India's fascism

[ashtonh]

I fear India is falling into fascism while the central government maintains checks and balances the local level fascist are beginning to rise. Actually it has gone past local level. Hinduvta,Hindu theocracy mixed with fascism, is a rising trend among India's Hindus. The promise to expel all who did not vote for fascism.

[ProletariatPower]

Great, another nation turning to fascism...I did hear about the latest election in India and it is concerning. It's also crazy if you ask me that people are still fighting over such issues as Hindu Nationalism and Islamism, Indians should be united against their exploitation by the first world nations, not fighting over religious and ethnic differences.

[Per Levy]

Indians should be united against their exploitation by the first world nations, not fighting over religious and ethnic differences.

yes indian workers, unite with your exploiters, the indian bourgoisie, class colaboration never failed after all.

[ckaihatsu]

Indians should be united against their exploitation by the first world nations, not fighting over religious and ethnic differences.





yes indian workers, unite with your exploiters, the indian bourgoisie, class colaboration never failed after all.


Your deliberately obtuse interpretation is your own here -- the comment *could* mean 'national liberation' as a *working class* strategy....

[Tim Cornelis]

In what sense is it fascism?

[Per Levy]

Your deliberately obtuse interpretation is your own here -- the comment *could* mean 'national liberation' as a *working class* strategy....

well "proletarianpower" posts says nothing of working class only of indians that should unite agains the "first world". not to mention that the stragety of national liberation is class colaboration.

[ckaihatsu]

well "proletarianpower" posts says nothing of working class only of indians that should unite agains the "first world".




not to mention that the stragety of national liberation is class colaboration.


No, not necessarily -- it would depend on what kind of politics is leading it.

[ashtonh]

In what sense is it fascism?

Well it is religously fascist , its supporters promising to expel all non-hindus and those who voted against their fascist PM to Pakistan, and it is nationalist google some of their signs saying Born Nationalist Born Hindu

[ckaihatsu]

Well it is religously fascist , its supporters promising to expel all non-hindus and those who voted against their fascist PM to Pakistan, and it is nationalist google some of their signs saying Born Nationalist Born Hindu


Agreed.

As a guide, I have the 'religious right' right next to 'fascists' on a political spectrum that I created:


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://s6.postimage.org/cpkm723u5/3_Ideologies_Operations_Fundamentals.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/cpkm723u5/)

[Tim Cornelis]

Well it is religously fascist , its supporters promising to expel all non-hindus and those who voted against their fascist PM to Pakistan, and it is nationalist google some of their signs saying Born Nationalist Born Hindu

That would mean it's religious fanaticism and fundamentalism, but not fascism. Also, isn't Hindu nationalism about 'Hindustan', and not the religion. Also nationalism is not inherently fascist.

[synthesis]

No, not necessarily -- it would depend on what kind of politics is leading it.

National liberation movements have always done nothing more than replace one faction of the bourgeoisie with another.

[ComradeOm]

In what sense is it fascism?I'm not a fan of throwing the label 'fascist' around willy-nilly but I can certainly see why it's been raised in this case. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ticks quite a few of the items on the fascist checklist: far-right, populist mass movement, anti-parliamentary, extremely nationalist, sectarianism, economic modernisation, culturally traditionalist, paramilitaries, in power after disillusionment with a liberal regime, petit-bourgeois support, etc, etc.

It's obviously simplistic to simply label them 'fascist', and I'm not convinced that this is correct, but I've a lot more sympathy for this than someone doing to same with George W Bush. Which is why it's a bit disturbing to know that, as of today, their man, Narendra Modi, holds power in India.

[ashtonh]

That would mean it's religious fanaticism and fundamentalism, but not fascism. Also, isn't Hindu nationalism about 'Hindustan', and not the religion. Also nationalism is not inherently fascist.

nO NATIONALISM is not always fascist but to be both religiously bigoted and discriminatory and be over zealous nationalist while being against parliamentary power kinda checks 3 things of the fascist checklist. Thats just the three that I know another poster pointed out more reasons.

[DOOM]

That would mean it's religious fanaticism and fundamentalism, but not fascism. Also, isn't Hindu nationalism about 'Hindustan', and not the religion. Also nationalism is not inherently fascist.

Revleftians are really overusing the term "fascism".

[ProletariatPower]

O.o People really misinterpreting what I said. I meant that the people of India should not be divided by nationalism and religion but should be uniting against their exploiters, I suppose I should have stressed more clearly what I meant, but I did not mean 'unity' with the Bourgeoisie. I just meant the Indian people (as in the workers of India) should fight their real exploiters, both the Imperialist 1st World which has done so much damage to India, and also the Indian Bourgeoisie who are their puppets, to clarify.

[Tim Cornelis]

should've*

[ProletariatPower]

Good point, corrected :P

[Zukunftsmusik]

should've*

Could you please not post one liners only to correct people when it's obvious what they mean? This isn't facebook or a chat, one liners aren't allowed (and yes I do see the irony here).

[Tim Cornelis]

Could you please not post one liners only to correct people when it's obvious what they mean? This isn't facebook or a chat, one liners aren't allowed (and yes I do see the irony here).

Bruh, it in no way impairs discussion or debate, mmk.

[Scheveningen]

Indians should be united against their exploitation by the first world nations, not fighting over religious and ethnic differences. Workers should be united against their exploitation by the bourgeoisie, not fighting over national differences.
Your deliberately obtuse interpretation is your own here -- the comment *could* mean 'national liberation' as a *working class* strategy....

It's more polemic with national liberation strategies than 'deliberately obtuse'. Many anti-imperialists/third-worldists tend to reframe the class conflict in terms of "exploiting nations" v. "exploited nations". This perspective is a huge mistake: not only it damages class unity (because it puts 'Indians' against 'exploiting foreigners'), but it's fairly useless too in an era where the bourgeoisie is more and more an international class.

Similar slogans have been used and abused for decades by local élites which, once in power, turned out to be no less exploitative and brutal than their predecessors. You shouldn't be surprised to hear people criticising them.

Exploitation takes place everywhere, because capitalism is a global system.

- And we lost the topic here, I think.

[BIXX]

Bruh, it in no way impairs discussion or debate, mmk.


Oh but it is classist.

[ashtonh]

I agree the topic has been lost, this was meant for a discussion on whats happening And kinda a heads up.

[ckaihatsu]

National liberation movements have always done nothing more than replace one faction of the bourgeoisie with another.


Yes, *historically*, but, depending on conditions, national-liberation could still be an appropriate strategy for the working class to use towards proletarian revolution, as long as no illusions are harbored.

[synthesis]

Yes, *historically*, but, depending on conditions, national-liberation could still be an appropriate strategy for the working class to use towards proletarian revolution, as long as no illusions are harbored.

If I touch a hot stove a hundred times and it burns my hand a hundred times, why should I think that it will ever be cool to the touch? Sometimes a Pavlovian response isn't just for the dogs.

[ckaihatsu]

If I touch a hot stove a hundred times and it burns my hand a hundred times, why should I think that it will ever be cool to the touch? Sometimes a Pavlovian response isn't just for the dogs.


I have no motivation / interest in arguing this with you, or anyone, in the abstract -- as with any strategy, everything would depend on the actual circumstances and particulars.

I will note, though, that you're being fatalistic and defeatist in the abstract -- if you apply your line to the case of socialism / communism, where would we be then -- ? -- !

[synthesis]

I will note, though, that you're being fatalistic and defeatist in the abstract -- if you apply your line to the case of socialism / communism, where would we be then -- ? -- !

I think this sort of a non sequitur. Are you referring to the fact that the Bolsheviks (and all their progeny) wound up replacing one faction of the bourgeoisie with another? This was intimately tied to the failure of the world revolution around it, not simply an opportunistic power grab, which is the lens through which national liberation movements must be viewed if we are looking at them in hindsight. A proletarian revolution, by definition, would not "replace one faction of the bourgeoisie with another."

Also, your punctuation freaks me out.

[ckaihatsu]

I think this sort of a non sequitur.


I was applying your behaviorist reference to the project of revolution -- sure, things haven't turned out in the past as we'd like, but that doesn't mean that class struggle has ended, or that people should stop striving for working class self-emancipation.





Are you referring to the fact that the Bolsheviks (and all their progeny) wound up replacing one faction of the bourgeoisie with another? This was intimately tied to the failure of the world revolution around it, not simply an opportunistic power grab, which is the lens through which national liberation movements must be viewed if we are looking at them in hindsight. A proletarian revolution, by definition, would not "replace one faction of the bourgeoisie with another."


No, it's the above.





Also, your punctuation freaks me out.


Try doing something that relaxes you.

[ckaihatsu]

If I touch a hot stove a hundred times and it burns my hand a hundred times, why should I think that it will ever be cool to the touch? Sometimes a Pavlovian response isn't just for the dogs.





[Y]ou're being fatalistic and defeatist in the abstract -- if you apply your line to the case of socialism / communism, where would we be then -- ? -- !





I think this sort of a non sequitur.


I'll elaborate on this to note that, far from being a non sequitur, my reply takes issue with what your characterization *implies*, which is this:





Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.




http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Insanity


So whether the issue at hand is national liberation (as a strategy), or world revolution, it's entirely too simplistic to compare either to a dull-minded repeating of a mistake over and over again.

Your behaviorist-oriented critique is not apt here, because the scales of empirical phenomena are hardly comparable -- a hot stove is far more basic than the ongoing development of world events, including the class struggle.

Also, behaviorism may be likened to the limitations of a strict *empiricism*, since all that's taken into account is what's observable in the outside world, and it doesn't take into account any consideration of 'inner-life' dynamics -- thinking.





Behaviorism (or behaviourism), is an approach to psychology that combines elements of philosophy, methodology, and theory.[1] It emerged in the early twentieth century as a reaction to "mentalistic" psychology, which often had difficulty making predictions that could be tested using rigorous experimental methods. The primary tenet of behaviorism, as expressed in the writings of John B. Watson, B. F. Skinner, and others, is that psychology should concern itself with the observable behavior of people and animals, not with unobservable events that take place in their minds.[2] The behaviorist school of thought maintains that behaviors as such can be described scientifically without recourse either to internal physiological events or to hypothetical constructs such as thoughts and beliefs.[3]




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





In psychology, cognitivism is a theoretical framework for understanding the mind that gained credence in the 1950s. The movement was a response to behaviorism, which cognitivists said neglected to explain cognition. Cognitive psychology derived its name from the Latin cognoscere, referring to knowing and information, thus cognitive psychology is an information-processing psychology derived in part from earlier traditions of the investigation of thought and problem solving.[1][2] Behaviorists acknowledged the existence of thinking, but identified it as a behavior. Cognitivists argued that the way people think impacts their behavior and therefore cannot be a behavior in and of itself. Cognitivists later argued that thinking is so essential to psychology that the study of thinking should become its own field.[2]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitivism_(psychology)


philosophical abstractions

http://s6.postimage.org/i7hg698j1/120404_philosophical_abstractions_RENDER_sc_12_1.j pg (http://postimage.org/image/i7hg698j1/)

[synthesis]

So whether the issue at hand is national liberation (as a strategy), or world revolution, it's entirely too simplistic to compare either to a dull-minded repeating of a mistake over and over again.

World revolution is not a strategy. That's the difference.