I need Help!

[AGITprop]

I need someone to explain to...in depth///not tooo long though what exactly is fascism.
I am pretty sure i know what it is..but i need details..most importantly..the explanation has to be non-biased..even though i know how much u hate the fash...
its because at school today i got into an argument with some fucking little italian kid who supports the fash and wants to support them in Italy when he has a chance...i said that it was completely horrible of him because all he was doin was promoting racism and i also proceeded to comparing him to a nazi....he said fascism has nothingto do with race...and i am sure that he is wrong!

[Killer Enigma]

Fascism has nothing to do with race. It was only Hitler's version of fascism, "national socialism". As Leon Trotsky observed in his 1933 text, What is National Socialism:

"In order to raise it above history, the nation is given the support of the race. History is viewed as the emanation of the race. The qualities of the race are construed without relation to changing social conditions. Rejecting “economic thought” as base, National Socialism descends a stage lower: from economic materialism it appeals to zoologic materialism."

However, fascism as a broader political movement is a tougher nut to crack, so to speak. I suspect that such liberal usage of the term "fascism" on this board is due to broad misconceptions or at times, complete misinformation.

Fascism, as Leon Trotsky described it in his 1944 pamphlet, Fascism: What it is and how to fight it, is a petty-bourgeoisie reaction against the working class movement. Because class dynamics are hardly what is taught in school as a means of examining history, we ought to look as to what this phrase means in order to grasp the definition.

The working class movement can essentially be boiled down to the socialist struggle. If a true working class movement is in motion, it indicates that a large section of the proletariat is (1) class conscious of their plight within the capitalist mode of production and (2) are preparing to or currently taking actions to improve their conditions, thus moving them closer to socialism.

Marx's analysis of the petty-bourgeoisie as a class described artisans, small businessmen, and the like but in modern day the term can extend to most common "middle-class professions". Essentially, the petty-bourgeoisie is a class who possesses very little of the means of production or has a career separate from the conventional means of production entirely. Whether motivated by socio-economic standing or some illusion of property rights, they are caught between a rock and a hard place:

On one hand, they hate the bourgeoisie because they represent exactly what they do not possess, namely the means of production. However, they equally despise and hate the working class because their radical changes which pose a threat to the current status quo. While Trotsky notes that the petty-bourgeoisie could potentially become a revolutionary class in tune with the struggles of the proletariat, as thy both have a common enemy in the bourgeoisie, "the parties of the proletariat did not rise to their historic task."

Later Trotsky states the reason for the petty-bourgeoisie's logic in embracing fascism:

"The despairing petty bourgeois sees in fascism, above all, a fighting force against big capital, and believes that, unlike the working-class parties which deal only in words, fascism will use force to establish more "justice". The peasant and the artisan are in their manner realists. They understand that one cannot forego the use of force."

Thus they entrust and bolster the powers of the state in an effort to suppress the proletariat's socialist movement. All of this culminates with Trotsky's main thesis, answering the titular question, "What is fascism?":

"When a state turns fascist, it does not mean only that the forms and methods of government are changed in accordance the patterns set by Mussolini -- the changes in this sphere ultimately play a minor role -- but it means first of all for the most part that the workers' organizations are annihilated; that the proletariat is reduced to an amorphous state; and that a system of administration is created which penetrates deeply into the masses and which serves to frustrate the independent crystallization of the proletariat. Therein precisely is the gist of fascism...."

Nationalism, militarism, imperialism, and at times, race, are guises which happened to be rallying forces at the time in which fascism took root. They cannot be used to define the movement, however, because it is much more complex [and profane] than that; it indicates the utter destruction of the socialist movement.

Thus, claims that the U.S. is a fascist state are absurd. (1) There is no working class movement large enough to cause the middle class to react. (2) This board, socialist blogs, worker-organizations, and the like would cease to exist. Nationalism, accusations of racism, militarism, and imperialist exploits aside, the United States fails to categorically meet the definition of fascism.

Also contrary to popular belief, fascism is not "uber-capitalism", as it is embodied by so many. In fact, the petty-bourgeois nature of fascism distances it from traditional conceptions of bourgeois capitalism. Ultimately fascist states have been utilized by the bourgeoisie (and Trotsky's concept of a "new caste") as a means of protecting capital but it is inappropriate, if not grossly inaccurate to draw extended and exaggerated parallels between capitalism and fascism on an ideological level.

[Killer Enigma]

I apologize on the length. Here is some recommended reading if you are interested on the subject. Trotsky wrote more than the two documents I cited but those are undoubtedly my choice texts on the subject. It's rather fascinating, especially when so many misconstrue the definition.

Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism (http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm), though it ought to be noted that Giovanni Gentile is suspected to have ghost-written the paper, as he was the main philosopher behind the Italian fascist movement.

Trotsky's What Is National Socialism? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330610.htm), which largely details the class movements and philosophical outlooks behind the rise of German national socialism.

Trotsky's Fascism: What it is and how to fight it (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm), which is a broader analysis of the class roots of the movement. It primarily examines Italian fascism but delves into national socialism briefly.

[Lenin II]

i said that it was completely horrible of him because all he was doin was promoting racism and i also proceeded to comparing him to a nazi....he said fascism has nothingto do with race...and i am sure that he is wrong!

I'm afraid the little fucker is right. Fascism is not inherently racist, since not all fascism is Nazism, like all socialism isn't communism. It IS, however, inherently elitist, sexist and homophobic.
Fascism is the merging of state, corporate and religious power, often combined with a rabid nationalism. Communism is the polar opposite of fascism, where there are no corporations, no religion and no state.

Powerful nationalism, lack of human rights, scapegoats for a unifying cause, militarization, sexism, controlled mass media, lack of freedom of speech, lack of civil liberties, obsession with national security and foreign threats, the power of labor being supressed, hatred of intellectuals, obsession with crime and punishment, rigged elections or none at all, and of course rampant corruption.

Fascism is a nationalistic idealogy that calls for an all-powerful state and the supremacy of that state to the exclusion of all else. Rather than class struggle, we get clas collaboration. Strength and power are legitimate. Might is right, and the state is god.

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 05:48 am

i said that it was completely horrible of him because all he was doin was promoting racism and i also proceeded to comparing him to a nazi....he said fascism has nothingto do with race...and i am sure that he is wrong!

I'm afraid the little fucker is right. Fascism is not inherently racist, since not all fascism is Nazism, like all socialism isn't communism. It IS, however, inherently elitist, sexist and homophobic.
Fascism is the merging of state, corporate and religious power, often combined with a rabid nationalism. Communism is the polar opposite of fascism, where there are no corporations, no religion and no state.

Powerful nationalism, lack of human rights, scapegoats for a unifying cause, militarization, sexism, controlled mass media, lack of freedom of speech, lack of civil liberties, obsession with national security and foreign threats, the power of labor being supressed, hatred of intellectuals, obsession with crime and punishment, rigged elections or none at all, and of course rampant corruption.

Fascism is a nationalistic idealogy that calls for an all-powerful state and the supremacy of that state to the exclusion of all else. Rather than class struggle, we get clas collaboration. Strength and power are legitimate. Might is right, and the state is god.
this exactly what i was looking for

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by Killer [email protected] 04, 2007 02:02 am
I apologize on the length. Here is some recommended reading if you are interested on the subject. Trotsky wrote more than the two documents I cited but those are undoubtedly my choice texts on the subject. It's rather fascinating, especially when so many misconstrue the definition.

Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism (http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm), though it ought to be noted that Giovanni Gentile is suspected to have ghost-written the paper, as he was the main philosopher behind the Italian fascist movement.

Trotsky's What Is National Socialism? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330610.htm), which largely details the class movements and philosophical outlooks behind the rise of German national socialism.

Trotsky's Fascism: What it is and how to fight it (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm), which is a broader analysis of the class roots of the movement. It primarily examines Italian fascism but delves into national socialism briefly.
K E
thanx very much...ur first post was a little lenghty but thanx anyway
:)

i hate fucking fascists

[Killer Enigma]

It IS, however, inherently elitist, sexist and homophobic.
This is inherently false. I encourage you to read my post above. I apologize for the length but fascism has nothing to do with any kind of discrimination. Categorically, it is nothing more than a petty-bourgeois reaction against the working class movement. I quoted numerous passages from Trotsky to support my claim, not to mention Mussolini's own Doctrine of Fascism. Fascism has nothing to do with the specific policies pursued by the titular regimes of the 1930's and 1940's, but rather encompasses any political system in which the workers' movement has been annihilated and reduced to an amorphous state. Racism, sexism, homophobia, nationalism, and the like, while common attributes of many fascist regimes, are mere rallying points and have nothing to do with the political movement itself.


Fascism is the merging of state, corporate and religious power, often combined with a rabid nationalism.
This is false also. The petty-bourgeois origins of fascism discount any connection the movement has on an ideological level with "merging... state and corporate power". The petty-bourgeoisie fuel the fascist movement as a means of keeping the means of production decentralized and preserving their own class.

Moreover, many fascist and neo-fascist regimes of the late 20th century had little to do with religion. One could also make the case that the Nazi persecution of both Catholics and Protestants discounts any connection between national socialist-fascism and religion.


Communism is the polar opposite of fascism, where there are no corporations, no religion and no state.
Communism is only a classless, stateless society. Religion has no bearing in the definition. Though technically you are correct that "communism is the polar opposite of fascism", that statement truly says nothing because any society or system which has (1) social classes and/or (2) a formal state is "the polar opposite" of communism.

If you meant it in terms of the traditional "left v. right" paradigm which so many embrace, you are wholly incorrect. Fascism is merely a different reaction to the socialist movement. Though it has been used in the past by the bourgeoisie post facto, the origins of such a movement, not to mention the ideological roots, are petty-bourgeois in nature.


Powerful nationalism, lack of human rights, scapegoats for a unifying cause, militarization, sexism, controlled mass media, lack of freedom of speech, lack of civil liberties, obsession with national security and foreign threats, the power of labor being supressed, hatred of intellectuals, obsession with crime and punishment, rigged elections or none at all, and of course rampant corruption.
The fourteen points of fascism are inadequate in explaining the ideology or giving it a definition because they cannot differentiate between regimes such as Stalin's and Hitler's. Citing common attributes of fascist states does not qualify as defining the movement itself.


Fascism is a nationalistic idealogy that calls for an all-powerful state and the supremacy of that state to the exclusion of all else. Rather than class struggle, we get clas collaboration.
This is largely false. Trotsky points out in Fascism: What it is and how to fight it that the socialist movement also will rely on "class collaboration", as the duty of the proletariat in certain industrialized states will be one of "winning over" the petty-bourgeoisie to their cause. Their failure to do so prompts the petty-bourgeoisie to respond in a manner consistent with their own class struggle; reaction.


Strength and power are legitimate. Might is right, and the state is god.
Maxims mean nothing and do not compensate for an otherwise poorly-constructed definition.

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by Ender+October 04, 2007 09:57 pm--> (Ender @ October 04, 2007 09:57 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 05:48 am

i said that it was completely horrible of him because all he was doin was promoting racism and i also proceeded to comparing him to a nazi....he said fascism has nothingto do with race...and i am sure that he is wrong!

I'm afraid the little fucker is right. Fascism is not inherently racist, since not all fascism is Nazism, like all socialism isn't communism. It IS, however, inherently elitist, sexist and homophobic.
Fascism is the merging of state, corporate and religious power, often combined with a rabid nationalism. Communism is the polar opposite of fascism, where there are no corporations, no religion and no state.

Powerful nationalism, lack of human rights, scapegoats for a unifying cause, militarization, sexism, controlled mass media, lack of freedom of speech, lack of civil liberties, obsession with national security and foreign threats, the power of labor being supressed, hatred of intellectuals, obsession with crime and punishment, rigged elections or none at all, and of course rampant corruption.

Fascism is a nationalistic idealogy that calls for an all-powerful state and the supremacy of that state to the exclusion of all else. Rather than class struggle, we get clas collaboration. Strength and power are legitimate. Might is right, and the state is god.
this exactly what i was looking for [/b]
I would not suggest using his definition/categorization. As I pointed out already, his outlook is indicative of a common error made by socialists/communists/anarchists. I suspect that your Italian friend understands very little about fascism and only embraces it because it qualifies as a radical outlook, analogous to how many on this board embrace communism/anarchism. If you take the time to read about and learn the fundamentals which define true fascism, his arguments will be much easier to refute and my guess is that he will have few legitimate responses.

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by Killer Enigma+October 04, 2007 10:04 pm--> (Killer Enigma @ October 04, 2007 10:04 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:57 pm

[email protected] 04, 2007 05:48 am

i said that it was completely horrible of him because all he was doin was promoting racism and i also proceeded to comparing him to a nazi....he said fascism has nothingto do with race...and i am sure that he is wrong!

I'm afraid the little fucker is right. Fascism is not inherently racist, since not all fascism is Nazism, like all socialism isn't communism. It IS, however, inherently elitist, sexist and homophobic.
Fascism is the merging of state, corporate and religious power, often combined with a rabid nationalism. Communism is the polar opposite of fascism, where there are no corporations, no religion and no state.

Powerful nationalism, lack of human rights, scapegoats for a unifying cause, militarization, sexism, controlled mass media, lack of freedom of speech, lack of civil liberties, obsession with national security and foreign threats, the power of labor being supressed, hatred of intellectuals, obsession with crime and punishment, rigged elections or none at all, and of course rampant corruption.

Fascism is a nationalistic idealogy that calls for an all-powerful state and the supremacy of that state to the exclusion of all else. Rather than class struggle, we get clas collaboration. Strength and power are legitimate. Might is right, and the state is god.
this exactly what i was looking for
I would not suggest using his definition/categorization. As I pointed out already, his outlook is indicative of a common error made by socialists/communists/anarchists. I suspect that your Italian friend understands very little about fascism and only embraces it because it qualifies as a radical outlook, analogous to how many on this board embrace communism/anarchism. If you take the time to read about and learn the fundamentals which define true fascism, his arguments will be much easier to refute and my guess is that he will have few legitimate responses. [/b]
killer i think ur a fash....no offence

but if you look at history, mussolini started fascism...and it was about superiority...i dont know details...but i know there was opression and i know that people here will agree

[Killer Enigma]

If you call me a fascist, then you must equally denounce Leon Trotsky as a fascist, for I have made no observations which deviate from his pamphlets on the matter.

You admit yourself that you "don't know details". Arguing based on what you think you know and what most "people here will agree" is bad logic. No Marxist worth his salt uses the unspecific 14 points; they are an easy way out for those not interested in understanding the fundamentals. If you desire to have your arguments respected, I cannot stress any further that the class elements behind fascism are key to understanding it as a political movement.

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by Killer [email protected] 04, 2007 10:17 pm
If you call me a fascist, then you must equally denounce Leon Trotsky as a fascist, for I have made no observations which deviate from his pamphlets on the matter.

You admit yourself that you "don't know details". Arguing based on what you think you know and what most "people here will agree" is bad logic. No Marxist worth his salt uses the unspecific 14 points; they are an easy way out for those not interested in understanding the fundamentals. If you desire to have your arguments respected, I cannot stress any further that the class elements behind fascism are key to understanding it as a political movement.
You are absolutely right.
I do believe that I should study in depth the writings about fascism but from what I have learned here... I know that it is absolutely wrong. It is what I learned through hours of reading the knowledge posted up by others who HAVE done this research and until i have the time to do it myself, I trust that my comrades will not feed me lies.

[manic expression]

Italian fascists LOVE to say they have nothing to do with racism, but this is an empty claim. They are quintessentially nationalist: nationalism and racism go together like cookies and milk. They want to re-establish the Roman Empire, oppressing all other nations in the process.

Anyway, fascism is:

a.) the capitalist reaction to working class organization AND a failing capitalist system.

Fascists do not target the bourgeois power structure, they seek to encase it in a stronger, more aggressive armor. Fascists target working class revolution AND a lack of national competitiveness, and they force all of society to help them defeat this. Think about it: fascism came to power in countries that became capitalist very late (Spain, Japan, Italy, Germany were late-comers to capitalism) and had strong working class movements (Spain, Italy and Germany especially).

b.) capitalist morals on steroids. Social competition, the nation state, race, superiority and other central pillars to fascism are ALL capitalist morals and worldviews. Fascism does not innovate a new mindset, it fashions one out of existing bourgeois morals.

c.) the last resort of the bourgeoisie. Facing both a lack of competitiveness against other capitalist nations and a strong working class, the bourgeoisie is forced to look for any ally. Fascism, which does not seek to destroy the bourgeoisie, becomes increasingly the last possible refuge for the capitalist class. Therefore, they support it and aid it as their ally.

Just some stuff off the top of my head. Hope that helps.

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 04, 2007 10:42 pm
Italian fascists LOVE to say they have nothing to do with racism, but this is an empty claim. They are quintessentially nationalist: nationalism and racism go together like cookies and milk. They want to re-establish the Roman Empire, oppressing all other nations in the process.

Anyway, fascism is:

a.) the capitalist reaction to working class organization AND a failing capitalist system.

Fascists do not target the bourgeois power structure, they seek to encase it in a stronger, more aggressive armor. Fascists target working class revolution AND a lack of national competitiveness, and they force all of society to help them defeat this. Think about it: fascism came to power in countries that became capitalist very late (Spain, Japan, Italy, Germany were late-comers to capitalism) and had strong working class movements (Spain, Italy and Germany especially).

b.) capitalist morals on steroids. Social competition, the nation state, race, superiority and other central pillars to fascism are ALL capitalist morals and worldviews. Fascism does not innovate a new mindset, it fashions one out of existing bourgeois morals.

c.) the last resort of the bourgeoisie. Facing both a lack of competitiveness against other capitalist nations and a strong working class, the bourgeoisie is forced to look for any ally. Fascism, which does not seek to destroy the bourgeoisie, becomes increasingly the last possible refuge for the capitalist class. Therefore, they support it and aid it as their ally.

Just some stuff off the top of my head. Hope that helps.
thanx...but is no one going to argue killer enigma's claims?>

[spartan]

A significant amount of modern Italian Fascists are indeed racist but historically Fascism (Not Nazism) was not officialy racist or upheld racism as one of their ideologies.

I am sure perhaps individuals in the Fascist movement were racists but so are alot of Socialists! Let us not forget that Mussolini was a Socialist before he and a few other disillushioned Socialists created Fascism!

All in all Mussolini's Fascism was bullied by Hitler's National Socialism into becoming something that it never originally was: Racist.

This of course does not excuse the fact that Fascism is anti Proletariat in nature (Though confused Proletariats used to make up the bulk of the various Fascist movements membership and the Fascist Proletariat are the people who protect the Bourgeoisie from their fellow Proletariat in a Fascist system) and is a reactionary force aimed at keeping the Capitalist corporations in power.

Also Killer Enigma is not defending Fascism! He is just pointing out the facts of the movement and it's history.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:49 pm
thanx...but is no one going to argue killer enigma's claims?>
No problem, but comrade, I do believe Killer Enigma is saying that you should try to study the ins-and-outs of fascism, so you can better understand your enemy. Killer said that if you know more about fascism, you will easily destroy fascists in arguments, because you will know why that garbage is crammed in their heads.

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by manic expression+October 04, 2007 11:00 pm--> (manic expression @ October 04, 2007 11:00 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 10:49 pm
thanx...but is no one going to argue killer enigma's claims?>
No problem, but comrade, I do believe Killer Enigma is saying that you should try to study the ins-and-outs of fascism, so you can better understand your enemy. Killer said that if you know more about fascism, you will easily destroy fascists in arguments, because you will know why that garbage is crammed in their heads. [/b]
I guess your right, and so is Killer.
I'm just frustrated i guess because i have to deal with fascists at school and they bother me. I get labeled a " Commie bastard" by my own friends and it's really not their fault, because they do not understand communism. Just today in PE a girl ( who by the way is 17 and drives a BMW and Mercedes was appalled when i said i had no attachment to worldly possessions. I told her i was a communist and i did not belive in wealth and she told me that i was stupid because i thought everyone should be poor. Now her brain was too small too understand and i dont blame her for it but i cannot take people who judge without understand.. And i guess i just had a self realisation. I judge the fascists without completly knowing the details. I know they;'re wrong but i need to know exactly why they are wrong. THanx COmrades

[Killer Enigma]

I guess your right, and so is Killer.
I'm just frustrated i guess because i have to deal with fascists at school and they bother me. I get labeled a " Commie bastard" by my own friends and it's really not their fault, because they do not understand communism. Just today in PE a girl ( who by the way is 17 and drives a BMW and Mercedes was appalled when i said i had no attachment to worldly possessions. I told her i was a communist and i did not belive in wealth and she told me that i was stupid because i thought everyone should be poor. Now her brain was too small too understand and i dont blame her for it but i cannot take people who judge without understand.. And i guess i just had a self realisation. I judge the fascists without completly knowing the details. I know they;'re wrong but i need to know exactly why they are wrong. THanx COmrades
This is a common and noble frustration with the people whom you will encounter. The theory behind socialism is so rich that if one truly took the time to read and understand it, they would realize that the standard arguments and talking points are addressed by Marx and Engels, who wrote these documents more than a century ago.

I would advise you to use this as motivation to learn about and read the significant theory behind various political movements opposed to your own. If you feel that socialism is worth one's time thumbing through documents to search for answers, chances are high that opposing viewpoints feel the same way. If you respect them enough to read their theory, either (1) they will also be prompted to read socialist theory or (2) they will be caught without an excuse or rebuttal, because you understand their ideology completely but they have only an infantile understanding of yours.

I, for instance, did a thorough reading of the works of Ayn Rand last summer because I found myself often in confrontations with objectivist libertarians. Reading wikipedia pages and summaries buy you no credibility with opponents and will never provide you with as much information as you would get by simply contacting the primary source. My thoughts on fascism are the same way.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Ender
I'm just frustrated i guess because i have to deal with fascists at school and they bother me. I get labeled a " Commie bastard" by my own friends and it's really not their fault, because they do not understand communism. Just today in PE a girl ( who by the way is 17 and drives a BMW and Mercedes was appalled when i said i had no attachment to worldly possessions. I told her i was a communist and i did not belive in wealth and she told me that i was stupid because i thought everyone should be poor. Now her brain was too small too understand and i dont blame her for it but i cannot take people who judge without understand.. And i guess i just had a self realisation. I judge the fascists without completly knowing the details. I know they;'re wrong but i need to know exactly why they are wrong. THanx COmrades

Yuck. Where do you go to school? Sounds like a real conservative area.

[manic expression]

If you wish to argue that in practice fascism promoted racism (do not equate nationalism with racism; though they rely on the same exclusionary criterion, their means and manner of doing so differs entirely), you must in the same token accept arguments that communism promotes murder, genocide, and a host of other atrocities. "But that was never true communism!" you protest. Cannot the fascists then make the same claim?

No, I don't; those are baseless claims against the communist movement. Communism never has existed, but I defend socialist governments throughout history, so that doesn't apply to me. If you think I turn my back on worker states once capitalist rhetoric gets too hot, you're wrong.


If by "capitalist reaction" you mean bourgeois reaction, you are completely wrong.

I did not mean bourgeois reaction. It can become backed by the bourgeoisie once it becomes clear that it is either revolution or reaction, but I did not assert that fascism is a movement of the bourgeoisie.


This is false. The petty-bourgeoisie despise the bourgeoisie equally as much as they despise the proletariat. Fascism arises out of a desire to decentralize business and decrease the concentration of capital. Though the framework was used later by corporations, especially in Germany, one could argue this was due to the war scenario Germans found themselves in and if demand for war products had not been so high, corporations would not have gained as strong of a foothold.

Please, that flies in the face of facts. Fascists do NOT undermine private property, the basis of the bourgeois mode of production. The petty-bourgeoisie does not differ from the bourgeoisie in morals or aims, they differ in position. The petty-bourgeoisie wants to be bourgeois, and they do not threaten the fundamentals of capitalist society. History proves this: Germany DID establish corporations, but this was done even before war broke out. It was not done out of desperation, as you argue, but out of their program.


Fascism is the destruction of the working class movement. The catalyst for this objective is a large, powerful state sympathetic to petty-bourgeois interests.

Yes, of course. Capitalists become symathetic to fascism due to the threat posed by the working class. It is out of pure self-interest and self-preservation that this happens.


Germany was hardly a "late-comer" to capitalism. A large portion of Marx's observations stemmed from German capitalism. Italy, though not as thoroughly examined by Marx in his economic works, was much the same way.

What Marx observed was not established in a bonafide bourgeois state. Capitalism was taking hold in Germany, yes, but had it fully conquered political and economic power as in France, Britain and America? I do not think so. The existence of a bourgeoisie and capitalist production does not equal the existence of a fully bourgeois state.


Nationalism, racism, and the like were used as rallying points for fascists. Clearly Hitler was more nefarious than one such as Mussolini, as his aim was not fascism (the destruction of the working class movement) but rather the annihilation of an entire people group. National socialism is its own strain of fascism and ought to be examined as such (Trotsky's examination, What Is National Socialism? does this; I highly recommend it).

Hitler wanted both: to destroy the working class movement AND to liquidate entire ethnicities. And yes, Trotsky's works on the subject are very good, although I should read more of them.


Fascism has nothing to do with the bourgeoisie. It stems from an entirely different class. Haven't you read Trotsky's writings?

Pop quiz: who appointed Hitler as chancellor? The forces of the bourgeoisie favor fascism over socialism to sustain their existence (that doesn't mean it originates in the bourgeoisie, I never implied that at all!).