Fascism

[Spasiba]

Simply because I need to konw more descriptively, what is Fascism? I know we can go all out tearing it apart, but what does it call for ideologically? How is it supposed to work? Why is it Fascists don't support the war in Iraq and other issues I tend to find conservative? They should be getting hard-ons seeing anyone with a darker skin tone getting killed, shouldn't they?

[Led Zeppelin]

Fascism is basically capitalism without a bourgeoisie democracy, so a bourgeoisie in crisis reverts to it to keep power.

That was a very simple definition of it, read here for a more in-depth one: Fascism: What It Is and How To Fight It (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm)

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 11, 2007 06:29 am
Fascism is basically capitalism without a bourgeoisie democracy, so a bourgeoisie in crisis reverts to it to keep power.

That was a very simple definition of it, read here for a more in-depth one: Fascism: What It Is and How To Fight It (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm)
is it capitalism in the same context though? I think your definition is too simplified. The class system remains, however during Hitlers reign the state had a low opinion of privatisation, and adopted 'socialistic' policies to appeal to the working class, ie nationalisation.
I think Trotsky said it best when it described fascism as '' the battering ram of the working class''

[Comrade Rage]

Fascism is the combination of state and corporate power.

"Fascism should rightly be called corporatism, as it's a combination of state and corporate power."
-Benito Mussolini

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:24 am
Why is it Fascists don't support the war in Iraq and other issues I tend to find conservative? They should be getting hard-ons seeing anyone with a darker skin tone getting killed, shouldn't they?
Do you mean the White Nationalist fascists on Stormfront? They don't support the wars because they believe its a Jewish conspiracy :wacko:

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Lynx+October 11, 2007 06:50 pm--> (Lynx @ October 11, 2007 06:50 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 02:24 am
Why is it Fascists don't support the war in Iraq and other issues I tend to find conservative? They should be getting hard-ons seeing anyone with a darker skin tone getting killed, shouldn't they?
Do you mean the White Nationalist fascists on Stormfront? They don't support the wars because they believe its a Jewish conspiracy :wacko: [/b]
They also want the troops back to militarize the US/Mexican border.

[p.m.a.]

Stormfront are neofascists. And that often involves isolationist tendencies, explaining the anti-semitic conspiracies. But fascism is basically government directly by the bourgeois, corporate interests, without the state intermediary in the class struggle. Corporatism would be a modern term for it.

[Lynx]

Is the military regime in Burma fascist?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+October 11, 2007 11:41 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ October 11, 2007 11:41 pm)
Led [email protected] 11, 2007 06:29 am
Fascism is basically capitalism without a bourgeoisie democracy, so a bourgeoisie in crisis reverts to it to keep power.

That was a very simple definition of it, read here for a more in-depth one: Fascism: What It Is and How To Fight It (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm)
is it capitalism in the same context though? I think your definition is too simplified. The class system remains, however during Hitlers reign the state had a low opinion of privatisation, and adopted 'socialistic' policies to appeal to the working class, ie nationalisation.
I think Trotsky said it best when it described fascism as '' the battering ram of the working class'' [/b]
Well, in Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan etc. corporations did have more power, but they were not nationalized (at least not most of them).

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The isolationism is something I'd like to learn more of. Heck, an open fascist on another public board (of mainstream ideology) said that the old fascist imperialism only led to immigration problems (from a racist perspective, of course). Is racism the main reason why the neo-fascists are isolationists, as opposed to their violently expansionist predecessors?

[Lynx]

The more enlightened (no pun intended) White Nationalists believe it is important to leave other races and cultures alone. Just as they wish to be left alone once they form their white homelands.

[La Comédie Noire]

The more enlightened (no pun intended) White Nationalists believe it is important to leave other races and cultures alone. Just as they wish to be left alone once they form their white homelands.

Which is impossible considering the nature of the world today and the further socialization of labour.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:35 pm
The more enlightened (no pun intended) White Nationalists believe it is important to leave other races and cultures alone. Just as they wish to be left alone once they form their white homelands.
^^^ Why no pun intended? In the grand scale of history, cultural isolationism has tended to be VERY regressive. Just look at China and some idiot-emperor's decision to burn his entire navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He#Connection_to_the_history_of_Late_Imperia l_China) after calling it back, because said navy could've been the linchpin for China to enter capitalism while expanding its political sphere of influence.

[Lynx]

I cannot defend their lunacy, only report what they believe. They believe that multiculturalism is regressive. They believe that white people invented nearly everything and made the most contribution to civilization. They believe they are at the top of the evolutionary pyramid.

For another example of neo-fascism, look no further than Mussolini's granddaughter.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 04:12 pm
They believe that multiculturalism is regressive.
The grand irony is that their proposal for isolationism is basically multiculturalism on a grander scale (the main criticism of multiculturalism vs. the "melting pot" being the cultural "ghettos" that can result and have resulted): each culture to his own "ghetto." The only difference is that such "ghettos" just happen to be whole nation-states.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 03:30 am
Is the military regime in Burma fascist?
Though they display some of the characteristics of a fascist regime - state ownership over certain industries, bank regulation, price and consumption controls, rejection of certain religious freedoms, and the ongoing repression of dissent - they still can not be classified as so.

The theory of fascism differs per country, but "ideas" can not be seperated from the class that it grows from. It is, in essence, a drastic strategy taken by the capitalists when they are on the edge of getting appropriated. Its footsoldiers come from the class of small property-owners and beggars, who are lead by and receive funding from the upper tier of the ruling class. It is historical and social phenomena centered on a revolutionary situation, where the petty bourgeoisie side with the bourgeoisie in dispelling of political opposition to their social rule.

The regime in Burma is a comprador regime that entails the interests of foreign capital. Whether it is 'authoritarian' or not doesn't matter, if they don't follow the criterea described, they can not be classified as fascist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 13, 2007 08:11 pm
The theory of fascism differs per country, but "ideas" can not be separated from the class that it grows from. It is, in essence, a drastic strategy taken by the capitalists when they are on the edge of getting appropriated. Its footsoldiers come from the class of small property-owners and beggars, who are lead by and receive funding from the upper tier of the ruling class. It is historical and social phenomena centered on a revolutionary situation, where the petty bourgeoisie side with the bourgeoisie in dispelling of political opposition to their social rule.
I must admit that Trotsky was indeed brilliant in being the first Marxist to identify the class base of fascism, though I think it's a bit more complex.

The collapse of normal capitalism impacts the petit-bourgeoisie more than it does the existing bourgeoisie. It is the petit-bourgeoisie who cough up the fascist program and agitate amongst themselves and the lumpenproles (as well as less conscious elements of the working class :( ) before receiving funding from the bourgeoisie. The caricature of Hitler's right-handed salute simultaneously receiving money from an industrialist may be accurate, but it also overestimates the role of said industrialist.

Those elements of the petit-bourgeoisie who constitute the political rulers of the new fascist regime not only proceed to crush revolutionary sentiment, but may also move ruthlessly against the existing bourgeoisie, in an attempt to appropriate their role for themselves.

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 11, 2007 06:29 am
Fascism is basically capitalism without a bourgeoisie democracy, so a bourgeoisie in crisis reverts to it to keep power.

That was a very simple definition of it, read here for a more in-depth one: Fascism: What It Is and How To Fight It (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm)
Have you even read that pamphlet? Your definition indicates not.

[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.

Here is some ancillary readings 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.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Killer Enigma+October 14, 2007 08:33 am--> (Killer Enigma @ October 14, 2007 08:33 am)
Originally posted by Led [email protected] 11, 2007 06:29 am
Fascism is basically capitalism without a bourgeoisie democracy, so a bourgeoisie in crisis reverts to it to keep power.

That was a very simple definition of it, read here for a more in-depth one: Fascism: [i]What It Is and How To Fight It (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm)
Have you even read that pamphlet? Your definition indicates not. [/b]
^^^ Indeed. By that definition alone, the Bonaparte III of whom Marx wrote would have qualified as a fascist. :lol:

Lots of people have said that China and Russia are emerging fascist states, but capitalism hasn't been on the decline there (the Russian privatization of the 90s amounts to little more than another episode of primitive accumulation of a different brand than Preobrazhensky's).




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.

I think you forgot to include managers here. He did talk about the possibility of managers becoming the dominant group within the overall petit-bourgeoisie, which has happened today. :huh:


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.

What about this article, then?

It Could Happen Here (http://www.monthlyreview.org/1006meyerson.htm)


Article
A deepening crisis pervades Pax Americana and with it a rising interest in fascism and the fear that it may be coming or is already here. While some observers are alarmed at the prospects of fascism, others dismiss the topic as conspiracy theory or just plain rubbish. In the most absurd recent use of the term, George W. Bush has declared America at war “with Islamic fascists seeking to destroy freedom loving societies.” It is hard here not to invoke Huey Long’s famous idea that fascism would come to America clothed as anti-fascism.

...

We propose that the current talk about fascism has arisen from conditions that can be best summed up as a general crisis of Pax Americana. By general crisis we mean a convergence of developments, long-term and short, pervading the social order that have rendered much of it dysfunctional and dystopian. Stated in another way, the concept of a general crisis describes Pax Americana in economic, political, social and cultural decline. Its long-term causes are rooted in the mid-1970s, where we see the beginnings—brought on in part by the oil shocks to the American economy attributed to the rise of OPEC, and the military defeat in Vietnam—of the dissolution of U.S. economic hegemony over the global capitalist system.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

"Fascism is capitalism in decay." - V. I. Lenin

the reason I consider this to be true is though many argue the United States is not fascist or becoming fascist, many of the characteristics of fascism are present in the USA. It is present in military policy, foreign policy, national policy, and many of these characteristics are present even with that put aside. the argument in defense of the iraq war is nothing but a coverup for the fascist principles it rests upon- the United States can't maintain control through other means so they resort to that, eliminating all threats to their power- sounds fascist to me. not only in that regard, but all this going on in regard to the Real ID Act, the possible draft, the patriot act, wire tapping, etc all for the purpose of fighting terrorism? i don't think so, that is just the reason they use to justify all of it while in the meantime they are promoting fascism.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Try Georgi Dimitrovs speech
Unity of the working class against Fascism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/dimitrov/works/1935/unity.htm)

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 14, 2007 05:49 pm
"Fascism is capitalism in decay." - V. I. Lenin

the reason I consider this to be true is though many argue the United States is not fascist or becoming fascist, many of the characteristics of fascism are present in the USA. It is present in military policy, foreign policy, national policy, and many of these characteristics are present even with that put aside. the argument in defense of the iraq war is nothing but a coverup for the fascist principles it rests upon- the United States can't maintain control through other means so they resort to that, eliminating all threats to their power- sounds fascist to me. not only in that regard, but all this going on in regard to the Real ID Act, the possible draft, the patriot act, wire tapping, etc all for the purpose of fighting terrorism? i don't think so, that is just the reason they use to justify all of it while in the meantime they are promoting fascism.
Fascism though, is its own political movement brought forth by a reactionary class hoping to conserve its place in society, namely the petty-bourgeoisie. Lenin's quote is accurate but still does not apply to the United States.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Killer Enigma+October 14, 2007 03:46 pm--> (Killer Enigma @ October 14, 2007 03:46 pm)
Comrade [email protected] 14, 2007 05:49 pm
"Fascism is capitalism in decay." - V. I. Lenin

the reason I consider this to be true is though many argue the United States is not fascist or becoming fascist, many of the characteristics of fascism are present in the USA. It is present in military policy, foreign policy, national policy, and many of these characteristics are present even with that put aside. the argument in defense of the iraq war is nothing but a coverup for the fascist principles it rests upon- the United States can't maintain control through other means so they resort to that, eliminating all threats to their power- sounds fascist to me. not only in that regard, but all this going on in regard to the Real ID Act, the possible draft, the patriot act, wire tapping, etc all for the purpose of fighting terrorism? i don't think so, that is just the reason they use to justify all of it while in the meantime they are promoting fascism.
Fascism though, is its own political movement brought forth by a reactionary class hoping to conserve its place in society, namely the petty-bourgeoisie. Lenin's quote is accurate but still does not apply to the United States. [/b]
yes, indeed Lenin was speaking of the petty-bourgeoisie. I wasn't trying to relate it to the United States, more just speaking of how when capitalism begins to decay and the bourgeoisie seek to secure their power how it often leads to fascism as an end result because otherwise their power is more limited. fascist policies are introduced for the bourgeoisie to secure their "state".

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Killer Enigma+October 14, 2007 01:46 pm--> (Killer Enigma @ October 14, 2007 01:46 pm)
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 14, 2007 05:49 pm
"Fascism is capitalism in decay." - V. I. Lenin

the reason I consider this to be true is though many argue the United States is not fascist or becoming fascist, many of the characteristics of fascism are present in the USA. It is present in military policy, foreign policy, national policy, and many of these characteristics are present even with that put aside. the argument in defense of the iraq war is nothing but a coverup for the fascist principles it rests upon- the United States can't maintain control through other means so they resort to that, eliminating all threats to their power- sounds fascist to me. not only in that regard, but all this going on in regard to the Real ID Act, the possible draft, the patriot act, wire tapping, etc all for the purpose of fighting terrorism? i don't think so, that is just the reason they use to justify all of it while in the meantime they are promoting fascism.
Fascism though, is its own political movement brought forth by a reactionary class hoping to conserve its place in society, namely the petty-bourgeoisie. Lenin's quote is accurate but still does not apply to the United States. [/b]
Actually, I take Lenin's quote more as words of agitation rather than "words of wisdom." While I don't agree with the left-communists' placement of the decadence of global capitalism as having started with the First World War, they had a lot to say about the decadent stage of capitalism (ie, that I don't agree that every instance of decadent capitalism is fascism).

The key here is to acknowledge the protracted nature of decadent capitalism, following the "august" stage of capitalism (in comparison with the Roman empire).


Comrade Nadezhda
yes, indeed Lenin was speaking of the petty-bourgeoisie. I wasn't trying to relate it to the United States, more just speaking of how when capitalism begins to decay and the bourgeoisie seek to secure their power how it often leads to fascism as an end result because otherwise their power is more limited. fascist policies are introduced for the bourgeoisie to secure their "state".

Not exactly. As I said above, the existing bourgeoisie will have been caught between a rock and a hard place, because the fascist "devils" that they don't know (as compared to the prole "devils" that they do know) will eventually be double-crossed by the ascending petit-bourgeoisie and swept aside.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 07:27 pm
Actually, I take Lenin's quote more as words of agitation rather than "words of wisdom." While I don't agree with the left-communists' placement of the decadence of global capitalism as having started with the First World War, they had a lot to say about the decadent stage of capitalism (ie, that I don't agree that every instance of decadent capitalism is fascism).

The key here is to acknowledge the protracted nature of decadent capitalism, following the "august" stage of capitalism (in comparison with the Roman empire).



Not exactly. As I said above, the existing bourgeoisie will have been caught between a rock and a hard place, because the fascist "devils" that they don't know (as compared to the prole "devils" that they do know) will eventually be double-crossed by the ascending petit-bourgeoisie and swept aside.



I don't think decadent capitalism is always fascism, but there are certain instances of decadent capitalism which have fascist tendencies. That doesn't mean that all instances of decadent capitalism are fascist but I will say that there are certain fascist characteristics that are in many ways surfacing in the United States (capitalism aside). I'm not arguing that decadent capitalism is fascism, I don't find that to be true at all, but in some cases (regarding the United States) I do see there being certain fascist tendencies especially regarding military/foreign policy.

[Spasiba]

Bumping this up, with new questions:

How prevalent is Fascism? Is it troublesome? How do we lefties compare in size, if thats possible to know?

And Nazism, White Nationals, etc, same questions to them.
On that note, Fascists, they say that they're not racist, but that Hitler gave them a bad name, but the way I see it militarism and imperialism and nationalism combine to make racism inevitable, do you agree?

[вор в законе]

Fascism is instituted when parliamentary democracy no longer suits the interests of the ruling class.

[Invader Zim]

Trying to define fascism in a few words is a fruitless excersise. People like Roger Eatwell have written entire books attempting to define just what fascism is.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Fascism comes in many flavors and varities. It is impossible to come up with a single definition to define fascism all together.

Although "fascist" movements, parties, states, etc. tend to share certain characteristics it is not always certain characteristics which define fascism itself, as many characteristics of fascist movements are not really characteristics which define fascism itself but characterize the movement. i.e. a totalitarian state isn't necessary fascist ; not all fascist states have a racist component (i.e. not all fascists are nazis); Christian supremacy isn't particularily a fascist component, as not all fascists are Christian and christian supremacy isn't necessarily fascist.

However, fascist states usually share in common a nationalist component - along with other components such as Militarism- which characterized Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Fascist policies usually come into existence as components of nationalism and militarism- and often have authoritarian characteristics - as how religion, race, sexual preference, etc. are brought into the picture. However, fascist characteristics are not entirely limited to this definition and manifest themselves in many shapes and forms, causing the difficulty in defining "fascism" in one sentence.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:23 am
what is Fascism?
A capitalist reaction to proletarian revolution that is wrapped in paradoxes.

[Marion]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+November 27, 2007 11:36 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ November 27, 2007 11:36 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 02:23 am
what is Fascism?
A capitalist reaction to proletarian revolution that is wrapped in paradoxes. [/b]
What then differentiates it from other forms of capitalism?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 07:38 pm
What then differentiates it from other forms of capitalism?
Depends on what you mean by "other forms," of capitalism.

Care to elaborate?

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Fascism isn't always a capitalist reactionary force. Yes, it can be, but it surely isn't in every regard. Fascism comes in many forms and varieties. Just as fascists aren't necessarily nazis, fascism doesn't necessarily result from reactionary force to proletarian revolution. Fascism can develop with or without capitalist forces being threatened by proletarian movement. To define fascism with a few words isn't possible, fascism isn't just characterized by one or a few characteristics, and there aren't distinct characteristics for its classification, either. It can present itself in many ways.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 27, 2007 08:05 pm
Fascism isn't always a capitalist reactionary force.
Where historically hasn't Fascism been a capitalist reaction to the threat of proletarian revolution? And in what way could Fascism arise without it being a reaction?


Yes, it can be, but it surely isn't in every regard.

Care to explain?


Fascism comes in many forms and varieties.

Just because Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and others differed slightly on various points doesn't mean that (generally speaking) Fascism isn’t a capitalist reaction, nor does it change the fact that whenever and wherever Fascism takes hold, it changes very little from the liberal state before it. True, you can’t necessarily make a cookie cutter definition for Fascism, you can however generally give it a definition and what material class struggles give rise to it. Not to mention, I would say, Fascism is inherently capitalist because nothing really changes from an economic standpoint, not the modes of production, and barely if at all the control over the means of production and capital.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 27, 2007 06:21 pm
Where historically hasn't Fascism been a capitalist reaction to the threat of proletarian revolution? And in what way could Fascism arise without it being a reaction?
Fascism didn't develop out of capitalist reaction to proletarian revolution- however, capitalists did give support to fascist states/movements to strengthen opposition against communism. Though fascism was/is a reaction to communism, it is also a reaction to liberalism (capitalism included). Fascism developed as an oppositional force to capitalist states and proletarian movements.

Fascism opposes laissez-faire economics. Usually fascism attempts to nationalize industry, though private property still exists- and ultimately the reason for this is to strengthen the state apparatus. I should also mention that it is not only the working class which does not benefit from this, but also anyone else the fascist state seeks to exclude from their "nation". For example, jews in Nazi Germany.

Though fascism is an opposition force against communism, it is also in regard to capitalism. Regardless of the fact that the bourgeoisie as the ruling class would benefit through the development of a fascist state which they were to control- which can likely happen, that is not how fascism came into existence.


Just because Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and others differed slightly on various points doesn't mean that (generally speaking) Fascism isn’t a capitalist reaction, nor does it change the fact that whenever and wherever Fascism takes hold, it changes very little from the liberal state before it. True, you can’t necessarily make a cookie cutter definition for Fascism, you can however generally give it a definition and what material class struggles give rise to it. Not to mention, I would say, Fascism is inherently capitalist because nothing really changes from an economic standpoint, not the modes of production, and barely if at all the control over the means of production and capital.
The only relation fascism has to capitalism is it has nationalized industry and private property- which is ultimately what exists when capitalism develops into its monopoly stage. Also, Nazis are generally opposed to capitalism and believe it has relation to jews.

The characteristics of fascism are always different and will manifest themselves in many different ways. It can't be known how it will appear, because the only distinct characteristic of fascism, which makes it fascist- is nationalism for the purpose of increasing its power. This can appear in many different forms, which is why not all fascist movements have a certain economic, religious or other foundation. These are simply means of strengthening the fascist state. This is why fascism isn't merely a capitalist reaction to proletarian movement- because fascist goals aren't merely to seek to eliminate communism, but all forces opposing it. These can be capitalist, too.

The only reason capitalists supported fascism was to combat revolutionary proletarian movements. As a result, fascism gained support- but not because it was a capitalist reactionary movement itself, but that in certain regards, they both oppose proletarian revolution- though ultimately they are quite different, this does unite them in certain situations.

[Killer Enigma]

A capitalist reaction to proletarian revolution that is wrapped in paradoxes.
The other user aptly noted the sheer inaccuracies and inadequacies with your definition. Indeed, fascism has its roots in the petty-bourgeoisie reacting against the proletariat. Though later it often becomes a tool of the bourgeoisie, they are not the driving force behind fascism at all.


Where historically hasn't Fascism been a capitalist reaction to the threat of proletarian revolution? And in what way could Fascism arise without it being a reaction?
Every instance of fascism has had its roots in the petty-bourgeoisie. I have already cited relevant source materials on page one.


Just because Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and others differed slightly on various points doesn't mean that (generally speaking) Fascism isn’t a capitalist reaction, nor does it change the fact that whenever and wherever Fascism takes hold, it changes very little from the liberal state before it. True, you can’t necessarily make a cookie cutter definition for Fascism, you can however generally give it a definition and what material class struggles give rise to it. Not to mention, I would say, Fascism is inherently capitalist because nothing really changes from an economic standpoint, not the modes of production, and barely if at all the control over the means of production and capital.
You are certainly one to talk in regards to analyzing material conditions. In many ways, the petty-bourgeoisie roots in fascism make it not only a reaction to the working class movement but also to capitalism.

[Spasiba]

If fascism opposes capitalism, what does it what in turn? To me, the imperialistic nature just seems to be a more militant form of capitalism.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 03:05 am
If fascism opposes capitalism, what does it what in turn? To me, the imperialistic nature just seems to be a more militant form of capitalism.
Fascism is an oppositional force to communism, liberalism, and therefore- capitalism.

Fascism is not all together a bourgeois movement (though it may be of benefit to the bourgeoisie to form a fascist movement), fascism did not develop out of such a movement, instead a reaction to the formation of proletarian movement and also capitalism- so it opposes both. There are similarities- I mentioned that the nationalization of industry occuring under fascist states is comparable to capitalism at its monopoly stage- however, the difference remains that for a state to be fascist there does not have to be bourgeois rule. It can be petty-bourgeois, or the former ruling class existent before the formation of the bourgeois ruling class. Fascism can take form with any ruling class- it doesn't necessary have to be bourgeois, though it certainly could be.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 28, 2007 02:16 pm
it is also a reaction to liberalism

It’s opposition to liberalism was more a reaction to the impotence at halting and putting a stop to the working class movements and it’s creation of a ‘weak’ state, there was no real opposition towards capitalism or the big bourgeois.


Fascism developed as an oppositional force to capitalist states

Bullshit.


Fascism opposes laissez-faire economics.

To an extent yes, however, it doesn’t oppose capitalism all together.


Usually fascism attempts to nationalize industry,

This isn’t capitalism? Fascists followed someother mode of production? How does Fascism differ at all economically from capitalism? It doesn’t.


how fascism came into existence.

Fascism came into existence by a joint reaction from both the big and petty bourgeois, against the proletariat.


The only relation fascism has to capitalism is it has nationalized industry and private property- which is ultimately what exists when capitalism develops into its monopoly stage. Also, Nazis are generally opposed to capitalism and believe it has relation to jews.

Again I call bullshit. The Nazis abandoned capitalism in words only, again nothing really changed. I mean to say the Nazis or the Fascists of Italy and elsewhere genuinely deviated from capitalism in anyway is ridiculous, nationalizing a few industries and installing a few social programs doesn’t equal anti-capitalism. That is akin to saying that when America broke from laissez-faire capitalism with the installation of the anti-trust laws and so forth it deviated wholly from capitalism, but is that the case? No, they like the Fascists all followed the capitalist mode of production and the means of production and capital stayed (generally speaking) in the same hands.


This can appear in many different forms,

You keep repeating this mantra as if Fascism is a phantom that can’t be captured, which it’s not, though Fascism may differ in some areas overall it’s would be fairly easy to give a general definition for it and give a general pinpoint of it’s specific material class roots.

Fascism doesn’t exist solely to strengthen the state, but rather to strengthen the control of the capitalists by means of the state apparatus.


This is why fascism isn't merely a capitalist reaction to proletarian movement

I would like for you to prove otherwise.


These can be capitalist, too.

Sorry comrade, but no.


Every instance of fascism has had its roots in the petty-bourgeoisie.

In a class alliance with the big bourgeois, yes.


You are certainly one to talk in regards to analyzing material conditions.

From what I have seen, it would appear both your and comrade Nadezhda’s analysis is totally divorced from material reality.


but also to capitalism.

Not once did the Fascists of any country deviate from capitalism, if you two want to keep stating this as if it were stone fact, then perhaps you ought to prove it, other than just saying it. Prove to me that the Fascists either in Germany, Italy or else where deviated from capitalism because so far the both of you have failed to do so.

[Killer Enigma]

Not once did the Fascists of any country deviate from capitalism, if you two want to keep stating this as if it were stone fact, then perhaps you ought to prove it, other than just saying it. Prove to me that the Fascists either in Germany, Italy or else where deviated from capitalism because so far the both of you have failed to do so.
From Marxist Daniel Guerin's 1938 pamphlet, Fascism and Big Business (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/guerin/1938/10/fascism.htm):

"While the state must carry huge incidental expenses, the big capitalists themselves have to stand a certain number: “voluntary contributions” extorted by the party and its “welfare” undertakings; various subscriptions; “graft” and seats on the boards of directors of big companies for the “upper crust” of the fascist leaders, etc. But these incidental expenses, the importance of which must not be exaggerated, are less annoying to big business than the demagogic agitation indulged in by the fascist plebeians – agitation which, despite purges and repressions, periodically reappears, though within constantly narrower limits.

Again, while big business approves of an aggressive policy that brings it new armament orders, it is afraid lest the fascist leaders, in seeking a diversion from the wretchedness of the people, provoke a premature war which will result in the isolation of the country and its defeat. It is especially significant that in the autumn of 1935 it was the fascist leaders, Farinacci, Rossoni, and others, who urged Mussolini into conflict with England, while the big bourgeoisie, the General Staff, and the Crown, on the other hand, advised moderation and caution. Likewise in Germany, when Hitler decided in March, 1936, to remilitarize the Rhineland, it was the Nazi top bureaucracy – Goering, Goebbels, and others – who urged him on to the adventure, while the big capitalists and their representative, Dr. Schacht, as well as the Reichswehr Generals, were wary, not as to the act itself but as to the rash form it took. At the end of December of the same year, General von Fritsch pointed out that neither the Reich nor the German army could undertake any action that might lead to war in a short time, and he went so far as to threaten to resign his command if his expert advice was disregarded."

Property rights were severely undermined, especially during times of war in both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. If you have not, I urge you to see Schindler's List for an accurate portrayal of business under a fascist regime. Fortunately, Oscar Schindler was the better end of big business under fascism but in terms of their relationship, it is a good example.

The continued presence of big business and the bourgeoisie in fascist regimes was noted even in Trotsky's analysis. I never made claims to the contrary that the bourgeoisie benefited, perhaps even utilized, the fascist state but they did not urge its creation because as Guerin points out, it is fundamentally uneconomical. Fascism has its roots in the petty-bourgeoisie and the historically fascist movements have been led by this conservative class reacting against the working class movement.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Not once did the Fascists of any country deviate from capitalism, if you two want to keep stating this as if it were stone fact, then perhaps you ought to prove it, other than just saying it. Prove to me that the Fascists either in Germany, Italy or else where deviated from capitalism because so far the both of you have failed to do so.
I suggest you read up a bit on fascism before attempting to support your claim.

Gain some historical background, you need it.

You have failed to show why your argument is valid. Read up on fascism, it shouldn't be difficult for you to do.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Usually when I read discussions on fascism, they usually revolve around its relationship to the capitalist mode of production. I find it intriguing that a fellow "Leninist Marxist" has separated fascism from capitalism altogether, even while reiterating what I said above regarding the proletarian "devils" the bourgeoisie know and the petit-bourgeois "devils" they don't know.

Comrade Nadezhda, you mention fascism's opposition to economic liberalism. However, you should keep in mind that economic liberalism isn't a prerequisite at all for having a capitalist mode of production. After all, Lenin and the Bolsheviks pursued a policy of state capitalism precisely to introduce capitalist relations as part of "revolutionary democracy."

I shall add one more class ally for the petit-bourgeois in the instances of fascism: what I call "Class #2" in my six-classes analysis - the cops, security guards, judges, lawyers, etc. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72581).

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Jacob [email protected] 01, 2007 07:27 pm
Usually when I read discussions on fascism, they usually revolve around its relationship to the capitalist mode of production. I find it intriguing that a fellow "Leninist Marxist" has separated fascism from capitalism altogether, even while reiterating what I said above regarding the proletarian "devils" the bourgeoisie know and the petit-bourgeois "devils" they don't know.

Comrade Nadezhda, you mention fascism's opposition to economic liberalism. However, you should keep in mind that economic liberalism isn't a prerequisite at all for having a capitalist mode of production. After all, Lenin and the Bolsheviks pursued a policy of state capitalism precisely to introduce capitalist relations as part of "revolutionary democracy."

I shall add one more class ally for the petit-bourgeois in the instances of fascism: what I call "Class #2" in my six-classes analysis - the cops, security guards, judges, lawyers, etc. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72581).
I see the relation of fascism to capitalism, as there is one. However, it is distinct from capitalism in the way it doesn't necessarily imply the existence of the bourgeois state. Though in some cases it would clearly benefit the bourgeoisie, as they have supported fascism as a means of opposing proletarian movement.

As I believe I mentioned above, there is a significant relation between state capitalism and fascism- which is a characteristic of fascism is nationalization of industry. However, it is distinguished from capitalist society (or bourgeois, for that matter) as it doesn't require the presence of bourgeois rule.

No, there doesn't necessarily have to be economic liberalism for there to be a capitalist mode of production. The stage of state capitalism is comparable to monopoly capitalism which exists under the bourgeois state once competing enterprises merge to form large enterprises - causing laissez-faire capitalism to no longer exist as these large enterprises form a single capitalist monopoly through the absence of competition.

I see the relevance of your reference to "Class #2" and the petit-bourgeois in this regard, however, as their role in fascism is very significant. So while there are distinctions, there are similarities and relations between capitalism and fascism. Especially considering that the very instruments which exist to protect the bourgeois state and its ruling class's interests are the major characteristics existent in fascism.

Thank you for your input- I definitely see your comparison- and it is a quite important one. The major distinction I was making in prior posts is fascism doesn't necessarily have to form out of bourgeois opposition to proletarian movement.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 01, 2007 09:02 pm
I suggest you read up a bit on fascism before attempting to support your claim.
I will and I concede to both yours and comrade Enigma’s points on the class nature of Fascism however I still do not see how Fascism fundamentally differs from capitalism or how Fascism could be anti-capitalist considering history.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 03, 2007 03:52 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 03, 2007 03:52 pm)
Comrade [email protected] 01, 2007 09:02 pm
I suggest you read up a bit on fascism before attempting to support your claim.
I will and I concede to both yours and comrade Enigma’s points on the class nature of Fascism however I still do not see how Fascism fundamentally differs from capitalism or how Fascism could be anti-capitalist considering history.[/b]
Fascism differs from capitalism as it does not require bourgeois rule.

What was just mentioned/discussed in regard to this was the petit-bourgeois and what ultimately has a large role in fascism - cops, security guards, judges, lawyers, military, etc. which are forces which characterize fascist states.

Fascism is, though like capitalism- different as there does not have to be a bourgeois ruling class. It could be petit-bourgeois for that matter. In capitalist society, this is a class that manages the means of production for the bourgeoisie. They are not the ruling class- they are an instrument of the ruling class. In a fascist state, they could very well assume the place of the ruling class. This is the distinction which was made above.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In my six-classes analysis, I separated out the managers / "coordinator class" ("Class #4) from the traditional petit-bourgeoisie ("Class #5") using a thoroughly Marxist class analysis (unlike Albert's parecon approach).

Referring to James Burnham's The Managerial Revolution (1941), who played a bigger role in the rise of historical fascism - the small businessmen, small farmers, etc. ... or the managers?

[This question is important, because most within "Class #5" today are quite reactionary that it isn't worth the time revisiting the "old alliance" addressed by Lenin's "revolutionary democracy" (workers and poorer segments of the petit-bourgeoisie). What about a "new alliance" with the managers in a proper socialist revolution (the danger being that we could end up with a more advanced version of "Stalinism" - coordinator-class rule but without a significant petit-bourgeois demographic)?]

[Comrade MWC]

Fascism is, though like capitalism- different as there does not have to be a bourgeois ruling class. It could be petit-bourgeois for that matter. In capitalist society, this is a class that manages the means of production for the bourgeoisie. They are not the ruling class- they are an instrument of the ruling class. In a fascist state, they could very well assume the place of the ruling class. This is the distinction which was made above.

Wouldn't the petty-bourgeois become the bourgeoisie, and all lower become a proletariat? Would Fascism not create simply a stronger elite of the rich and their cronies?

Moreover, the class character of Fascism varies and is not easily defined as a definite system.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 05, 2007 07:24 am

Fascism is, though like capitalism- different as there does not have to be a bourgeois ruling class. It could be petit-bourgeois for that matter. In capitalist society, this is a class that manages the means of production for the bourgeoisie. They are not the ruling class- they are an instrument of the ruling class. In a fascist state, they could very well assume the place of the ruling class. This is the distinction which was made above.

Wouldn't the petty-bourgeois become the bourgeoisie, and all lower become a proletariat? Would Fascism not create simply a stronger elite of the rich and their cronies?

Moreover, the class character of Fascism varies and is not easily defined as a definite system.
Fascism may modify class relations; however, it indeed varies and may not always be expressed in these terms. Fascism occurs with the presence of many characteristics and doesn't necessarily depend on any certain ruling class. However, there are certainly classes that have historically taken this position- but it does not define fascism all together.

[Comrade MWC]

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+December 05, 2007 01:50 pm--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ December 05, 2007 01:50 pm)
Comrade [email protected] 05, 2007 07:24 am

Fascism is, though like capitalism- different as there does not have to be a bourgeois ruling class. It could be petit-bourgeois for that matter. In capitalist society, this is a class that manages the means of production for the bourgeoisie. They are not the ruling class- they are an instrument of the ruling class. In a fascist state, they could very well assume the place of the ruling class. This is the distinction which was made above.

Wouldn't the petty-bourgeois become the bourgeoisie, and all lower become a proletariat? Would Fascism not create simply a stronger elite of the rich and their cronies?

Moreover, the class character of Fascism varies and is not easily defined as a definite system.
Fascism may modify class relations; however, it indeed varies and may not always be expressed in these terms. Fascism occurs with the presence of many characteristics and doesn't necessarily depend on any certain ruling class. However, there are certainly classes that have historically taken this position- but it does not define fascism all together. [/b]
Indeed. If fascism is opposed to liberalism even in economics, and thusly opposed to capitalism, what form of economics would take place? Central planning? I've heard once or twice economic stances of social democracy (Government regulation of capitalism) are compatible with a fascist state.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 05, 2007 04:58 pm
Indeed. If fascism is opposed to liberalism even in economics, and thusly opposed to capitalism, what form of economics would take place? Central planning? I've heard once or twice economic stances of social democracy (Government regulation of capitalism) are compatible with a fascist state.
The term for this is often referred to as "third way". This is generally an economic position of neither capitalism or socialism but "third way" (or rather a combination of corporatism and class collaboration) instead of laissez-faire capitalism.

Also, note that "social democratic" states/parties/movements often advocate for "third way" approach - i.e. Tony Blair and the UK Labour Party; if that comes across as any correlation.

[Comrade MWC]

The term for this is often referred to as "third way". This is generally an economic position of neither capitalism or socialism but "third way" (or rather a combination of corporatism and class collaboration) instead of laissez-faire capitalism.

Also, note that "social democratic" states/parties/movements often advocate for "third way" approach - i.e. Tony Blair and the UK Labour Party; if that comes across as any correlation.

Indeed, thanks for the information.

Shame the Labour Party became Social Democratic- and then Third Way. It seems they move further Right as we watch. They were always Democratic Socialists, anyway, nothing I'd ever favor.

[Comrade MWC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:26 am
Bumping this up, with new questions:

How prevalent is Fascism? Is it troublesome? How do we lefties compare in size, if thats possible to know?

And Nazism, White Nationals, etc, same questions to them.
On that note, Fascists, they say that they're not racist, but that Hitler gave them a bad name, but the way I see it militarism and imperialism and nationalism combine to make racism inevitable, do you agree?
I'll answer the questions in order.

Fascism's contemporary prevalence can be seen on the massive amount of activity on Stormfront (though not every member is politically Fascist), and the need for organizations such as AntiFa show that Fascists and Nazis are still out there and need to be kept from organizing.

Fascism poses more of a theoretical threat than a prevalent threat, I suppose, but allowed to become active the Fash population can grow into a much bigger group of scum then every before.

I believe there are more non-Fascists than Fascists, but Leftists and Fascists are rather equal in numbers as far as I know, both are non-mainstream and generally political miniorites.

Fascism is very nationalist and therefore can lead to ethnic, religious, and cultural prejudices, on the streets, even, it does not even have to be an agenda pushed by the government.

I do agree that Militarist-Imperialist and very Nationalist policies will create some sort of xenophobia, yes.

[RedKnight]

When describing the charectoristics of Fascism, one must diffuentuate between fascism as it was originally conceived by the former Socialist Mussolini, and what it became as it was influenced and revised by corporate donors.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_fascism Originally Fascism was a statist form of syndicalism, in the example of the dictatorship of Gabriele D' Annunzio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriele_D%27Annunzio). This ideology was known as National Syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism). In Germany, Nazism was also originally state socialist, yet anti-marxist. Here was there program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program This tendency remains as Strasserism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism), which is neo-nazi, yet anti-hitler.