).

"Is an alliance of the CPG and the SPG possible in the struggle against the Papen government and against fascism?
An alliance between the CPG and the SPG is impossible. . . .
We Communists reject any accord with the SPG leaders".
(E. Thalmann: "Answers to 21 Questions from Social-Democratic Workers"; Berlin; 1932; p.17).

Some more quotes from Thalmann himself.

"Social-fascism . . was the chief force making for the establishment of fascist dictatorship".
(E. Thalmann: Report to CC CPG, October 1929, in: J. Degras (Ed.): ibid.; p. 100).

And this line is close to the truth,because the SPD certainly blocked and made any possibe attempts for a KPD victory over the fascists and the contemporary government impossible.

And again,there is absolutely no proof that the SPD and KPD could have prevented the Nazis taking power.

The rest of your post is not wort adressing.

[TiberiusGracchus]

I often hear people use it as a derogatory term for organisations like Unite Against Fascism, when they try and forcibly prevent the BNP/EDL from having a public platform, the same people will also quote Churchill when he said "The Fascists of the future will be the anti-fascists."


Well, Churchill was obviously right there. The fascists of today do present themselves as anti-fascists. They are anti-"red fascists", anti-"PC fascists", anti- "islamofascists" etc.

[Baseball]

This is a blatant LIE. Are you trying to turn it into truth by Goebbelsian repetition? Where did you find such piece of disinformation?

Luís Henrique

From Shirer (Rise and Fall) and Kershaw's recent biographies.

[Railyon]

Well, Churchill was obviously right there. The fascists of today do present themselves as anti-fascists. They are anti-"red fascists", anti-"PC fascists", anti- "islamofascists" etc.

Don't forget the anti-anti-fascists.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=La Comédie Noire;2404621]I wasn't trying to imply that Fascism was a conspiracy, rather I was trying to show its popularity gave it an overwhelming moral and intellectual force that people of all political persuasions were unable to combat.

Because there was no offsetting ideology.


Rather than fight it, most chose capitulation and while I wouldn't expect much from liberals or businessmen,

The liberals were caught in the same vice they had been for 50 yrs- surrounded by "enemies" with no "natural allies." For example, they supported the plan to restore the monarchy, in which of curse the nazis and communists united to stop. The actions of the capitalists confirmed the observation of Mises that capitalists are the worst defenders of capitalism.


the communists should have known better.

Why? they faced the same problems the nazis faced- their members kept switching bak and forth.




But If I could speak in their defense, some of the best minds of the left were imprisoned or killed by the large scale repression that was carried out by the Italian and German fascists.

But it wasn't all after the fact; the problems remained for both parties during the 20s. Not merely seeking out votes, but keeping those voters from flipping.



In fact the first occupants of the concentration camps were leftists.

And who was targeted by Stalin? None of his opponents were really communists?




They both identified "enemies" of course, but the communists had the distinction of blaming the people who were actually in charge!

All your doing here is simply claiming the nazis were incorrect in their analysis of the situation. Which is fine, but it is not an offsetting ideology. A wealthy Jew was a target of both the browns and reds; both condemned foreign influences and foreign controls within Germany for example.

[#FF0000]

All your doing here is simply claiming the nazis were incorrect in their analysis of the situation. Which is fine, but it is not an offsetting ideology. A wealthy Jew was a target of both the browns and reds; both condemned foreign influences and foreign controls within Germany for example.

The nazis wanted an ethnically pure nation state and a stratified class system and the communists wanted to abolish class and national borders altogether. Also there were plenty of communist jews, thanks in large part to the awful conditions a ton of jews lived through in Europe.

Plus finding issues that fascists and communists have similar positions on (or things that they are both opposed to) don't really speak to any similarity if you don't address why each group opposes or supports a thing. For example, liberals and communists both opposed Jim Crow laws, but that does not make liberals and communists the same. At the same time, NeoNazis and Conservatives both support Israel against the Palestinians, increased border security, etc. etc. etc. but that does not make them the same.


Why? they faced the same problems the nazis faced- their members kept switching bak and forth.

No.

[Luís Henrique]

From Shirer (Rise and Fall) and Kershaw's recent biographies.

Page, exact quote?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

The nazis wanted an ethnically pure nation state and a stratified class system and the communists wanted to abolish class and national borders altogether.

Theoretically yes, but the KPD was quite certainly sliding into nationalism during the period.

But then this actually unmakes Baseball's false analogy of Nazis:Jews::Communists:the bourgeoisie.

...and while we should all oppose nationalism, we can realise it comes in degrees. Nazi nationalism is quite nationalism gone mad.

Luís Henrique

[La Comédie Noire]

The liberals were caught in the same vice they had been for 50 yrs- surrounded by "enemies" with no "natural allies." For example, they supported the plan to restore the monarchy, in which of curse the nazis and communists united to stop. The actions of the capitalists confirmed the observation of Mises that capitalists are the worst defenders of capitalism.

Of course, the liberals had only really dealt with wealthy elites before and had no practice or nuance in the art of sugaring the pill.

I only know of one instance where the Nazis and the Communists united. That was a Berlin Transit workers strike and as I understand it, it was an uneasy alliance at best. Though it should be noted it had the exact opposite effect of what the Nazis intended, instead of winning them a working class constituency, it actually scared away a lot of their middle class constituency.


Why? they faced the same problems the nazis faced- their members kept switching back and forth.

Though not for ideological reasons, unfortunately it was much more prosaic than that. People would join whatever organization gave them food, clothing, and a place to sleep. Something the KPD couldn't offer reliably, unlike the Nazi Party which had a war chest stuffed with money from business interests. Although there were a few close calls where they ran out of money and began losing membership.



And who was targeted by Stalin? None of his opponents were really communists?

It should be noted I don't happen to like Stalin either.


Off setting Ideology.

I hear this a lot from people who think politics should be about being "sane" and "rational". We are told that the period from 1918 to 1945 was a time of "insanity" in Europe and that everyone failed to follow the dictates of common sense. The Germans were used to an authoritarian model of government, they were not ready for the pleasures of democracy and the risks of freedom.

Frankly, I think this is a load of horseshit. The German people were overwhelmingly enthusiastic for democracy and showed it by voting reliably and often. It was when the system failed to deliver that they began to turn to alternatives. That you think these alternatives were the same is ridiculous and posits a "rational" third way that did not exist at the time.

Its an analysis of history that flourishes especially in the United States where there is a culture of suspicion against big government. Of course, while the American people search in vain for black helicopters in the sky, an alliance of big government and big business is taking away basic necessities. It is a mythic view of history that tricks liberal college professors and conservative christian Grandmas a like. They may take away our benefits and civil liberties, but we can all smile knowing that at least we didn't fall to "totalitarianism".

[human strike]

On the other hand, Mussolini's fascists proposed a more radical program of workers' participation than the TUC does...

[La Comédie Noire]

Certainly other political persuasions took things from leftists. Most of the ten planks of the communist manifesto have been implemented for instance. That doesn't mean we are living under socialism, though some people would like to think otherwise...

[No_Leaders]

I'd imagine it'd be like those clowns who formed a 'revolutionary leftwing' nationalist message board and cried because folks on revleft told them they weren't really radical leftists lol. Basically the term is a complete oxymoron but hey nationalists come up with silly ideas like forming 'marxist' nationalist groups.:rolleyes:

[fugazi]

It was used as a pejorative to describe the authoritarian, use of violence, and (alleged) anti-Semitism of groups like the Red Brigades and the RAF (assuming the ant-Semitic label would be applied moreso to the latter)

I don't necessarily agree with usage of the term but does anyone know where Habermas either coins or utilizes the term, I have a historical interest in both of those groups.

Former RAF members have themselves stated that their devotion to the struggle was turning them into fascists

[DOOM]

That's just an oxymoron and catchphrase used by right-wing centrists to discredit far-leftists. You sure heard that "the far left and the far right are the same guize", a way of comparing fascist terror with the pinnacle of humanism.
So basically they are using their own demons on us.

[tallguy]

If was assume two primary political dimensions that exist perpendicular to each other:

Authoritarian - Libertarian

Left - Right

Arguably, fascism lies at the far authoritarian end of the authoritarian/libertarian dimension. That being the case, it is possible to further argue that fascism may exist anywhere on the left/right dimension.

Authoritarianism, by definition, requires an extreme ruling class that rules without obstruction, least of all democratic obstruction. That's fascism.

[Baseball]

If was assume two primary political dimensions that exist perpendicular to each other:

Authoritarian - Libertarian

Left - Right

Arguably, fascism lies at the far authoritarian end of the authoritarian/libertarian dimension. That being the case, it is possible to further argue that fascism may exist anywhere on the left/right dimension.

Authoritarianism, by definition, requires an extreme ruling class that rules without obstruction, least of all democratic obstruction. That's fascism.


The fascists, however, were popular. Efforts to block Hitler's election, for example, would have been "democratic obstructionism" Certainly the various coup d'etat plots of the military in the 30s. Even Mussolini's election was "democratic" in the sense that he was extremely popular.
Fascism depends upon democratic principles (but not liberal ones- which explains why they were authoritarian, totalitarianect).

[Bala Perdida]

The paradigm of left and right is vague and flawed. My teacher gave us a political philosophy test in which I scored some sort of extreme liberal, and to be a communist you would have to be against sterotypically communist things like welfare and socialized medicine. We took another test where I was the only one in my class who scored leftist radical and everyone looked all concerned. Jajaja. Also apparently there's anarchist nationalism, or something weird like that when you Google it. You see pictures of guys in black holding a flag with a star and the acronym NAM

[synthesis]

Man, if this thread had gotten resurrected today, I would've thought it was on purpose.

[Sasha]

my two cents; one can not deny that the "left" of the "extreme-right" (social-facism, strasserism etc) and the "right" of the "extreme-left" (stalinism etc) at times have only cosmetic differences, while the racism of the extremely authoritarian nationalists on the "left" takes often a more orientalist form than that of those on the "right" a look on their positions on gays and women, the abolition of labor, democratic representation or the nation state for examples is often quite telling.
but like said already a lot of times in this thread, it only shows the bankruptcy of the "left-right" paradigm

[Atsumari]

I am surprised no one mentioned Milosevic yet. The guy ran on an "anti-fascist" platform while promoting a very dangerous form of nationalism as well as ethnic conflict. He is the closest thing I can think of when I hear left-wing fascism.

Needless to say, I think he is a fraud in every way possible when it comes to his ideology.

Check this out as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Social_Nationalist_Party

[EmilyComintern]

Not going to lie, I had to look at the title twice because I thought I read it wrong.

But yeah, "Left-Fascism" Is about on level with National Bolshevism and National Anarchists.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Milošević received more parliamentary support from fascists than he did from his own wife. His anti-fascism was strictly for foreign consumption (which is not to say that he was any worse than the other warlords and nationalist leaders of the region).

Anyway, the left-right distinction strictly refers to bourgeois politics - the bourgeois left being those bourgeois politicians who still, somewhat naively, hold to the ideals of the great bourgeois revolutions and look to the era of progressive capitalism, and the right those whose ideology is based on the historic compromise of the ascendant bourgeoisie with the remnants of the old order against the proletariat. Communists are called "left" only by analogy; properly speaking, communism is outside this distinction.

Usually, the right is in favor of less regimentation in capitalism, and the left in favor of more, but again, this has nothing to do with socialism - socialists don't want a regimented capitalism, we want to abolish capitalism.

[synthesis]

Anyway, the left-right distinction strictly refers to bourgeois politics - the bourgeois left being those bourgeois politicians who still, somewhat naively, hold to the ideals of the great bourgeois revolutions and look to the era of progressive capitalism, and the right those whose ideology is based on the historic compromise of the ascendant bourgeoisie with the remnants of the old order against the proletariat. Communists are called "left" only by analogy; properly speaking, communism is outside this distinction.

The left-right paradigm itself is literally a bourgeois invention, historically speaking. I think Marxists should look at it as basically meaningless and a hindrance to substantive class analysis.

[liberlict]

What in the hell is this?

Okay so sometimes I type in paradoxical political beliefs in Google to see if there is any group claiming to be them..Well, Wikipedia has an article on Left Fascism.

Supposedly it something like left-wing terrorists who incorporate ideals of socialism into fascism..

Sounds like Glenn Beck wrote this article to me.

Hayek wrote a bunch of books about Fascisms all branching from the same seed. He defines communism as a kind of fascism, so maybe that's where the ambiguity comes from. Also, Zbigniew Brzezinski popularized 'totalitarianism' as meaning communism and fascism equally. Communists would of course point out that communism in the 20th century was not communism. But I think that's why some people think of the rev-left as totalitarian---they associate it with Cuba and the USSR and North Korea, which might seem functionally equivalent to Nazi Germany in their estimations.

[Mrcapitalist]

Left wing Fascism is an oxymoron.Fascism is an Ultra-nationalist,Militarist,Imperialist,Economic third positionist,Anti-liberal,Anti-communist,anti socialist,and anti-parliamentary ideology.Only a few Fascist regimes at least had some social and economic centre left or left wing goals.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Arguably, fascism lies at the far authoritarian end of the authoritarian/libertarian dimension. That being the case, it is possible to further argue that fascism may exist anywhere on the left/right

Right-wing politics are by definition in favor of social hierarchy, so it unequivocally follows that fascism is right-wing. Fascism is opposed to egalitarianism. It promotes the Social Darwinism and right of superior people to dominate those deemed inferior.

[tallguy]

Right-wing politics are by definition in favor of social hierarchy, so it unequivocally follows that fascism is right-wing. Fascism is opposed to egalitarianism. It promotes the Social Darwinism and right of superior people to dominate those deemed inferior.So, would you agree that fascism is expressible as total authoritarianism (the most extreme form of social hierarchy possible), yes?

If you do, then would you discount any authoritarian regime that would otherwise describe itself as socialist as bogus in terms of those socialist credentials. In other words, as a fascist regime in disguise? I'm not trying to play games here. I am looking for an honest answer to an honest question. You seem to be arguing that it is impossible for a socialist regime to be authoritarian unless I have misunderstood you.

[Redistribute the Rep]

So, you would agree that facism is expressible as extreme authoritarianism, yes?

If you do, then would you discount any authoritarian regime that would otherwise describe itself as socialist as bogus in terms of those socialist credentials. In other words, as a fascist regime in disguise? I'm not trying to play games here. I am looking for an honest answer to an honest question. You seem to be arguing that it is impossible for a socialist regime to be authoritarian unless I have misunderstood you.

I think you've misunderstood me. I meant that right wing implies that it favors rigid social hierarchy. Authoritarian states aren't necessarily right wing (although it the case of fascism they are) because they can, theoretically, be used as a temporary entity to eliminate counterrevolutionary elements and accelerate society on its path to egalitarianism.

I described fascism as right wing not because of the level of statism, but because of its extreme nationalism and Social Darwinism.

[tallguy]

I think you've misunderstood me. I meant that right wing implies that it favors rigid social hierarchy. Authoritarian states aren't necessarily right wing (although it the case of fascism they are) because they can, theoretically, be used as a temporary entity to eliminate counterrevolutionary elements and accelerate society on its path to egalitarianism.

I described fascism as right wing not because of the level of statism, but because of its extreme nationalism and Social Darwinism.Then I think we are dancing with words here. Or, rather, I think you are defining fascism in such a way as to only include a certain sub-class of political thought. which I think is philosophically disingenuous. I may have further misunderstood you, so please bear with me.

If we take an Ayn-Randian extreme form of right wing anarchist libertarianism, this would regard itself as far from fascism as it is possible to be. Of course, someone like me would argue that such a philosophy is flawed because, without some kind of constraint on some humans some of the time, such an anarchistic system would eventually collapse into a system where a tiny minority were able to rig the "free" markets such that they were no longer free (in other words, fascism). Thus destroying the Randian wet dream in short order. However, at least in principle, if not in practice, this form of right wing philosophy is anathema to fascism.

However, there is another form of right wing philosophy that overtly esposes a dictatorship of the "strong" over the "weak". In whoch case we can easily identify such a phiosophy as fascist.

Conversely, we can take a socialist libertarian anarchist philosophy and find that this, too, would consider itself anathema to fascism. However, it is possible to equally argue that such a system would, in the absence of some degree of limitation of liberty of individuals to act as they please, quickly deteriorate into factions competing for power such that eventually one of them would gain sufficient advantage as to dictate to others. Again, conversely, there would be others who would call themselves socialists who would consider that the above risks of deterioration are sufficient that an authoritarian regime would be the only way of ensuring that such deterioration did not occur. however, in assuming an authoritarian position of power, they too could be accused of adopting similar functional system of power as the right wing facists could they not?

My question to you is this. Why do you consider only a right wing form of extreme authoritarianism to be fascistic? What name do you have for extreme left wing authoritarianism? Of, if you consider that all forms of right wing anarchism will eventually and inevitably deteriorate to authoritarianism in the absence of some degree of limitations on liberty, why do you not equally consider that all forms of left wing anarchism will not equally and inevitably deteriorate in the absence of such limitations?

[ComradeViktor]

There's no doubt that modern neo-fascism is a genuinely right-wing, authoritarian ideology centered on empowering the interests of a secluded race, culture, or religion.

However, let's not ignore that fascism used to be a left wing ideology for it's time. The idea behind the founding of fascism was that socialism was a good economic system in upholding the interests of the national proletariat and petit bourgeoisie, but it's problem was internationalism. Because the founding documents and people of fascism were extremely nationalist, denying the Marxian concept of World Revolution.

So this is where terms like "National Socialism," "Conservative Revolution," and "Third Position" come along. Out of a belief that fascism is a mix of two sides in the spectrum, which separates it from the spectrum altogether. Socialist economics from the left wing, and Nationalist fervor from the right wing.

The first leader to put fascism in to practice was a former socialist, Benito Mussolini from what was the Kingdom of Italy. Until he was kicked out of the Party for being overly reckless in his revolutionary activism [perhaps a mistake of on our (fellow comrades of Socialism/Communism) parts]. His economic policies were often along the lines of Syndicalist. Creating economic enterprises of shared powers between petit bourgeois managers and the proletariat, also leaving the peasants almost autonomous altogether!

Now of course, our modern conception of fascism is a product of the greater fascist power that emerged and committed some of the most notorious atrocities in history, the Greater German Reich, aka Nazi Germany. Modern neo-fascists, as you'd find in the Third KKK, Golden Dawn, NSM, The Right Sector, IronMarch forums, etc., generally subscribe to this "NazionaleSozialismus" variant of fascism. Which is racist, totalitarian, reactionary, and somewhat more tolerant of a plutocratic, state-sponsored form of capitalism. Rather then the early 20th century nationalist variant of what is arguably old-style socialism.

But there is still a few fragments that represent early fascism. Including The National Bolshevik Party, neo-Strasserist/Black Front movements, the modern Falangist Party in Spain, and arguably the Ba'athist movement in the Middle East.

[keine_zukunft]

Fascism and national socialism do have essentially leftwing roots but deviated into sinister ideologies of segregation, extermination and total control. look at casapound for example. i last heard they have been giving lectures on marx!!

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Fascism and national socialism do have essentially leftwing roots [...]

Only to the extent that Mussolini was formerly in the PSI, and that he was joined by former syndicalists and anarchists who had turned to chauvinism in the First World War. There was, however, nothing "left wing" about Italian fascism, from the day the first fascist squads were organised to the collapse of the Salò regime.


but deviated into sinister ideologies of segregation, extermination and total control.

It didn't "deviate" into anything, chauvinism, militarism and extreme conservatism were part of fascism since its founding.


look at casapound for example. i last heard they have been giving lectures on marx!!

So what? They're still fascist scum. Are you trying to say leftists have anything in common with CasaPound?

[keine_zukunft]

So what? They're still fascist scum. Are you trying to say leftists have anything in common with CasaPound?

Im pointing out that the right is trying to co-opt elements of leftist economic critique not trying to say that they are anything but fascists. but let's look at these groups, they do have certain things in common with left wing groups too. obviously their aims are different, look at the autonomen nazis and casapound who show solidarity with palestine and with the ira sure their reasons for supporting them are different. but this is the face of the new wave of fascism is that it's become more of a nationalism for all, so they can have a false veneer of equality. as for your other points fascism in the italian sense was a deviation from syndicalism, infact there's historical evidence that certain groups of italian fascists fought against franco despite the official line which was pro-franco. there is a difference between ultra-conservatism and fascism. the deviation wasn't an accident the deviation was entirely deliberate and then it was obviously fused with the national element. If you read some their theory like say for example books that have come out of the french new right, there is a clear defined leftist theorectical influence infact thinkers like alain de benoiste openly say that they take ideas from gramsci and althusser!! i think it's important that politics can intersect and that the dichotomy between left and right doesn't always apply. this is even more so especially with the evolution of fascist theory and new popularity of national anarchism within the past 25 years or so.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Im pointing out that the right is trying to co-opt elements of leftist economic critique

It always has, even before fascism. You can find a lot of backhanded praise of socialism in the works of the arch-reactionary Donoso Cortez, for example.


not trying to say that they are anything but fascists. but let's look at these groups, they do have certain things in common with left wing groups too.

I have to admit that statements of this sort have always puzzled me. "They have something in common." Everything has something in common with something else. The question is - are these similarities significant? And what does that mean, politically?

I don't see any significant similarities between fascism and socialism. But since you do, one can legitimately ask you - what does that mean, politically? If you think groups like CasaPound have moved closer to socialism, what does that mean for our relation to these groups?


as for your other points fascism in the italian sense was a deviation from syndicalism

Not really. At most, there were former syndicalists like de Ambris, who had turned to chauvinism, in the early fascist movement. The movement itself began with a fusion of the most extreme chauvinist wing of the social patriots, veteran's associations, and certain Liberal elements.


infact there's historical evidence that certain groups of italian fascists fought against franco despite the official line which was pro-franco.

What groups? And again, what does that mean to you, politically?


i think it's important that politics can intersect and that the dichotomy between left and right doesn't always apply.

Why is it important?

[Mrcapitalist]

Only to the extent that Mussolini was formerly in the PSI, and that he was joined by former syndicalists and anarchists who had turned to chauvinism in the First World War. There was, however, nothing "left wing" about Italian fascism, from the day the first fascist squads were organised to the collapse of the Salò regime.

"There were a few, usually small, fascist movements whose social and economic goals were left or left-centrist. Hendrik de Man in Belgium and Marcel Déat in France, both former socialists, were among those who hoped eventually to achieve a fairer distribution of wealth by appealing to fascist nationalism and class conciliation. In Poland the Camp of National Radicalism (Oboz Narodowo-Raykalny) supported land reform and the nationalization of industry, and fascists in Libya and Syria advocated Arab socialism. In Japan, Kita Ikki, an early theorist of Japanese fascism, called for the nationalization of large industries, a limited degree of worker control, and a modern welfare program"
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/202210/fascism/219368/Conservative-economic-programs

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Britannica assumes a bourgeois notion of "leftism", and furthermore assumes that "economic policy" can be separated from the rest of the ideological framework. Communists leftists don't advocate a welfare state, nationalisation under a bourgeois state, or class collaboration.

[#FF0000]

Opposition to liberal economics or even capitalism doesn't equate to leftism. Mistrust of free market economics has been and is common among arch conservatives.

[Primagen]

What in the hell is this?

Okay so sometimes I type in paradoxical political beliefs in Google to see if there is any group claiming to be them..Well, Wikipedia has an article on Left Fascism.

Supposedly it something like left-wing terrorists who incorporate ideals of socialism into fascism..

Sounds like Glenn Beck wrote this article to me.

When people use the term, they're often referring to a sort of system where a centralized power is used to enforce their idea of equality, like the Khmer Rogue. I've also heard the term used in reference to hate-speech laws in Europe being used to weed out political dissidents, like heresy laws. This is a particularly common concern for anyone who discusses the dangers of Islamization in the West, regardless of whether or not the offenders have actually expressed racist views (from my experience, they don't, more often than not.)

As with anything that has the word "fascism," the term is mostly used as a rhetorical device, and discussions over "left-wing fascism" are more over semantics than over the fundamental merits of any system.