What is fascism?

[Severian]

I did a search, and oddly there's never been a good thread on this. This is a problem, 'cause the rise of fascist movements is in many ways the greatest threat to the working class.

Fascism is not merely a highly repressive, autocratic tyranny. Those are as old as the pyramids. There's no need for a new word for 'em.

A new kind of political movement arose after WWI and the Russian Revolution, and a new word is needed to describe it.

The Marxist analysis of these movements was ably described by Dante in this post: (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35634&st=0&#entry1291908489)


The actual marxist definition of fascism is a plebian movement which originates from the middle classes and their reaction to the two twin wheels of capitalism, the working class and the capitalist class. In the imperialist epoch they are ground between these two mighty forces, unable to pursue their own independent class policy (not socialised enough to fight for socialism, too poor to be the ruling class) and sections of them can turn towards an ideology that promises them the world. As Hitler says 'it makes the little man feel like a dragon.'

Using quasi socialist language and political practises (marches, rallies and so on) it mobilises the middle classes, sections of backward workers not unionised and the lumpenproleteriat (criminals, unemployed and so on) into 'combat detachments' that impose their will by force on the streets.

Fascism is an instrument of civil war against the working class, it seeks to break it in two, organising its most backward and reactionary elements into a mass social movement that is used to smash proleterian organisations and any form of workers democracy or progressive gain in society. It takes capitalist ideology as its basis, the family, nationalism, patriotism and so on, appealing to the most right wing elements of bourgoise society.

Fascism is used by the ruling class to impose its will in times of great economic and scoial crisis. When the workers movement gets too strong to be contained by the normal forces (the state) the capitalists begint o fund and arm the fascist movement, boot boy thugs who 'do the dirty work' the police can't do. The reason why there is no strong fascist movement in the states is because the workers movement is so small and non threatening and the state is so strong there is no need of one.

The only thing I'd disagree on is the last sentence. For one thing, the danger of fascism is stronger than many people realize. It's not just the groups that openly call themselves fascist or Nazi - those are unlikely to become a mass movement.

It's also people like the followers of Patrick Buchanan, a figure coming out of respectable bourgeois politics who is consciously trying to build a fascist movement. Various other far-right groups, especially those inclined to street action, are ready sources of recruits for a fascist movement.

In recognizing and fighting against fascist movements, its important to keep in mind their radical, anti-establishment, even anti-big business character. Rhetorically, it is hostile to big business as well as the workers. This is what makes it so dangerous. This is what enables fascism to mobilize the middle classes, and even sections of the working class. Which lets it smash the workers' organizations more thoroughly than could be done by state repression alone.

For more information, the classic analysis of fascism:
Fascism: What it is and How to Fight it by Leon Trotsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm#p1)

[Floyce White]

Leftists are notoriously bad at describing forms of rightism too. Go figure.

Actually, I planned to write about fascism as the 11th article in my Antiproperty series, but the discussion of anarchism was a choice opportunity for a thorough treatment of personal property.

Make it super easy for yourself. Think about the three major divisions of property of feudalism and you have the three major forms of radical rightism.

Monarchism ~ crown

Religious fundamentalism ~ Western church / Eastern censorate

Fascism ~ common (that is, upper-class landed gentry, not some whimsy about "common folk" to include serfs, slaves, or landless poor)

Now, do not make the ahistoric mistake of saying they are "the same." Feudal property interests of 500 or 1000 years ago are dead and gone. Capitalists use royal dictates, brimstone, and black shirts for making more profit and accumulating property--same as with the usual liberal/conservative alternation.

[Ouroboros]

I think that fascism is simply totalitarian capitalism.

[ComradeOm]

For what its worth here's a definition of mine from a previous thread:

Fascism is a highly regressive ideology that is barely even worth commenting on. Contrary to what some think about the US, fascism is almost non existent in any government in the world today. It is truly the ideology of idiots and fools. I won’t bother talking about fascist characteristics. Some have already mentioned religion, intolerance of labour unions etc etc but they’re just symptoms of the disease. I’ll focus on the ideology that drives these actions.

The real defining feature of fascism is the emphasis placed on power. This can be best seen distribution of wealth across society. Capitalists believe that the fruits of production should go to the capitalists who bankroll the operations while socialists believe that the workers should have control of what they produce. Fascists on the other hand believe that the wealth generated by the workers should go to those who they believe deserve it. Like socialists, fascists despise the capitalist "cash nexus" where individuals can amass huge fortunes. But fascists take the opposite view to both us and capitalists – they believe that a fortune is a reward for the strong, not a sign of strength in itself (as the capitalists do). In other words – there are the strong and the weak with the weak existing to feed the strong. All fascist movements have that believe in the "strong man" to lead the people – Il Duce, Der Fuhrer – and that society should obey these figures unquestionably. Old Adolf perverted the notion slightly by adding a racial context so that the "strong men" in the Reich were the Aryan people themselves with the "weaker" Slavic people destined to serve them.

Its this master and slave concept is the real driver behind all fascist actions. They worship strength and believe that they are naturally superior to all. This is why I contend that fascism is the one ideology that is inherently "evil". It has more in common with ancient Rome than anything else and its brief dominance in the last century was a blip in the great scheme of things, a throwback to ages past. We’ll not see the likes again.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 09:52 AM
The only thing I'd disagree on is the last sentence. For one thing, the danger of fascism is stronger than many people realize. It's not just the groups that openly call themselves fascist or Nazi - those are unlikely to become a mass movement.

I agree with Dante. I don't think the US is close to a "fascist takeover" howver, fascist reactionary movements are on the rise in the US and we should oppose groups like the minutemen before they have a chance to build and position themselves as a reactionary political force.

IF the economy crashes, then fascism would be more likely due to the wakness of the left and lobor movements which would allow fascists to attract workers and the petty-bourgoise who are feeling squeezed by capitalism. The other sinerio would involve the rise and demise of a revolutionary or exceptionally strong labor movement. IF the ruling class felt as though there was a chance that they could loose power they might see fascism as a last hope. Until then, the bourgoise state has all sorts of "legal" resorces at their disposal to enforce the ruling class's rule, so they have no need to resort to extra-legal street thugs and extra-extrodinary powers of repression.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:42 PM
Some have already mentioned religion, intolerance of labour unions etc etc but they’re just symptoms of the disease. I’ll focus on the ideology that drives these actions.
It's an error to think ideology drives the actions of any political trend. Material interests, primarily, drive actions. Ideology is secondary, and often serves to rationalize actions and conceal the real reasons for them.

I'm not sure that you accurately describe fascist ideology either.


Fascists on the other hand believe that the wealth generated by the workers should go to those who they believe deserve it. Like socialists, fascists despise the capitalist "cash nexus" where individuals can amass huge fortunes. But fascists take the opposite view to both us and capitalists – they believe that a fortune is a reward for the strong, not a sign of strength in itself (as the capitalists do). In other words – there are the strong and the weak with the weak existing to feed the strong.

They do worship strength, but I'm not sure they advocate wealth distribution based on it, or that this is at the core of their ideology.

In their rise to power, they often claim to favor a more "socialist" wealth distribution. After taking power, they certainly didn't abolish the "cash nexus" or take away the fortunes of most capitalists (despite having the physical "strength" to do so.)


It has more in common with ancient Rome than anything else and its brief dominance in the last century was a blip in the great scheme of things, a throwback to ages past. We’ll not see the likes again.

Misplaced complacency. Fascism is not merely a throwback to the past, though its ideology and self-concept often point in that direction.

For one thing, its emphasis on the Volk places it among modern ideologies. All of which claim to represent the common people, under one or another name. In ancient Rome it was possible to openly proclaim the rule of an aristocracy; not today.

I should emphasize that rising fascist mass movements don't resemble the pathetic neo-Nazi remnants of today. The real threat of fascism comes from groups like Buchanan's supporters, the National Front in France, the British National Party, etc...not swastika-wearers.

If the crisis of capitalism, and the default of working-class leadership, produces conditions comparable to those of 1920s Italy or 1930s Germany...the rise of movements similar to the Blackshirts and Brownshirts is likely.

In particular, fascist movements have the chance to seize power...when the working class has missed a chance to do so. A missed revolutionary opportunity produces the kind of despair, disillusionment and resentment among the middle classes and some workers which is essential for building the fascist movement to a strength which can seize power.

I've been planning to do another thread on features of fascist ideology....I think a lot of people on this board have trouble recognizing fascists who don't openly label themselves as fascist.

[ComradeOm]

It's an error to think ideology drives the actions of any political trend. Material interests, primarily, drive actions. Ideology is secondary, and often serves to rationalize actions and conceal the real reasons for them.
Yeas and no. It was the material conditions that placed Hitler and Benito in power but once there they both carried out a systematic reorganisation of society from the top down and based on their ideological views. Once they had control of the political superstructure they were able to control/influence the economic base. For a short period of time of course, the system was unsustainable in the long run.


They do worship strength, but I'm not sure they advocate wealth distribution based on it, or that this is at the core of their ideology.

In their rise to power, they often claim to favor a more "socialist" wealth distribution. After taking power, they certainly didn't abolish the "cash nexus" or take away the fortunes of most capitalists (despite having the physical "strength" to do so.)
The fascist promoting of corporationism was intended to bring the economy under control of certain powerful strongmen. Those who were “weak” were thus cut out of the political/economic complex. The clearest way to show this is to take the most obvious example – would a Jew (the epitome of weakness to the Nazis) be permitted to prosper in Hitler’s Germany?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:52 PM

It's an error to think ideology drives the actions of any political trend. Material interests, primarily, drive actions. Ideology is secondary, and often serves to rationalize actions and conceal the real reasons for them.
Yeas and no. It was the material conditions that placed Hitler and Benito in power but once there they both carried out a systematic reorganisation of society from the top down and based on their ideological views. Once they had control of the political superstructure they were able to control/influence the economic base. For a short period of time of course, the system was unsustainable in the long run.
Eh...no, they didn't carry "out a systematic reorganisation of society from the top down and based on their ideological views." On the contrary, they broke their "socialist" promises which is why, for example, Hitler had to carry out the Night of the Long Knives against the Stormtroopers.

After that point, the fascist regime becomes, in some ways, not so different from other extremely repressive totalitarian regimes; the mass movement has been dissipated. The main difference from other regimes is simply that the working class has been more thoroughly crushed; the fascist regime doesn't have to worry about it for a considerable period. Fear of the working class doesn't restrain its actions as much as with other regimes.

My intent with this thread was more to examine the features of the movement than of the regimes...but drift happens.


The fascist promoting of corporationism was intended to bring the economy under control of certain powerful strongmen.

Intent is hard to prove...but as long as we're analyzing ideologyl, that's not what they said it was for. It was more promoted as a form of pseudo-socialism: business and labor would be brought together in a "corporation" which would manage each industry.


Those who were “weak” were thus cut out of the political/economic complex. The clearest way to show this is to take the most obvious example – would a Jew (the epitome of weakness to the Nazis) be permitted to prosper in Hitler’s Germany?

Jews were "weak" to the Nazis? Then why did the Nazis fear them so much, claim they ruled the world, etc?

But in any case. The fact of the scapegoating of the Jews and others doesn't change the overall picture that in fact capitalists like the owners of Krupp and I.G. Farben remained in control of most means of production and at the top of the "wealth distribution."

That scapegoating played an essential political role in building the fascist movement and later sustaining the fascist regime, of course. But fascist regimes are capitalist regimes...unlike fascist movements, which are petty-bourgeois radical anticapitalist movements.

[ComradeOm]

Eh...no, they didn't carry "out a systematic reorganisation of society from the top down and based on their ideological views." On the contrary, they broke their "socialist" promises which is why, for example, Hitler had to carry out the Night of the Long Knives against the Stormtroopers.

After that point, the fascist regime becomes, in some ways, not so different from other extremely repressive totalitarian regimes; the mass movement has been dissipated. The main difference from other regimes is simply that the working class has been more thoroughly crushed; the fascist regime doesn't have to worry about it for a considerable period. Fear of the working class doesn't restrain its actions as much as with other regimes.

My intent with this thread was more to examine the features of the movement than of the regimes...but drift happens.
Oh the fascists kept their “socialist” promises alright but they attach a very different meaning of the word to us. To a fascist, and the other terminally stupid, socialism means collectivisation – the good of the country, or rather the ideal of the country, as opposed to the good of the many. The nation can only become strong when it is both unified and led by those whose are “strongest”.


Intent is hard to prove...but as long as we're analyzing ideologyl, that's not what they said it was for. It was more promoted as a form of pseudo-socialism: business and labor would be brought together in a "corporation" which would manage each industry.
Which ties into above. The corporation would chain and subdue both the workers and capitalists for the collective good and under “suitable” leadership.


Jews were "weak" to the Nazis? Then why did the Nazis fear them so much, claim they ruled the world, etc?
In effect… yes. Hitler gave the traditional fascist master/slave relationship a racial spin. To him German society wasn’t comprised of the strong and weak, it was the German people that were strong while the Jews and Slavs were weak and undeserving of freedom. In that light its hardly surprising that Hitler had such a hatred of the Jews – they were the “impurities” that held back the Aryan overmen.


But in any case. The fact of the scapegoating of the Jews and others doesn't change the overall picture that in fact capitalists like the owners of Krupp and I.G. Farben remained in control of most means of production and at the top of the "wealth distribution."

That scapegoating played an essential political role in building the fascist movement and later sustaining the fascist regime, of course. But fascist regimes are capitalist regimes...unlike fascist movements, which are petty-bourgeois radical anticapitalist movements.
The question that you have to ask is simple – in a fascist society who controls the means of production? Now it is not the workers and it is not the middle class and its not quite the capitalists. In fascism the means of production are controlled by those who “deserve” it. Understand the fascist mindset – you have the strong and the weak and the strong deserve to rule the weak. It’s a continuation of Nietzsche’s concept of slave and master morality. It is intolerant to a fascist to have somebody judged weak to be in a position of power or prestige.

[celticfire]

I think severian is correct, and I think we need a concise Marxist view on what fascism is exactly.

The RCP believes there is an emerging fascist class within the U.S., not just right-wing and repressive, but full blown fascist mixed with a Christian ideology. Christian fascist. And they are daily beating up their bourgeois counterparts for state power. This is really clear.

This morning while flipping through the news channels, they are debates about:
- Is Abortion evil? (real headline!)
- Calling the season 'Christmas' or 'Holidays'.
- Intelligent Design.
- ANYTHING on Fox News.

Contrast to the Clinton years, this is leap and bounds to the right. Of course Reagan may have been the first figure head of this movement..

I think severian is also correct in saying that those who call themselves "Nazi" are unlikely to become mass movements...(but who knows, maybe they think the same about communist movements...!)

Fascism like everything else a material basis, and I think Trotsky wrote some good stuff on that.

From Marxists.org Dictionary (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/a.htm#fascism)


Fascism

Fascism is right-wing, fiercely nationalist, subjectivist in philosophy, and totalitarian in practice. It is an extreme reactionary form of capitalist government. Fascism began in Italy (1922-43), Germany (1933-45), Spain (1939-75), and various other nations, starting generally in the time between the first and second world war. The origin of the term comes from the Italian word fascismo, derived from the Latin fasces (a bundle of elm or birch rods containing an ax: once a symbol of authority in ancient Rome). Benito Mussolini adopted the symbol as the emblem of the Italian Fascist movement in 1919.

The social composition of Fascist movements have historically been small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats of all stripes (see petty bourgeoeis), with great success in rural areas, especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, slum workers. Meanwhile, fascist leadership invariably comes to power through the sponsorship and funding of massive capitalists, without needing a revolution. These capitalists along with the top-tier leaders they create become fascism's ruling aristocracy.

Fascism has many different forms: the Italian fascism of Mussolini was often against Hitler’s Fascism, calling it “one hundred percent racism: Against everything and everyone: Yesterday against Christian civilization, today against Latin civilization, tomorrow, who knows, against the civilization of the whole world.” When Hitler began achieving impressive military conquests, which Mussolini had started in Ethiopia in 1935, the two formed an axis of power in June of 1940. The birth of fascism in Germany was aided by Western governments, who for two decades viewed it as the ideology that would successfully crush the Soviet Union. Not until Germany’s tanks were on the borders of England and France did those governments ‘switch’ sides: now it was their imperialist domination being threatened.

While Mussolini had once been a member of the Socialist party (banished from the party for his rampant support of World War I), Hitler fought leftists from the first. Thus it is not without irony, that in the name for his party Hitler used “socialist,” (Nazi = National Socialist) conceding to the engrained consciousness the German masses had for leftist ideals. It should be noted that fascism supported the community ideal, but not the grass-roots power of direct community democracy as Socialism demands, but the obideance and unity of the community to vanguard of the Nation. Further, orthodox fascism constantly parrots the Communist lexicon of working class struggle, etc, for reasons of populism. Neo-fascism, on the other hand, disdains any trace of Socialist/Communist terminology in thier labels, and instead appeals to new populist roots: the modern aspirations of many workers to be wealthly, to be stronger than others, etc.

Fascism championed corporate economics, which operated on an anarcho-syndicalist model in reverse: associations of bosses in particular industries determine working conditions, prices, etc. In this form of corporatism, bosses dictate everything from working hours to minimum wages, without goverment interference. The fascist corporate model differs from the more moderate corporatist model by eradicating all forms of regulatory control that protect workers (so-called "consumers"), the environment, price fixing, insider trading, and destroying all independent workers' organisations. In fascism, the corporate parliament either replaces the representative bodies of government or reduces them to a sham and the state freely intervenes in the activity of companies, either by bestowing favouritism, or handing them over to the control of rivals.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 07:13 AM

Oh the fascists kept their “socialist” promises alright but they attach a very different meaning of the word to us. To a fascist, and the other terminally stupid, socialism means collectivisation – the good of the country, or rather the ideal of the country, as opposed to the good of the many. The nation can only become strong when it is both unified and led by those whose are “strongest”.
So why the Night of the Long Knives then?

In building a fascist movement, their socialist demagogy is in fact aimed at promising to improve the economic situation of the many, the "little man", or even the "worker". Read Mein Kampf, or the British National Party's website, or Buchanan on the effects of the "elite" exporting "American jobs" on "American workers".


The question that you have to ask is simple – in a fascist society who controls the means of production? Now it is not the workers and it is not the middle class and its not quite the capitalists.

It was the capitalist class. That's the historic fact, regardless of what fascist ideology says.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 08:06 AM
The RCP believes there is an emerging fascist class within the U.S., not just right-wing and repressive, but full blown fascist mixed with a Christian ideology. Christian fascist. And they are daily beating up their bourgeois counterparts for state power. This is really clear.
Clear as mud. What is a "fascist class"? Why is it counterposed to the bourgeoisie? If you think fascism means some other class taking state power away from the bourgeoisie, why are you saying you agree with me?


Contrast to the Clinton years, this is leap and bounds to the right. Of course Reagan may have been the first figure head of this movement.

In some ways, the Clinton years were more favorable for the growth of fascism, at least as far as who was in office. Clinton was the perfect whipping-boy for them. And since he moved liberalism and bourgeois politics to the right, he helped create more favorable grounds for fascism.

[ComradeOm]

So why the Night of the Long Knives then?

In building a fascist movement, their socialist demagogy is in fact aimed at promising to improve the economic situation of the many, the "little man", or even the "worker". Read Mein Kampf, or the British National Party's website, or Buchanan on the effects of the "elite" exporting "American jobs" on "American workers".
The Night of Long Knives came about because Hitler realised that he had one group of thugs too many, especially one stupid enough to believe that the Nazis actually intended to follow a leftist set of policies or grant them the army. It was a matter of consolidating power and removing a potential threat.

There has not been a political movement in history that hasn’t sought to co-op the masses. The serfs, peasants and workers have been in the frontline of all revolutions and are usually the first ones to be disillusioned.


It was the capitalist class. That's the historic fact, regardless of what fascist ideology says.
Capitalism actively promotes a state of affairs in which the dollar is king. That’s the essence of capitalism – money is good. This view is irreconcilable with fascist notions of moral superiority.

Now you can argue that this is irrelevant when examining the fascist regimes of the thirties. Its possible that they were merely a rabid strain of capitalists, I’m not going to get into a debate over semantics. But what is of value to know of is the domineering streak that runs through all those who subscribe, unwittingly or not, to the ideology. I’ve no idea what the material conditions that gave life to this master/slave notion are but it is precisely this concept that separates the fascist from the authoritarian capitalist.

I would not dismiss it so easily.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 01:55 PM
There has not been a political movement in history that hasn’t sought to co-op the masses. The serfs, peasants and workers have been in the frontline of all revolutions and are usually the first ones to be disillusioned.
A political movement in modern history. A significant point if you're going to say that fascism is a throwback to the Roman Empire or something.

All political movements of that time ignored the slaves, the mass of exploited toilers...

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 08:04 PM
A political movement in modern history. A significant point if you're going to say that fascism is a throwback to the Roman Empire or something.

All political movements of that time ignored the slaves, the mass of exploited toilers...
Come on, the expense at which the Emperors of Rome went to appease the masses is very well documented. A tiny minority of the population can never afford to ignore the vast majority. There's plenty of examples throughout history of those rulers who were stupid enough to make that mistake and who paid the price for it.

Fascism is a throwback to the old days that predated feudalism due to the nature of the master/slave relationship so central to it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 02:06 PM
I think severian is correct, and I think we need a concise Marxist view on what fascism is exactly.

The RCP believes there is an emerging fascist class within the U.S., not just right-wing and repressive, but full blown fascist mixed with a Christian ideology. Christian fascist. And they are daily beating up their bourgeois counterparts for state power. This is really clear.
I believe that some of the anti-abortion groups that bomb and intimidate at abortion clinics may have some fascist tendancies, but this whole "christian-fascist" notion is bunk. Bush is not a fascist, he a repugnant figurehead for the ruling class and is able to do what he does legally within the capitalist state. Bush dosn't need groups of armed thugs loyal to him to break up protests because the cops are able to do that just fine right now.

Fascism in America would more likley look like if you imagine David Duke becoming president ans suddenly the KKK marches in every major city beating up anyone who dosn't support David Duke.

Many liberals, and apparently the RCP believe Bush is a fascist, but this is hyperbole at best and is a harmful view for our movement. If Bush really is a "christian fascist", then liberals were correct to vote for Kerry simply to try and get Bush out of office. If Bush, as in my view, is simply the political head for the capitalist state, then voting for Kerry would be voting for one pro-war capitalist over another.

[Severian]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Nov 29 2005, 02:15 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Nov 29 2005, 02:15 PM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 08:04 PM
A political movement in modern history. A significant point if you're going to say that fascism is a throwback to the Roman Empire or something.

All political movements of that time ignored the slaves, the mass of exploited toilers...
Come on, the expense at which the Emperors of Rome went to appease the masses is very well documented. [/b]
That only applied to the free poor of the city of Rome, a tiny minority of the Empire's population. (The same is true of Athenian democracy.) It was even narrower under the Republic - Caesar's party at least claimed to be "Populares", while the other openly proclaimed itself "Optimates", the best people, the party of the patricians. No modern party proclaims that. Even the Republicans brand the Democrats as...the party of liberal "elites."

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 08:52 PM
Come on, the expense at which the Emperors of Rome went to appease the masses is very well documented.
That only applied to the free poor of the city of Rome, a tiny minority of the Empire's population. (The same is true of Athenian democracy.) It was even narrower under the Republic - Caesar's party at least claimed to be "Populares", while the other openly proclaimed itself "Optimates", the best people, the party of the patricians. No modern party proclaims that. Even the Republicans brand the Democrats as...the party of liberal "elites." [/quote]
And what happened to the Republic? ;)

[Guest1]

It's also important to understand that Fascism has a historical basis where it arises only when neither the working class nor the ruling class can lead decisively for an extended period of time.

Looking at germany, there were repeated failed revolutions, and so a generalized state of chaos which offered no solution. The working class thus gradually lost the support of those elements severian mentioned, as they did not present a real lead or vision for society. The capitalists could not end the stalemate either, and so a "party of order" arose, one which claimed the ability to fight both capitalist and worker.

But of course, material conditions have their own logic, and such a party cannot be, which is why Hitler had no problem forgetting all the anti-big-business propaganda once in power.

[Ouroboros]

It's an error to think ideology drives the actions of any political trend. Material interests, primarily, drive actions. Ideology is secondary, and often serves to rationalize actions and conceal the real reasons for them.


Yeas and no. It was the material conditions that placed Hitler and Benito in power but once there they both carried out a systematic reorganisation of society from the top down and based on their ideological views.

Oh no, nothing in material conditions of the Germany determines that Jews should be extermined. Material conditions of that time allowed hundreds different and opposite political ideas, but this one arised. Why this one? Answer - people of Germany truly wanted violence, they wanted to be powerful, to kill and exterminate - that kind of will for power is probably instinctive behaviour - and Hitler looked like "he can do it."

However, Che has the point when he says:


It's also important to understand that Fascism has a historical basis where it arises only when neither the working class nor the ruling class can lead decisively for an extended period of time.

That is historical truth; fascims arise when capitalist systems is in crisis, and when there are two options - to break it - or to fortify it. Both options tend to use similar, militaristic methods for a simple reason it is the most efficient way of organization. The fascism is not really the rule of strong, some fascist leaders try to organize some kind of class harmony in society, without emphasizing strong vs weak division. Only thing that is in common to all known fascist societies is that they are totalitarian capitalism.

[Floyce White]

Ouroboros: "Oh no, nothing in material conditions of the Germany determines that Jews should be extermined. Material conditions of that time allowed hundreds different and opposite political ideas, but this one arised. Why this one? Answer - people of Germany truly wanted violence..."

Are you being sarcastic? This is a very-badly-worded post.

"People of Germany?" The only "people of Germany" are the upper-class people who form the German nation. Lower-class people have no nationality.

Did the German nation "truly [want] violence?" Yes of course! They are capitalists! Capitalism is ongoing violence! To say this is to say...nothing.

Ouroboros: "Nothing in material conditions...determines that Jews should be extermined."

Did not not see the documentaries of houses and businesses being confiscated and redistributed to petty capitalists in the Nazi Party? Stop looking for some sort of clever "macroeconomic" position that would benefit each and every capitalist, and look for the narrow factional interest of those who did materially gain from the Holocaust.

[JC1]

Did not not see the documentaries of houses and businesses being confiscated and redistributed to petty capitalists in the Nazi Party? Stop looking for some sort of clever "macroeconomic" position that would benefit each and every capitalist, and look for the narrow factional interest of those who did materially gain from the Holocaust.

Not to mention the slave labour that certian capitalist's got from the camp's. Natuarly, the Capitalist class did not all suppourt the Nazi regime, just major Faction's of that class.The only thing the bourgoise can do collectivly is suppress the working class.