Fascism: left wing dogma

[JudeObscure84]

I have been noticing more and more that people like to throw the word fascist around without thinking. What exactly does it mean to you guys? Is it just an ad hominem for "oppressor" or "tyrant"? I mean do you guys really know your history on the Fascist movement in Italy circa 1919? Its roots are firmly grounded in syndicalist philosophy, which claimed to be the next evolutionary stage in Marxism. Any mild reading of Giovanni Gentile, Sergio Panunzio and the other intellectuals behind Fascism will tell you that they believed they were revising Marx to meet real standards.
and what about the heavy influence of George Sorel? His myth of a nation argument laid down the basis for the nationalistic fervor that would win the fascists to victory. Mussolini said it himself that where they parted with the Marxists was on class struggle, because they believed it was actually a struggle of nations.

I'm here to debate, not attack. I just want to get some misconceptions out of the way about Fascist ideology.*



*NO, I am not a Fascist. Just a history buff.

[RedAnarchist]

To me, a Fascist is someone who is only rascist if that person is not from their nation. A Fascist is also a sexist, homophobe and a rampant bigot.


I do not see any connection between Fascism and Socialism, except for the rather tenous one about Mussolini once being a Socialist.

[OleMarxco]

Just because the italian fascists aimed for marxism doesn&#39;t mean we are fascists...fool :rolleyes: Stalinism is, in fact, the only "fascist"-like ideology on the left, and most of us here...condone it&#33; I urge of all here who does not yet to take the same example <_<

[RedAnarchist]

I&#39;ll add something else - we wish to knock down the borders, Fascists wish to build them up.

[JudeObscure84]

To me, a Fascist is someone who is only rascist if that person is not from their nation. A Fascist is also a sexist, homophobe and a rampant bigot.


I do not see any connection between Fascism and Socialism, except for the rather tenous one about Mussolini once being a Socialist.

You know it wasnt until the 60&#39;s and Herbert Marcuse and the Frankfort school, that Marxism included people outside of the general working class, i.e. homosexuals, women, minorities and the homeless into the mix. Before then even the Bolshevicks hated the peasentry. So again, I&#39;m not trying to rely on ad hominem attacks about Fascists as a critique to thier doctrines. Im relying on its economic principles.


Just because the italian fascists aimed for marxism doesn&#39;t mean we are fascists...fool Stalinism is, in fact, the only "fascist"-like ideology on the left, and most of us here...condone it&#33; I urge of all here who does not yet to take the same example


I did not say that. You are all ready getting highly defensive. I am speaking strictly about thier doctrine and it being a school of Marxist revisionary.


I&#39;ll add something else - we wish to knock down the borders, Fascists wish to build them up.

Yes, they were nationalistic. That was thier thing. That still doesnt really change thier doctrine as not being left wing. I mean what would that Nazis have been if they were internationalists? InterNazis?
Obviously, they had a flawed philosophy. Im not arguing that. but what I am trying to get at is why have they been shunned to the "right" of the political spectrum without full examination of thier doctrine?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

What is a fascist?

Anyone who is an intellectual, violent, and digs mass graves in secret.

Almost everyone where has 2 of the 3 qualities acomplished.

[Publius]

You guys don&#39;t much of a knowledge about the political meaning of fascism, do you?

It isn&#39;t murderous, it isn&#39;t racist, it isn&#39;t sexist, it isn&#39;t homophobic, it&#39;s just another political system, very similar to state socialism.

It&#39;s a mix of collectivization and capitalism. It&#39;s not right wing, and not really left wing. It&#39;s just authoritarian.

Fascism, as a political idealogy, is the subservience of the individual to the state.

Nothing more, nothing less.

This can be applied in many ways, most of them bad.

Fascism is not inherently good or bad, it&#39;s just a political system. If you have a beneavalent dictator and a populous willing to make the collective (Subservient) society work, you could have an effective state.

But I doubt it.

As a theory, it rests on the assumption that humans need to sacrifice themselves for the good of all, and is therefore, anti-freedom.

[Publius]

Here&#39;s an actual Fascist&#39;s (He&#39;s pro-fascist, deal with it) explanation of Fascism:

Fascism was unique among the radical forces produced by the early twentieth century, developing out of World War I without any clear predecessor in the nineteenth century. It first emerged in Italy in 1919, catapulting its leader, Benito Mussolini, into the premiership three years later and then to the creation of a new political dictatorship beginning in 1925. The term fascism, however, would later be applied to an entire cluster or genus of new revolutionary nationalist movements in Europe between the world wars, of which the most important was German National Socialism, or Nazism, for short, so that the Italian origins of the first fascism would often be overlooked, attention focusing primarily on Germany. The initial, or "paradigmatic" fascism nonetheless had specifically Italian roots and characteristics.

The term comes from the Italian fascio, derived from the ancient Latin fasces, which referred to the bundle of lictors, or axe-headed rods, that symbolized the sovereignty and authority of the Roman Republic. From approximately the 1870s, the term fascio was used in Italy in the names of radical new social and political organizations, normally of the left. Thus the revolutionary nationalists who sought to create a new left nationalist league in 1919, in the aftermath of World War I, formed a Fascio di Combattimento, transformed two years later into the new Fascist Party, and so a radical new "ism" was born.

Italian Fascism began on the left, seeking to combine strong nationalism with modern developmentalism and an aggressive new style of activism that prized violence, idealism, and anti-materialism. While reenforcing Italian colonialism, Fascism originally embraced national liberation and rejected extreme imperialism and racism. Mussolini did not create the movement but skillfully guided himself to power as its Duce (Dux, or leader), at the same time moving the party to the right and engaging in practical compromise with Italy&#39;s established institutions. Though Fascists invented the term "totalitarian" for their new system, Mussolini was unable to complete a Fascist revolution and instead presided over a somewhat limited, semi-pluralist political dictatorship.

Though Fascists were at first wary of and even hostile to Hitlerism, the Nazi leader sought Mussolini as his chief ally. The Duce allowed himself to be convinced by the end of 1937, introducing Nazi-style racist and anti-semitic legislation in Italy despite the membership of many Jews in the Fascist Party. Participation in World War II as Germany&#39;s ally produced the downfall of Mussolini in 1943, but in German-occupied northern Italy the Duce was installed as leader of a new puppet Fascist-based Italian Social Republic, which waged a savage civil war against Italian anti-Fascists in 1944-1945. Though approximately thirteen thousand Fascists were executed by partisans at the end of the war, the official purge of Fascists conducted by the new democratic system in Italy was limited and half-hearted. Thus the great majority of Fascists survived, and for nearly forty years neo-Fascism would be stronger in Italy than anywhere else in Europe.

As of right now, I am a strong supporter and believer in Fascism, if used correctly without anti semitistic views. Fascism is an idealogy that could appeal to citizens in countries world wide. We need to wipe away the democratic victory propoganda of WWII, that looked down upon Fascist governments. Once the Democratic propoganda was added to history books and newspapers around the world as the way a country&#39;s government should be, Fascism was marked as evil without even having a chance to prove that Fascism can work under the right leadership and under the right conditions.

True Fascism is not a true Totalitarian ideal, it gives power to a council as well but gives the leader the final decision which is made for the best of country. Totalitarian Dictatoships uses death and destruction to grow. Hitler and Stalin were true totalitarians, Mussolini was not. I believe that One must be proud of one&#39;s cultural views. I believe that the world is too materialistic which makes our classes too antagonistic towards each other. Fascism calls for an elimination of class warfare to bring the country together under same laws and same respect towords all. Under fascism, education is improved. Women are more respected under fascism and odd sexual acts are banned. Overall Fascism leads to a better life for everyone.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by JudeObscure84
Obviously, they had a flawed philosophy. I&#39;m not arguing that, but what I am trying to get at is why have they been shunned to the "right" of the political spectrum without full examination of their doctrine?

Well, here&#39;s one reason.

Whenever Stalin, for example, changed the "party line", he felt compelled to explain why the new line was "more Marxist" than the old one. However torturous those "explanations" might be, Stalin was part of a political milieu that expected coherent, rational explanations for policy decisions.

That is, he was part of the left (as uncomfortable as that makes some people).

As you move rightwards on the political spectrum, the need and even the desire for rational explanations steadily decrease. The authoritarian conservative (semi-fascist) is reduced to justifying repressive violence and war to "preserve sacred tradition" (old elites, in other words). And next come the true fascists, who regard explanations as "womanly" and a concession to reason that ideally should not be made at all.

The fascist slogan was "Believe&#33; Obey&#33; Fight&#33;"

It&#39;s possible to survey the "ideas" of the fascists...but misleading at the same time. Because they were not rational people, they were not concerned with ideas as such -- nothing was really important except that the Volk should unite behind its Duce and follow him in the eternal struggle for "Darwinian" supremacy.

From a left standpoint, there&#39;s just nothing there worth the trouble of examining or discussing seriously.

It&#39;s the madness of the berserker writ large.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 12:00 AM
You guys don&#39;t much of a knowledge about the political meaning of fascism, do you?

It isn&#39;t murderous, it isn&#39;t racist, it isn&#39;t sexist, it isn&#39;t homophobic, it&#39;s just another political system, very similar to state socialism.

It&#39;s a mix of collectivization and capitalism. It&#39;s not right wing, and not really left wing. It&#39;s just authoritarian.

Fascism, as a political idealogy, is the subservience of the individual to the state.

Nothing more, nothing less.

This can be applied in many ways, most of them bad.

Fascism is not inherently good or bad, it&#39;s just a political system. If you have a beneavalent dictator and a populous willing to make the collective (Subservient) society work, you could have an effective state.

But I doubt it.

As a theory, it rests on the assumption that humans need to sacrifice themselves for the good of all, and is therefore, anti-freedom.
Yes yes yes. I get it. I know what the very strict definition of fascism is. This is my definition of a fascist:

1) intellectual 2) uses violence 3) digs secret mass graves.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 01:00 AM
You guys don&#39;t much of a knowledge about the political meaning of fascism, do you?

It isn&#39;t murderous, it isn&#39;t racist, it isn&#39;t sexist, it isn&#39;t homophobic, it&#39;s just another political system, very similar to state socialism.

It&#39;s a mix of collectivization and capitalism. It&#39;s not right wing, and not really left wing. It&#39;s just authoritarian.

Fascism, as a political idealogy, is the subservience of the individual to the state.

Nothing more, nothing less.

This can be applied in many ways, most of them bad.

Fascism is not inherently good or bad, it&#39;s just a political system. If you have a beneavalent dictator and a populous willing to make the collective (Subservient) society work, you could have an effective state.

But I doubt it.

As a theory, it rests on the assumption that humans need to sacrifice themselves for the good of all, and is therefore, anti-freedom.
Lol, he is actually right on a lot of points. Please Publius don&#39;t generalise everyone into one corner. I know that you love making cheap shots, but really they are unneccesary. It ruins the debating atmosphere. On to seriousness.


very similar to state socialism.

:lol: I actually agree with that. I do think that state-socialism is closer to fascism then to me. Thus far all state-socialist experiments have eventually turned away from a socialist revolution to a feudal-to-capitalism transformation.

One of the common misperceptions on facsism is that it&#39;s racist, homophobe, anti-semite etc. Which isn&#39;t true, even though the most famous fascist dictatorship (Nazi-Germany) did show these qualities. But THE example of a fascist is Mussolini. If one tends to understand the origines of fascism, one should study his works and decisions as Duce.

I have to disagree on a few points though. First off, fascism is quite murderous. Fascism thrives on using and gloryfying violence. That&#39;s including murder, if you look into all the fascist regimes, you see that they all killed their opponents without regard.

"it&#39;s just another political system" Duh&#33; what defines a political system are it&#39;s practice, theory and qualities.

On the left/rightwing thing. This is actually quite hard to define, because there aren&#39;t any clear definitions of what left and rightwing is. It&#39;s more vagueness then anything. I personally would view Fascism as rightwing.

Fascism isn&#39;t merely the subservience of the individual to the state. Fascism is fed by the dissapointment of nationalist elements in the local bourgeoisie. Fascism seeks to strenghten the local bourgeoisie and nation in order to make an empire. In order to do so, they glorify violence and authority. Demanding full obedience of the individual for the greater goal of an empire. Shutting up, imprisoning and killing opponents.

Obviously good and bad are subjective parameters. It&#39;s in my opinion that the quest to strenghten one&#39;s own bourgeoisie; effectivly imprisoning others and yourself for the wealth and power of the few; is very very bad.

Look at it this way, we only life once; what&#39;s the use of life when you can&#39;t even decide your own lifepath or be happy? Fascism obstructs happiness and to a greater extent freedom.

Off-topic: I have been wondering this for years now, after reading Brave New World. What is more important happiness or freedom? Wouldn&#39;t the Brave New World be the perfect world? Most people there are extremely happy. Yet, I am not enthousiastic on the prospect of a drugged up dictatorial world.

Just had to think of of, due to liberty vs dictatorship in this topic.

Edit: MoneyComfort stfu. If you have nothing to add, then say nothing. Don&#39;t fuckin spam.

[Raisa]

The left all commonly believes in the liberation of the working class from being underneath the capitalists.

Does facism believe in freeing the working class? No. Fascism believes in the superiority of the nation.

Its that simple. Dont try twisting it around , cause my momma didnt raise no fool&#33;

[Publius]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@May 21 2005, 04:55 AM







:lol: I actually agree with that. I do think that state-socialism is closer to fascism then to me. Thus far all state-socialist experiments have eventually turned away from a socialist revolution to a feudal-to-capitalism transformation.

This seems like an oppurtune time to bring up the book The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek. It&#39;s, in short, about how state socialism is invariably fascistic.

Don&#39;t complain at me if you don&#39;t like the opinion, just read the book, it&#39;s very good.



One of the common misperceptions on facsism is that it&#39;s racist, homophobe, anti-semite etc. Which isn&#39;t true, even though the most famous fascist dictatorship (Nazi-Germany) did show these qualities. But THE example of a fascist is Mussolini. If one tends to understand the origines of fascism, one should study his works and decisions as Duce.

Fascist has been (Perhaps fairly) made to mean anything bad and political. Most people just see the word and go insane.


I have to disagree on a few points though. First off, fascism is quite murderous. Fascism thrives on using and gloryfying violence. That&#39;s including murder, if you look into all the fascist regimes, you see that they all killed their opponents without regard.

It takes violence to stay in power when you oppress people like a fascist state does, but part of fascist theory is that people will become subservient to the state.

If we humor them and say that this will happen and is inevietable and the state is greater than we, than it need not be violent.

It&#39;s obviously a pipe-dream but it&#39;s what they think.



"it&#39;s just another political system" Duh&#33; what defines a political system are it&#39;s practice, theory and qualities.

Fascism seems to hold a special place of villification though. Most people don&#39;t even know it was a true political and intellectual movement, not just a Jew hating dictator.



On the left/rightwing thing. This is actually quite hard to define, because there aren&#39;t any clear definitions of what left and rightwing is. It&#39;s more vagueness then anything. I personally would view Fascism as rightwing.

It&#39;s like a chauvinistic right wing religious idealogue mixing with a Stalinist.

It sort of takes the worst parts of left and right and puts them together for an expected result.


Fascism isn&#39;t merely the subservience of the individual to the state. Fascism is fed by the dissapointment of nationalist elements in the local bourgeoisie. Fascism seeks to strenghten the local bourgeoisie and nation in order to make an empire. In order to do so, they glorify violence and authority. Demanding full obedience of the individual for the greater goal of an empire. Shutting up, imprisoning and killing opponents.

Very broadly, yes.

I&#39;ve heard fascism described, as anti-democratic, as a meritocracy, where the best people are used in the most effective way, by the state apperatus.

It&#39;s a political machine.




Obviously good and bad are subjective parameters. It&#39;s in my opinion that the quest to strenghten one&#39;s own bourgeoisie; effectivly imprisoning others and yourself for the wealth and power of the few; is very very bad.

I would agree.

It&#39;s flawed, basically, in the same way monarchies are: most absolute rulers absolutely suck.



Look at it this way, we only life once; what&#39;s the use of life when you can&#39;t even decide your own lifepath or be happy? Fascism obstructs happiness and to a greater extent freedom.

If we were all Perfect People this wouldn&#39;t be a problem though.

You have to buy their fairy tale. Once you get that, all these logical problems sort of fall into place.

They were a very illogical group.

[quote]
Off-topic: I have been wondering this for years now, after reading Brave New World. What is more important happiness or freedom? Wouldn&#39;t the Brave New World be the perfect world? Most people there are extremely happy. Yet, I am not enthousiastic on the prospect of a drugged up dictatorial world. [/qute]

Freedom is all that matters.

[JudeObscure84]

C&#39;mon you guys are better than this. The history of Fascism is what I am studying to do a report on for my History of ideology class. You guys should take the course if its available at your local college.

Well in a nutshell.....Fascism is nothing like what most of you described. All I keep reading about is the simple explanation all of your Marxist teachers keep feeding you and that its.....oppressive,tyrancial,totalitarian. Well if these were the main points of Fascism, then every single Communist country out there would&#39;ve been Fascist. Obviously, those are traits of Fascism, but you guys fail to explain, why they are.
First off Fascism began with a little movement in the 1890&#39;s hosted by Eduard Bernstein called the Crisis Of Marxism. It seemed as though to alot of intellectuals at the time that Marx&#39;s science of the rising proletariat was not going to happen and that he failed to account the changing face of capitalism and the new classes of bourgeoisie. In this grew more appeal for the syndicalist movment. the syndicalist movement spread and was thought of as the new third way between captialism and communism. It called for direct action of the workers to form as massive union and take control of the means of productions and establish co-ops. They rejected Marx as a science. They weren&#39;t reactionary because they were "right wing", they were reactionary because the syndicalist slogan is direct action&#33; Then the syndicalist camp split into two camps, the nationalist and syndicalist camp which became the Fascists. The Spanish Civil War was the biggest fight between the Anarchists and the Nationalist syndicalists.
then Fascists main focus was if they rejected Marx as a science then how would they rally up the workers to unite. Thier main philosophy came from George Sorel, who preached that the working class would never rise on the issue of workers solidarity, but they would rise on the myth of nation. The Fascist philosophy was based on post modernist rejection of reason for emotion. Thier main philosophers were Sorel, Nietzche, and Kant. The nationalistic side of Fascism was used as a rouse for the workers to mobalize into a single massive union. This union was called the Fasces union or the Fascist Party. Their suppression of other labor unions was not because they were "right wing", but because they wanted to be the ONLY union in Italy. they stressed unity, for even the word Fasces means bundle or union. They used ardent nationalism and revivalism to gain a massive following of both left and right. Other branches sprung in Europe like the National Socialists, the National Syndicalists and the Austro-Fascists.
I advise you all to read the works of Giovanni Gentile, Sergio Panunzio, Robert Michels, and even Mussolini himself. This was never a state capitalist tyranical right wing rule. I am sorry to bust your bubble. It was a syndicalist workers union that ran amok and stressed mob rule. Where did this stuff come from that Fascism was right wing and it was capitalistic and such? Oh wait I can take a guess. Fascist ideology had one thing that was written within the pages of its intellectuals. It speaks about the death of Marxism. Mussolini wrote over 80 years ago about the death of communism and its trappings. Heck, even Bakunin wrote negatively about Marx. So I take it that instead of actually teaching Fascist ideology at a level where people could understand what happened in WWII, they silence it because Fascism does not want to be seen for what it is: Another Leftist Marxist revision movement.

Now its time for my facts:

"The fascist party had conceived the fascist state. One could not think of a "corporate state" or a "syndicalist state" without thinking of the fascist party. Fascism was inseparable from corporativism or syndicalism. If one removed the one concept, he necessarily removed the others. The fascist party, not the state, was the guardian of the fascist ideals, especially including syndicalism and the corporate organization of the state. The orthodoxy of syndicalist ideas was safeguarded in the fascist party. Hence, the highest value in the fascist state was syndicalism-corporativism."

Fascism wasnt even about statism. It was about USING the state to guard the Fascist principles. What Mussolini yelled about was the Fascist state, not a state in general.


"With the introduction of the syndicate would also be created what French utopian writer Saint-Simon[26] called a national-industrious class, what Sorel called a producer class. Within the group were all those who were productively engaged in bettering the state. It was, in turn, opposed by those indolent souls who contributed nothing to the well-being of the state, what SaintSimon called the anti-national class."

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p--5_Whisker.html



No. The National Syndicalist Movement is convinced that it has found the right way out: neither capitalist nor communist. Faced by the individualist economy of the bourgeoisie, the socialist one arose, which handed over the fruits of production to the State, enslaving the individual. Neither of them have resolved the tragedy of the producer.

http://feastofhateandfear.com/archives/falangist.html



Fascism was the heir of a long intellectual tradition that found its origins in the ambiguous legacy left to revolutionaries in the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Fascism was, in a clear and significant sense, a Marxist heresy.

http://users.ju.edu/jclarke/wizzm2.html < Section C


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_manifesto < This is the official Fascist Manifesto. There is a difference in preaching and practicing, I&#39;ll give ya that, but the rhetoric is still the same. All totalitarian regimes negate thier own doctrines after they reach power.

[JudeObscure84]

Non Sectarian Bastard I would like to address a few points that you have made. I will show you that you seem to put Fascism on a different plane than that of other leftists Marxist revisionary movements. Let us begin.....


:lol: I actually agree with that. I do think that state-socialism is closer to fascism then to me. Thus far all state-socialist experiments have eventually turned away from a socialist revolution to a feudal-to-capitalism transformation.

Well you see, you dont understand syndicalist or perhaps corporative syndicalist philosophy. It gives off the appearence of being capitalistic but the whole point if it is job security. Where the worker has no fear of losing thier job by expelling the real boss in the market system: The Consumer. Fascism rejects consumerism and materialism(both Marxist and Capitalist). Von Mises best explains....


The fundamental idea both of guild socialism and of corporativism is that every branch of business forms a monopolistic body, the guild or corporazione.[2] This entity enjoys full autonomy; it is free to settle all its internal affairs without interference of external factors and of people who are not themselves members of the guild.


What counts is that the guild, if autonomous, is not subject to pressure that would force it to adjust its operations to the best possible satisfaction of the consumers. It is free to give the interests of its members precedence over the interests of consumers.

http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap33sec4.asp


The ideas of socialism and those of syndicalism in the sense of action directe were developed by intellectuals whom consistent adepts of all Marxian sects cannot help describing as bourgeois. But the idea of syndicalism as a system of social organization is a genuine product of the "proletarian mind." It is precisely what the naive employee considers a fair and expedient means for improving his own material well-being. Eliminate the idle parasites, the entrepreneurs and capitalists, [p. 813] and give their "unearned incomes" to the workers&#33; Nothing could be simpler.

http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap33sec1.asp

Non Sectarian you also wrote:

I have to disagree on a few points though. First off, fascism is quite murderous. Fascism thrives on using and gloryfying violence. That&#39;s including murder, if you look into all the fascist regimes, you see that they all killed their opponents without regard.

I also have to disagree with this point because syndicalism calls for direct action and an uprooting of the capitalist class. Remember that the capitalist class are the not the petit bougies they are the stockholders or the inverstors.


Syndicalism, as used by the partisans of Georges Sorel, means special revolutionary tactics to be resorted to for the realization of socialism. Labor unions, it implies, should not waste their strength in the task of improving the conditions of wage earners within the frame of capitalism. They should adopt action directe, unflinching violence to destroy all the institutions of capitalism. They should never cease to fight--in the genuine sense of the term--for their ultimate goal, socialism. The proletarians must not let themselves be fooled by the catchwords of the bourgeoisie, such as liberty, democracy, representative government. They must seek their salvation in the class struggle, in bloody revolutionary upheavals and in the pitiless annihilation of the bourgeois.

http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap33sec1.asp


Historian Burnett Bolloten, in The Spanish Civil War (1991), quotes a prominent anarchist from the Barcelona region (Catalonia), Diego Abad de Santillan:


"We do not wish to deny that the nineteenth of July [1936] brought with it an overflowing of passions and abuses, a natural phenomenon of the transfer of power from the hands of the privileged to the hands of the people. It is possible that our victory resulted in the death by violence of four or five thousand inhabitants of Catalonia who were listed as rightists and were linked to political or ecclesiastical reaction. But this shedding of blood is the inevitable consequence of a revolution, which, in spite of all barriers, sweeps on like a flood and devastates everything in its path, until it gradually loses its momentum." [pages 52–53]


Even the Anarchist Syndicalists in Spain used violence in their means of revolution. I do not need to tell you that basically all revolutions of the left are going to be violent. I mean a co-op syndicate is never going to compete with a mass producing mammoth capitalist factory with investors. So thier products had to be sold somehow, and they were; through the barrell of a gun. Just like most Stalinist, Maoist, Castroist societies. I also do not need to go into the many details of Che Guevarras memoirs where he lives for revolution and violence to achieve it.

[Publius]

Are you a fan of von Mises?

[OleMarxco]

Who the hell are that? Ack, even more one-liners from these rambling cappies. Bah, &#39;knohows, Here&#39;s some wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Mises) on it....and There(&#39;s) are apparantly two kinds of Von Mises? ;)

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

It&#39;s flawed, basically, in the same way monarchies are: most absolute rulers absolutely suck.

In my opinion all authoritian rulers suck. Authoritive power in it&#39;s essence is a threat against the servants.


Fascist has been (Perhaps fairly) made to mean anything bad and political. Most people just see the word and go insane.

I blame the capitalist system. :D No, seriously. People aren&#39;t brought up to be intellectuals, to be critical thinkers, but rather to take over the opinions of the local bourgeoisie. Exactly the same thing with communism, anarchism etc. People&#39;s knowledge in general on these subjects is very minimal, it wouldn&#39;t be exegerated to say; the only thing that they know regarding these subjects, is that they hate them.


Freedom is all that matters.

I am still not thought out on it. But this is an interesting statement. You may know perhaps that such thing as "absolute freedom" does not exist, because certain freedoms are contradictive to each other. The freedom of business vs. the freedom of no financial burden. In my opinion this system isn&#39;t free, because a majority of people is effectivly imprisoned by their own financial problems.

[JudeObscure84]

Are you a fan of von Mises?

and Hayek and Friedman and Thomas Sowell.....yes.

[Publius]

Who the hell are that? Ack, even more one-liners from these rambling cappies. Bah, &#39;knohows, Here&#39;s some wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Mises) on it....and There(&#39;s) are apparantly two kinds of Von Mises? ;)

Ludwig von Mises is the guy that graces my avatar, a leading Austrian economist and a brilliant person.

www.mises.org

You can read all of his books here: http://mises.org/StudyGuideDisplay.asp?SubjID=117

[Publius]

and Hayek and Friedman and Thomas Sowell.....yes.

All excellent authors.

I need to read more by them. I&#39;ve only read Capitalism and Freedom, the Road to Serfdom and Basic Economics, respectively.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@May 21 2005, 05:03 PM





In my opinion all authoritian rulers suck. Authoritive power in it&#39;s essence is a threat against the servants.

I very generally dislike authoritarian leaders, but there are some interesting theories among some libertarians that an authoritarian aristocracy is more effective than democracy.

Not having read Democracy: The God that Failed I can&#39;t really comment, but it is at least mildly interesting.


I blame the capitalist system. :D No, seriously. People aren&#39;t brought up to be intellectuals, to be critical thinkers, but rather to take over the opinions of the local bourgeoisie. Exactly the same thing with communism, anarchism etc. People&#39;s knowledge in general on these subjects is very minimal, it wouldn&#39;t be exegerated to say; the only thing that they know regarding these subjects, is that they hate them.

True.

A person in the Soviet Union thought it was paradise because it was all he knew.



I am still not thought out on it. But this is an interesting statement. You may know perhaps that such thing as "absolute freedom" does not exist, because certain freedoms are contradictive to each other. The freedom of business vs. the freedom of no financial burden. In my opinion this system isn&#39;t free, because a majority of people is effectivly imprisoned by their own financial problems.

This is where the division lies.

Basically, I think you&#39;re free to own property and you think property takes away others freedom.

It&#39;s what it all comes down to.

[JudeObscure84]

Well Publius are you a conservative, Libertarian or objectivist?

[Publius]

Well Publius are you a conservative, Libertarian or objectivist?

I would say libertarian, though my more extreme ilk may disagree with that assessment.

I&#39;m not a conservative because I&#39;m not Christian and don&#39;t like government.

I&#39;m not an objectivist because because I don&#39;t buy all the hokey psuedo-philosophy that surrounds it.

[JudeObscure84]

but there are some interesting theories among some libertarians that an authoritarian aristocracy is more effective than democracy.

I for one agree with this notion that plenty of libertarians come to. A representative republic with strong defense and civil government is my opinion of the best form governement.

[Zingu]

Fascism is an odd ideology, I&#39;ll tell what I know and compare it to left wing Socialism, without giving a Marxist interpretation about it...at try not to.


Fascism attacks the same problems as the Left wing Socialism does, but offers different solutions.

Fascism, just like Marxism, recognizes that economics infulences society. Fascism recognizes the point that there are class antagonisms. But instead of thinking the solution is crushing the burgeoisie and installing a new ruling class, it is best to harmonize the classes.

How do this? The power of the state; the state will harmonize class relations by forming state run labor unions for employers and employees. Capitalism will also be run in the best interest of the state, and the state has the right to intervene with capitalism any time it wants.

While on the under hand, us Socialists simply think the best approach is overthrowing the ruling class and setting up a new dominant class and changing the "superstructure" of the means of production and how they are organized.

Fascism is nationalistic when it faces its problems, while Socialism looks at its problems internationally.

Take example of immigration. Fascists see that people come into their nation to steal native peoples&#39; of the country&#39;s jobs for lower wages. Their solution would be cutting off immigration and reserving jobs for the"true inhabitants" of the country with the right heritage and culture.

While us Socialists see it internationally, the problem of capitalism that is driving people out of their hellholes to find a better income in a 1st world nation.

We look at the big picture, the global picture, the fascists only concern theirselves with their own nation.

So bascially -

Fascism is nationalistic, and Socialism is internationalistic.

They believe the world is divided by nations, boundaries, culture, maybe even race (Not all Fascists are racist).

We believe that the world is divided by social class

[JudeObscure84]

I&#39;m not a conservative because I&#39;m not Christian and don&#39;t like government.


well this is where you and me part ways. I am a Christian Libertarian(not to be confused in any way with the Religous Right). I believe in the Revelation of Truth that which is in the Bible, not the correspondance of truth which is what most classical liberals believe in. All other functions which work best are simply adapted from Christian principles, and all other functions that fail are deviations from Christian principles. All philosophies in general, even religious ones are a rejection of God and the reality of his existence and plan. The ones that come closer to his revelation of truth are graced with the worlds standard of better living but are in themselves flawed. Capitalism and reason are two big examples of this.

[JudeObscure84]

Fascism is nationalistic, and Socialism is internationalistic.

They believe the world is divided by nations, boundaries, culture, maybe even race (Not all Fascists are racist).

We believe that the world is divided by social class


"Every anarchist is a baffled dictator"

Benito Mussolini

Mussolini also said that where they differ from the Socialists is that they believe its a struggle of nations, not class struggle.

[JudeObscure84]

How do this? The power of the state; the state will harmonize class relations by forming state run labor unions for employers and employees. Capitalism will also be run in the best interest of the state, and the state has the right to intervene with capitalism any time it wants.


To a degree.... The guilds or corporatives are set up as a management to eradicate the market system and control the means of commerce. No one will have a fear of losing thier job or going bankrupt. The massive labor union, the Fascist Party, USES the state as a means to guard the union. It is the police on the Fascist Party. You see you guys are arguing the rhetoric. Speak economics. Speak doctrine. Dont use "interest of the state","harmonize realtions", "state has right to intervene". How and why is it going to do this? Why does it need to do this? Because its "fascist"? Because its "right wing", because it "wants to"?

First because no co-op can compete with invested factories. It would fall under the massive production and scale of profit sharing and more investing. The worker doesnt know the first thing about running a business. So the revolution has to destroy ALL capitalist run buisnesses and turn them into guilds or corporatives. The boss can stay so long as he doesnt leave or invest in another business, fire workers or disrupt producitivty. How is this going to be accomplished? By force, ofcourse. By a massive labor union using the state as a means to conduct this force. It has to be done on a national level.

[JudeObscure84]

"Rise like lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you, Ye are many they are few."
-PercyBysshe Shelley

very famous quote used by anarchists. kind of reminds me of.......



"It is better to live one day as a lion than a hundred days as a sheep."

Benito Mussolini

Why are all the rhetoric slogans that come out of the Fascists so appalling to you guys, when the Anarchist, Communist, and even Syndicalist ones are so similar in their quest for revolution? Why arent they all viewed as the same irrational emotional response to the anger, fear and rejection of a capitalist society?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Well certainly, fascism may have developed out of and as a response to Marxism, the same could be said of Marxism&#39;s relation to capitalist ideology. Does this mean Marxism is a capitalist ideology? Of course not, the suggestion is absurd.

To an even greater degree, consider individualist-anarchism&#39;s relation to classical liberalism - the rhetoric is similar to the degree that it is almost interchangable - yet as anarchists they demand the abolition of those intstitutions classical liberals hold dearest. While certainly there are relations between form and function, between style and content, saying Angelic Upstarts = Skrewdriver is idiotic (Two "skinhead" bands with distinctly different messages). You might take a closer look at the practical difference between "Blood and Soil&#33;" and "Land and Freedom&#33;" . . . and the practical difference between the real material questions of economic relationships, vs the abstract business of the "nation".

What we ought to consider is the practical differences an authentic anarcho-/syndicalism and fascism. The prior aims to (and, in Spain, did) establish direct, working-class economic democracy. Absolutely central to direct worker control was the destruction of class society, and smashing of the bourgeoisie.
Fascism, in theory and practice, proposed and carried out a very different program, based on preserving class relations. The functionings of collectivized Aragon and Catalonia, as compared to fascist Italy or Nazi Germany should be evident to all but the densest of observers (or, maybe folk like Christians, who could care fuck-all about reality).

[JudeObscure84]

Well certainly, fascism may have developed out of and as a response to Marxism, the same could be said of Marxism&#39;s relation to capitalist ideology. Does this mean Marxism is a capitalist ideology? Of course not, the suggestion is absurd.

No the syndicalist movment (which Fascism grew out of) never went far enough to say that they were capitalist. It was Marxist revisionism, not total Marxist rejection. Its a school of leftism.


To an even greater degree, consider individualist-anarchism&#39;s relation to classical liberalism - the rhetoric is similar to the degree that it is almost interchangable - yet as anarchists they demand the abolition of those intstitutions classical liberals hold dearest.

But its not rhetoric that I am arguing about. It is the economic ideal. Thier social philosophy was opposed to pacifism and all the traits that make up a general "left". But the doctrine itself is syndicalism.


What we ought to consider is the practical differences an authentic anarcho-/syndicalism and fascism. The prior aims to (and, in Spain, did) establish direct, working-class economic democracy. Absolutely central to direct worker control was the destruction of class society, and smashing of the bourgeoisie.

Yes we should. And you will see why the Fascists rejected Anarchism, and split the syndicalist camp into nationalists and anarchists. Dont ever forget to ask why they opted for that conclusion. Dont just say "it was about power", or "it was right wing". I wont accept that. Careful reading of Fascist ideology would prove otherwise and show that it had as much direct actione in its philosophy as Anarcho-Synicalists. This doesnt have to make them twin ideologies, but competitors in the same school,yes.


Fascism, in theory and practice, proposed and carried out a very different program, based on preserving class relations. The functionings of collectivized Aragon and Catalonia, as compared to fascist Italy or Nazi Germany should be evident to all but the densest of observers (or, maybe folk like Christians, who could care fuck-all about reality).

For you to say that they were preserving class relations is a slap in the face to guild socialism/syndicalism, which is what Fascism was about. It called to preserve the working class conditions of the workers and eliminate pesky unpredictable commerce so the guilds or corporatives would function without any outside interference.


It will free production from the financial burdens with which finance capital overwhelms it. It will overcome the anarchy it causes by putting order into it. It will prevent speculation with commodities, guaranteeing a profitable price. And, above all, it will pass on the surplus value not to the capitalist, not to the State, but to the producer as a member of his trade union. And this economic system will make a thing of the past the depressing spectacle of unemployment, slum housing, and misery.For Fatherland, Bread, and Justice&#33;[…]

-Excerpt from the Flange Party of Spain 1935

[Zingu]

I&#39;ll say it again, its true, the left wing and Fascism are not exactly "polarized" (expection to Nazism and other extreme Fascist ideologies, thats an other story.), both general idealogies were born out of the unrest and dissatisfaction that capitalism has created and is creating.
Both are "radical" in serperate ways, if thats the word.


The simple fact is, we both offer alternatives to the same problem: capitalism. And see each other as a threat. Fascism offers, in my view, pretty shitty solutions to Capitalism, not even wanting to do away with it.

Fascism is dying as well, at least the nationalistic element in it, as globalization continues to spread, their idea of heritage, national identity, will be a lost cause.

[JudeObscure84]

Fascism is perhaps the most evil form of Marxist revisionart out there. While I loath Marxism, I too would side with them any day to stomp out Fascists like in WWII.


Fascism is dying as well, at least the nationalistic element in it, as globalization continues to spread, their idea of heritage, national identity, will be a lost cause

I totally disagree with this notion. The Fascist movement has moved from the West to the East now. Middle East political parties and Islamic movments are near mirror images to the Fascist movements of the West. The National Socialist Syrian Party, Islamic Jihad, Baa&#39;th Parties, Hamas and Hizbollah are all reactionary movements based on extreme nationalism against globalized internationalism.

I hate it when leftists appease or apologize for these unions of death. That would be like saying that Mussolinis Blackshirts or Hitler&#39;s SS are the best weapon against globalization. Remember that the Fascists believed that international communism and international capitalism(globalization) were Jewish inventions.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 05:53 PM
Are you a fan of von Mises?
Only, if I am in the mood for reading the tired old works of a dead economic theorist.

Libertarianism cannot be applied to the current mixed economies of the west, the likes of Hoover were replaced by the FDR&#39;s of the world. Libertarianism is doomed by proxy. The idea of powerless government, in regard to buisness at least, cannot hope to succeed. It would undoubtedly be overthrown by workers, or forced to mutate into a mixed economic system, similar to the one which exists today.

Chartism was the British reaction to the government of the days laissez-faire approach to buisness in the 19th century. Undoubtedly a similar movement would force change should similar policy and conditions be endured (though only temporarily) again.

[JudeObscure84]

hey there are different strands of economic thinking in the Libertarian movement. I happen to be more Hayeken than Mises-like. There has to be some government intervention, like how the telephone communication got its upstart, and even public transporation. Im not ridiculous enough to assume that everything has to be privitized.

[Publius]

Only, if I am in the mood for reading the tired old works of a dead economic theorist.

Libertarianism cannot be applied to the current mixed economies of the west, the likes of Hoover were replaced by the FDR&#39;s of the world. Libertarianism is doomed by proxy. The idea of powerless government, in regard to buisness at least, cannot hope to succeed. It would undoubtedly be overthrown by workers, or forced to mutate into a mixed economic system, similar to the one which exists today.

Chartism was the British reaction to the government of the days laissez-faire approach to buisness in the 19th century. Undoubtedly a similar movement would force change should similar policy and conditions be endured (though only temporarily) again.

Hoover, the man who caused the Great Depression vs. FDR, the man who prolonged the Great Depression.

Hmm.

I&#39;ll take none-of-the-above.

Let me just say this, Hoover wasn&#39;t &#39;do nothing&#39;. He did a lot. And it didn&#39;t work.

What FDR did didn&#39;t work either.

Read: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1623

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp...rtorder=subject (http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=258&sortorder=subject)

[JudeObscure84]

QUESTION 2: Thinking in terms of geopolitics, what primary strategic mistakes did Adolf Hitler make in the Second World War?

ANSWER: First, we must dispense with the simplistic, black-and-white approach that views communism and national socialism as being at opposite poles from each other. They were competitors far more than they were enemies. This is why the totally unexpected German-Soviet treaty in the summer 1939, for the first time, put the pawns in their right places on the chessboard.

True fascism is definitely not right wing. (Cf. the analyses of Zeev Stemhell, the Israeli historian.) The "leftist" roots of national socialism are numerous. After leaving prison, I managed to meet and interview the last surviving Strasser brother, Otto. Around 1962, my press brought out two personal interviews with Otto Strasser. The SA (brownshirts) were sometimes nicknamed the "Beefsteaks." In fact, most of the SA were communists who had gone over to Hitler. Brown on the outside, but red inside. In East Germany, about 1950, many of these became red on the outside once again.

- Interview with Jean-Francois Thiriart , Question 2

http://www.oswaldmosley.com/people/jeanthiriarte.html

[JudeObscure84]

I will examine three Fascist parties: The British Union of Fascists, and The National Syndicalists of Spain (Flange)


What is the difference between Fascism and Capitalism, since both admit the system of private enterprise ?
In brief definition, Capitalism is the system by which capital uses the Nation for its own purposes. Fascism is the system by which the Nation uses capital for its own purposes. Private enterprise is permitted and encouraged so long as it coincides with the national interests. Private enterprise is not permitted when it conflicts with national interests. Under Fascism private enterprise may serve but not exploit. This is secured by the Corporative System, which lays down the limits within which industry may operate, and those limits are the welfare of the Nation.


- Oswald Mosley himself on Fascism

http://www.oswaldmosley.com/buf/100questions.htm

Fascist ideology is just re-hashed guild socialism.


Class war will be eliminated by permanent machinery of government for reconciling the clash of class interests in an equitable distribution of the proceeds of industry. Wage questions will not be left to the dog-fight of class war, but will be settled by the impartial arbitration of State machinery; existing organisations such as trade unions and employers&#39; federations will be woven into the fabric of the Corporate State, and will there find with official standing not a lesser but a greater sphere of activity. Instead of being the general staff of opposing armies, they will be joint directors of national enterprises under the general guidance of corporative government.

Who says they didnt want to end class wars? This is syndicalism at its main point.

http://www.oswaldmosley.com/buf/strike_action.htm < directly mirror the CNT in essense of DIRECT ACTION. Only difference is that its nationalist and not anarchist.



15.- El Estado se reserva la capacidad de planificar la economía nacional, de manera vinculante y centralizada, siempre que estén amenazados el bienestar social de los españoles y la independencia de la Patria.

- National Syndicalist Flange Party of Spain, national platform 15: The State reserves the capacity to plan the national economy in the form of centralization always for the social benefit of the spanish and the independence of the patriarch.

http://www.e-falange.com/fei/programa.html

[13Commnists]

Another thing Fascism is neither Socialist, Anachist, Communist, Syndicalist, etc.
Nor Capitalist. It is as Benito Mussolini described it the "Third Way".
From Wikipedia

While failing to outline a coherent program, fascism evolved into a new political and economic system that combined corporatism, totalitarianism, nationalism, and anti-Communism in a state designed to bind all classes together under a capitalist system.

[OleMarxco]

All I know, is that it was pretty close to State-Capitalism&#33; So perharps, in a way, if you are cynical, you could say Soviet was kinda of alot Fascistic, perhaps even more than Fascism itself&#33; Heh&#33; "Communist" ruling class, to hell with that&#33; Thank&#39;s for destroying our "good name", any day. The non-existant one, that is...Bah&#33; :rolleyes:

[JudeObscure84]

AND IT STILL CONTINUES......


1. Syndicalism, or Guild Socialism, stands for social justice and recognises the right of the individual to work for his family and himself, always provided this does not conflict with the well being of others. Syndicalism, therefore, will not interfere with individuals who own shops, who run farms and small workshops: in particular those who launch new industries. Teams of technicians may work on new projects in industry, but the initial invention or, later, the guiding ability is almost always the work of an individual or a leader. If the individual is destroyed, progress is destroyed. Syndicalism, therefore, will leave the way clear for individual initiative. All it demands is that such individuals observe the social law of adequate wages and suitable conditions of work. The individual shall be protected and, in fact, encouraged for the betterment of the whole.


13. Trade Unions. Syndicalists are united when they say that the organisation of the Trade Unions will not be altered in any way without the full consent of the workers. Labour Organisation will be the basis of Syndical procedure, and the support that Syndicalists must have in the future to be able to fulfill the destiny of the working class. Trade Unions, therefore, will play a vital part in assisting workers to take over control of industry, administering many of its details, such as Industrial Insurance.


14. Strike Action. For too many years this has been the only weapon left to the workers when management became immovable in its attitude. When industry is controlled by the workers, however, strike action and restrictive practices of all kinds would be directly opposed to the interests of the workers. But Syndicalism will always uphold the right to strike until the workers decide for themselves to abolish this last link with the bad old days


http://www.***************/forum/showthread.php?t=58696 < Explains it all. The Fascists were simply guild socialists. Corporative syndicalists in the Italian version.


http://www.oswaldmosley.com/buf/strike_action.htm < what is the difference between this STRIKE ACTION and that of DIRECT ACTION which the Anarcho-syndicalists use?


Syndicalism is a political and economic ideology which advocates giving control of both industry and government to labor union federations.

Under Fascism in Italy, business owners, employees, trades-people, professionals, and other economic classes were organized into 22 guilds, or associations, known as "corporations" according to their industries, and these groups were given representation in a legislative body known as the Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni.
In other aspects this could also be called the guild socialism.



Syndicalisme is a French word meaning "trade unionism".


This contrasts socialism&#39;s emphasis on the distribution of output from all different trades to one another as required by each trade, not necessarily considering how those trades organize themselves internally. Both these systems of pre-organized economic structure can theoretically include variations on privatism, unlike the third such pre-arranged egalitarian strand, namely communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism < Scroll down the lists of syndicalists and you will see that with the exception of the Spanish syndicalists, the rest became Fascists.


Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to corporations that represent economic, industrial and professional groups.


Gabriele D&#39;Annunzio and anarcho-syndicalist Alceste de Ambris incorporated much of corporative philosophy in their Constitution of Fiume.

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

[JudeObscure84]

Another thing Fascism is neither Socialist, Anachist, Communist, Syndicalist, etc.
Nor Capitalist. It is as Benito Mussolini described it the "Third Way".
From Wikipedia


The third way WAS syndicalism. Corporative Syndicalism also known as guild socialism. Sheez, dont you people know anything about syndicalist philosophy? Plus there is always a difference in theory and practice. I am not arguing that. But it is highly arrogant if one says that the Fascists did not believe in what they were preaching.

[JudeObscure84]

oh and it isnt fair that I cannot reply to a response to a post in the theory forum.

[JudeObscure84]

OleMarxo wrote:
All I know, is that it was pretty close to State-Capitalism&#33; So perharps, in a way, if you are cynical, you could say Soviet was kinda of alot Fascistic, perhaps even more than Fascism itself&#33; Heh&#33; "Communist" ruling class, to hell with that&#33; Thank&#39;s for destroying our "good name", any day. The non-existant one, that is...Bah&#33;


despite a deep difference in social foundations, are symmetrical phenomena. In many of their features they show a deadly similarity. A victorious revolutionary movement in Europe would immediately shake not only fascism, but Soviet Bonapartism. (that is, Stalinism)

-Lev Trotsky, Stalinism and Fascism

,
Lenin now spoke of holding the entire fabric of society together with "a single iron will," and he began to see the withering away of the state as a long way away: "We need the state, we need coercion"—certainly a Fascist mantra.

After Lenin&#39;s death in 1924, this logic culminated in 1925 with Stalin&#39;s "creative development" of Marxism: "Socialism in One Country," a national socialism by any other name.

http://users.ju.edu/jclarke/wizzm2.html

I feel that most Fascists pretty much were blunt and honest and described the fallacies of Marxism and opted to just rule. They wanted to stop at the transition from state to communism. Thus, I am not trying to argue that Fascism is Marxism or that it is anarchism by any means, but that it is a Marxist heresy. A dangerous school of Marxism. All of the communist countries out there simply became Fascist.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 08:37 PM


Only, if I am in the mood for reading the tired old works of a dead economic theorist.

Libertarianism cannot be applied to the current mixed economies of the west, the likes of Hoover were replaced by the FDR&#39;s of the world. Libertarianism is doomed by proxy. The idea of powerless government, in regard to buisness at least, cannot hope to succeed. It would undoubtedly be overthrown by workers, or forced to mutate into a mixed economic system, similar to the one which exists today.

Chartism was the British reaction to the government of the days laissez-faire approach to buisness in the 19th century. Undoubtedly a similar movement would force change should similar policy and conditions be endured (though only temporarily) again.

Hoover, the man who caused the Great Depression vs. FDR, the man who prolonged the Great Depression.

Hmm.

I&#39;ll take none-of-the-above.

Let me just say this, Hoover wasn&#39;t &#39;do nothing&#39;. He did a lot. And it didn&#39;t work.

What FDR did didn&#39;t work either.

Read: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1623

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp...rtorder=subject (http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=258&sortorder=subject)
Speaking as a student of history, and having read a great many works on the subject of the great depression, and can categorically state that Hoover did nothing of any serious value, he and his party acted way too late, and did far too little. The consensus was that the market rose and fell, and that the market would restore it&#39;s self if left alone. Which of course is complete rubbish, I very seriously doubt that America would have survived the depression (in a liberal democracy at least). I do not feel the need to read the articles you posted, nothing from the &#39;Von Mises&#39; institute is going to tell me what i have not already read from real historians. In other words, anything those people have to say I have seen before, both defended and attacked, I seriously doubt they offer anything new.

As for FDR, his policies, while limited, were certainly effective. One of Roosevelt’s first moves was to indefinitely close all banks to give the banks time to solve the problems they were facing. All banks in the USA were closed on the 6th of March, an executive order to remain active only until congress acted, and on the 9th of March the Emergency Banking Act was approved, on the 13th of march the soundest banks were re-opened. This certainly restored confidence in the banks, any suggestion that it did not is a false. Numerous such examples would suggest that FDR did do something about the depression, in an effective manner. However in my view, he only did enough to gain public support, removing the threat of revolution (which most likely would have occurred), while not seriously effecting the prospects of American business.

The situation we have today is simply a continuation of that very same policy.

Anyway, to suggest that FDR did not solve the problem of the depression is ridiculous, why else do you think the US antagonised the Japanese?

[Wiesty]

a fascist is not left winged.....i hope

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 03:33 AM
a fascist is not left winged.....i hope
Don&#39;t worry, Fascists hate the leftwing. If you care to read Mussolini&#39;s autobiography then you can see for your self.

But its quite alright to be worried, the uneducated right-wingers have a nasty addiction to vicious lies about concepts which the fail to understand and perceive as a threat. They like to demonise ideologies such as socialism, as well as religions such as Islam. Of course he logic of their attacks soon comes crashing down if any serious criticism comes to light.

[JudeObscure84]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:45 AM
Don&#39;t worry, Fascists hate the leftwing. If you care to read Mussolini&#39;s autobiography then you can see for your self.

But its quite alright to be worried, the uneducated right-wingers have a nasty addiction to vicious lies about concepts which the fail to understand and perceive as a threat. They like to demonise ideologies such as socialism, as well as religions such as Islam. Of course he logic of their attacks soon comes crashing down if any serious criticism comes to light.

"Fascism has taken up an attitude of complete opposition to the doctrines of Liberalism, both in the political field and in the field of economics".

Also in the Doctrine of Fascism, ch.2 #8


"Laissez faire is out of date"

Apparently he hated capitalism as well. So what was he? A right wing socialist?

- Greene, N. (1968) Fascism: An anthology. N.Y.: Crowell.


It is opposed to classical Liberalism,

- The Doctrine of Fascism #7, http://library.flawlesslogic.com/fascism.htm


"After the war, in 1919, Socialism was already dead as a doctrine: It existed only as a hatred".

Well he wasn&#39;t a parlimentary socialist either. So what was he?


..even the echoes of the terminology are now spent; whilst in the great river of Fascism are to be found the streams which had their source in Sorel, Peguy, in the Lagardelle of the Mouvement Socialiste and the groups of Italian Syndicalists, who between 1904 and 1914 brought a note of novelty into Italian Socialism, which by that time had been devitalized and drugged by fornication with Giolitti, in Pagine Libere of Olivetti, La Lupa of Orano and Divenire Sociale of Enrico Leone.

He was a syndicalist pure and simple. A guild socialist.

- Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism, Ch. 2 # 1 http://library.flawlesslogic.com/fascism.htm


So he wasnt right or left, he was fascist in his own sense.
So I want to know what you guys base right and left on? Do you guys base it on economics? Because Mussolini was against "right" economics because he was against Liberalism. Or perhaps "right" as in authoritarian? But then that means that Mao, Castro and Kim Jong Il are all "right wing".

[apathy maybe]

The simply fact is no matter how hard you try and draw links between fascism and syndicalism, fascism isn&#39;t a type of socialism.

Socialism is about equality between people, this means no sexism, racism etc.

Fascism is an ideology promoting the supremacy of the nation, it is characterised by irrationality and a strictly defined hierarchical structure with a single leader on top.

Fascism is not a revision of Marxism; Marx was neither a syndicalist nor an anarchist. While some anarchists believe in organising society by unions, they believe in no hierarchy and no nations.

While there may be similarities between some leftist ideologies and fascism saying that they are related is like saying that because octopuses have complex eyes they must be related to humans. Sure they are both animals.

[JudeObscure84]

Why do you guys keeps bringing up the same tired arguments. I offered you tons of writings from the fascists themselves, who spoke the syndicalist dialoque to the core, were collectivists and rejected liberalism worse than Marx ever could. but every argument is the same. "socialism is about equality", "fascism is not this and that because it was so very very bad". All I am trying to state is that its roots were in syndicalism and its a school of the left that became horribly nationalistic and brutal. Like Stalinism and Maoism. I know you people think these are "not communist", but for the love of the All Mighty just admit that it branched off Marxism by way of unionism and syndicalism. Its that easy folks.

[OleMarxco]

Okay: Stalinism and Maoism branched off Marxism. SO WHAT - I still don&#39;t accept it as communistic. In fact, I totally REFUSE it as it and knock it off as some kind of sick totalarian dystopia. While it -MAY- be effective against the reactionary capitalists&#39; counter-revolutions, It&#39;s still not Socialism afterwards; It&#39;s bullshit, and it&#39;s just given us a heavy load (Just take China - I saw this documentary the other day of &#39;em and it were young movie-maker talents forced to the whim of investors (CAPITALISTS&#33;) and the morals of the ancient feudalistic-like thinking society (STATE&#33;)) - You know that.

I have been forced alot to stand up and PROTECT those so-called Bolsheviks all the time even if I would prefer to ATTACK them. I not only try, but make a DEFINITE example to shy away from Authority-liking "communists". And YES, as for the "tiring old arguments" (you&#39;ll hear &#39;em til you dispear &#39;em) I don&#39;t give a SHIT what Fascism started outl ike and Sycndialism this and that, Unionism that and this, and how they rejected Liberalism more than Marx... Who gives a shit about Marx, I give a shit about the workers. And what more, I care more about what Fascism is NOW: The dictatoric despot&#39;s inner wet dream - A bunch of skinhead kids rallying up and fighting "them goddamn black-skin&#39;s", so Mussolini can go and fuck of all the way to hell with his state-moralism and absolving of the invidual :P

[marxist_socialist_aussie]

WEll how about this, arguably the two most well known facist leaders, hitler and Mussolini, ran well oiled capitalistic economies, no matter what Mussolini preached or wrote. Furthermore, by definition Facism includes a great love of ones country and a belief that ones country and its people are superior to those of other nations hence, facism is actually by definition racist.

However, when we use the old left/right dialogue in these arguments the problem is that we see it as a straight line. Think of it as a curve which almost meets to form a circle. Facism is widely accepted as the ultra-right and it is true, it holds a number of similarities with what is seen as communism which has existed. Hence, when you take htis and put it into acount with the circle thing, the two are close yet, at the same time are worlds apart from each other. Hope you gte what I am trying to say.

Ofcourse, to use what I wrote in the previous paragraph about the circle, on must use stalinism as the form of communism.

Sorry dude, but trying to argue facism is left wing has been tried many times before, and every time it has clearly failed.

[Invader Zim]

"Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect.

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....

...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....

...iven that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State.... "

While you could go to a publication library and look this up personally, (like I once was forced to do) I will make it easier on both of us, by providing this, rather reduced online edition: -

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

An extract from the Italian Encyclopaedia written in 1932. The definition of fascism, was written personally by Mussolini. I think he makes his views of socialism abundantly clear.

Perhaps if we wish to study Mussolini&#39;s actions on an international scale the review of his policies should be expounded. Mussolini&#39;s counter republican thrust in the Spanish civil war has been described as anti-communist, however it is far more accurate to suggest that he extended this policy to any leftists. 1 Mussolini&#39;s anti-communist/socialist views can be seen further with the creation of the &#39;Anti-Comintern Pact&#39; in 1936 and Italy’s signing of said agreement in 1937. The &#39;Anti-Comintern Pact&#39; was an agreement designed solely to combat communism and socialism around the world. If you care to do a little research into the pact then we can see that when Francisco Franco agreed to enter pact, Mussolini considered his involvement in the Spanish civil war to be justified. 2

If we care to look at the very makeup of those who fought in the Spanish civil war against the nationalists, with specific reference to the international brigades, then we can see that those who fought and died to halt the spread of fascism were communists, socialists and anarchists. 3 Indeed, the very famous democratic socialist author George Orwell spent time in the international brigades, Orwell was certainly no communist, indeed his works have become text book attacks on Marxist Leninism. Orwell&#39;s commentary on the war makes interesting reading, especially when remarking upon the clearly socialist elements of the International brigades. One excellent example is derived from the decision making process in a revolutionary army which was expected to be democratic rather than dictatorial, as standard armies are. 4

You may wonder what relevance this has to my point, in short it proves that the enemy of fascism were socialists, fascists fought to irradiate socialists and Mussolini&#39;s primary intention in the war was to destroy leftism in general. In Mussolini&#39;s own words he denies fascism has anything to do with socialism, indeed any economic motivations.

In short, I think we can dismiss any connection between fascism and the left. The connection is poor, unfounded and debunked by Mussolinis own words and actions.


1. John F. Coverdale, Italian Intervention In The Spanish Civil War, (Princeton, 1975), p 13.

2. Galeazzo Ciano, Ciano’s Diary, translated by Robert. L. Miller, (London, 2002), P. 192.

3. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPinternational.htm.

4. George Orwell, Looking Back On the Spanish War, in George Orwell, Essays, (St Ives, 2000), p. 221.


PS have a good one.

[encephalon]

Hoover, the man who caused the Great Depression vs. FDR, the man who prolonged the Great Depression.

Hmm.

I&#39;ll take none-of-the-above.

Let me just say this, Hoover wasn&#39;t &#39;do nothing&#39;. He did a lot. And it didn&#39;t work.

What FDR did didn&#39;t work either.

FDR saved your ass and the rest of the capitalists with it.

[Invader Zim]

WEll how about this, arguably the two most well known facist leaders, hitler and Mussolini, ran well oiled capitalistic economies, no matter what Mussolini preached or wrote.

Well, that I am afraid is not strictly true. When arguing with the likes of these people, you must understand their definition of capitalism, if its not Ayn Rands own, then they dismiss it. So going by their definition of capitalism, it is false to suggest that the fascist regimes of the 20th century had capitalist economies as such. If one were to be so crude as to draw a line, call one side capitalist and the other side socialist (which immediately reduces any proper understanding of the subject, which is why libertarians are so mightily confused), then fascism would be in the middle.

Fascist powers use a mixed economy, employing policies which are both traditionally capitalist and policies which are traditionally employed by socialists.




FDR saved your ass and the rest of the capitalists with it.

Ahh, you are on dangerous ground my friend. While economically FDR did no such thing, he removed the sting of the depression, but world war two is what defeated the depression in America.

However, if you are arguing that FDR saved capitalists, as well as his own class from popular revolt then you are quite correct. Unfortunately the only &#39;revolution&#39; caused by the great depression was in the manner in which modern capitalists think. Modern capitalists with any sense realise that in order to eliminate any chance of another devastating crash and an ensuing depression certain &#39;safety measures&#39; have to be employed, by the state. Which is why other large crashes have occurred sense the Wall Street crash, but none have caused nearly the same world wide problems.

While libertarianism is the product of the 1950&#39;s it was dead long before its conception, and always will be. The theory goes that the market would regulate everything, if an employer were to say underpay employees then the worker would simply not work for him, thus regulating the price of labour. While this is all very well and good I theory, but in reality the factory owner is simply going to think to himself, “I’m paying my workers £5 an hour, I can’t lower this wage because they will all leave and work for Factory owner Joe Bloggs.. Hmm what can I do? I know, I’ll call Joe Bloggs up, and we can both reduce the workers wages, and we will both reduce running costs. Win Win&#33;” You see my dear friends, we stop such foul play at the moment with the likes of the minimum wage. But of course under a libertarian state, such arbitrary regulations would be abolished. Employers would, and did, just work together. They may be rivals, but they realise despite this, working together will profit them far more than the horrible price reducing, consumer friendly concept of competition.

Of course, libertarians have their answer to such problems, yet minimum wage laws, come as a direct result of such behaviour on the part of employers. This stuff happens, whether they like it or not, which is why under the current capitalist system, libertarianism cannot and will not ever be enacted in it&#39;s entirety. Of course you can say the words of Thomas Paine "That government is best which governs least.", but even back in the 18th/ 19th century it appears that they understood that some governing would have to take place.

Of course I disagree with Anarchists as well, however at least the logic and system they advocate can and has worked, albeit temporarily.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

UG.

Hey Jude, it&#39;s great you can quote primary-source documents (albeit, selectively) but you&#39;re ignoring the objective class-questions that allow us to understand the functioning of a society.
Right now, you&#39;re offering a largely superficial analysis of fascism. Yes, it grew out of the syndicalist movement. Yes, the rhetoric was, at times, anti-capitalist as it was anti-communist (depending, of course, on a given intended audience) . . . but that doesn&#39;t address the crucial questions of the theory and practice of fascism as regards class-questions as opposed to leftist theory and practice as regards the same. This is the standard by which left and right must be understood (as it deals with the concrete realities of productive interaction rather than abstractions) - not the intellectual milieu from which it arose.

[JudeObscure84]

Ok Im trying to understand what you guys equate as "right wing"? If its authoritarianism,statism, nationalism, and rascism then I guess its "right wing" socially, but if its less government, capitalism,liberalism, then its "right wing" too?


Hey Jude, it&#39;s great you can quote primary-source documents (albeit, selectively) but you&#39;re ignoring the objective class-questions that allow us to understand the functioning of a society.

Selectivity? I dare to come up with one quote from Mussolini that said that he was a believer in lassiez faire capitalism.


Right now, you&#39;re offering a largely superficial analysis of fascism. Yes, it grew out of the syndicalist movement. Yes, the rhetoric was, at times, anti-capitalist as it was anti-communist (depending, of course, on a given intended audience) . . . but that doesn&#39;t address the crucial questions of the theory and practice of fascism as regards class-questions as opposed to leftist theory and practice as regards the same.

Superficial? So Mussolini and team spent all that time in thier youth just reading and writing about syndicalist philosophy, just to decieve folks about it and take power. They never really cared about thier doctrine. I find it very arrogant of you that some one could not be disillusioned with socialism and come up with an alternative that doesnt fit the typical left/right paradigm. If you knew much about syndicalist philosophy then you would know thier particular answer to class relations.

http://www.oswaldmosley.com/buf/100questions.htm < This would answer all your questions, from a famous fascist himself, Oswald Mosely.

[JudeObscure84]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 09:38 AM

"Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect.

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....

...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....

...iven that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State.... "

While you could go to a publication library and look this up personally, (like I once was forced to do) I will make it easier on both of us, by providing this, rather reduced online edition: -

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

An extract from the Italian Encyclopaedia written in 1932. The definition of fascism, was written personally by Mussolini. I think he makes his views of socialism abundantly clear.

Perhaps if we wish to study Mussolini&#39;s actions on an international scale the review of his policies should be expounded. Mussolini&#39;s counter republican thrust in the Spanish civil war has been described as anti-communist, however it is far more accurate to suggest that he extended this policy to any leftists. 1 Mussolini&#39;s anti-communist/socialist views can be seen further with the creation of the &#39;Anti-Comintern Pact&#39; in 1936 and Italy’s signing of said agreement in 1937. The &#39;Anti-Comintern Pact&#39; was an agreement designed solely to combat communism and socialism around the world. If you care to do a little research into the pact then we can see that when Francisco Franco agreed to enter pact, Mussolini considered his involvement in the Spanish civil war to be justified. 2

If we care to look at the very makeup of those who fought in the Spanish civil war against the nationalists, with specific reference to the international brigades, then we can see that those who fought and died to halt the spread of fascism were communists, socialists and anarchists. 3 Indeed, the very famous democratic socialist author George Orwell spent time in the international brigades, Orwell was certainly no communist, indeed his works have become text book attacks on Marxist Leninism. Orwell&#39;s commentary on the war makes interesting reading, especially when remarking upon the clearly socialist elements of the International brigades. One excellent example is derived from the decision making process in a revolutionary army which was expected to be democratic rather than dictatorial, as standard armies are. 4

You may wonder what relevance this has to my point, in short it proves that the enemy of fascism were socialists, fascists fought to irradiate socialists and Mussolini&#39;s primary intention in the war was to destroy leftism in general. In Mussolini&#39;s own words he denies fascism has anything to do with socialism, indeed any economic motivations.

In short, I think we can dismiss any connection between fascism and the left. The connection is poor, unfounded and debunked by Mussolinis own words and actions.


1. John F. Coverdale, Italian Intervention In The Spanish Civil War, (Princeton, 1975), p 13.

2. Galeazzo Ciano, Ciano’s Diary, translated by Robert. L. Miller, (London, 2002), P. 192.

3. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPinternational.htm.

4. George Orwell, Looking Back On the Spanish War, in George Orwell, Essays, (St Ives, 2000), p. 221.


PS have a good one.

...iven that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....


This should be highlighted in your mental notebook. The Liberalism he&#39;s talking about is capitalism, lassiez faire. I never said that Mussolini was a parlimentary marxist socialist. He was a guild socialist, a trade unionist, and a syndicalist. Its that simple. The Fascists stopped calling themselves socialist because they deviated so much from it that they had to call themselves something else. And if you read what his program is all about, he rejects the notion of liberty, for totalitarianism. He wasn&#39;t misguiding anyone, it wasn&#39;t some "desperate" capitalist attempt to seize power. He did exactly what he spoke. The reason was not for the simple sake of siezing power, but because they covered the holes in thier philosophy, and were brutally honest in saying the only way to achieve it was through brute strength.
The only way for a syndicalist/corporatist state to work, is that it ALL has to be syndicalist otherwise it is doomed. So it all has to submit to its heel. Mussolini was just brutally honest about it and He aroused the worker through the strings of nationalism.
This is why many anarcho-syndicalists, communists and socialists hated Fascism, because it was so brutally honest about how to acheive thier aims. They did with thier eyes open, what the communists did with their eyes closed. This might be oil and water to what your version of a better society maybe, but to him it followed in the ranks of other philosophies as Marx and Adam Smith, that failed man after the great depression.


This explains why all the political experiments of our day are anti-liberal, and it is supremely ridiculous to endeavor on this account to put them outside the pale of history, as though history were a preserve set aside for liberalism and its adepts; as though liberalism were the last word in civilization beyond which no one can go.

He explains it so plain and simple, that the most of the movements in the last eons have been anti-liberal. and its arrogant for liberals to say that thier movement is that last step in mans history. This is the point that I am furiously trying to make here, is that most of these movements have been to eliminate liberalism, even by means of re-writing the meaning of liberty, i.e. communism, socialism, whatever.


Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State.

The notion is not the state reserves the right to impose on people. Its that the union does, the fascist brotherhood, by means of using the state to do so.


A party governing a nation “totalitarianly" is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as "the acquired facts" of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people.

It took the required facts that he agrees with in order to understand the history of the world. but rejects it&#39;s conclusion. There are certain aspects of superiority in the capitalist system the he acknowledges because during his time Marxism was considered in crisis, and alot of people(especially in the syndicalist camp),rejected Marx as a science. Yet, only to the extent where Marx was wrong, were they trying to fix his "mistakes". My point, guys, is this. He didnt start from capitalism on in, he began from Marxism on in and threw out the principles he thought were wrong due to historical expierence, and tried to tweek the rest. His main fight was with the communists because the capitalists were already proven wrong in the depression. He never even saw it as any debate to have. capitalism lost, and now it was a fight between the fascists and communist. the nationalist and the anarchist.

get it?

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 09:18 AM
Of course, to use what I wrote in the previous paragraph about the circle, on must use stalinism as the form of communism.

Sorry dude, but trying to argue facism is left wing has been tried many times before, and every time it has clearly failed.
NEVER. "Stalinism" is a bullshit "leftism" based on one person believing they are the godsend of socialism. And what did he do? He made "socialism in one country"&#33; That&#39;s what&#33; NATIONALISTIC CRAP&#33; How the hell was that going in any direction towards Communism? And DON&#39;T give me SHIT about it was to prevent capitalists for threathening the "empire", because they already were nevertheless. A communistic country - or atleast one that CLAIMS it - should neither be imperialistic nor isoalistic. So eat THAT, Stalin&#33; :P

Fascism is neither right-wing nor left-wing. It&#39;s just simply central-wing, trying to appeal to both sides (depending on which audience it&#39;s speaking to) and that is done to lure equal more or less numbers from each side of the conflict under the same banner ;)

As for Mussolini, I think it&#39;s a piss poor argument that just because YES, he "wasted" his whole youth reading syndicalist literature DOESN&#39;T MEAN HE DIDN&#39;T TURN OUT LIKE SHIT. "Ooh, he put so much energy into blah-blah-blah, he had to be genuine, so was inhumanly perfect of not turning into a despotic beast" and so on and so on. WELL I STILL THINK SENDING ITALIAN JEWS TO HITLER&#39;S DEATH-CAMPS AS A TOKEN OF "FRIENDSHIP" WAS STILL A VERY FASCISTIC ACT. He got sucked into the rascistic/national/"socialist" agenda of the big brother in the North and his "ideals" were betrayed, or rather lack of ideals...it just turned from bad to worse. Fuck &#39;em both.

[JudeObscure84]

OleMarxo, you aren&#39;t contributing much but spew into my thread. Make room for real arguements please. this is a civil debate. sorry guys for all the mess, ive caused but this was a very much needed debate that i had to get off my chest. thank you for the time to do it here. lets not all get so defensive though.

[Invader Zim]

Nice, to see a good argument from OI, haven&#39;t had one of those in a while.

He was a guild socialist, a trade unionist, and a syndicalist.

In his early days, yes. but he renounced any view on class later in his life, when he became a fascist. He then spent his later years arresting trade union leaders, tec.

The fact of the matter, is that Mussolini does not only attack Marxist style socialism, but also socialism as a whole. As you pointed out he also dismisses capitalism, while stating that there is no economic ideology behind fascism.

In other words, fascism is neither right nor left on any economic scale. It is irrelevant: -


Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect.

The only time economic thought effects fascism, is how to best promote Italian fascist interest, to fund Mussolini&#39;s military adventures. In an attempt to gain the international prestige which he felt Italy and Italians diserved. Other than that, Mussolini ceased caring.

but to him it followed in the ranks of other philosophies as Marx and Adam Smith, that failed man after the great depression.


Well, I reject that in its entiraty. Mussolini made no such claims, on the other hand he rejected the entire notion of any such philosophies, other than his own.

Mussolini wanted to return Italy to its former position as a great power, a great civilisation like that under the Romans under the Caesars (note the symbol used on Italian military fascst uniforms was that of a Roman Legionnaire). He had no care for the economic and social philosophies which came to dominate the 20th century. Indeed he rejected them all out of hand.

Fascism rejects such trivial issues as class, it is about nationalism, pure and simple. Everything in afascist state revolves around nationalist ambitions in a fascist state, both politically and economically.

[JudeObscure84]

Enigma, now we are getting somewhere, but i will still prove that Mussolini still kept up with his jargon.


In his early days, yes. but he renounced any view on class later in his life, when he became a fascist. He then spent his later years arresting trade union leaders, tec.

In his early days he renounced marxism and then marxian-socialism. Guild socialism is quite different, you Marx did not invent socialism, it was around way before him in the days of the enlightment. Mussolini rejected marxian socialism, and chose to denouce parlimentary socialism as well. but his philosophy rested upon corporative syndicalism. which brought back the "progressive" notion of the catholic church and thier corporative practices, as while the guild socialists wanted to bring back the midevel practices of old england.


In other words, fascism is neither right nor left on any economic scale. It is irrelevant:

exactly, but it is also anti-liberal in every sense. he has said that most if not all movements are anti-liberal in nature.


Well, I reject that in its entiraty. Mussolini made no such claims, on the other hand he rejected the entire notion of any such philosophies, other than his own.

Mussolini wanted to return Italy to its former position as a great power, a great civilisation like that under the Romans under the Caesars (note the symbol used on Italian military fascst uniforms was that of a Roman Legionnaire). He had no care for the economic and social philosophies which came to dominate the 20th century. Indeed he rejected them all out of hand.

Fascism rejects such trivial issues as class, it is about nationalism, pure and simple. Everything in afascist state revolves around nationalist ambitions in a fascist state, both politically and economically.

But so does syndicalism object to other philosophies as well, including marx. they reject marx as a science, which would pretty much reject pure marxism as a whole. The nationalist part in Fascism is key but the syndicalism is vital to thier structure of an economy. Why else would they jabber on about it? Why else would I be sitting here talking about it? I mean you cant run a country on just pure nationalism.
And also I will add that yes, in the long run Mussloni became just another tyrant using the state to rule over the capitalist industry. I mean thats the only option a dictator can do, is absorb the money from the richest industries and give it to the state(namely himself). Like Castro, Kim Jong Il, Saddam.

[Invader Zim]

but i will still prove that Mussolini still kept up with his jargon.


You won&#39;t prove anything. We are in the glorious realms of historical subjectivity, there is no way of proving who is right or wrong, all we can do is argue based on personal interpritation of the limited facts available.

Guild socialism is quite different, you Marx did not invent socialism, it was around way before him in the days of the enlightment.

Indeed, I can assure you that you do not need to go over the basics with me. The ideals of a socialist society are near enough age old.

Mussolini rejected marxian socialism, and chose to denouce parlimentary socialism as well. but his philosophy rested upon corporative syndicalism.

Well I reject this, as Mussolini executed trade unionists. You do realise that the Blackshirts were used as strike breakers? While I would reference you his autobiography or some other foolish text by the man him self, I can&#39;t be bothered to go to the library and do so, like I did before. However, encarta shall provide&#33; : -

http://encarta.msn.com/text_761553773__1/Mussolini.html


Taking advantage of the chaos, Mussolini offered eager industrialists and landlords the services of his armed squads of Black Shirts as strikebreakers. Acting sometimes with the complicity of the government, the Fascist gangs also set about destroying left-wing and Catholic trade unions and socialist groups.

Hardly the actions of one who believed in syndicalism, indeed it is a total contradiction.


But so does syndicalism object to other philosophies as well, including marx

And? Mussolini by his actions has ruled out any serious consideration that he was any kind of syndicalist.

The nationalist part in Fascism is key but the syndicalism is vital to thier structure of an economy.

I reject that, again. Fascist enonomies are geared towards warfare and expansion, in times of war syndicalism can not operate, especially in a fascist state. One cannot maintain a war time economy when your factory workers are striking.

Why else would they jabber on about it?

It is called propaganda, and is only to be taken seriously when the actions support the words. For example Mussolini claimed that his airforce was so large could block out the sun, he lied to give his people confidence. He &#39;jabbered&#39; about syndicalism because that way he retained the support (well in theory, anyway) of the working classes.

He made promises, not because he intended to keep them, but because they kept people happy and more importantly obidient.

I mean you cant run a country on just pure nationalism.

Nope, you can&#39;t, thats why Mussolini was a corporatist. But nationalism certainly helps, it solves unemployment, leads to the quasition of new materials and nobody complains about the conditions, because &#39;there&#39;s a war on&#39;.

[JudeObscure84]

Over all Enigma, Im glad that we&#39;re meeting somewhere in the middle. Im lucky to have a civil debate without any interjections that demean my opinions as nothing more than trivial.


Well I reject this, as Mussolini executed trade unionists. You do realise that the Blackshirts were used as strike breakers? While I would reference you his autobiography or some other foolish text by the man him self, I can&#39;t be bothered to go to the library and do so, like I did before. However, encarta shall provide&#33; : -

To this notion I would say that corporative syndicalism objects to leftist trade unionism that is seperate to the ideals of the nation state. Mussolini asked instead for corporations that would seek the establishment of trade instead, modeled after the catholic church and thier ways to root out leftist trade unions and lassiez faire capitalism.


And? Mussolini by his actions has ruled out any serious consideration that he was any kind of syndicalist.

Not exactly. You see corporative syndicalism doesnt rule out capitalism. It just rules out the finace in capitalism. It tries (and fails) to knock out the lassiez faire in the market economy, the ups and downs of a shaky economy. Each guild or corporate would be subject to themselves without any outside interference. It would be as if a group of ruthless anarchist thugs(which is what Mussolinis blackshirts consisted of), were to take control of a Burger King, either kick out or keep the boss, and take over the means of its production. It would try and rule over the one boss that has ultimate control: the consumer. The company would serve what it wants, when it wants and appeal this as the national interest. There are plenty of industrialists that wouldn&#39;t mind having thier lives spared to manage a corporation.


reject that, again. Fascist enonomies are geared towards warfare and expansion, in times of war syndicalism can not operate, especially in a fascist state. One cannot maintain a war time economy when your factory workers are striking.
they are geared that way because of two things: Nationalistic fervor to regain what was once "theirs"(like Italy and Ehtiopa, and Nazi Germany and Poland), and a Fascist country, much like a Communist country cannot compete with a capitalist one. So all has to be Fascist or else.
On a much smaller scale, during the Spanish Civil war, some of the collectivized buisnesses could not compete with the smaller collectives. And both of those collectives could not compete with the capitalist ones outside of CNT control. People would flee Catalonia to search for gain. In essense the CNT ended up setting like commitees that turned into mini fascist states. Some blame this on outside Soviet and Fascist influence, others on the anarcho-syndicalist philosophy. Again, its subjective.

[JudeObscure84]

Ostensibly, the entire society is to be run by decisions made by these corporate groups. It is a form of class collaboration put forward as an alternative to class conflict and was first proposed in Pope Leo XIII&#39;s 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, which influenced Catholic trade unions which were organised in the early twentieth century to counter the influence of trade unions founded on a socialist ideology. Theoretical underpinning came from the medieval traditions of guilds and craft-based economics.

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

[JudeObscure84]

Interesting: The World&#39;s First Fascist


He is most famous for his economic teachings, in which he argued the flaws of capitalism and communism. His encyclical Rerum Novarum of 1891, on the rights and duties of capital and labor, introduced the idea of subsidiarity into Catholic social thought.

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

[YKTMX]

I&#39;m here to debate, not attack. I just want to get some misconceptions out of the way about Fascist ideology.*



*NO, I am not a Fascist. Just a history buff.

Really? The amount knowledge needed to be considered a "buff" must be really declining then.

Anybody who&#39;s studied basic history will tell you that Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and all the rest of them were put into power by political elites specifically to obstruct socialism.

A long forgotten part of this story is that the first Nazi concentration camp at Dachau was built to house Communists, Socialists and Trade Unionists. So, to be honest, I think someone accusing the left of being responsible for Fascism is not only idiotic but also deeply offensive.

Contrary to what you say, there are no "misconceptions" about the Fascist ideology. Either you accept that it is a militaristic radical nationalist dogma which needs to be opposed or you think it&#39;s quite a good idea.

Saying, "oh but the Nazis were national SOCIALIST party, bla bla" simply won&#39;t cut it, I&#39;m afraid.