fascism

[Pax]

I was wondering what the members here feel about fascism, and Hitler and the ideas of fascism?

I am curious what the take of people here is on this subject. Are there things that you agree with or was the movement evil, and is it still that way? If it is not why?

Thanks in advance for your responses..

PAX

[leftist resistance]

There's a section on anti-fascism.im sure you'll find all the answers there

[LSD]

I was wondering what the members here feel about fascism, and Hitler and the ideas of fascism?

We don't like 'em.


Are there things that you agree with

No. Absolutely not.

Fascism represents the victory of the ultra-right. It is the expansion of corporatism and statist conservatism to their ultimate extreme. Everything that we hate about right-wing politics, some aspect of it can be found in fascism.

Accordingly, it would not be an overexageration to say that, as communists, there is no ideology we hate more than fascism.

Because of this, history is replete with battles both ideological and physical between communists and fascists. Certainly the street fights between the German KPD and SA in the years leading up to 1933 were legendary.

Even on this site, there is an entire sub-forum dedicated to the issue of anti-fascism alone.

So I really don't think that our "opinion" on fascism is in question!


or was the movement evil

No, it wasn't "evil". "Evil" doesn't exist.

As materialists, we don't care about inane moralisms like "evil" or "sin", we care about objective reality.

And the reality of fascism is that as a theory and in practice, it is demonstrably harmful to society.

Indeed, it is one of the worst possible societal orgnanizations. From a historical materialist paradigm, it represents a regressive step. A desperate move backwards by a bourgeoisie terrified of losing its privilege.

Remember, the capitalists in France, in large part, welcomed Hitler even though he promised German occupation and anti-French brutality.

As far as the French ruling class was concerned, a foreign tyrant was preferable to local insurrection. At least Hitler, they knew, would preserve their "right" to exploit.

As indeed he did.

[Comrade Corinna]

Fascists are not tolerated on this site as far as I know; even the "opposing ideologies" section clearly states No Fascists.
The majority of the people here are very socially liberal communist, closer to anarcho-communist than Stalinist.
Stalinists are welcomed to a point but they have a tendency to be arrogant bastards and dont have a lot of friends here, as their social views lean very much towards Fascism.
Also National Bolsheviks we dont like because they sort of mix Nazism and Communism, which sounds like an oxymoron and is a morbid twist to our ideology.
Read the rules and guidelines about our take on Fascists and other ultra-right wingers.

[Pax]

Ok. I am sorry I didn't see that section about fascism yet, I will have to look for it.

On a kind of side note, are all communist materialists? And what is the definition of that word, from your persepective?

I see the nazi's as evil, simply because their acts are evil. I don't know what else I could call it, that is all.

At the very least the movement is a prime example of the true nature of mankind, what we are capable of in and of ourselves.

[LSD]

On a kind of side note, are all communist materialists?

Yes.


And what is the definition of that word, from your persepective?

Materialism is the acceptance of the material world as objectively real and defined solely by those characteristics that we can empirically and logically verify.

That means a rejection both of supernaturalist "faith" and post-modern solipsistic "subjectivism".


I see the nazi's as evil, simply because their acts are evil. I don't know what else I could call it, that is all.

I can think of several words to describe Nazis and Naziism ...although none of them are polite. :D

Believe me, I have no love for Naziism or its proponents. The only problem that I see with refering to them as "evil" is that it implies some universal externalistic morality, which clearly flies in the face of reality.

Reducing the crimes of National Socialism to mere violations of "ethical codes" seems, to me, to actually minimize the degree of their attrocities.

It seems to imply that, if it had been "good", it would have been acceptable to slaughter fifteen million people. Certainly that excuse has been used for millenia to justify genocide and brutality.

When the Church burnt witches or executed heretics, it was not considered criminal because it was "sanctioned by God" ...because it was "good".

You see the danger of relying on morals is that they are ultimately subjetive. "Evil" is only "evil" when you believe it to be so.

And what we believe is usually not of our own making.

Accordingly, we must adopt a fully objective, fully materialist paradigm. That means rather than calling people names, we must rationaly and logically identify what is benneficial and what is not.

It doesn't pack as much of a "punch" as absolute morality, but, in the end, it's a far better choice.

[sovietsniper]

Heres my 2 cents

When capitilism gets in a bad way (like germany was) and workers are rebelling(like all over europe was) the ruling class try to find ways to stay in power. They find that way in facism which is the merger of bussiness power and state power.

[cbm989]

you said communism was materialistic....i thoguht thats what capitalism was? or do you mean materialistic in way such that it means it doesnt hold value in spiritual or moral things, but in tangible, real things..?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

or do you mean materialistic in way such that it means it doesnt hold value in spiritual or moral things, but in tangible, real things..?
That one