Fascist analysis of capitalism

[Alexander99]

One of the things I think about fascism is that although it was responsible for horrific crimes in the 21st century and is an evil ideology from an intellectual view fascism has more in common with communism and any other ideology than free-market capitalism because it is opposed to capitalism in theory. Fascists are opposed to imperialism like Communists are.

The fascist analysis of capitalism is that "high finance" and cosmopolitanism are wrong but petty-bourgeois "small" capitalists are not wrong to an extent.

This also leads me to question why are free-market monetarists in favour of globalization and social liberalism. For example, the economist magazine and the financial times, two organs of "high finance" and cheer leaders of the free market, regularly have articles praising equal marriage, gay rights and multiculturalism.

This leads me to a conclusion that free-market monetarists are as immoral as fascists. The number of people who die from malnutrition because of third world poverty out numbers the victims of fascism. And the number of people who die because of world trade and capitalism is greater than those who were killed by fascists. The difference between fascism and free-market monetarism is that free-market monetarism won and is winning. Fascists want a racist state because they believe it to be in societies best interests. History shows that it is not in societies best interests although you can argue that Fascists saw that it was in the best interests of who they looked after (their own race). Free-market monetarists want a free-market because they believe it to be in societies best interests but to hold that position they have to be also blind to the death, famine and conflict around them whereas fascism is at least coherent in its terror because they arguably did look after what they saw as their "own race". It seems to me that wanting the best for your own "race" is as immoral as ignoring the problems of capitalism and wanting the best for a minority of the rich to the detriment of all peoples.

In that case, worshiping capital the same way fascists worship their own race is immoral and to the detriment of society.

[Skyhilist]

Fascists are opposed to imperialism? Yes I'm sure that was Hitler's mindset when he invaded Poland.

[subcp]

That sounds like base apologia for the 'socialism of fools', going back to the right-wings of Social Democracy and the Comintern, people like Mussolini and Juenger; the breeding ground of contemporary 'social justice' fascism in the 'National Bolshevik'/'Third Positionist' nonsense that does nothing but draw people into support of capitalism and the worst excesses of capitalist society (the inevitable violent xenophobic and racist practice underlying this pseudo-Marxist language). It sounds like you want a way to claim to be a communist and hold on to backward, reactionary prejudices.

Being a communist means not supporting any ideologies. Not supporting recuperative efforts to make capitalism a better place. But it also means recognizing that only communism, a classless, stateless world community, can break down all of the barriers that divide people (race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality) definitively.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Fascists are opposed to imperialism? Yes I'm sure that was Hitler's mindset when he invaded Poland.

Some fascists dont considr Nazism fascism, for which they do have a few good points.

[Skyhilist]

Some fascists dont considr Nazism fascism, for which they do have a few good points.

OK, substitute Hitler's imperialism for Franco's or Mousolini's. Makes no difference since they were all obvious imperialists.

[helot]

One of the things I think about fascism is that although it was responsible for horrific crimes in the 21st century and is an evil ideology from an intellectual view fascism has more in common with communism and any other ideology than free-market capitalism because it is opposed to capitalism in theory.

I disagree. Fascism isn't opposed to capitalism in theory nor practice. At best you can argue that its rhetoric can take slight anti-capitalist connotations but has historically emerged in the context of a strong labour movement and used to push workers away from focussing on the actual problems of capitalism and passing blame not on capitalism but on an 'other' thats invariably a cultural and/or ethnic minority.

Fascism's aim is to weaken the working class.



Fascists are opposed to imperialism like Communists are. Seriously?



The fascist analysis of capitalism is that "high finance" and cosmopolitanism are wrong but petty-bourgeois "small" capitalists are not wrong to an extent. It appeals to the petit bourgeosie yet furthers the aims of the haute bourgeoisie.





The difference between fascism and free-market monetarism is the lack of honesty and wide scale deception that actually makes it worse than fascism. Fascists are honest about what they want. They want a racist state because they believe it to be in societies best interests. History shows that it is not in societies best interests although you can argue that Fascists saw that it was in the best interests of who they looked after (their own race). Free-market monetarists want a free-market because they believe it to be in societies best interests but to hold that position they have to be voluntarily blind to the death, famine and conflict around them. It seems to me that wanting the best for your own "race" is just as immoral as ignoring the problems of capitalism and wanting the best for a minority of the rich to the detriment of all peoples.

You're mistaking rhetoric for policy. Free-market monetarists as you call them don't want a free-market because they believe it to be in society's best interests but because they see it as in the best interests of their class.

[Nevsky]

Modern far-rightists may spew out bullshit about how they are not imperialist/not nazi but don't let them fool you. A fascist is always social-darwinist and idealizes "nations" and "peoples" as if they were individuals. And in social-darwinist ideology there is always a conflict between all the parties involved. For a randian reactionary, the conflict happens between individuals, the fascist on the other hand sees the conflict betweenn "peoples". Of course you also have those kind of new age "traditionalist" who dissociate themselves from fascism and claim to simply worship old european culture, pagan gods, nature and whatnot but I don't include those types in the dangerous fascist category because of their lack of nationalism.

I absolutely diagree with the idea of fascists being "better" than liberals because they are more "honest". What the fuck? So a genuine liberal humanist who happens to be involved in a bad system is worse than someone who openly admits that he wants to exterminate other people? I think you would reconsider your thoughts on fascism vs. liberal-capitalism if you were living in a fascist surveillance state instead of our developed liberal nations.

[#FF0000]

Sup again, Graffic.


Fascists are opposed to imperialism like Communists are.

Uhh, no they certainly aren't. Neither in theory nor practice.


This also leads me to question why are free-market monetarists in favour of globalization and social liberalism.Because capitalism needs constant growth and because they don't care who kisses who or whatever.


This means Communists shouldn't have anything in common with bourgeois identity politics and their approach to internationalism and gay rights should be completely different, and it should be as different as it is with fascism instead of the mainstream nonsense that "multiculturalism" and social liberalism are victories for "the Left".There's a whole lotta capitalists who are also opposed to multiculturalism and gay marriage. Taking your reasoning here, we're taking on "capitalist ideology" one way or another.

I agree, though, that "bourgeois identity politics" suck. However, what you fail (intentionally, I suspect, because I have a hard time believing people can be so thick) is that marxists have a fundamentally different approach to these social issues than liberals. You, however, just seem to look at us, see that we don't hate gay people or women or immigrants, and think that means we're coming from the same place as free-market libertarians in our thinking, which is a supremely shallow way of looking at things.

You're bad at this, Graffic. please stop.

[Alexander99]

Being a communist means not supporting any ideologies. Not supporting recuperative efforts to make capitalism a better place. But it also means recognizing that only communism, a classless, stateless world community, can break down all of the barriers that divide people (race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality) definitively.

But contrary to capitalist media it would seem to me that fascism has more in common with Communism than with free-market capitalism. Fascists oppose imperialism and are opposed to big business exploitation in theory. From an objective materialist analysis that holds greater moral weight than free-market capitalists who support exploitation and big business but also support gay rights and multi-culturalism.

I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what free-market monetarism is all about. When you study politics you learn to coherently explain fascism, communism, conservatism, liberalism and other ideologies but free-market monetarism is outside of all of it because it has no moral base. Its basically saying shafting everyone is fine. And what I'm saying is that from a humanitarian perspective anyone who agrees first and foremost that shafting people is fundamentally wrong, whether they be fascists or whatever, are more moral than those who think shafting people is fine, whatever else they must believe. Every single religion and philosophy acknowledges that shafting people is wrong other than free-market monetarism that appeared in the 80's.

You learn when you are a child to share and that stealing is wrong. Free-market individualism isn't just an affront to humanity, its an attack against our fundamental nature more serious than any other ideology or religion that came before it.

[helot]

Why are people calling this person Graffic? Was Graffic some fascist sympathiser on here from before? If so i think it's better to assume this is a different fascist sympathiser unless there's evidence to the contrary

[Alexander99]

Why are people calling this person Graffic? Was Graffic some fascist sympathiser on here from before? If so i think it's better to assume this is a different fascist sympathiser unless there's evidence to the contrary

I'm not a fascist sympathiser. Fascism is an evil ideology.

I was saying that free-market individualism is as morally bankrupt as nationalism in theory and free-market liberalism is almost as bad as fascism.

The elite and the powerful are no longer the conservative Landed gentry who owned 3/4s of the country and provided jobs for the little people in it. The conservative landed gentry, who may have been religious, conservative and homophobic protected their own country and investment in it.

Free market individualists see politics as a way of grabbing power and making their own millions at any price to society and with no sense of duty to country. The new globalised elite don't care about ties to nation.

Theoretically although the old landed gentry were hated by the have nots, the old landed gentry did a better job at protecting their country and its people because they were moral and they did not believe in individualism. From a materialistic perspective the starting point of being moral and not believing in shafting people for your own benefit objectively outweighs any liberal tolerance of multiculturalism and gay rights.

I refuse to go a long with the bullying mockery and see a Catholic priest who spends energy helping the poor and in class struggle as a "homophobe" by a globalised secular elite who only care about themselves. From the outside it looks like a very impoverished and thin idea of social good.

The idea that anyone who believes in the tenets of free-market individualism can tell me whats "moral" or see themselves as morally superior to religious fundamentalists or fascists is completely wrong. Free-market individualism is a debased, primal ideology which makes religion look sophisticated and modern, and makes conservatism look advanced, but the media tell us individualism and "the market" is the "future".

[#FF0000]

Why are people calling this person Graffic? Was Graffic some fascist sympathiser on here from before? If so i think it's better to assume this is a different fascist sympathiser unless there's evidence to the contrary

because i'm a nerd who remembers internet arguments like a chessmaster.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socially-liberal-right-t176928/index.html?t=176928&highlight=Graffic

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Free market monetarists and fascists are just different factions of the capitalist class. One wants monetary value defined by the free market, the other wants political and economic power to be monopolized by a particular community of humanity which will be less constrained by the travails of the market than other communities.

[Tifosi]

Fascists oppose imperialism and are opposed to big business exploitation in theory.

And Mussolini the anti-imperialist went on a massive campaign were he took control of many Greek Islands, Balearic Islands, Albania, Libya, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia. Come on, basic shit here.

Or Franco and Western Sahara, Northern Morocco and Equatorial Guinea

Or the Estado Novo in Angola, Mozambique, Timor-Leste, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bassau and São Tomé and Príncipe.

Fascists love string up nationalist fever with 'good' old military showings abroad and the prestige of victory.

[Alexander99]

Free market monetarists and fascists are just different factions of the capitalist class. One wants monetary value defined by the free market, the other wants political and economic power to be monopolized by a particular community of humanity which will be less constrained by the travails of the market than other communities.

I agree but money being the source of liberty is an extremely impoverished, thin, backward anti-human idea.

The religious attitude that money is not the source of liberty and that the free-market is a bad idea is more morally entrancing and persuasive than the free-market regardless if they are opposed to gay marriage.

The idea that "liberal tolerance" resides at the apex of public morality is an effort by the powerful (because there is money behind these issues, there has to be) to encourage us so that our sense of civic morality is an almost cost-benefit analysis collectively. It is about mass consumer, collective utilitarian decisions.

No one says they "don't care either way" about a raise in taxes. People are either in favour or against. Why is it any different with equal marriage or any other issue?

The legislation on gay marriage is an extension of a libertarian elite who were given power in the 1980's and now are more powerful than the government so instead of the government governing and reigning back corporations, in globalisation the government "manages" instead. The collective utilitarian decisions are a way of managing society. When the government take ideas from the left (such as gay rights) it weakens opposition to capitalism.

Because the establishment and elite are now libertarian they are not only above Conservative ideology, but above all ideology so the government does not govern by ideology, it "manages", and the gay marriage legislation is a recent manifestation of that. Its chutzpah from corporations designed to bring out the religious and conservatives and mock them because they have no power, will lose the fight and will make the government seem "leftist" and weaken opposition to neo-liberalism.

[TheEmancipator]

The OP is confusing fascists like Mussolini (who claimed the the Mediteranian would be an Italian lake) with nationalist-populists like Metaxas. However, even people like Metaxas are ready to engage in pointless warmongering to strengthen their grip on capital in their countries and build the war propaganda up.

[subcp]

But contrary to capitalist media it would seem to me that fascism has more in common with Communism than with free-market capitalism. Fascists oppose imperialism and are opposed to big business exploitation in theory. From an objective materialist analysis that holds greater moral weight than free-market capitalists who support exploitation and big business but also support gay rights and multi-culturalism.

Hardley; compare the wages and profits at major industrial enterprises like Krupp before and after the fascist seizure of power. With the workers movement physically annihilated by the repressive-coercive, reinforced state apparatus, German industrialists increased the rate of exploitation while vastly increasing productivity through technical and scientific innovations.

History is not a battle of ideas that shape society; the free-market rhetoric of politicians in the US and Britain, the 'socialist' phraseology of Vietnam, China and Cuba, and the fascist ravings in Italy and Germany meant little to the actual practice of these regimes (who all have to act in the interest of capital accumulation- which often involves state intervention in the domestic economy).

[T5seconds]

The legislation on gay marriage is an extension of a libertarian elite who were given power in the 1980's.

Wait a second, I usually just read, but I call bullshit on this. The legislation comes from a raising of national conscienceness. You forget that humanity consistently takes steps towards the social ideas of equality. (albeit with missteps) blaming it totaly on the "libertarian elite" completely looks over the fact that there is a general call for Marriage to be equalized. Also, your looking into a board full of people who are probably the least elitist (I hope) friendly, who all believe it should be equalized. So your argument that this legislation comes from just our enemies is bullshit. I'm a christian, but I fucking hate religion for the very reason that your a hypocrite, and your conserving an old order of bigotry.

In short, not one person who has responded to you is a "libertarian elite" and we all want the same thing, a world without bigotry. So. Your just wrong.

[Alexander99]

Wait a second, I usually just read, but I call bullshit on this. The legislation comes from a raising of national conscienceness. You forget that humanity consistently takes steps towards the social ideas of equality. (albeit with missteps) blaming it totaly on the "libertarian elite" completely looks over the fact that there is a general call for Marriage to be equalized. Also, your looking into a board full of people who are probably the least elitist (I hope) friendly, who all believe it should be equalized. So your argument that this legislation comes from just our enemies is bullshit. I'm a christian, but I fucking hate religion for the very reason that your a hypocrite, and your conserving an old order of bigotry.

In short, not one person who has responded to you is a "libertarian elite" and we all want the same thing, a world without bigotry. So. Your just wrong.

No because if we were still ruled by the old Conservative elite something like equal marriage wouldn't come about. Its only because of free market reforms encouraging individualism which have allowed foreign people and corporations to become more powerful affecting politics so that it does not represent ideology. The type of people in the Conservative party who would oppose this and prevent it from happening have been driven out by Libertarian, socially liberal "Conservatives" similar to the way that old Labour people have been driven out of the Labour party and replaced by "New Labour" people who are also libertarian free-market believers. Libertarianism is bourgeois ideology that does not have feudal ideology within Conservatism bogging it down, and its taken over, which is an inevitable consequence of giving power to corporations. "Gay Marriage" is a symptom of the death of old fashioned Conservative morality as a force in politics, and its been replaced with individualism and Libertarianism.

Although the parasdox is that libertarianism is an inherently elitist ideology (it does not stir crowds like Communism, nationalism and fascism do) so instead of Burkean one nation conservatives being replaced by libertarian yuppies, there simply aren't enough libertarian yuppies out there so there has been a decline of participation in politics both in voting turnout and party membership.

There has been no mass protests or marches for gay marriage like the protests for homosexual rights in the 60's and 70's, or the marches for black civil rights in the 50's and 60's because its an elitist measure enforced by a Libertarian elite which corporatises the homosexual rights struggle and weakens opposition to neo-liberalism because it makes it look as though the left are in power.

[Lex Talionis]

One of the things I think about fascism is that although it was responsible for horrific crimes in the 21st century and is an evil ideology from an intellectual view fascism has more in common with communism and any other ideology than free-market capitalism because it is opposed to capitalism in theory.

Fascism is opposed to capitalism in a way, yes. Fascism does not like the globalism and the pursuit of hedonistic, private interests rather than the interests of the collective (i.e, in the case of fascism, the nation.)


Fascists are opposed to imperialism like Communists are.

This depends on the fascist you talk to. Some are in favor of imperialism, some are not.


This leads me to a conclusion that free-market monetarists are as immoral as fascists. The number of people who die from malnutrition because of third world poverty out numbers the victims of fascism. And the number of people who die because of world trade and capitalism is greater than those who were killed by fascists.

I agree with you. Honestly I would rather live under fascism than I would this society. At least in fascism they at least pursue the national interest.


Fascists want a racist state because they believe it to be in societies best interests. History shows that it is not in societies best interests although you can argue that Fascists saw that it was in the best interests of who they looked after (their own race).

Racist state? That depends on the fascist in question. Mussolini had a spiritual conception of race; he thought of race in the cultural sense. Franco had a racial hierarchy but his state did not treat other races badly and actually promoted race mixing. In regards to modern fascism today, there are certainly a notable amount of racist fascists, but there are also non-racist fascists who do not want a racist state. Especially American fascists.

[BIXX]

I agree with you. Honestly I would rather live under fascism than I would this society. At least in fascism they at least pursue the national interest.

Dude, no. I doubt you'd be saying that if you were a dissident in a fascist state, and if you say you wouldn't be a dissident, then you are a fascist. Pick one.



Racist state? That depends on the fascist in question. Mussolini had a spiritual conception of race; he thought of race in the cultural sense. Franco had a racial hierarchy but his state did not treat other races badly and actually promoted race mixing. In regards to modern fascism today, there are certainly a notable amount of racist fascists, but there are also non-racist fascists who do not want a racist state. Especially American fascists.

Dude... Have you ever talked to a fascist? Specifically an American one? Trust me, they are 99% racists.

[Lex Talionis]

Dude, no. I doubt you'd be saying that if you were a dissident in a fascist state, and if you say you wouldn't be a dissident, then you are a fascist. Pick one.

I would be a dissident but that's because I disagree with the idea of ultranationalism and duty to one's nation. I don't believe you should fully dedicate your life to your nation. However, they pursue what they believe best for their nation, I give them credit for at least wanting to do that.

Also, the statement you said is like saying if someone wasn't a dissident in socialist state that would make them a socialist. That's not always the case, they could just be apathetic.


Dude... Have you ever talked to a fascist? Specifically an American one? Trust me, they are 99% racists.

I have talked to fascists before. The ones that I talk to aren't racist. They actually have problems with boneheads, National Socialists, Klansmen, etc. American fascists I've talked to are especially against racism as the nation has no real racial foundation.

[Paul Pott]

Fascism (I'm talking in the traditional, Mussolini-ist, Falangist sense, not the racial baggage that National Socialism and its modern offshoots imported, and which modern fascism is often reduced to) opposes liberalism. Much like the liberals themselves, fascists conflate liberalism with capitalism.

Marxists understand capitalism as a set of property relations, not as an economic policy. It doesn't matter whether the market is "free" or not. Fascist critiques of capitalism are therefore not critiques of capitalism, but attacks on the ideology of liberalism.

[ComradeOm]

I agree with you. Honestly I would rather live under fascism than I would this society. At least in fascism they at least pursue the national interestEven when the "national interest" involved the industrial slaughter of millions in a campaign of racial extermination. Admirable, eh?


Racist state? That depends on the fascist in question. Mussolini had a spiritual conception of race; he thought of race in the cultural sense. Franco had a racial hierarchy but his state did not treat other races badly and actually promoted race mixingSomeone's never read Mussolini's Manifesto of Race (http://www.andreafedi.com/216/doku.php/216:manifesto_of_race). Here's a teaser:


IT IS TIME THAT ITALIANS DECLARE THEMSELVES RACIST. All the work that the Regime has done until now in Italy is essentially a form of racism. The invocation of the concepts of the race has always been very frequent in the speeches of our Leader. The issue of racism in Italy must be dealt with from a purely biological point of view, without any philosophical or religious implications

The idea that Mussolini's regime was not racist, or simply imported racism from Germany, is absolute nonsense. Even if not as biologically grounded (initially) as the Nazi variant, Italian Fascism was brutal in its treatment of ethnic minorities and those races considered inferior. Witness the treatment meted out to the Slovenes, Greeks, Turks and Ethiopians: deportations, concentration camps, racial hygiene laws and forced Italianisation. Try telling someone in Rab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rab_concentration_camp) that the Fascists weren't racist :rolleyes:

[Bronco]

The relationship between racism and Italian fascism was a very complicated one, that manifesto is from the late 30s and a time when the regime was undergoing a process of far greater radicalism, militarism and racialism, which were further exacerbated after the conquest of Ethiopa and the subsequent greater isolation of Italy after the League of Nations sanctions. I'd say the main reason Fascist Italy increasingly came to embrace this path near the end of the 30s was because they'd exhausted all other means of staying in power; fascist ideas and Mussolini's success were after all a product of the years of turmoil after the war but were now being preached two decades later in years of depression and stagnation, plus they had never truly managed to consolidate their grip on power or succeed in creating a 'totalitarian' society (Mussolini's word not mine) and a new generation of Fascists, thus they ramped up their idealogical campaign and tried to give it a greater zeal; racialism was one of the ways through which they did this

[BIXX]

I would be a dissident but that's because I disagree with the idea of ultranationalism and duty to one's nation. I don't believe you should fully dedicate your life to your nation. However, they pursue what they believe best for their nation, I give them credit for at least wanting to do that.

Just cause their intent is "for the best of their nation" doesn't mean shit. Intentions honestly mean nothing, cause while someone's intentions may be fine (wanting the best for their nation), their actions do it much harm (killing off minorities).


Also, the statement you said is like saying if someone wasn't a dissident in socialist state that would make them a socialist. That's not always the case, they could just be apathetic.

Alright, they are still pro-fascist. It's pro-fascist not to oppose fascism.


I have talked to fascists before. The ones that I talk to aren't racist. They actually have problems with boneheads, National Socialists, Klansmen, etc. American fascists I've talked to are especially against racism as the nation has no real racial foundation.

The US has no racial foundation? Well, it has an extremely racist one. First, it began with us pushing out the Native Americans. Then we have slavery, which the US is still recovering from, then the citizens of the US traditionally hate any incoming group (the Irish, and currently, the Latinos). So no, we have no racial base in the way other countries do, but we still have a racist base.

[Lex Talionis]

Just cause their intent is "for the best of their nation" doesn't mean shit. Intentions honestly mean nothing, cause while someone's intentions may be fine (wanting the best for their nation), their actions do it much harm (killing off minorities).

Theory and practice. I know this. Although I wouldn't say all fascists want to kill off minorities, although a pretty high majority of them I see have a distasteful opinion of minorities. Although I wouldn't point at any fascist and say he wants to kill minorities, it depends on their opinion, and it also depends on who actually has the power in a fascist nation.


Alright, they are still pro-fascist. It's pro-fascist not to oppose fascism.

I wouldn't say pro-fascist, I'd say apathetic. There's a fine line between not giving a shit and being for something.


The US has no racial foundation? Well, it has an extremely racist one. First, it began with us pushing out the Native Americans. Then we have slavery, which the US is still recovering from, then the citizens of the US traditionally hate any incoming group (the Irish, and currently, the Latinos). So no, we have no racial base in the way other countries do, but we still have a racist base.

By "racial foundation", more accurately I meant we're a melting pot. We aren't foundationally white, black, etc. However you are right about the US having a very racist foundation though. Dating back to not even twenty years after the nation's conception (Naturalization Act of 1790, which restricted citizenship to free white men. Slaves, etc. still came in but they were not recognized as citizens.)

[BIXX]

Theory and practice. I know this. Although I wouldn't say all fascists want to kill off minorities, although a pretty high majority of them I see have a distasteful opinion of minorities. Although I wouldn't point at any fascist and say he wants to kill minorities, it depends on their opinion, and it also depends on who actually has the power in a fascist nation.

I respectfully disagree, but this is probably due to interactions with the fash in my area.


I wouldn't say pro-fascist, I'd say apathetic. There's a fine line between not giving a shit and being for something.

I personally think it is similar to what George Orwell said about pacifism, and how it is objectively pro-fascist. http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/english/e_patw



Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other.

With just changing "pacifism" with "apathy", you can see that apathy is pro fascist, because you are not opposing them, you are helping them.


By "racial foundation", more accurately I meant we're a melting pot. We aren't foundationally white, black, etc. However you are right about the US having a very racist foundation though. Dating back to not even twenty years after the nation's conception (Naturalization Act of 1790, which restricted citizenship to free white men. Slaves, etc. still came in but they were not recognized as citizens.)

I was just stating that a racist foundation can be substituted in for a racial one.

[Alexander99]

Marxists understand capitalism as a set of property relations, not as an economic policy. It doesn't matter whether the market is "free" or not. Fascist critiques of capitalism are therefore not critiques of capitalism, but attacks on the ideology of liberalism.

But there is a connection between liberalism and consumer capitalism. Prudence is bad for profit and discrimination is bad for profit. Liberals want to let capitalism run riot because their philosophy is rotten and they do not conceptualise the individual and the state and the way democratic institutions tame capitalism.

Fascism/traditionalists are right to worry about the psychological affects short termism and consumerism has on the individual and the collective and the dangers of allowing capitalism to run riot and for profit to decide everything because conservative philosophy does not believe that humans are perfect and the philosophy of human imperfection. They therefore believe greed is morally wrong because they believe to bring the best out of society and individuals they have to first realise they are wrong and then exercise self-restraint.

The liberal utilitarian idea of human nature and social good combined with a free market brings out the absolute worst out in humanity and individuals, leading to misery.

Hitler said democracy inevitably leads to Marxism. He knew that if people were aware of what was going on and had the right to organise then things would change in a way he didn't want. Whilst fascists problem with democracy is that it leads to what they ideologically believe to be not what is best for society, liberals are opposed to democracy because it prevents them from exploiting people. Hitler and Mussolini understood democracy and that democracy inevitably leads to Communism. They just believed that it was not in societies best interests because of their ideology. Liberals cannot even conceptualise the individual and the state and the way democratic institutions tame capitalism. It is a debased ideology that dumbs people down. It is not "high minded". And whilst Fascism and Communism promote politics to be the highest ideal in society, have mass support and inspire passion in people, liberalism is an elitist ideology with no mass popular appeal and encourages disengagement from politics.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Imperialism is the eternal and immutable law of life.

.

[#FF0000]

discrimination is bad for profit.

So should we be in favor of discrimination then, Graffic? This seems to be your entire point, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Alexander99]

So should we be in favor of discrimination then, Graffic? This seems to be your entire point, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

No I was saying that liberalism is a capitalist ideology. Conservatism is a feudal philosophy. I don't know whether Communists should support neo-liberalism because it is international, cosmopolitan and liberal. Unless you can see it as the decline of civilisation and something to celebrate.

[#FF0000]

No I was saying that liberalism is a capitalist ideology. Conservatism is a feudal philosophy. I don't know whether Communists should support neo-liberalism because it is international, cosmopolitan and liberal.

Well of course communists shouldn't "support neo-liberalism". It's "internationalism" certainly isn't working class internationalism, and liberal takes on sexism, racism, etc. are pretty lacking to put it mildly -- whatever lip-service a neo-liberal may pay to the struggles that women and minority groups might face is totally undermined by the fact that these people are the ones that often suffer the most from their policies.

[RadioRaheem84]

It's not hard to understand Lexs position. I certainly don't agree but I understand that desire for basic stability rather than this chaotic living on the margins life that liberal democracy gives you. A lot of people feel that way in nations that were once authoritarian and transitioned into liberal democracy. They had a sense of stability and a modicum of purpose. I am sure there are some people in Iraq who would've rather saddam stayed in power. Of course on the flip side I'm sure there are a lot more that would rather Saddam be gone but would rather not live with US free market nightmare. A lot of people want some caudillo of sorts to sort things out and reconcile conflicts. From Franco to Aturk to to Peron to Putin, people are impressed by strongmen who stabilize a chaotic market economy.

This is just my analysis if trying to understand the people's appeal of fascism, caudillos, strongmen and authoritarian regimes.

[helot]

It's not hard to understand Lexs position. I certainly don't agree but I understand that desire for basic stability rather than this chaotic living on the margins life that liberal democracy gives you. A lot of people feel that way in nations that were once authoritarian and transitioned into liberal democracy. They had a sense of stability and a modicum of purpose. I am sure there are some people in Iraq who would've rather saddam stayed in power. Of course on the flip side I'm sure there are a lot more that would rather Saddam be gone but would rather not live with US free market nightmare. A lot of people want some caudillo of sorts to sort things out and reconcile conflicts. From Franco to Aturk to to Peron to Putin, people are impressed by strongmen who stabilize a chaotic market economy.

This is just my analysis if trying to understand the people's appeal of fascism, caudillos, strongmen and authoritarian regimes.


This reminds me of what Rudolf Rocker wrote in Nationalism and Culture, i'll quote it for you:

"Constant tutelage of our acting and thinking has made us weak and irresponsible; hence, the continued cry for the strong man who is to put an end to our distress. This call for a dictator is not a sign of strength, but a proof of inner lack of assurance and of weakness, even though those who utter it earnestly try to give themselves the appearance of resolution"

[RadioRaheem84]

Well...yeah. Rocker said it better.

[Red Flag Waver]

Why are people calling this person Graffic? Was Graffic some fascist sympathiser on here from before? If so i think it's better to assume this is a different fascist sympathiser unless there's evidence to the contrary
This is definitely Graffic, I remember his posts from when I was a lurker. He thinks that feminism and gay rights are plots by the bourgeoisie to undermine the unity of the working class. When people challenge him, he responds by restating his original posts in more or less the same terms without engaging any of the points made against him. Basically a troll.

[helot]

He thinks that feminism and gay rights are plots by the bourgeoisie to undermine the unity of the working class.

that's so stupid :laugh:

[Alexander99]

that's so stupid :laugh:

I didn't actually say that.

I was saying that abolishing money and establishing a classless society can in some ways be seen as a chauvinistic and moralistic ideal.

As far as I'm aware Karl Marx, Che Geuvera and Fidel Castro were not the types to go to wine bars and ponce about. They were masculine men.

Whereas Ayn Rand = woman, Margaret Thatcher = woman.

Being miserly and selfish are considered feminine traits whereas being selfless and open to sharing are considered masculine traits. Its one of the reasons rich people in films are often portrayed as having a hunch back, being fat or being weak.

Considering gay rights and feminism is perfectly compatible with neo--liberalism I don't understand why Communists and radical leftists champion their cause and overemphasise feminism so much so that working class straight men who want to be macho and enjoy being macho are driven away from class struggle because of fear of being called sexist.

[helot]

I didn't actually say that.

I was saying that abolishing money and establishing a classless society can in some ways be seen as a chauvinistic and moralistic ideal.

Im still laughing.



As far as I'm aware Karl Marx, Che Geuvera and Fidel Castro were not the types to go to wine bars and ponce about. They were masculine men. Im sure you'd also say Rosa Luxemburg, Emma Goldman etc are also masculine men :laugh:




Being miserly and selfish are considered feminine traits whereas being selfless and open to sharing are considered masculine traits. Maybe you'll be surprised to know that caring for others and selflessness are regarded as feminine traits. Ruthlessness, competition, aggression and dominance are regarded as masculine.




Considering gay rights Only if it fits capitalist norms.



and feminism is perfectly compatible with neo--liberalism Funny 'cause austerity and the dismantling of social provisions affects women to a greater extent than it affects men.

Any feminism that's compatible with capitalism ignores and undermines non-whites and working class women.



I don't understand why Communists and radical leftists champion their cause and overemphasise feminism so much so that working class straight men who want to be macho and enjoy being macho are driven away from class struggle because of fear of being called sexist.


As a working class straight male myself the most off putting aspect of communists and the wider left is the general ineptitude and elitism of some, definitely NOT feminism. In fact for some parts of the left, using the recent SWP shenanigans as an example, feminism's considered a dirty word ffs.

[Klaatu]

Don't you mean the 20th century?

[Alexander99]

Maybe you'll be surprised to know that caring for others and selflessness are regarded as feminine traits. Ruthlessness, competition, aggression and dominance are regarded as masculine.

It depends on the context. Ruthlessness and aggression can be selfless if its beneficial to others. Men who put themselves out there and put their necks on the line whether its in war or just using force to get the right thing for society done are being selfless.

Compassion is a feminine trait, like being more compassionate to animals or children for example but the idea that women are less individualist than men because aggression and dominance are masculine isn't true. It depends on the way aggression and physicality is channeled.

[#FF0000]

I was saying that abolishing money and establishing a classless society can in some ways be seen as a chauvinistic and moralistic ideal.

oh wow this is like the inverse of the kind of strange argument i hear about women being inherently more "socialistic" or something except somehow even more dumb.


As far as I'm aware Karl Marx, Che Geuvera and Fidel Castro were not the types to go to wine bars and ponce about. They were masculine men. 1) lmao
2) Marx was a strong advocate for women's rights, tho. Not sure about Che and Fidel, but I do know Fidel's had some harsh words for Cuban "machismo" recently.
3) What about Engels?


Whereas Ayn Rand = woman, Margaret Thatcher = woman1) lmao
2) So?



Being miserly and selfish are considered feminine traits whereas being selfless and open to sharing are considered masculine traits. Its one of the reasons rich people in films are often portrayed as having a hunch back, being fat or being weak. Being selfless and open to sharing are masculine, yet being compassionate and nurturing are feminine? What are you basing this on?


Considering gay rights and feminism is perfectly compatible with neo--liberalism. I don't understand why Communists and radical leftists champion their cause and overemphasise feminism so muchBecause the oppression of women and other groups are pretty much integral to capitalism. Liberal feminists/LGBT activist types, of course, don't see it that way. That is because, like I said earlier, Marxists/anarchists have a different approach to understanding these things.


so that working class straight men who want to be macho and enjoy being macho are driven away from class struggle because of fear of being called sexist.hey is shying away from criticism masculine or feminine

[#FF0000]

also im glad u admitted that u r graffic im produ of u

[Alexander99]

oh wow this is like the inverse of the kind of strange argument i hear about women being inherently more "socialistic" or something except somehow even more dumb.


Its true to an extent though. Liberal individualism is more individualistic than traditional values. "Prudence" means to plan for the future. Now people have a "right" to get divorced and homosexuals say its their "right" to get married without thinking prudently about the future and what benefits children and society in the long term. Before the 60's many people stayed together and hated it but I'd say children were better off with two parents before getting divorced became so much easier. Instead of thinking of their "right" to get divorced, parents stayed together for the children and society. This is obviously more altruistic than "its my right, I'm fucking off" liberal individualism. Liberal individualism is also a very impoverished, thin and almost primal idea of social good when you look at it from the outside.

All liberal individualism has achieved is creating a more selfish, insecure society. It hasn't paved the way for progress or democratic socialism. Any progress made after world war 2 economically was destroyed in the 80's and culturally there has been no progress made. The Liberal individualism championed in the 60's and 70's has made society more individualistic, consumerist, selfish. The idea that in this day and age we are more "progressive" because gay people can get married is reactionary. We are not any more enlightened and closer to Communism. We are selfish, consumerist and individualist. Western countries have been in decline since the 50's.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Communists do not strive to build a "less selfish" society or to force people to conform to their particular view of what is "good" and whatnot. Communists strive to destroy class society and all forms of oppression that are inherent in class society. The hue and cry against "consumerism" and people acting "selfishly" when they divorce is not communism but the most debased sort of paternalistic liberalism. Do you want to force LGBT people to forget their "selfish" interests and to act "altruistically" by happily accepting the murderous system of bourgeois homophobia? Then communism is not for you.

[Alexander99]

Communists strive to destroy class society and all forms of oppression that are inherent in class society. The hue and cry against "consumerism" and people acting "selfishly" when they divorce is not communism but the most debased sort of paternalistic liberalism. Do you want to force LGBT people to forget their "selfish" interests and to act "altruistically" by happily accepting the murderous system of bourgeois homophobia? Then communism is not for you.

I was commenting on what are objectively problems caused by liberals in Europe and the US since the 60's.

Liberalism is wrong, and has been proved to be wrong about everything. Its been wrong economically with the financial crisis, mass unemployment and failure of neo-liberalism and free-market economics. And its failed culturally by making people insecure, unhappy and more individualist.

Although liberalism is wrong and failing, it continues unabashed and unashamed. When fascism or Communism "fails", it "falls" and gets replaced. Yet liberalism continues unabashed because liberalism is the raw spirit of capitalism and power. Capitalism is international and is so powerful even when it fails extraordinarily (in the financial crisis) it continues unabashed and is able to prevent urgent reforms to prevent the same mistakes happening again. I find this quite sinister and disturbing and ideologies such as Communism, conservatism and nationalism have more affect on me than liberalism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I was commenting on what are objectively problems caused by liberals in Europe and the US since the 60's.

No, you were commenting on certain aspects of the present society you consider problematic due to your moralism. This is, quite frankly, irrelevant to communists.


Liberalism is wrong, and has been proved to be wrong about everything. Its been wrong economically with the financial crisis, mass unemployment and failure of neo-liberalism and free-market economics. And its failed culturally by making people insecure, unhappy and more individualist.

Yes, I am sure that people were happier and more secure when they could be killed or imprisoned for homosexuality, that women were happier and more secure when their husbands could legally rape them and the state could force them to give birth, and so on, and so on. How naive do you think we are?

And what if the present society "fails culturally" according to your criteria? Do you think your morality and what you consider the right cultural mindset should be enforced with bayonets? That is the policy of Derzhimordas and Tartuffes, not communists. Read some Marx or Lenin, for the love of the nonexistent god!


Although liberalism is wrong and failing, it continues unabashed and unashamed. When fascism or Communism "fails", it "falls" and gets replaced. Yet liberalism continues unabashed because liberalism is the raw spirit of capitalism and power. Capitalism is international and is so powerful even when it fails extraordinarily (in the financial crisis) it continues unabashed and is able to prevent urgent reforms to prevent the same mistakes happening again. I find this quite sinister and disturbing and ideologies such as Communism, conservatism and nationalism have more affect on me than liberalism.

Communism appears to have no affect or effect on you, since you are resolutely opposed to the democratic rights of minorities that communists have always upheld. And communism is an all or nothing proposition - one is either a communist, or one is not a communist. There is no such thing as 30 percent communism, 30 percent nationalism and 40 percent conservatism.

[#FF0000]

words

The cool thing is that you typed this whole thing out for nothing because we don't advocate for liberal individualism. This "liberal individualism" you're talking about, is just as shitty and wrong as "conservative" or "traditonalist" collectivism. Neither are progressive. Neither are revolutionary.


Before the 60's many people stayed together and hated it but I'd say children were better off with two parents before getting divorced became so much easier.And you'd say that based on what?


Instead of thinking of their "right" to get divorced, parents stayed together for the children and society.Nah, it was more like "women continued to live as a man's property because they had no choice". Which is, hey, also a really shitty and abhorrent social arrangement. And I think it's interesting that you mention "society" here, because it's almost as if you're about to accidentally trip over the actual Marxist feminist perspective that capitalism relies heavily on the unrecognized, unpaid labor of women in the home. (https://caringlabor.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/silvia-federici-wages-against-housework)

[Per Levy]

As far as I'm aware Karl Marx, Che Geuvera and Fidel Castro were not the types to go to wine bars and ponce about. They were masculine men.

Whereas Ayn Rand = woman, Margaret Thatcher = woman.

ah yeah, what about rosa luxemburg, clara zetkin, harriet tubman, emma goldman, angela davis, sylvia pankhurst and so on?(i mean i could probally make an almost endless list here)


Being miserly and selfish are considered feminine traits whereas being selfless and open to sharing are considered masculine traits.

really? i never actually have seen that with most women or men i've entcountered over my life, strange inst it?


Its one of the reasons rich people in films are often portrayed as having a hunch back, being fat or being weak.

tony stark, bruce wayne do i need to say more?


Considering gay rights and feminism is perfectly compatible with neo--liberalism I don't understand why Communists and radical leftists champion their cause and overemphasise feminism so much so that working class straight men who want to be macho and enjoy being macho are driven away from class struggle because of fear of being called sexist.

why do you want to have macho types in in your organisation? they are a pretty shitty minority that most modern people dont care about anyway.

[Alexander99]

Communism appears to have no affect or effect on you, since you are resolutely opposed to the democratic rights of minorities that communists have always upheld. And communism is an all or nothing proposition - one is either a communist, or one is not a communist. There is no such thing as 30 percent communism, 30 percent nationalism and 40 percent conservatism.

But neo-liberalism caters for women and homosexuals democratic rights. Homosexuals are not persecuted in neo-liberalism. They are completely free which proves homosexual rights are not integral to the Communist struggle.

Communism is ideological and all or nothing but there is such a thing as right wing social democracy. The governments job at the very least should be to help the worst off in society and if there is a genuine free-market it needs government intervention to break up monopolies. And the governments job should be to fight social evils like pornography and culturally encourage people have to self control and be relaxed about growing up rather than throwing condoms at young people and promoting hedonism. Hedonism and art thrive better in a more grown up conservative society. My political views are the opposite of most people today. Most people are libertarian economically and liberal socially. Whereas I don't have a problem paying taxes but I think in the environment we are in where money is power the government should fight moral social evils and promote family values so that there is not pornification and commodification of sex.

Its quite debased how right wing liberals are seen as more moral, progressive and "with the times" than right wing social democrats. There was an Irish democrat on question time a few weeks ago who was demonised by right wing liberals, left liberals and pretty much everyone because he opposed gay marriage and held a Christian view of traditional marriage, being slurred at and compared with opposition to black civil rights even though he simply maturely said to the liberal that he was a democrat like the other guy.

[Per Levy]

But neo-liberalism caters for women and homosexuals democratic rights. Homosexuals are not persecuted in neo-liberalism. They are completely free which proves homosexual rights are not integral to the Communist struggle.

you are wrong, neo-liberalism(why not just call it capitalism?) destroys the livelihoods of millions of women and lgbt people(of regular men also), or what do you think where you'll find the majority of women and lgbt people? in the working class of course. and no shallow liberal rights can undo the destructive effect capitalism(neo-liberalism) has on all of us and women and lgbt people in paticular.


Communism is ideological and all or nothing but there is such a thing as right wing social democracy. The governments job at the very least should be to help the worst off in society and if there is a genuine free-market it needs government intervention to break up monopolies. And the governments job should be to fight social evils like pornography and culturally encourage people have to self control and be relaxed about growing up rather than throwing condoms at young people and promoting hedonism. Hedonism and art thrive better in a more grown up conservative society. My political views are the opposite of most people today. Most people are libertarian economically and liberal socially. Whereas I don't have a problem paying taxes but I think in the environment we are in where money is power the government should fight moral social evils and promote family values so that there is not pornification and commodification of sex.

you know, throwing condoms at teens is better then not telling them about sex and then complain when teens become parents or get ill, you know like the traditional way is doing it. besides sex is hardly a problem.


Its quite debased how right wing liberals are seen as more moral, progressive and "with the times" than right wing social democrats. There was an Irish democrat on question time a few weeks ago who was demonised by right wing liberals, left liberals and pretty much everyone because he opposed gay marriage and held a Christian view of traditional marriage, being slurred at and compared with opposition to black civil rights even though he simply maturely said to the liberal that he was a democrat like the other guy.

what is traditional about the "traditional christian marriage" even mor traditional than that construct would that the family of my fiance gives me a cow herd as marriage price or something. seriously, if we ever reach communism, the "traditional christian marriage" will be wiped away as any other bourgeois institution.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

But neo-liberalism caters for women and homosexuals democratic rights. Homosexuals are not persecuted in neo-liberalism. They are completely free which proves homosexual rights are not integral to the Communist struggle.

This is rank nonsense. Even with certain legal safeguards in place, LGBT people are still denied rights - including rights that are tied to marriage in the bourgeois dictatorship - and they are discriminated against by private capitalists, beaten up and murdered by the "macho males" you so idealise while the police do nothing and so on. Neoliberalism does not help LGBT people in any way; if anything, it makes economic discrimination worse by removing regulation and worsening the impact of losing one's job.


Communism is ideological and all or nothing but there is such a thing as right wing social democracy.

Which has nothing to do with communism.


The governments job at the very least should be to help the worst off in society and if there is a genuine free-market it needs government intervention to break up monopolies. And the governments job should be to fight social evils like pornography and culturally encourage people have to self control and be relaxed about growing up rather than throwing condoms at young people and promoting hedonism. Hedonism and art thrive better in a more grown up conservative society. My political views are the opposite of most people today. Most people are libertarian economically and liberal socially. Whereas I don't have a problem paying taxes but I think in the environment we are in where money is power the government should fight moral social evils and promote family values so that there is not pornification and commodification of sex.

Good for you! But, again, this has nothing to do with communism. There are quite a few sites for those who think the bourgeois government should enforce their enlightened understanding of morality, from the Huffington Post to Stormfront, but this site is for communists, who want to smash the bourgeois government, and who want to liberate the workers, not shackle them to petit-bourgeois moralising.


Its quite debased how right wing liberals are seen as more moral, progressive and "with the times" than right wing social democrats. There was an Irish democrat on question time a few weeks ago who was demonised by right wing liberals, left liberals and pretty much everyone because he opposed gay marriage and held a Christian view of traditional marriage, being slurred at and compared with opposition to black civil rights even though he simply maturely said to the liberal that he was a democrat like the other guy.

Are we supposed to feel sorry for the "poor Irish democrat"? That will be the day. Look, Alexander, as I said, communism is an all or nothing deal. Either you are with the oppressed or you are with the hangmen. You have made your position quite clear. So, then - s dorogi.

[Sentinel]

Please by all means continue the discussion, everyone, but since this is a self admitted sockpuppet by now I'm going to go ahead and ban his sexism apologising ass.