"People's" Fascism

[OrderedAnarchy]

Fascism being a society where I am forced to be loyal to the state, required to fight the wars of the ruling class, and jailed for questioning authority, I'd say that even direct democracy would quickly fall to fascism. There would be no Mussolini, only a mob of people; a majority, instead of an aristocracy, to demand loyalty, wage wars, and jail the minorities; the new ruling class. What do you think?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What makes you think that a majority of people would want to do any of those things?

Are most people fascists? Obviously not. But if most people are not fascists, then a society run by majority decision would not implement fascist policies.

[Raúl Duke]

I find such an assumption strange...
I would have to agree with Edric O.

However, if you find direct democracy scary.... :huh:

than I suggest you look up into Consensus decision making, which involves compromises between majority and minority.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 08:50 am
I find such an assumption strange...
I would have to agree with Edric O.

However, if you find direct democracy scary.... :huh:

than I suggest you look up into Consensus decision making, which involves compromises between majority and minority.
And decision-making will be really slow as well...

Ancient Athens could during it's lowest peaks resemble some sort of "popular tyranny", when the winners in an election deprived the losers of their citizenship and regularily exiled them.

[OrderedAnarchy]

Most people are not revolutionary in the same way that we are. Therefore their policies will be less revolutionary than we would like. No, that's not fascism, but it is not ideal, because there would still be some who would be oppressed.

To avoid a giant majority who rules over an only slightly lesser minority, I would propose that the state first be stripped of its power to call nationwide draft, national tax, and any other national laws. In a word, the state's reach must be localized. For a majority in Florida to decide my President--even if it had been legit and gone to Gore--is fascism because I don't give a shit what people in Florida think but their president will jail me anyway.

[Raúl Duke]

And decision-making will be really slow as well...

Are you denying our advances in communication technology? That's very untechnocratic of you! :P

Or do you mean that consensus would be very slow...since it should take a long time to reach a consensus?

[Dimentio]

I mean the latter. The only way I could imagine it work, is in very small social units. It is hard to envision for example a nation with 20 million people reach a national consensus in just one issue.

[spartan]

Democracy is about the majority the collective not the minority or the individual. The fact is if in a plebiscite a clear majority of the people vote in favour of something then that something will have to be adopted.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 11:30 am
Democracy is about the majority the collective not the minority or the individual. The fact is if in a plebiscite a clear majority of the people vote in favour of something then that something will have to be adopted.
If a majority votes to arbitrarily whip person X then? ^^

Hence constitutionalism...

[bezdomni]

um...yeah. Democracy is about empowering the majority and protecting the minority unless the minority is physically attacking or preparing to attack the majority or another group within the minority.

For example, let's say we are living in a socialist state under the banner of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Trotskyists would still be around, splitting and selling poorly xeroxed bi-monthly newspapers as usual. Anarchists would still be allowed to have their blac blocks. Even people calling for the restoration of capitalism wouldn't be silenced.

The draft programme of the RCP says something to the effect of "we need people in society coming from all different perspectives...even ones that radically disagree with our own."

However, organized fascists and capitalist roaders (as well as all counterrevolutionaries: ie, those that fight against the revolution) that call for the overthrow of socialism and the consolidation of their reactionary politics will be dealt with swiftly and mercilessly.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by Serpent+September 14, 2007 09:01 am--> (Serpent @ September 14, 2007 09:01 am)
[email protected] 14, 2007 08:50 am
I find such an assumption strange...
I would have to agree with Edric O.

However, if you find direct democracy scary.... :huh:

than I suggest you look up into Consensus decision making, which involves compromises between majority and minority.
And decision-making will be really slow as well...

Ancient Athens could during it's lowest peaks resemble some sort of "popular tyranny", when the winners in an election deprived the losers of their citizenship and regularily exiled them. [/b]
Of course ancient Athens also existed in a society where class relations were nothing short of exceptionally diverse. Socialism eradicates "us" vs "them" through the abolishment of private property.

In the course of history, people have shown themselves to be more merciful than their leaders.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 02:28 pm
If a majority votes to arbitrarily whip person X then? ^^

Hence constitutionalism...
Why would a majority of people vote to arbitrarily whip person X, though? Even in present day capitalist society, where education is far worse than it would be under socialism, it would be rather difficult to persuade the majority of any large population to agree to arbitrarily whip some person.

Perhaps you're thinking of more realistic problems like racism and such. But racism rarely grows by itself without significant support from a ruling class. Without a ruling class to encourage racism and other forms of discrimination, racists would almost inevitably find themselves in the minority.

I'm not saying that direct democracy is without flaw; I am only pointing out that the potential for abuse is far lower than you make it out to be.

[BobKKKindle$]

Without a ruling class to encourage racism and other forms of discrimination, racists would almost inevitably find themselves in the minority.

I agree. The dissolution of prejudice is both a precondition for and a consequence of revolution; It is unfair to assume that the majority would have an interest in or desire the persecution of a minority. If racism still exists then it would be possible to develop a bill of rights which would ensure that ethnic minorities are not subject to harm, whilst agitating against Racism and forcing racists to justify their prejudices and any racist actions to the community.

Racism, and other common characteristics of Fascism, such as extreme nationalism, rarely arise as a result of popular agitation and discussion - they are ideas promoted by the ruling class in order to maintain the division of society into classes.

[JRR883]

This is more of a criticism of anarchism than communism, but if a society organized by collectivism and direct democracy formed directly from capitalism, with all the workers still subject to the material conditioning of capitalism, couldn't it turn to fascism? In more conservative areas, such as the American South, the workers could vote on things that could oppress the minority. I could imagine a type of Inquisition in highly Christian fundamentalist areas.

[black magick hustla]

That is not fascism.

[Comrade Rage]

I would have to agree about not just retrograde areas such as the American South, but almost everywhere. When a country goes from a social system of exploitation, to a direct democratic government it will result in mob rule, with the strong oppressing the weak. There is even a phrase for it:

"The tyranny of the majority."

[Kwisatz Haderach]

...and that is one of the reasons why it is impossible to establish communism right after the revolution, and why an intermediate period of socialism is necessary.

[Comrade Rage]

My point exactly.

[RNK]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 15, 2007 08:12 pm
...and that is one of the reasons why it is impossible to establish communism right after the revolution, and why an intermediate period of socialism is necessary.
QFT.

[Raúl Duke]

...and that is one of the reasons why it is impossible to establish communism right after the revolution, and why an intermediate period of socialism is necessary.

Although, that reason only deals with one region of the world...

Does it apply to Europe?

Does it apply to the Northeast of North America?

Things shouldn't be blanketed into one category; the material conditions of each area should be analyzed so to asses whether communism is possible there.

Where it is not possible, it is not possible...yet.

Everything else being the same, Material conditions will usually prevail.


I agree. The dissolution of prejudice is both a precondition for and a consequence of revolution; It is unfair to assume that the majority would have an interest in or desire the persecution of a minority.

Racism, and other common characteristics of Fascism, such as extreme nationalism, rarely arise as a result of popular agitation and discussion - they are ideas promoted by the ruling class in order to maintain the division of society into classes.

QFT

[OrderedAnarchy]

Adolf Hitler was a shit-poor painter who was drafted for WW1 and thereby lost his marbles. He was not a cappie; rather he was a beggar who somehow became the exact opposite of a socialist. By preaching to the majority of Germans, he was able to, by blaming depression on minorities, rally a mob, which then actually elected him to power, and establish the most terrifying state that will hopefully ever be.

[JRR883]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 03:41 pm

...and that is one of the reasons why it is impossible to establish communism right after the revolution, and why an intermediate period of socialism is necessary.

Although, that reason only deals with one region of the world...

Does it apply to Europe?

Does it apply to the Northeast of North America?

Things shouldn't be blanketed into one category; the material conditions of each area should be analyzed so to asses whether communism is possible there.

Where it is not possible, it is not possible...yet.

Everything else being the same, Material conditions will usually prevail.


I agree. The dissolution of prejudice is both a precondition for and a consequence of revolution; It is unfair to assume that the majority would have an interest in or desire the persecution of a minority.

Racism, and other common characteristics of Fascism, such as extreme nationalism, rarely arise as a result of popular agitation and discussion - they are ideas promoted by the ruling class in order to maintain the division of society into classes.

QFT
If only parts of a country rebel, it's much more likely the federal government will suppress the revolution. If the economic conditions across the country are conducive to an anarchist revolution, even in socially backward areas, what will stop the workers of those areas from revolting and establishing the same order that the rest of the country does? Some sort of state would be needed to enforce the material conditions for communism in those areas.

[JRR883]

EDIT: Double post, sorry.

[Raúl Duke]

If the economic conditions across the country are conducive to an anarchist revolution, even in socially backward areas.

By conditions I mean social conditions than just only economic ones (although economic ones are very important.).

It is most likely than not than in socially backwards area there is no conduciveness to any kind of leftist revolution...

Usually, people who are "socially backwards" are not attracted to either Leninism nor anarchism; since, the modern versions of these movements imply opposition to many/all socially backward institutions/concepts (unless, one of these movements compromise and concedes to some/most/all of these socially backward things). They are more likely to support some form of fascism, defend the status quo,etc.

Even after any kind of victorious leftist revolution they will continue to "make things hard" for us, no matter if it is a commune or a "socialist" state.

I think we should confront these socially backwards ideas now as a prerequisite to any meaningful leftist revolution.


Some sort of state would be needed to enforce the material conditions for communism in those areas.


an anarchist revolution

Interesting use of those 2 words in the same paragraph...

Unless I misunderstood, it implies an odd yet very interesting sort of compromise...

Anarchists get the "socially advanced" areas while the Leninists get the "socially backwards" areas.

[JRR883]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:29 am

If the economic conditions across the country are conducive to an anarchist revolution, even in socially backward areas.

By conditions I mean social conditions than just only economic ones (although economic ones are very important.).

It is most likely than not than in socially backwards area there is no conduciveness to any kind of leftist revolution...

Usually, people who are "socially backwards" are not attracted to either Leninism nor anarchism; since, the modern versions of these movements imply opposition to many/all socially backward institutions/concepts (unless, one of these movements compromise and concedes to some/most/all of these socially backward things). They are more likely to support some form of fascism, defend the status quo,etc.

Even after any kind of victorious leftist revolution they will continue to "make things hard" for us, no matter if it is a commune or a "socialist" state.

I think we should confront these socially backwards ideas now as a prerequisite to any meaningful leftist revolution.
I don't think worker self-rule is restricted to only the socially progressive. Someone could favor anarchist ideals in the workplace but still remain socially authoritarian.

I agree that we should confront the socially backwards ideas, but that doesn't mean that it will happen before revolution.

Interesting use of those 2 words in the same paragraph...

Unless I misunderstood, it implies an odd yet very interesting sort of compromise...

Anarchists get the "socially advanced" areas while the Leninists get the "socially backwards" areas.
I was arguing for communism and against anarchism, saying that socially backwards areas would need a state to ensure that it doesn't revert to fascism.

Pardon any stupid contention I put forth, I'm still learning.

[Raúl Duke]

I was arguing for communism and against anarchism...Pardon any stupid contention I put forth, I'm still learning.

That's weird; because I'm also arguing for communism.

What you are arguing for is the necessity of a socialist state, something separate from communism yet part of Leninism and orthodox Marxism.


I don't think worker self-rule is restricted to only the socially progressive. Someone could favor anarchist ideals in the workplace but still remain socially authoritarian.

I agree that we should confront the socially backwards ideas, but that doesn't mean that it will happen before revolution.

That is an individual case...however, the movements that propose worker's rule as a whole are usually against socially backward ideas. The only exception would be if this individual made their own party/movement and got enough supporters.

However, such a movement would have a hard time appropriating the word "communist", "Marxist", "anarchist". Examples: Anarchists reject so-called anarcho-capitalists, national anarchists,etc. Marxists (and/or Leninists) reject certain groups like national bolsheviks and others.

These movements, no matter if they support some worker's self rule (i.e. national anarchists are a prominent example), are still considered to be our enemy and, in case of revolution, part of the counter-revolution

If you agree that we should confront socially backward ideas, than why say that it won't happen before revolution?
Right now comrades are facing socially backward ideas as we speak and we are still living in a capitalist society.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One problem with discussing the "conditions for revolution/rebellion" is that it could be considered unpredictable and indeterminable. Supposedly, the May 68 riots occurred during a time of relative prosperity.

Even if there was a "leftist" revolution and socially backward ideas continue to plague society these elements might lead to counter-revolution; whether in the "socialist" state or in the commune. After all, for example, if the population adamantly believed that x raced is inferior and should be segregated any attempt of integration would be met with resistance. The "socialist" state might, instead of confronting these ideas, allow them to continue unchallenged or face the possibility of a counter revolution. We also have to consider that if socially backward people put a socialist party to power than most likely this party did not confront their socially backward ideas. Thus, when in power, they would probably continue that policy and not confront those ideas.

In the case of the commune, we can be sure that these reactionaries would be the majority and would decide reactionary policies. Although, something similar can happen in a "socialist" state: a politician(s) can hold reactionary ideas and vote in favor of them in social policies.

The problem of socially backward ideas is not a problem solely in anarchism but a problem for all revolutionary leftists. Thus the necessity to confront these ideas now.