Nazism and Fascism capitalist or not?

[communard resolution]

If Fascism and Nazism were movements set up to protect the bourgeoisie in a time when it was threatened by a possible communist revolution, how come that the bourgeois governments (e.g. the governments of the Weimar republic) fought it in its early years? And why did the American and British capitalists enter a war against the fascist countries?

I understand that the Nazis saw a difference between 'national capital' and 'international capital'. What is the difference between Nazi capitalism and the capitalism that already existed? What are the economic reasons why the German bourgeoisie switched from opposing to supporting the Nazis?

Since the Nazis nationalized many industries, would it be correct to describe the Third Reich as state capitalist, as opposed to laisser-faire capitalist?

Do you think that Fascism is simply a variation of capitalism that rears its head in times of crisis, or is there anything about it that justifies its claim of being a "third way", a separate system?

[revolution inaction]

If Fascism and Nazism were movements set up to protect the bourgeoisie in a time when it was threatened by a possible communist revolution, how come that the bourgeois governments (e.g. the governments of the Weimar republic) fought it in its early years? And why did the American and British capitalists enter a war against the fascist countries?

Well capitalists have never been known to fight each other have they?
Britain and America fought them because there where a threat to the capitalist interests of Britain and America



Since the Nazis nationalized many industries, would it be correct to describe the Third Reich as state capitalist, as opposed to laisser-faire capitalist?

I think so state capitalism has varying degrees



Do you think that Fascism is simply a variation of capitalism that rears its head in times of crisis, or is there anything about it that justifies its claim of being a "third way", a separate system?
Its not a kind capitalism but it works for capitalism, I think claiming to be a third way is just an attempt to appeal to people dissatisfied with the current system and prevent them becoming interested in revolutionary politics.

[Faction2008]

What's state capitalism?

[communard resolution]

What's state capitalism?

Capitalism under total state control. Workers have no decisive power & do not own the means of production - the state does. Unions are replaced by state run organizations such as the Deutsche Arbeits Front in NS Germany.

[Faction2008]

Capitalism under total state control. Workers have no decisive power & do not own the means of production - the state does. Unions are replaced by state run organizations such as the Deutsche Arbeits Front in NS Germany.
Cheers for clearing that up:)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Capitalism under total state control.
But that was never the case in any fascist country. Capitalism was under some state control, but nowhere near "total" control. In fact, fascist states intervened in the market to a lesser extent than postwar social democracies.

Yes, fascism is not laissez-faire, but then again, no capitalist economy has been laissez-faire for almost a century.

[communard resolution]

But that was never the case in any fascist country. Capitalism was under some state control, but nowhere near "total" control. In fact, fascist states intervened in the market to a lesser extent than postwar social democracies.

I can't be sure to what extent German capitalism was under Nazi control, but my impression is that state control was almost all-encompassing.

I read Albert Speer's autobiography Inside The Third Reich, in which he repeatedly complains that the German industrials were unable to make any decisions on their own. Speer was Hitler's armaments minister and one of his closest men. His mindset was really more that of a right-wing capitalist and opportunist. He mentions how he wanted to introduce "American" (= more flexible) methods and arrangements, allowing managers more freedom and more decisive power in their respective industries and companies. According to him, such suggestions always fell on deaf ears with Hitler, who insisted the industrials followed his orders down to the tiniest detail.

So if I were to go by that information, I would say that there was total state control of the economy in the Third Reich.

[Cult of Reason]

why did the American and British capitalists enter a war against the fascist countries?

The UK has always opposed the idea of a united Europe, opposing Napoleon, then the alliances between France and Russia, then the strengthening Germany before the First World War and, finally, that of the Second World War. Sir Humphrey puts it thusly (the topic is the EEC):

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RZUOkGxGUVs&feature=related

I don't know about the USA.

[RHIZOMES]

The difference between "state-capitalism" as you guys call it, and fascism is that with "state-capitalism" i.e. late USSR the state owns all the industry, while with fascism it funnels money into private corporations to stop them from collapsing while owning some industry.

So yeah, the whole argument of "the further left/right you go, the likelier the ends will meet" is completely idiotic. If one actually studies fascism and socialism there are many clear differences. Saying there is hardly any difference is bourgeois propaganda invented to discredit Marxism as "fascist".

[communard resolution]

The difference between "state-capitalism" as you guys call it, and fascism is that with "state-capitalism" i.e. late USSR the state owns all the industry, while with fascism it funnels money into private corporations to stop them from collapsing while owning some industry.

So yeah, the whole argument of "the further left/right you go, the likelier the ends will meet" is completely idiotic. If one actually studies fascism and socialism there are many clear differences. Saying there is hardly any difference is bourgeois propaganda invented to discredit Marxism as "fascist".

Sure, but nobody claimed that fascism and socialism are the same (and even if there were some similarities, that wouldn't mean it's the same).
The premise of this thread was to determine to what extent fascism is just a last resort for capitalism, and to what extent it can be distinguished as a "third way", a system in its own right.

[Invader Zim]

Fascism is indeed a form of capitalism. Private property existed and was protected in fascist regimes, indeed Pinochet's regime employed the 'Chicago boys', Milton Friedman's students, to manage Chile's economy. It was, of course, like all attempts at libertarian capitalism, a complete disaster.

[RHIZOMES]

Sure, but nobody claimed that fascism and socialism are the same (and even if there were some similarities, that wouldn't mean it's the same).
The premise of this thread was to determine to what extent fascism is just a last resort for capitalism, and to what extent it can be distinguished as a "third way", a system in its own right.

Ah okay, apologies. I was addressing the "how different state-capitalism is to fascism" question and got carried away. :lol:

Anyway I would disagree that fascism is a "third way" from capitalism or socialism. Fascism is just a stabilizing force for capitalism. And I think the fascists did a pretty good job of that (Boy can that be quoted out of context :lol:). Fascism doesn't last in the long run. It's no surprise right-wing scumfucks like Milton Friedman supported totalitarian dictatorships with free-market policies, because he recognized once the crisis in the country was over it would revert, either violently or peacefully, back to it's original state (Except wiped clean of the leftist threat). I mean compare how stable capitalism is in Italy, Spain and Germany in comparison to it's pre-fascism era. Before fascism, the workers were incredibly close in all those countries of taking control. It's not so much a "third way" as much as it is the "last way".

[Devrim]

If Fascism and Nazism were movements set up to protect the bourgeoisie in a time when it was threatened by a possible communist revolution,

They weren't. They were movements that rose to power on the back of the defeat of the working class.


how come that the bourgeois governments (e.g. the governments of the Weimar republic) fought it in its early years?

Why do different parties compete with democracy?


And why did the American and British capitalists enter a war against the fascist countries?

Why do capitalist state war with each other?


Since the Nazis nationalized many industries, would it be correct to describe the Third Reich as state capitalist, as opposed to laisser-faire capitalist?

Yes, I would say so. We view state capitalism though as a world wide tendency, not as a particular system.


Do you think that Fascism is simply a variation of capitalism that rears its head in times of crisis, or is there anything about it that justifies its claim of being a "third way", a separate system?

It is a form of management of capital. The system is still capitalist.

Devrim

[communard resolution]

They weren't. They were movements that rose to power on the back of the defeat of the working class.

They weren't? Fascist movements arose in Europe just after the Russian Revolution (not exactly a defeat of the working class) and in the shadow of the threat it seemed to pose to the bourgeoisie internationally.

What I find interesting, though, is how many former socialists turned into Fascists, including Mussolini himself. The fact that so many people who had championed working class politics went to the other side of the fence fascinates me, and I wonder about the reasons for this.

[Devrim]

They weren't? Fascist movements arose in Europe just after the Russian Revolution (not exactly a defeat of the working class) and in the shadow of the threat it seemed to pose to the bourgeoisie internationally.

German Revolution 1918-19
Hitler came to Power 1933

Biennio Rosso 1919-20
Musolini came to power 1922

The working class had already been defeated when fascism came to power.

Devrim

[communard resolution]

German Revolution 1918-19
Hitler came to Power 1933



If you regard the 1933 elections as the beginning of fascism in Germany, that is. In 1918-19, the working class was defeated with considerable help from the Freikorps, IMO a fascist, or at least proto-fascist movement (the early SA consisted almost entirely of former Freikorps men).

But whatever, the point is I don't think I understand the phrase "rose to power on the back of the defeat of the working class". If the working class was already defeated, why the sudden rise of a movement whose lowest common denominator in Italy, Germany and elsewhere was its ferocious anticommunism? A rise against the backdrop of a communist threat would make more sense to me.

Would you mind clarifying what that phrase means?

[Devrim]

In 1918-19, the working class was defeated with considerable help from the Freikorps, IMO a fascist, or at least proto-fascist movement (the early SA consisted almost entirely of former Freikorps men).

Who used the Freikorps, the (non-existent)fascists, or the SPD?


But whatever, the point is I don't think I understand the phrase "rose to power on the back of the defeat of the working class". If the working class was already defeated, why the sudden rise of a movement whose lowest common denominator in Italy, Germany and elsewhere was its ferocious anticommunism? A rise against the backdrop of a communist threat would make more sense to me.

Would you mind clarifying what that phrase means?

It means what it says. The working class was already defeated. The anti-communism played on the fears of the bourgeois, and petit-bourgeois, but the real danger had passed.

Devrim

[communard resolution]

Who used the Freikorps, the (non-existent)fascists, or the SPD?

The SPD used the proto-fascist Freikorps in this particular situation. The Freikorps jumped at the chance to crack some commie skulls, but they were no Social Democrats. Most of them happily joined the SA some years later.



It means what it says.

Sorry I asked.


The anti-communism played on the fears of the bourgeois, and petit-bourgeois, but the real danger had passed.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant.