Socialism & Fascism

[ZX3]

The anti-fascism board seems to revel in the bloody demise of fascists, or celebrates when fascists face some sort of physical opposition.

So I am wondering:

1. Why do socialists seem to have such regular contact with fascists? Its not as if they are are on every street corner.

2. Given that the socialists response to fascism seems to based upon physical violence to them, how do the socialists justify their opposition based (in part, perhaps) upon the violence of the fascist?

3. Why does it seem that "neo-fascists" gain political strength (to whatever extent) at the expense of the more traditional, mainstrem, socialist parties?

[wtfm8lol]

i think it's some strange sort of rivalry: each wants to drive mankind into the dirt before the other can and they're willing to do anything to stop the other side from winning the race.

[Democratic Socialist]

There are very few real fascists right now. The people they refer to are neo-Nazi skinhead punks who support Hitler because their friends are doing it. Fascism is a dead movement. Now we have neo-Conservatism to battle.

Communists are still in the 1920's. They refuse to acknowledge that Marx is archaic and that both ideologies failed miserably in the 20th century.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Democratic [email protected] 12, 2007 08:43 pm
There are very few real fascists right now. The people they refer to are neo-Nazi skinhead punks who support Hitler because their friends are doing it. Fascism is a dead movement. Now we have neo-Conservatism to battle.
Fascists are real and the support for them is climbing.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Whitten+February 12, 2007 04:06 pm--> (Whitten @ February 12, 2007 04:06 pm)
Democratic [email protected] 12, 2007 08:43 pm
There are very few real fascists right now. The people they refer to are neo-Nazi skinhead punks who support Hitler because their friends are doing it. Fascism is a dead movement. Now we have neo-Conservatism to battle.
Fascists are ral and teh support for them is climbing. [/b]
where?

[Whitten]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+February 12, 2007 09:47 pm--> (colonelguppy @ February 12, 2007 09:47 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 04:06 pm

Democratic [email protected] 12, 2007 08:43 pm
There are very few real fascists right now. The people they refer to are neo-Nazi skinhead punks who support Hitler because their friends are doing it. Fascism is a dead movement. Now we have neo-Conservatism to battle.
Fascists are ral and teh support for them is climbing.
where? [/b]
In England for certain, and from the sounds of it in many other places.

[black magick hustla]

i think there is a misunderstanding on what motivates the anti-fascist...

it is not about a competition on which holds moral superiority--fascists or us communists, ir is about combating a clearly reactionary movement that uses violence as their means. we do not care about "steeping down to their level" because we are practical, materialists--not moralists.

antifascism is mostly preventive self-defense, not much more.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

1. Why do socialists seem to have such regular contact with fascists? Its not as if they are are on every street corner.
Socialists, being advocates of internationalism and universal equality, are inherently anti-fascist, and as such account for a large portion of the international AntiFa movement (the exploits of which you are witnessing in the anti-fascism board). Of course not all AntiFa members or advocates are socialists, but a lot of them are.


2. Given that the socialists response to fascism seems to based upon physical violence to them, how do the socialists justify their opposition based (in part, perhaps) upon the violence of the fascist?
Em I'm not sure I understand this... Are you asking how socialists can justify acts of violence against fascists, who they condemn for their use of violence? If so, the simple answer is that socialists do not oppose fascists because fascists are violent, we oppose them because of their extremely nationalistic, reactionary views. That they try to enforce or vindicate these views through violent means only serves to make the matter of their containment and destruction a more urgent one.


3. Why does it seem that "neo-fascists" gain political strength (to whatever extent) at the expense of the more traditional, mainstrem, socialist parties?
Before I answer that, could I see some examples? Are you sure the 2 are related?


where? [are fascists gaining support]
In Britain, several parts of Europe and Russia to name but a few.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by patton+February 12, 2007 05:47 pm--> (patton @ February 12, 2007 05:47 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:47 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 04:06 pm

Democratic [email protected] 12, 2007 08:43 pm
There are very few real fascists right now. The people they refer to are neo-Nazi skinhead punks who support Hitler because their friends are doing it. Fascism is a dead movement. Now we have neo-Conservatism to battle.
Fascists are ral and teh support for them is climbing.
where?
The B.N.P. party in England has picked up alot of support in recent years. [/b]
i owuldn't call them fascist, just nationalist. the only placei can think of is really russia, and that was befor eputin anounced his resignation. venezuala maybe, but doubtful.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Democratic [email protected] 12, 2007 04:43 pm
Communists are still in the 1920's. They refuse to acknowledge that Marx is archaic and that both ideologies failed miserably in the 20th century.
You don't even know why the Communist nations failed, or degraded into capitalism, therefore your comment is baseless and foolish.

There is real fascist forces within society, I mean to deny this is really rather fool hardy, and the reason why Leftists get "giddy," over fascists getting kicked the shit out of, or killed/dieing is, because it represents one less fascist nut in the world, one less enemy of the people in the world, one less espouser of hate and oppression in the world.

[bezdomni]

Marmot is right. Listen to him.

[RGacky3]

In California the only 'fascists' around are basically Neo-Nazi Skinheads, they are really nothing more than street thugs and not a real political movement. I personally don't worry about Skinheads at all because they don't really have any power, or are they don't anything really destructive, they are just a bunch of angry idiots. The people I worry about are the Neo-Liberals and Neo-Cons (many times the same poeple), those are the ones doing real Damage.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by patton+February 13, 2007 10:57 am--> (patton @ February 13, 2007 10:57 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 01:23 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 05:47 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:47 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 04:06 pm

Democratic [email protected] 12, 2007 08:43 pm
There are very few real fascists right now. The people they refer to are neo-Nazi skinhead punks who support Hitler because their friends are doing it. Fascism is a dead movement. Now we have neo-Conservatism to battle.
Fascists are ral and teh support for them is climbing.
where?
The B.N.P. party in England has picked up alot of support in recent years.
i owuldn't call them fascist, just nationalist. the only placei can think of is really russia, and that was befor eputin anounced his resignation. venezuala maybe, but doubtful.
There are lots of nazi skinheads in that party. [/b]
but their overall policies are not what would be considered fascist. plus, they have little if any power.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 06:10 pm


3. Why does it seem that "neo-fascists" gain political strength (to whatever extent) at the expense of the more traditional, mainstrem, socialist parties?
Before I answer that, could I see some examples? Are you sure the 2 are related?


Germany & England.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+February 12, 2007 09:47 pm--> (colonelguppy @ February 12, 2007 09:47 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 04:06 pm

Democratic [email protected] 12, 2007 08:43 pm
There are very few real fascists right now. The people they refer to are neo-Nazi skinhead punks who support Hitler because their friends are doing it. Fascism is a dead movement. Now we have neo-Conservatism to battle.
Fascists are ral and teh support for them is climbing.
where? [/b]
Jorg Haider has done all right in Austria.

Le Pen in France can usual get about a fifth of the votes.

Vlaams Belang has a worrying level of support in the Flemish region of Belgium

And so on

[An archist]

indeed, it's not the neo-nazi oneheads that are the problem, it's the three-piece-suit fascists that areelected that are the problem. Seriously, elected members of the Vlaams Belang used to attend SS commemorations in their youth

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Democratic [email protected] 12, 2007 08:43 pm
They refuse to acknowledge that Marx is archaic...

Can you explain what that means?

[Publius]

Even though I didn't read the thread, I'm going to chime in anyway with the fact that I bought the Anatomy of Fascism at Border's today.

It looked interesting, plus the Economist recommended it. What more could one ask for?

:lol:

[bezdomni]

What more could one ask for?

Better reading material than The Economist. ;)

[Publius]

Better reading material than The Economist. ;)

I very much doubt that.

Even if you disagree with their editorial line, you'd be very hard-pressed to find better writing, either as political analysis or as simple exploration of the English language.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Even if you disagree with their editorial line, you'd be very hard-pressed to find better writing, either as political analysis or as simple exploration of the English language.
Link please? I've read a couple of articles and I've yet to find any particularly impressive use of the language.

[Publius]

Link please? I've read a couple of articles and I've yet to find any particularly impressive use of the language.

Read their style guide: http://www.economist.com/research/StyleGuide/

It's not Nabokov, but it's very clean prose, which serves the point exactly; it's also elegant, in turns.

A lot of this is based on Orwell's essay, but of course, that's very good. For example, using Saxon terms of Latinate terms is just basic good writing, as Latinate is often stilted and prosaic.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Thanks, that's actually incredibly interesting and I have it bookmarked for future reference.



Anticipate does not mean expect. Jack and Jill expected to marry; if they anticipated marriage, only Jill might find herself expectant.
:lol:

[Adie]

Originally posted by Democratic [email protected] 12, 2007 08:43 pm
There are very few real fascists right now. The people they refer to are neo-Nazi skinhead punks who support Hitler because their friends are doing it. Fascism is a dead movement. Now we have neo-Conservatism to battle.

Communists are still in the 1920's. They refuse to acknowledge that Marx is archaic and that both ideologies failed miserably in the 20th century.
Are you suggesting Hitler was a fascist? you really are dim! Hitler like me was a National Socialist, he though the reds and the capitalists and managed to sway mussloni away from his money hungry views, National socialism is the only trues socialism, marxist only care for themselves and for peddling their ill thought out ideas to others!

White power for ever and ever!
88

[AlwaysAnarchy]

National socialism is a joke the exact opposite of real socialism, Hitler was a fascist.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 01:26 pm
National socialism is a joke the exact opposite of real socialism, Hitler was a fascist.
And as this website itself demonstrates, all socilaists agree as to what is "real socialism." :rolleyes:

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by ZX3+February 23, 2007 12:16 pm--> (ZX3 @ February 23, 2007 12:16 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 01:26 pm
National socialism is a joke the exact opposite of real socialism, Hitler was a fascist.
And as this website itself demonstrates, all socilaists agree as to what is "real socialism." :rolleyes: [/b]
Actually, I do think the overwhelming majority here are agreed in their basic definition of socialism: the workers controlling the means of production, the workers taking power (this can be put differently of course: "dictatorship of the proletariat" for Marxists, rising the working class to the point of the ruling class, overthrowing the bourgeoisie, etc) but most of us are saying that same thing when it comes to giving a basic definition of what socialism is.

The debates and disagreements occur over whether country x was/is socialist, when did that country stop being socialist if it ever was, which movements and theories best represent socialism, etc.

In bourgeois terms, you can sort of compare this to a bunch of capitalists arguing which system is best for us to make a profit in; socialists instead debate which system (theory, movement, country, etc) is best for socialism (ie workers control) to thrive in. Capitalists have great disagreements over which country, system, theory is best for capitalism and which country (countries) best mimics the "true" capitalist system, but if you ask them for a basic definition of the word most would give you just about the same thing.

IMO, disagreements and debates are a good sign; not a bad one. This differs sharply with the neo-Nazi sites where everyone basically repeats the same slogans over and over again. Here there is actual debate which is necessary and points more to strength than to weakness.

[Lenin's Law]

1. Why do socialists seem to have such regular contact with fascists? Its not as if they are are on every street corner.

Can't speak for everyone, but I personally do not know any fascists, don't visit any fascist sites and while it is important to be informed about their movements and especially if they are gaining strength I don't think you can call this "regular contact" In fact, this website has so much "regular contact" with fascists that they are the only group that we ban automatically.

Staying informed about fascist movements and especially the rise of fascist parties is very different then having "regular contact" with them.


2. Given that the socialists response to fascism seems to based upon physical violence to them, how do the socialists justify their opposition based (in part, perhaps) upon the violence of the fascist?

Here you are confused.

First of all, socialists do not oppose fascists simply because they are violent; we are not pacifists, we are not utopians, we understand that sometimes violence is necessary.

However, violence in whose interests? Fascists commit violence for racist, ultra-nationalistic, homophobic, anti-semitic, etc reasons. Socialists would consider using violence if it becomes necessary to give the vast majority, the working class political and economic power, to smash the bourgeois state and either do away with the state completely (anarchism) or set up a "dictatorship of the proleteriat" where workers have the time to do away with the resistance of the bourgeoisie and gradually "wither away" the state (Marxism)

In short, socialists unlike pacifists, utopians etc do not fault fascists simply for using violence, but fault them for using violence in the most backward, reactionary reasons known to man.



3. Why does it seem that "neo-fascists" gain political strength (to whatever extent) at the expense of the more traditional, mainstrem, socialist parties?

Someone asked you before to clarify yourself and give some examples, I would advise you also to do the same.

Exactly what do you mean by "traditional mainstream socialist" parties? Do you mean liberal, social-democratic, reformist parties? If so, the answer more has to do with the failure of liberalism and bourgeois democracy than anything else; some people (correctly) observing their miserable condition under capitalism and the failure of the "mainstream" political parties doing anything in their interests (incorrectly) look to reactionary reasons and racism, fascism as its solution.

If you are really concerned, btw, about relationships with fascism; than look no further than capitalism. Mussolini himself aptly described fascism as being "corporatism" as it is a "blending of state and corporate power."

Capitalists LOVED the fascist regimes for a long time, Henry Ford was once of Hitler's biggest admirers, Churchill once called Mussolini "a great man" and made a favorable review of Mein Kampf, Hitler and Mussolini always enjoyed strong support from the business elements in their respective countries as they enjoyed tremendous profits (the ability to strike was abolished, the workers unions were destroyed, the socialists in a little known fact, were the first victims of Hitler's concentration camps) so the capitalists were thrilled in seeing a passive labor force where they could make tons of profits.

As Mussolini said almost a hundred years ago: corporatism and fascism go hand in hand and have a far "cozier" relationship than any other element.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Democratic [email protected] 12, 2007 08:43 pm
Communists are still in the 1920's. They refuse to acknowledge that Marx is archaic and that both ideologies failed miserably in the 20th century.
And you appear to be basing your ideology on "Christian" nonsense that failed 2000 years ago.

If you knew anything about the mythology surrounding christ, you would probably not believe in the religion at all. if you still believed, you'd be a violent communist.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Lenin's [email protected] 23, 2007 09:58 am



3. Why does it seem that "neo-fascists" gain political strength (to whatever extent) at the expense of the more traditional, mainstrem, socialist parties?

Someone asked you before to clarify yourself and give some examples, I would advise you also to do the same.

Exactly what do you mean by "traditional mainstream socialist" parties? Do you mean liberal, social-democratic, reformist parties? If so, the answer more has to do with the failure of liberalism and bourgeois democracy than anything else; some people (correctly) observing their miserable condition under capitalism and the failure of the "mainstream" political parties doing anything in their interests (incorrectly) look to reactionary reasons and racism, fascism as its solution.

If you are really concerned, btw, about relationships with fascism; than look no further than capitalism. Mussolini himself aptly described fascism as being "corporatism" as it is a "blending of state and corporate power."

Capitalists LOVED the fascist regimes for a long time, Henry Ford was once of Hitler's biggest admirers, Churchill once called Mussolini "a great man" and made a favorable review of Mein Kampf, Hitler and Mussolini always enjoyed strong support from the business elements in their respective countries as they enjoyed tremendous profits (the ability to strike was abolished, the workers unions were destroyed, the socialists in a little known fact, were the first victims of Hitler's concentration camps) so the capitalists were thrilled in seeing a passive labor force where they could make tons of profits.

As Mussolini said almost a hundred years ago: corporatism and fascism go hand in hand and have a far "cozier" relationship than any other element.
The BNP in the UK and in Germany the neo-nazi parties are growing at the expense of the labor and Social Democratic Parties. I understand that that you would not consider those two parties socialist. But that is part and parcel of the divisions within socialism discussed in another thread.


Capitalists "loved" fascism in the sense that they were spared the "death penalty" of Communism. As Wm Shirer adequaltely points out, they were screaming bloody murder concerning National Socialist economic policy by 1935. The National Socialists, of course, ignored their complaints.

Churchill did indeed admire Hitler early on, and as biographers of Churchill have recently noted, Winston was never a true "conservative."

Socialists often think rich people are conservative and right wingers, yet Henry Ford offers yet another refutation of this claim, as well as a confirmation as to who and where fascists and fascist admirers arise. Ford was a man who definitely considered himself progressive, opposed trusts, and favored all all manner of social and economic legislation. He was of the opinion that government run idustries were better than private ones (though I do not know if he thought it true of the auto industry :D ). Mussolini of course was a memebr of the Socialist party and a rising star within the socialist world. Nor was that view eliminated in 1921. The Fascists swept to power because the Communists abandoned the reds, and a member of the Comintern considered Benito to be Lenin's true heir. As far as Hitler targeting other socialists, so did Stalin. Socialists have always disputed amongst themselves who was an "authentic socialist."

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 02:27 am
Socialists often think rich people are conservative and right wingers, yet Henry Ford offers yet another refutation of this claim, as well as a confirmation as to who and where fascists and fascist admirers arise. Ford was a man who definitely considered himself progressive, opposed trusts, and favored all all manner of social and economic legislation. He was of the opinion that government run idustries were better than private ones (though I do not know if he thought it true of the auto industry :D ). Mussolini of course was a memebr of the Socialist party and a rising star within the socialist world. Nor was that view eliminated in 1921. The Fascists swept to power because the Communists abandoned the reds, and a member of the Comintern considered Benito to be Lenin's true heir. As far as Hitler targeting other socialists, so did Stalin. Socialists have always disputed amongst themselves who was an "authentic socialist."
Henry Ford? Progressive? :lol:


He was a Fascist and an Anti-Semite.