What Makes People Turn to Fascism?

[ZhangXun]

It's been awhile since I last posted here but if any of you may remember I was the neo-con who started the political survey debate. I want to make it clear before I say anything else that I am not a Fascist or sympathize with Fascists (the users here and I may define Fascists differently, but in terms of Mussolini or Franco's movements in Europe are the point of discussion mostly).

I recently saw a film called "Pan's Labyrinth", a foreign film about the Civil War in Spain where the Nationalists (Francoists, Carlists) fought the pro-democracy/Social-democratist guerilla's in the Northern countryside. It made me think about the outcome of that unfortunate war and why the Fascists ended up winning. Was it the common people (proletariat, working class) who were tricked into believing Franco's promises of "bread and fire in every house"? Or was it out of a true sense of belief? If one is to believe under Marxist teachings that the poor will desire a more egalitarian or collectivist society then how can the Fascist victory in the civil war be justified? Or for a more recent example, the faliure of the Vietnamese in the South to rise up against their government or the Americans in revolution after Tet 1968 as Giap predicted.

In terms of Mussolini and his followers, I know an elderly Italian barber in my town who was a member of the Blackshirts and he described the actions he took to silence anarchists, communists, and Italians who generally did not like Fascism (no killing involved, but excessive violence was commonplace at least for him). People like Antonio Gramsci were imprisoned for their views at this time and he actively supported it, and this man is as working class as they come. Eventually he came to reject Fascism when he moved to America in the 1950s but it just sparked my interest a bit.

What are your thoughts?

[Fawkes]

People who turn to fascism are generally very angry at the current system, and usually rightfully so. They see all that is wrong with the system and they wish to change it. Unfortunately, they look at the immediate problem and try to stop it rather than looking at the root of the problem. An example of people doing this is the way the U.S. government handles the threat of terrorism. They feel that (or they make us think that) just plainly killing off the terrorists will solve their problems instead of looking at the reason(s) terrorists attack them and then fixing those problems. It's the same mindset here that makes people turn to very far-right ideologies. People begin to lose their jobs and they think that it is because of immigrants that they are losing their jobs so they go after immigration. The truth of the matter is that they are losing their jobs because all of their jobs are getting shipped overseas where labor is cheaper. They also fail to see that the reason why immigrants come to America is because we make them live in such terrible conditions by enacting things such as NAFTA. I'm unsure of what it is that compels people to do this, possibly laziness, but people often times just look for the easiest way out and that is usually why people turn to fascism, they see it as a solution to all of their problems. I could elaborate more on this but it is 1:15 in the morning and I am really tired. I hope I was answering the right question when I said this.

[ZhangXun]

People who turn to fascism are generally very angry at the current system, and usually rightfully so. They see all that is wrong with the system and they wish to change it. Unfortunately, they look at the immediate problem and try to stop it rather than looking at the root of the problem.

Some would argue that the immidiate problem(s) would take precedence over the long term problems such as order, the economy, and global prestige. I wouldn't obviously, but enough did to put despots like Franco, Salazar, and Mussolini in power. Besides what is the true root of the problem? Spain's economy as well as Portugal's soared under Fascist control, did that not solve the problem of poverty in most parts of those nations or is there something more?

An example of people doing this is the way the U.S. government handles the threat of terrorism. They feel that (or they make us think that) just plainly killing off the terrorists will solve their problems instead of looking at the reason(s) terrorists attack them and then fixing those problems.

I would agree that a policy change in terms of military agressiveness and the changing of it is long overdue, but if you look at Afghanistan the U.S had every right to occupy that nation. The Taliban (who should not be on the list of revolutionaries in any sense of Marxist thought) harbored a group, rather a network of groups, that were responsible for the attacks on September 11. This does not apply to Iraq for obvious reasons but the tide of anti-Muslim sentiment in this nation allowed the President to invade Iraq with only negligable opposition to begin with. We brought the attacks upon ourselves by agitating stability in the region by our actions in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, and elsewhere long before 9/11 but a direct attack is a justification for war.

It's the same mindset here that makes people turn to very far-right ideologies. People begin to lose their jobs and they think that it is because of immigrants that they are losing their jobs so they go after immigration. The truth of the matter is that they are losing their jobs because all of their jobs are getting shipped overseas where labor is cheaper. They also fail to see that the reason why immigrants come to America is because we make them live in such terrible conditions by enacting things such as NAFTA.

Latin and South Americans suffered en masse long before NAFTA was signed by President Clinton and then again by President Bush. The appalling living conditions in Mexico under dictators like Porfilio Diaz promted Socialist revolution in Mexico and Fascist control under Getulio Vargas in Brazil. Even under the despot Augusto Pinochet Chile experienced an economic miracle that not even Socialist presidents preceding him are reversing. Problems with immigration here have lasted since we seized 1/3rd of Mexico in the 1848 war with Mexico, if you know Woody Guthrie's music you probably heard one of his songs about a massive federal operation under Eisenhower that deported hundreds of thousands of Mexican immigrants that were off the books.

I'm unsure of what it is that compels people to do this, possibly laziness, but people often times just look for the easiest way out and that is usually why people turn to fascism, they see it as a solution to all of their problems. I could elaborate more on this but it is 1:15 in the morning and I am really tired. I hope I was answering the right question when I said this.

You were answering the right question...and it's the same time here, my typing is getting more and more incoherant as it gets more late. :/

[EwokUtopia]

The simple answer is fear.

Fascists generally are afraid of genocide happening against their own race. This is broken logic, and you may as well try to destroy outer space because metiors could wipe it out, but there is a huge strain of fear in the militant (and even non-militant) right. Example, a cousin of mine who is somewhat of a fascist believes that all minorities will be targeted and discriminated, and considering the violence white people have used in the past, discrimination against a "white minority" will likely turn violent. This is bullshit because the only people who support race war against white people are generally low minded people who will never be able to consolidate enough power to make this a reality. The non-white people who react violently against white racism do this against white racism, not white people. And yet, if you read opinions on fascist sites, youll notice that there is an enormous amount of fear of anti-white genocide. They go so far as to claim that a race war is inevitable and that whites will either kill or be killed, and so fascicm becomes survivalism built on paranoid false logic. This isnt just a problem in far-right Hitler loving dumbfucks. fascism, in my opinion, is a minority belief (not many white people are fascists as they are neocons and christian fundies). There is a huge amount of fear among mainstream conservatives in America that Muslim extremists are powerful and evil enough to wipe out all Americans if it werent for the US government fighting them back. This is absolutely absurd, you are more likely to die from a shark attack than a terrorist attack, why not bomb the Oceans? I am far less concerned by fascism than I am by Neoconservatism and Christian Fundamentalism because one is a bunch of dumbfucks with big boots and bigger mouths, but very small in number, the other is the largest portion of the American Electorate....thats the worlds ONLY superpower, and if it is controlled by people who believe that Jesus is comming back in 50 years, and if we havnt kicked some serious Arab ass he'll be pissed, we have a MAJOR problem to deal with that beats anything Skrewdriver has to offer.
Fear is the fuel that keeps fascism and neoconservatism afloat.
To quote Master Yoda "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side."

[Vargha Poralli]

Fascism : What is it and How to fight it ? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm)

There you go . It is an material analysis of fascism by a Marxist.If at all you are really interested about our opinion go and read it.

[ZX3]

Its probably difficult to say this shortly, but I will try:

Who turns to fascism? The evidence is clear: Voters who have traditionally backed Left wing parties are the ones who swing to fascism. This was true in Italy for Mussolini, in Germany under Hitler, and today in europe in germany or the UK, where the SPD and Labor are hemmoraging voters the various neo-nazi parties.

Why is this the case? It seems to occur when the Left is under some sort of internal debate. In the 20s, it was communism which caused a reaction amongst other non-communist socilaists. today, it has been the collapse of communism and an increased rejection of the rightward swing of the more mainsttream socilaist parties over the past couple of decades.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:13 pm
Its probably difficult to say this shortly, but I will try:

Who turns to fascism? The evidence is clear: Voters who have traditionally backed Left wing parties are the ones who swing to fascism. This was true in Italy for Mussolini, in Germany under Hitler, and today in europe in germany or the UK, where the SPD and Labor are hemmoraging voters the various neo-nazi parties.

Why is this the case? It seems to occur when the Left is under some sort of internal debate. In the 20s, it was communism which caused a reaction amongst other non-communist socilaists. today, it has been the collapse of communism and an increased rejection of the rightward swing of the more mainsttream socilaist parties over the past couple of decades.
This guy is a Troll and I appeal for a Ban.

Care to back up your claims you worthless pece of Shit ?

[Dimentio]

Fascism is aesthetically appealing, a little bit like heavy metal. It relieves and liberates the urge to be a huge horned beast who stomps out the countryside, rape, ravage and drives by his own primitive desires, and canalises that destructive energy into nationalism, religion or any other form of hierarchic collectivism.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:56 pm



This guy is a Troll and I appeal for a Ban.

Care to back up your claims you worthless pece of Shit ?

What party was Mussolini before he formed the Fascist party?

[fashbash]

Facists are, alas, the working class. I can only speak about what I know, and I know about the rise in facism in the UK, so I will try to explain why the British working class are turning to support the BNP in their thousands.

All ideologies produce a 'scapegoat', someone to blame for the problems we see around us. For Marxists the scapegoats are the Bourgeoisie, the ruling classes, the owners of property. We believe that they are responsible for our poverty, our suffering, and indeed, we may be right. Anarchists likewise blame the ruling classes, Traditional Conservatism blames a breakdown in family values for society's problems to some extent, and the Facists blame immigrants.

Preston, my spiritual home in the north of England near Liverpool, is according to some, 'overrun with pakis'. If we take Preston as a case study, we can see that the working class feel threatened. They look around themselves, and everywhere they turn they feel they see a foriegner. No matter that these people may be third, fourth generation immigrants, no matter that they may be British, the look foriegn. They see these 'foriegners' working along side them, and then when they wonder why their friends are unemployed they say 'Aha, these pakis have stolen all the jobs'.

Then they turn to the party that offers all the answers: the BNP. They see the problem as this: 'Foriegners have stolen our jobs'. They see the solution as this: 'Let's kick them all out'. They hear also in our white-centric media that non-whites have killed someone, raped someone, robbed someone, and they feel also that if they were to get the non-whites out, there would be no problem, just s we feel there would be no problems in a Communist society.

And so these people who would certainly have voted Labour thirty years ago now vote BNP.

To put it simply, we all interpret reality as we see it. One group of people may see it one way, another may see it differently. Facists base their reality on what they see, what they are told, and what they assume.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Yes it's true, Mussolini was a Socialist before he became a Fascist. Hitler however was never a Socialist, not as far as I know.

I was going to give my own explanation for the rise of Fascism but fashbash seems to have it down, at least for contemporary Fascist parties. And as for the old Fascisms that arose in Europe, I think they were simple cases of countries with histories of nationalism and conquest becoming embittered and dissatisfied with the international community that "betrayed" them after WWI, being taken advantage of by superbly skilled orators. Perhaps an excessively abridged account, but I'm sick so leave me alone :(

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 07:40 pm
What party was Mussolini before he formed the Fascist party?
Mussolini is a fucking piece of shit who never knew about anything about socialism. If he had been a genuine socialist he would never have formed a party with such a backward ideology.All he craved was for power and he got support from Pope and King not ordinary Italians. And rightfully he was killed by the Italian workers and he 100% deserved what he got.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 12:43 pm
Why is this the case? It seems to occur when the Left is under some sort of internal debate. In the 20s, it was communism which caused a reaction amongst other non-communist socilaists. today, it has been the collapse of communism and an increased rejection of the rightward swing of the more mainsttream socilaist parties over the past couple of decades.
This analysis, to the great surprise of no one, is way off. There is no such thing as a non-communist socialist, though 'socialism' and 'communism' are not entirely interchangable they are integeral parts of each other according to most non-anarchist theories. Unless you're suggesting that facism is a reaction to anarchism, which would be a blatent absurdity - the movements jus tweren't big enough in the countries you've chosen as your examples.

The second example really shows that you've got the reasoning capacity of a partially decayed wasp - can you explain exactly why people would swing rightward as a way of rejecting a rightward swing? It makes no fucking sense.

Sorry to shit on your parade, but I couldn't believe you actually thought you were writing something akin to the truth.

[Fawkes]

reasoning capacity of a partially decayed wasp

Hahaha


Mussolini is a fucking piece of shit who never knew about anything about socialism. If he had been a genuine socialist he would never have formed a party with such a backward ideology.All he craved was for power and he got support from Pope and King not ordinary Italians. And rightfully he was killed by the Italian workers and he 100% deserved what he got.

Uhh, that didn't help answer his/her question at all.

[Vargha Poralli]

Uhh, that didn't help answer his/her question at all.

Well i really don't know about Mussolini's early life :P. But I have read somewhere his father was a member of 2 international and he was briefly involved in some Trade Union group.But my point was that communism/socialism do not lead to fascism as a brainless asshole posted 2 threads above.

Any way Redstar1916 answered his question i think.

Yes it's true, Mussolini was a Socialist before he became a Fascist

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

They blame the problems on a race...i.e the Jews. They are disillutioned with society and blame it on a race

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 05:27 pm
They blame the problems on a race...i.e the Jews. They are disillutioned with society and blame it on a race
It should be noted that Mussolini's Italy did not openly practice a policy of anti-semitism.

[RGacky3]

Fascism is very a interesting, it actually does'nt have much to do with totalitarianism (in theory, but then again niether does Stalinism). The base concepts were extreme Nationalism, the State being the most important thing, Corporatism (Capitalist Class and Political class alliance), as well as Class cooperation (instead of the working class and Capitalist class fighting, they should cooperate for the benefit of the State). In many ways the United states has become a bit Fascist in the sense of the Capitalist/State alliance, and extreme patriotism and militarism (not neccesarily in society, but emphasis on a strong military).

I think what attracts ordinary people to Fascism is the same thing that attracts people to Stalinism. People sometimes like strong leaders that get stuff done, they want something or someone to look up to, like a strong state, and Fascism IS very economically efficiant, and many times people with a strong sence of Nationalism are willing to give up personal freedom (most of the time they don't see it that way, most of the time they see it as stopping anti-whatevercountries from corrupting their country... of coarse generally the attitude changes later) for the greater good of the Nation, its some what a collectivist attitude of its not the individual but the state.

Whenever abstract concepts such as 'The state' in the case of fascism 'Socialism' in the case of stalinism even 'freedom' in the case of the United states, become more important than actual people and their liberties and well being theres gonig to be trouble.

Some argue that Fascism is connected with Socialism, but only by people with a flawed notion of what Socialism is, many people (especially in the US) think Socialism is governments hand in your pocket, or government intervention, in that case they are similar because Fascism puts the state and the capitalist class together in an alliance, which means the government intereferes. But what Socialism really means is putting the working class in control of the economy, and running it for the benefit of Society as a whole. 2 Very different things.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Order, people feel the natural tendancy to feel order and when stuck in a chaotic situation like the French Revolution, they will gladly accept a dictator like Napoleon. Or Hitler in 1920s Germany, and Mussolini in 1920s Italty. Fear is also a component.

[freakazoid]

There is a really interesting movie about Mussolini called Benito. http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809699135/info It is about his early life before he was actually in power. It is very interesting, and long. He seemed to be a strong Socialist but he really seemed to crave power.

[YSR]

I just posted this in another thread, and I'll repost it here.

http://prole.info/articles/insurrectionsdie.html

Booyah.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:23 am
Facists are, alas, the working class. I can only speak about what I know, and I know about the rise in facism in the UK, so I will try to explain why the British working class are turning to support the BNP in their thousands.

All ideologies produce a 'scapegoat', someone to blame for the problems we see around us. For Marxists the scapegoats are the Bourgeoisie, the ruling classes, the owners of property. We believe that they are responsible for our poverty, our suffering, and indeed, we may be right. Anarchists likewise blame the ruling classes, Traditional Conservatism blames a breakdown in family values for society's problems to some extent, and the Facists blame immigrants.

Preston, my spiritual home in the north of England near Liverpool, is according to some, 'overrun with pakis'. If we take Preston as a case study, we can see that the working class feel threatened. They look around themselves, and everywhere they turn they feel they see a foriegner. No matter that these people may be third, fourth generation immigrants, no matter that they may be British, the look foriegn. They see these 'foriegners' working along side them, and then when they wonder why their friends are unemployed they say 'Aha, these pakis have stolen all the jobs'.

Then they turn to the party that offers all the answers: the BNP. They see the problem as this: 'Foriegners have stolen our jobs'. They see the solution as this: 'Let's kick them all out'. They hear also in our white-centric media that non-whites have killed someone, raped someone, robbed someone, and they feel also that if they were to get the non-whites out, there would be no problem, just s we feel there would be no problems in a Communist society.

And so these people who would certainly have voted Labour thirty years ago now vote BNP.

To put it simply, we all interpret reality as we see it. One group of people may see it one way, another may see it differently. Facists base their reality on what they see, what they are told, and what they assume.

The problem though is that the BNP does not merely claim the solution in Preston, or anywhere else, is to do something about the "Pakis" such as kicking them out. They also demand non-foreign ownership (or at least control) of production, a restoration of the old provider/welfare state (which has been fraying under Labor Party practice and theory), the establishment of a republic ect ect ect. It does a tremendous disservice to suggest that the BNP has simply opened an avenue for the British working class to express their the bigotry and racism. Not only because it is an ineffective argument against the BNP, but it is a poor argument for a socialist alternative (after all, these bigoted workers are supposed to rule in a socialist community).

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 12:26 pm

Uhh, that didn't help answer his/her question at all.

Well i really don't know about Mussolini's early life :P. But I have read somewhere his father was a member of 2 international and he was briefly involved in some Trade Union group.But my point was that communism/socialism do not lead to fascism as a brainless asshole posted 2 threads above.

Any way Redstar1916 answered his question i think.

Yes it's true, Mussolini was a Socialist before he became a Fascist
Mussolini was considered a rising star in Italian and European socialist community prior to WW I. This is a major reason for his rapid success in the early 20s; The Communists who defected to the Fascists knew exactly who Mussolini was (indeed there was a member of the Comintern who considered Mussolini Lenin's true heir).
Mussolini never abandoned socialism (just a party), he thought the way that the Social Democrats and Communists to bring about socilaism was incorrect.

I never said communism leads to fascism. I said fascism seems to become a problem when the Left is undergoing some sort of internal re-evaluation, and that fascism is part of that re-evaluation.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+January 06, 2007 09:53 am--> (Jazzratt @ January 06, 2007 09:53 am)
[email protected] 06, 2007 12:43 pm
Why is this the case? It seems to occur when the Left is under some sort of internal debate. In the 20s, it was communism which caused a reaction amongst other non-communist socilaists. today, it has been the collapse of communism and an increased rejection of the rightward swing of the more mainsttream socilaist parties over the past couple of decades.
This analysis, to the great surprise of no one, is way off. There is no such thing as a non-communist socialist, though 'socialism' and 'communism' are not entirely interchangable they are integeral parts of each other according to most non-anarchist theories. Unless you're suggesting that facism is a reaction to anarchism, which would be a blatent absurdity - the movements jus tweren't big enough in the countries you've chosen as your examples.

The second example really shows that you've got the reasoning capacity of a partially decayed wasp - can you explain exactly why people would swing rightward as a way of rejecting a rightward swing? It makes no fucking sense.

Sorry to shit on your parade, but I couldn't believe you actually thought you were writing something akin to the truth. [/b]
Then put it this way: Fascism seems to arise when there is an internal debate, review, re-evaluation, within the Left. In the 20s, Social Democrats (ie a specific political party, who otherwise insist upon being considered true socilaists) rejected the interpretation of socialism (generically) by the Communists (another specific party who insisted upon being considered true socialists) then originating from the USSR, and modeled after it in other countries in Europe. Better?


As far as thje other piece, it does indeed make no sense that an extreme rightward drift by the electorate would be a reaction to a rightward drift. So then the question becomes these:

1. Would you accept the view that the Labor Party (whatever you think of the party now or in its past) has been swing Right over the past couple of decades? I would think the answer is an obvious "yes."

2. Would you agree that Tony Blair has been facing increasing resistence within the Labor Party to the rightward drift, with efforts being made by party members, to swing back more to the Left (regardless of whatever you think of these efforts or where Labor Party would wind up should Blair lose out)? i think the answer to this is "yes" as well.

3. Is it not more reasonable to assume that an "extreme rightwing" swing would far more likely originate from "moderate" right wingers than from anywhere else? i would think the answer is "yes."




The BNP is not the result of spontaneous generation. It is clear that it is Labor who is facing that electorate challenge; its their voters, and not the Conservatives voters, who are swinging to BNP. This has to be explained. Somebody suggested it is due to the bigotry of the British worker. I dissagree (for reasons I explained elsewhere). Would you?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:48 pm

Some argue that Fascism is connected with Socialism, but only by people with a flawed notion of what Socialism is, many people (especially in the US) think Socialism is governments hand in your pocket, or government intervention, in that case they are similar because Fascism puts the state and the capitalist class together in an alliance, which means the government intereferes. But what Socialism really means is putting the working class in control of the economy, and running it for the benefit of Society as a whole. 2 Very different things.
The alliance between the state/capitalist which fascism proposes is much the same as the alliance which exists between the mugger and his victim: You agree to give me your money, and I agree not to harm you. The fascists play the role of the mugger; the capitalist the victim, in that little drama.

The problem with saying they are "2 very different things" still requires showing how the socialist proposes to go about putting the "working class in control of the economy, and running it to the benefit of Society as a whole."
Mussolini came to conclude that the methods which the socialists proposed were flawed, and would not result in victory. Socialism has been around for over a century, results have been dissapointing (at least concluding from the comments of memebrs on this board), and yet another re-evaluation seem to be presently in the works.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by ZX3+January 07, 2007 01:22 pm--> (ZX3 @ January 07, 2007 01:22 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:53 am

[email protected] 06, 2007 12:43 pm
Why is this the case? It seems to occur when the Left is under some sort of internal debate. In the 20s, it was communism which caused a reaction amongst other non-communist socilaists. today, it has been the collapse of communism and an increased rejection of the rightward swing of the more mainsttream socilaist parties over the past couple of decades.
This analysis, to the great surprise of no one, is way off. There is no such thing as a non-communist socialist, though 'socialism' and 'communism' are not entirely interchangable they are integeral parts of each other according to most non-anarchist theories. Unless you're suggesting that facism is a reaction to anarchism, which would be a blatent absurdity - the movements jus tweren't big enough in the countries you've chosen as your examples.

The second example really shows that you've got the reasoning capacity of a partially decayed wasp - can you explain exactly why people would swing rightward as a way of rejecting a rightward swing? It makes no fucking sense.

Sorry to shit on your parade, but I couldn't believe you actually thought you were writing something akin to the truth.
Then put it this way: Fascism seems to arise when there is an internal debate, review, re-evaluation, within the Left. In the 20s, Social Democrats (ie a specific political party, who otherwise insist upon being considered true socilaists) rejected the interpretation of socialism (generically) by the Communists (another specific party who insisted upon being considered true socialists) then originating from the USSR, and modeled after it in other countries in Europe. Better? [/b]
:lol: You assume that social democrats self-labelling themselves 'socialists' is enough to make them so? If I kept all my current beliefs but called myself a monarchist would this make me such? No. Everyone knows that the social democrats claim to socialism is as unfounded as that of the National Socialist Workers Party. The idea of 'socialism' has, for a long time, been used as a way of appealing to the masses as socialism will always be appealing to the poor and, thanks to capitalism, there will always be a huge majority of poor people. The popularity of facism has always been that in some places it apes socialist rhetoric but, naturally, doesn't intend on following through.

The Communists, by the way, aren't a specific group of socialists. Most of the ideologies on this forum can be called 'communist' even anarchism. They all aim for a stateless classless society and for the most part the difference is the method.


As far as thje other piece, it does indeed make no sense that an extreme rightward drift by the electorate would be a reaction to a rightward drift. So then the question becomes these:

1. Would you accept the view that the Labor Party (whatever you think of the party now or in its past) has been swing Right over the past couple of decades? I would think the answer is an obvious "yes."

2. Would you agree that Tony Blair has been facing increasing resistence within the Labor Party to the rightward drift, with efforts being made by party members, to swing back more to the Left (regardless of whatever you think of these efforts or where Labor Party would wind up should Blair lose out)? i think the answer to this is "yes" as well.

3. Is it not more reasonable to assume that an "extreme rightwing" swing would far more likely originate from "moderate" right wingers than from anywhere else? i would think the answer is "yes." Your third statement had very little to do with the other two. In that you suddenly brought moderate rightwingers into it, the moderate right are the people supporting labour. It is the moderate left that are leaving the labour party. For the most part, in the specific case of the BNP, a lot of the supporters are first-time voters or quite young, easily manipulated and usually very angry. It's also a reaction to what the BNP, correctly, identify as a dissillusionment with all the parties - that includes the tories.



The BNP is not the result of spontaneous generation. It is clear that it is Labor who is facing that electorate challenge; its their voters, and not the Conservatives voters, who are swinging to BNP. Could you give me the voting statistics from each council seat the BNP holds to show conclusive evidence of this statement? Quite a lot of the BNP voters are made up of the children of the Thatcher supporting generation.
This has to be explained. Somebody suggested it is due to the bigotry of the British worker. I dissagree (for reasons I explained elsewhere). Would you? Of course I would. No one is naturally bigoted. The BNP however often wrap their bigotry in proposals that sound almost reasonable.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by ZX3+January 07, 2007 01:31 pm--> (ZX3 @ January 07, 2007 01:31 pm)
[email protected] 06, 2007 06:48 pm

Some argue that Fascism is connected with Socialism, but only by people with a flawed notion of what Socialism is, many people (especially in the US) think Socialism is governments hand in your pocket, or government intervention, in that case they are similar because Fascism puts the state and the capitalist class together in an alliance, which means the government intereferes. But what Socialism really means is putting the working class in control of the economy, and running it for the benefit of Society as a whole. 2 Very different things.
The alliance between the state/capitalist which fascism proposes is much the same as the alliance which exists between the mugger and his victim: You agree to give me your money, and I agree not to harm you. The fascists play the role of the mugger; the capitalist the victim, in that little drama.

The problem with saying they are "2 very different things" still requires showing how the socialist proposes to go about putting the "working class in control of the economy, and running it to the benefit of Society as a whole."
Mussolini came to conclude that the methods which the socialists proposed were flawed, and would not result in victory. Socialism has been around for over a century, results have been dissapointing (at least concluding from the comments of memebrs on this board), and yet another re-evaluation seem to be presently in the works. [/b]
Its not at all the same relationship as a mugger, in what fascist country were Capitalists threatened or attacked or anything, infact Capitalists made a LOT of money under fascism, industry profits went through the roof, thats what got Germany and Italy out of the depression, before Fascists (before the State helped out the Capitalists and vice versa) the Capitalists wern't doing so well (and under Capitalism when the Capitalist suffers the worker suffers even more, and when the Capitalist does well, the worker does a little better).

How the socialist proposes putting the economy in the control of the working class is debated by Socialists. But I personally believe in the Direct mass action way, (such as an uprising or general strikes). Actually there have been many successes, Spain during the spanish revolution (taken out violently by the fascists), Paris Commune (Taken out violenty as well), Post-revolution Soviets or workers councils (stripped of power by communist party, violently as well), Zapatista villages (still around but being attacked violently), Hungarian reovlution (crushed violently by the USSR), Argentinan riots leading to workers taking control of factories (also crushed by the state, and still being attacked 'legally'), Oaxaca uprising (being attacked violently), First Mexican revolution unde Zapata (crushed violently), Many parts of Ukraine before WW2, land and factories controlled by workers (take over by Stalin violently). There are many more examples, but you notice the connection? They did'nt fail, they wern't falwed, they were crushed violently by outside forces.

[Cryotank Screams]

I think in modern times, what mainly attracts young people, and adults as well to fascism, is mostly the aesthetics of it, and delusions of grandeur, because fascism is chock full of “honour this,” and “honour that,” bullshit, mixed with edgy and “radical,” imagery, the person then put on the veiling, and to keep themselves from look like poseurs they then conform their beliefs to that of fascists ones, while in most cases leaving out some parts, so all in all I think it’s cult of aesthetics, and false honour, that gives misguided youths and adult losers some sense of grandeur and purpose that they can't find themselves otherwise.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+January 07, 2007 10:24 am--> (Jazzratt @ January 07, 2007 10:24 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:22 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:53 am

[email protected] 06, 2007 12:43 pm
Why is this the case? It seems to occur when the Left is under some sort of internal debate. In the 20s, it was communism which caused a reaction amongst other non-communist socilaists. today, it has been the collapse of communism and an increased rejection of the rightward swing of the more mainsttream socilaist parties over the past couple of decades.
This analysis, to the great surprise of no one, is way off. There is no such thing as a non-communist socialist, though 'socialism' and 'communism' are not entirely interchangable they are integeral parts of each other according to most non-anarchist theories. Unless you're suggesting that facism is a reaction to anarchism, which would be a blatent absurdity - the movements jus tweren't big enough in the countries you've chosen as your examples.

The second example really shows that you've got the reasoning capacity of a partially decayed wasp - can you explain exactly why people would swing rightward as a way of rejecting a rightward swing? It makes no fucking sense.

Sorry to shit on your parade, but I couldn't believe you actually thought you were writing something akin to the truth.
Then put it this way: Fascism seems to arise when there is an internal debate, review, re-evaluation, within the Left. In the 20s, Social Democrats (ie a specific political party, who otherwise insist upon being considered true socilaists) rejected the interpretation of socialism (generically) by the Communists (another specific party who insisted upon being considered true socialists) then originating from the USSR, and modeled after it in other countries in Europe. Better?
:lol: You assume that social democrats self-labelling themselves 'socialists' is enough to make them so? If I kept all my current beliefs but called myself a monarchist would this make me such? No. Everyone knows that the social democrats claim to socialism is as unfounded as that of the National Socialist Workers Party. The idea of 'socialism' has, for a long time, been used as a way of appealing to the masses as socialism will always be appealing to the poor and, thanks to capitalism, there will always be a huge majority of poor people. The popularity of facism has always been that in some places it apes socialist rhetoric but, naturally, doesn't intend on following through.

The Communists, by the way, aren't a specific group of socialists. Most of the ideologies on this forum can be called 'communist' even anarchism. They all aim for a stateless classless society and for the most part the difference is the method.


As far as thje other piece, it does indeed make no sense that an extreme rightward drift by the electorate would be a reaction to a rightward drift. So then the question becomes these:

1. Would you accept the view that the Labor Party (whatever you think of the party now or in its past) has been swing Right over the past couple of decades? I would think the answer is an obvious "yes."

2. Would you agree that Tony Blair has been facing increasing resistence within the Labor Party to the rightward drift, with efforts being made by party members, to swing back more to the Left (regardless of whatever you think of these efforts or where Labor Party would wind up should Blair lose out)? i think the answer to this is "yes" as well.

3. Is it not more reasonable to assume that an "extreme rightwing" swing would far more likely originate from "moderate" right wingers than from anywhere else? i would think the answer is "yes." Your third statement had very little to do with the other two. In that you suddenly brought moderate rightwingers into it, the moderate right are the people supporting labour. It is the moderate left that are leaving the labour party. For the most part, in the specific case of the BNP, a lot of the supporters are first-time voters or quite young, easily manipulated and usually very angry. It's also a reaction to what the BNP, correctly, identify as a dissillusionment with all the parties - that includes the tories.



The BNP is not the result of spontaneous generation. It is clear that it is Labor who is facing that electorate challenge; its their voters, and not the Conservatives voters, who are swinging to BNP. Could you give me the voting statistics from each council seat the BNP holds to show conclusive evidence of this statement? Quite a lot of the BNP voters are made up of the children of the Thatcher supporting generation.
This has to be explained. Somebody suggested it is due to the bigotry of the British worker. I dissagree (for reasons I explained elsewhere). Would you? Of course I would. No one is naturally bigoted. The BNP however often wrap their bigotry in proposals that sound almost reasonable. [/b]

"Everyone knows that the social democrats claim to be socialism is as unfounded..."

One of the difficult issues in dealing with socialism is its tendencies to not only squabble with other socialist parties and movements as to "best methods" of bringing about socialism, but also its frequent denials that other socialist parties are not socialist, despite those parties claim to the contrary. You are bright enough to know that the Social Democrats most certainly consider themselves to be the "true" socialists, and that they deny that the communists (of whatever party or stripe) are socialists at all. So I look at the above quote in that context, as nothing more than another partisan comment in the struggle to identify what socialism is.

And I think that is how the growth of the BNP has to be viewed as well. That the BNP may be "aping" the socialist line, "but has no intention of following through" is nothing more than a partisan comment, one that one would expect also be directed against the Social Democrats. It strikes me more as a prayer than an argument.

That the BNP has gained its greatest strength in traditional Labor areas seems fairly undeniable. Its not just a question of winning elections, but also where they gain, and who is losing support att the same time. this seems also true at the national levels, in the parliamentary elections as well. BBC website had a pretty break down of things some time ago. Perhaps it is still up.

It could very well be that the BNP is correct and that their success is based upon general voter dissilutionment. But it would appear that Labor is bearing the great brunt of it. And if that was the whole story, it would seem that Labor backers would be the least dissillutioned, given that their party has never before enjoyed the success it has presently had under Blair. So that brings us back to what Labor has done under Blair, which I am sure you know has been a swing to the Right.

So what is the objection of the defectors? That the party has not swung enough to the Right? Why not then vote Conservative? Because when you look at what the BNP argues beyond its bigotry, its apparent the Conservatives can never support that which the BNP supports. But Labor can, and has, by other methods.

And that is the root of the problem. Socialists are going to have the greatest problem dealing with the neo-fascists, neo-nazis because the latters are offshoots of them. Perhaps they are indeed being deceptive with their socialist claims. But I don't think so, and its hardly an argument that was successful in the past, or can hope to be successful in the future.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:21 pm
Its not at all the same relationship as a mugger, in what fascist country were Capitalists threatened or attacked or anything, infact Capitalists made a LOT of money under fascism, industry profits went through the roof, thats what got Germany and Italy out of the depression, before Fascists (before the State helped out the Capitalists and vice versa) the Capitalists wern't doing so well (and under Capitalism when the Capitalist suffers the worker suffers even more, and when the Capitalist does well, the worker does a little better).

How the socialist proposes putting the economy in the control of the working class is debated by Socialists. But I personally believe in the Direct mass action way, (such as an uprising or general strikes). Actually there have been many successes, Spain during the spanish revolution (taken out violently by the fascists), Paris Commune (Taken out violenty as well), Post-revolution Soviets or workers councils (stripped of power by communist party, violently as well), Zapatista villages (still around but being attacked violently), Hungarian reovlution (crushed violently by the USSR), Argentinan riots leading to workers taking control of factories (also crushed by the state, and still being attacked 'legally'), Oaxaca uprising (being attacked violently), First Mexican revolution unde Zapata (crushed violently), Many parts of Ukraine before WW2, land and factories controlled by workers (take over by Stalin violently). There are many more examples, but you notice the connection? They did'nt fail, they wern't falwed, they were crushed violently by outside forces.

In all the countries the fascists threatened the capitalists. This was true in Germany and in Italy, where the state told the capitalist what to produce, how to produce t ect ect. The turning of profits was irrelevent from the point of view of the Fascists, and the German economy was not under the National Socilaists was not as wonderful as is often supposed.

Many of the examples cited (such as the Hungarian and Ukrainian revolt) were nothing more than socialists debating how best to put the workers in control. The others are few and far between.

[Morpheus]

In all three cases (Italy, Germany & Spain) the majority of the working class did not support the fascist seizure of power. Some did, mainly because they scapegoated someone (Jews, foriegners, etc.) or valued their privileges over a minority, but most didn't. The percentage of workers supporting fascism probably increased after they came to power due to indoctrination, but I don't know if that ever reach a majority. Fascists came to power because elements of the government and/or wealthy were scarred a revolution would overthrow them. Fascism was a way for them to hang onto power through both the use of massive violence and also by channelling working class discontent at scapegoats that did not harm the state/capitalist class.

In Italy the end of World War One saw an upsurge in working class rebellion, including the start of a small Leninist movement and the growth of a larger anarcho-syndicalist movement. Workers took over factories throughout the country and revolution looked possible for a while. To the disappointment of the anarcho-syndicalists, leaders of the Italian Socialist Party persuaded most workers to accept wage increases and other improvements and go back to work for their bosses, instead of launching a revolution. Much of the wealthy and the government were scared shitless by this near-revolution and went on the offensive to put workers back in their place. They backed Mussolini, who came to power and violently crushed the left and insured the state would not overthrown anytime soon. Mussolini wasn't able to get a majority of the vote until he was able to suppress the opposition and rig elections because he didn't have enough working class support. He relied on support from the King and legal maneuvers to secure his power initially.

Germany had a larger Communist party and a very rebellious working class. When the depression hit Communism got bigger and the working class became more militant. Some wealthy industrialists reacted to this by funding the Nazis because they liked its anti-communist message. Despite this funding, the Nazis were unable to gain a majority of the vote because the majority of the working class opposed them. The Communists and Social Democrats had a larger vote than the Nazis, and Hitler lost the presidential elections. However, the government feared working class unrest and was worried about a civil war and so, after previous attempts to maintain control failed, the President nominated Hitler as Chancellor. Hitler used the burning down of the Reichstag as justification to suppress all civil liberties and then proceeded to crush the left and the working class, saving the state.

In Spain the working class overwhelmingly rejected fascism. The Popular Front, a coalition of leftist parties formed by the Communist party, won the 1936 elections. Plus Spain had the largest anarchist movement in the world at the time. The CNT, Spain's anarcho-syndicalist union, had around 1 million members at the time of the civil war IIRC. Since the anarchists mostly didn't vote working class rejection of fascism was even larger than election results show. A substantial portion of military officers, government leaders and the wealthy feared a working class revolution, however, partly because the popular front was in power but also because a wave of strikes and working class rebellion that broke out in early-middle 1936. Fascists were unable to come to power legally due to the decisive electoral victory of the left, so they organized a coup. As the coup went into place the CNT and the UGT (the union affiliated with the socialist party) called a general strike and left-wing socialists begged the government to distribute weapons to the workers. The government refused to do that, and tried to negotiate with the coup plotters. So the anarchists broke into barracks and started distributing weapons to the people, after which the government decided to distribute arms to the people. Workers, mainly anarchists & socialists, fought and defeated the coup in 2/3rds of Spain. The defeat of the coup left the government virtually powerless (its military in revolt, the police dissolved during the fighting, and the people armed) and an anarcho-syndicalist revolution swept anti-fascist Spain. Factories were taken over by workers, land collectivized and democratic workers militias organized to fight the fascists. The anarchists, however, prioritized the defeat of fascism and so they allowed to state to quietly restore itself in order not to provoke a civil war among the anti-fascists. There were anarchist ministers in government and other compromises of anarchist principles made in order to forge anti-fascist unity. As soon as the state was strong enough it attacked the anarchists, undid the revolution and suppressed most dissent. The Communist party played a leading role in the counter-revolution and eventually consolidated power in its own hands, working together with Republican business owners to suppress workers and create a dictatorial state with many similarities to fascism. The result was the demoralization the anti-fascist camp and a near civil war within republican Spain, allowing the fascists to win the war.

Fascism is essentially a strategy by the state to deal with working class unrest. It is not something usually supported by the majority of workers; in many cases the working class fought actively against fascism.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 05:59 am
It's been awhile since I last posted here but if any of you may remember I was the neo-con who started the political survey debate. I want to make it clear before I say anything else that I am not a Fascist or sympathize with Fascists (the users here and I may define Fascists differently, but in terms of Mussolini or Franco's movements in Europe are the point of discussion mostly).

I recently saw a film called "Pan's Labyrinth", a foreign film about the Civil War in Spain where the Nationalists (Francoists, Carlists) fought the pro-democracy/Social-democratist guerilla's in the Northern countryside. It made me think about the outcome of that unfortunate war and why the Fascists ended up winning. 1.Was it the common people (proletariat, working class) who were tricked into believing Franco's promises of "bread and fire in every house"? 2.Or was it out of a true sense of belief? 3.If one is to believe under Marxist teachings that the poor will desire a more egalitarian or collectivist society then how can the Fascist victory in the civil war be justified? Or for a more recent example, the faliure of the Vietnamese in the South to rise up against their government or the Americans in revolution after Tet 1968 as Giap predicted.

In terms of Mussolini and his followers, I know an elderly Italian barber in my town who was a member of the Blackshirts and he described the actions he took to silence anarchists, communists, and Italians who generally did not like Fascism (no killing involved, but excessive violence was commonplace at least for him). People like Antonio Gramsci were imprisoned for their views at this time and he actively supported it, and this man is as working class as they come. Eventually he came to reject Fascism when he moved to America in the 1950s but it just sparked my interest a bit.

What are your thoughts?
1. Marxism, as a social science, attempts to understand the historical and material basis for political and social trends in order to advance the class struggle. From that perspective, important to understanding fascism are those specific features as they occurred in history that may be generalized to draw lessons for today. These examples that you provided, such as Franco's victory, or Mussolini's rise to power, were immediate products of the scared capitalist class, which were on the verge of being "swept into the dustbins of history." The proletariat, who had a lack of revolutionary experience and consciousness were unable to sustain themselves. The petty bourgeois served as a purely reactionary force during this moment in history; that went on, out of their economic ruin to their small firms and other places of employment, to join in mass numbers the Falange Army and Black Shirts. This terrifying alliance, which came as a result of working class revolt in those countries, combined with the problems of the proletariat at that current moment, ensured the victory of fascist forces.

2. I think that we need to realize that the working class is mostly apolitical. The purpose of the vanguard party is to organize the working class into class solidarity and millitancy, in order to reach not just economic victories that are achieved through trade unions in the form of higher wages and shorter working hours, but also political victories that would serve the role of giving the working class a political character; a sort of revolutionary theory to adhere to. But out of this lack of political character, the working class found itself outnumbered and disallusioned under the hooves of the ruling class during the 1930s.

3. If you had more and more bombs thrown across busy streets and city centers, media outlets taunting lies about victory and the "historical destiny of the Spanish people", moderate "socialist" and liberal parties of petty bourgeois origin that are encouraging the working class sections of their party to give their workplaces back to their managers, and obvious national, territorial, and ideological seperation from eachother, you will find that victory becomes literally impossible.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:26 pm
In all the countries the fascists threatened the capitalists. This was true in Germany and in Italy, where the state told the capitalist what to produce, how to produce t ect ect. The turning of profits was irrelevent from the point of view of the Fascists, and the German economy was not under the National Socilaists was not as wonderful as is often supposed.

Many of the examples cited (such as the Hungarian and Ukrainian revolt) were nothing more than socialists debating how best to put the workers in control. The others are few and far between.
Where are you getting the threatening Capitalist information about Fascism about? I don't seam to recall ever reading or hearing about fascists threatening Capitalists (seeing as Capitalists profited immensly from Fascism and its economy).

These examples, were not Socialists debating how to best put the workers in control, they were workers TAKING control from either Capitalist, Fascists or State Socialists.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by RGacky3+January 10, 2007 12:58 am--> (RGacky3 @ January 10, 2007 12:58 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 03:26 pm
In all the countries the fascists threatened the capitalists. This was true in Germany and in Italy, where the state told the capitalist what to produce, how to produce t ect ect. The turning of profits was irrelevent from the point of view of the Fascists, and the German economy was not under the National Socilaists was not as wonderful as is often supposed.

Many of the examples cited (such as the Hungarian and Ukrainian revolt) were nothing more than socialists debating how best to put the workers in control. The others are few and far between.
Where are you getting the threatening Capitalist information about Fascism about? I don't seam to recall ever reading or hearing about fascists threatening Capitalists (seeing as Capitalists profited immensly from Fascism and its economy).

These examples, were not Socialists debating how to best put the workers in control, they were workers TAKING control from either Capitalist, Fascists or State Socialists. [/b]
Rise and Fall of the te Third Reich, by Wm Shirer is a good place to start.

[saint max]

What are your thoughts?
Well in the case of Italy, the commuist party of italy put out a communique calling on the workers to hold up the banner of fascism and march towards a united Italian republic. Mussolini, was a member of Revolutionary syndicalism and saw fascism as just that, a workers movement against capitalism but also against socialism.

For Celine, it just seems like he was bored.

The problem fascism poses to radical, left and anarchist social movements is located within a religion of progress and fantasy of The Enlightenment promisses. If we can't get beyond that, we'll likely be seeing our friends wearing brown of black shirts too. This is of peculiar importance when speaking about the aesthetics of fascism (i.e Italy and Spain) rather than a more racialized project of nazi Germany.

kisses,
-max