Fascism and its track record

[Kaan]

Being that most socialists I've spoken to and read are of the opinion that fascism is the last gasp of capitalism, and the radical arm of the ruling class to maintain its control, I feel that discussing its track record would be a good idea. My question is: why is it that in countries with sub-par objective conditions like China and Russia, the socialists were victorious in their revolutions and civil wars and countries where conditions were ripe for social revolution like Spain and Germany fascism won out? Was it simply mistakes that were made in these situations, or is there some sort of theoretical reason why nationalism and prejudice won out over worker control? What are your thoughts on this?

Maybe we can move past petty squables over whether or not Stalin ate babies and discuss something that might move us forward.

[RASH chris]

The fash took Spain and Germany because there was no left solidarity. There was a huge amount of discussion about pre-nazi germany and the left resistance to it on this site. As I recall redstar has gobs of info on this topic. And in Spain Franco won because Hitler and Mussolini were supporting him and Stalin was busy telling everybody on the left who wasn't a stalinist to join his army or quit the revolution.

[LSD]

History is a collection of accidents and coinidences.

There is no "reason" why things "had" to turn out that way, events simply conspired in such a way that that was the result.

There are plenty of examples of third world countries in which socialist/communist revolutions failed or didn't last (Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Angola...) and there are reasons for all of them. Many of them because of external pressure, many of them because of a lack of political support. In modern times, third world revolutions are simply more likely than first world ones. The class lines are usually more sharp and capitalism is usualy less intrentched and less socialized.

Because there were more attempts, there were more successes.

But on the topic of "success", would you really call what happened in Russia or China a "success"? Are they communist societies today? Are they even "socialist transitional" states?

I'm afraid the real truth is that there's never been a succesful communist revolution.

Furthermore, in first world countries, as anarchopunkchris said, the left tended to be more divided. Usually because of more complex political histories and richer experiences with democratic debate, but whatever the reason, third world revolutions tended to have more solidarity than you ever found in Germany or France.

In fact the only time you saw real leftist solidarity in the first world was durring the Spanish Civil War. But that happened to have the misfortune of occuring at a time in which there were two rich and powerful fascist nations in Europe willing to do anything to stave off communism.

Again, though, don't take any of this to be more meaningful than it is. Every communist failure was for a reason, every "success" for a reason as well. We can lean a lot from those reasons. Remember it took a while for a successfull bouregois revolution to happen and there were setbacks along the way. But, eventually, it happened. Communsim is no different, it may take time, but we'll get there.

[viva le revolution]

Fascism was only able to prevail in post-worldwar1 Germany because Hitler addressed the wounded pride of the German populace through a series of scapegoatism that eventually ended up in the notion of Aryan superiority over other races.
This idea appealed greatly to the humiliated German people who were not able comprehend the defeat of their army and discipline they prided themslves in.
However Fascism was a temporary thing you could only go so far by touting Aryan superiority. Even if Hitler had not invaded Poland and ignited the second world war his doctrine could not have survived to the present as his ideals would only appeal to that particular generation who were willing to find scapegoats to save face.
Eventually the doctrine of Aryan superiority was bound to fail as Fascism believes in forceful subjugation Fascist Germany could not have possibly taken on every race in the world.....african,arab,chinese,slavs,mongolian,etc .
In other words it would have gone the way of the USSR.
No leftist party was able to exploit the sentiments and nationalistic feelings of the Germans like the Nazis thus they were able to prevail in Germany and provide support to Fascist movements in other countries.

[Kaan]

But on the topic of "success", would you really call what happened in Russia or China a "success"? Are they communist societies today? Are they even "socialist transitional" states?

I regard these as socialist states and feel that the revolutions made progress, but when i mean success i mean from a more military stand-point, as in defeating the opposing force.


Furthermore, in first world countries, as anarchopunkchris said, the left tended to be more divided. Usually because of more complex political histories and richer experiences with democratic debate, but whatever the reason, third world revolutions tended to have more solidarity than you ever found in Germany or France.


This makes a lot of sense, I also tend to think that the fascists disguised their politics as worker's movements to steal what would have otherwise been leftist support and since ethnic and national pride was more entrenched in these societies than class politics, it had more pull than socialism.

[LSD]

I regard these as socialist states and feel that the revolutions made progress

Certainly you wouldn't consider the PRC today to be a "socialist" state!


I also tend to think that the fascists disguised their politics as worker's movements to steal what would have otherwise been leftist support and since ethnic and national pride was more entrenched in these societies than class politics, it had more pull than socialism.

Certainly. That's why Hitler injected the "socialism" in National Socialism. The party name itself (National Socialist German Workers Party) was an attempt to appeal to everyone:

National - Appeals to rightists.
Socialist - Appeals to leftists.
German - Appeals to rightists.
Workers - Appeals to leftists.

He was a clever bastard that Hitler, one of the great politicians...


Fascism was only able to prevail in post-worldwar1 Germany because Hitler addressed the wounded pride of the German populace through a series of scapegoatism that eventually ended up in the notion of Aryan superiority over other races.

Well, that's not the only reason, but it certainly is a major one.

The NSDAP was simply good at appealing to German nationalism at pride. Hitler didn't just give the Germans scapegoats, but he told them that they should be proud of themselves of their own German-ness. After Versailles, it gave the dispirited populace something to hold on to. He also accurately predicted the economic crash of the early 30s (mainly through luck) which gave him a lot of credibility with the average German who saw the Weimar republic as a incompetent.


However Fascism was a temporary thing you could only go so far by touting Aryan superiority. Even if Hitler had not invaded Poland and ignited the second world war his doctrine could not have survived to the present as his ideals would only appeal to that particular generation who were willing to find scapegoats to save face.

I wish that were true, but Fascism in spain lasted more than thirty years, and German fascism was far more appealing than Franco's militarized version. Naziism contained just enough socialistic touches (if you were in the "Master Race") that it probably could have maintained a decent popular support. Especially if Himmler's policies proved successful and all non-Aryans were removed. Once the SS was no longer slaughtering civilians en mass, the darker side of National Socialism would be much easier to hide.

Unfortuneately, I tend to think that a Naziist Germany probably could have survived quite a while on its own, esepecially if it had manged to make peace in the west and succesfully conquer the Soviet Union. With a military victory under its belt and a "new frontier" open, the German people probably would have continued to go along with Hitler and his successors.

[NovelGentry]

Maybe I'll get stoned to death or banned for saying this, but think about it this way.

Fascism is the material alternative to socialism -- when the bourgeois ideology rings as tuth over the proletariats.

If we are to believe that Fascism is a development preceeded, or which capitalism leads into, in light of the bourgeois forces trying to maintain control over their overgrowth, from a historical perspective, it is in the same spot that socialism would be in. That is to say, socialism is at the end, when the bourgeois forces have too tried to maintain their control.

This is in essence respectful of the opposition of the ideologies, in line with the growth of both ideologies, and representative of the truth in most cases, where fascism has always met with and attempted to destroy socialist appeal.

All this being said, what actually causes capitalism to resolve itself in fascism rather than socialism? Impossible to say? I doubt it. I'd take a stab at it, but I fear I'd be here all day developing the exact reasons for it, however, I do believe wholeheartedly there is a material reason for it.

So just think about that for now :D

[Kaan]

Certainly you wouldn't consider the PRC today to be a "socialist" state!


pre-1976, before Deng and the USSR pre-1953. I figured that would have been assumed, but hey.

[Roses in the Hospital]

A big factor in the development of European fascism was fear of the left. In Germany certainly many middle-class people, and even the elites, supported Hitler because they saw him as the only defence against the Communists, not because they idenified with him totally on an ideological enemy. In the case of Spain Franco gained support, paricularly internationally, because he was fighting against the Left. In the 1930s for many it must have seemed that Facism was the safest option. A belief that History has shown to be tragically misjudged...