Redefining "fascism": national fascism

[Die Neue Zeit]

Fascism, historically, has come in so many colours. I recall talking to a fash online myself, who lamented that the old colonial fascism (that of Hitler and Mussolini) spurred colonial immigration into Europe. Because of this, modern "fascism" is quite defensive (just look at the "surprising" cooperation between far-right groups of different ethnically-White backgrounds), and has more in common with Franco than with either Hitler or Mussolini (notwithstanding the former's overt racism).

I think it is proper to call the modern phenomenon "national fascism." It emphasizes nation over even empire (per the above on the original colonial fascism), and it helps counter mainstream-right talk about "National Socialism vs. international socialism." As a side benefit, it also allows for discussion on fascism of the "social" type.

[Therefore, RevLeft would continue to ban the typical national-fascists and the odd colonial-fascists, if the latter are still relevant to even the politics of "the far-right."]

[Holden Caulfield]

which type of 'fascist' would you class Zionists as, if you would class them as this at all?

[ships-cat]

Or how about you define 'fascist' as anyone who disagrees with you ? :p

Meow Purr.

[Holden Caulfield]

Or how about you define 'fascist' as anyone who disagrees with you ? :p

Meow Purr.

Orwell once said (a quote i do myself love)


The word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’.

also what is the point of your post SC?

[Madvillainy]

which type of 'fascist' would you class Zionists as, if you would class them as this at all?

I wouldn't. Zionism does indeed share some features of Fascism for example the strong importance of ethnicity but it's probably more politically accurate to compare it to apartheid.

So the two are comparable but definitely not synonymous with each other. Thats my opinion anyway. :)

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The only national-fascists (because the broader demographic is not numerous enough to engage in colonialism abroad) amongst the Zionists are those in the "Greater Israel" minority.

[Charles Xavier]

Fascism is simply the rule of the terrorist rule of the bourgeoisie to break down the working movement when it becomes to strong to control. They're only interested in profits. National identity can be used in order to create some popular support afterwards but in the end its a group of oligarchs trying to get richer and richer.

[ships-cat]

also what is the point of your post SC?

Pretty much what you encompassed with your Orwell quote HC... that the term "fascist" is becoming meaningless through overuse. Even 20 years ago, I knew left-wing hotheads at college who would accuse someone of being a "fascist" if they simply disagreed with them in a political debate.

The term has become hopelessly debased currency.

Meow Purr :)

[spartan]

Pretty much what you encompassed with your Orwell quote HC... that the term "fascist" is becoming meaningless through overuse. Even 20 years ago, I knew left-wing hotheads at college who would accuse someone of being a "fascist" if they simply disagreed with them in a political debate.

The term has become hopelessly debased currency.

Meow Purr :)
Aye I agree and it's a real shame as there are real Fascists out there who deserve this tag, but like you said it wont even mean anything soon.

[communard resolution]

The problem is: who are the real fascists?

Is the BNP fascist or neo-nazi? Since they support Israel, they can't be Nazis, but their centre-left economic policies are more similar to the NSDAP line than to Mussolini's corporatism.

National Anarchists favour a decentralised political system, so they aren't Fascists or Nazis. But at the same time they are white power racists.

The National Bolsheviks in Russia are a bizarre mix. They seem to be influenced by corporatism as well as Stalinism and the left/Strasserite wing of the Nazi party. They want to curb immigration, but they accept anyone who declares themselves 'Russian' as Russian, regardless of ethnicity or color of skin. What are they?

Several factors about George W. Bush's presidency could easily be classified as characteristics of Fascism. Is he a traditional fascist, though?

How about the regime of Iran and their nationalism, homophobia, misogyny, repression of dissidents, central role of religion in government and everyday life, and interest in Holocaust revisionists?

Then there are 'National Revolutionary' parties on the European continent that are certainly far-right and 'fascist' in many respects. But they claim that, unlike Fascists and Nazis, they want the class struggle in order to smash both international and national capital.

All these groups are very different to one another, and yet they are all 'fascist' in some sense. I wish there was a better term to catch all of them.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Then there are 'National Revolutionary' parties on the European continent that are certainly far-right and 'fascist' in many respects. But they claim that, unlike Fascists and Nazis, they want the class struggle in order to smash both international and national capital.

That last example of yours is MOST SURPRISING! Typical fascism - colonial, national, and SOCIAL - has OPPOSED the concept of "class struggle," preferring something like the post-WWII "consensus" of "social democracy" (with the British variant being actually social-fascist).

Would it be appropriate to describe those parties instead as "neo-Stalinist" (the Great-Russian chauvinist precedent, late-Stalinist anti-Semitism, that all-important SIOC, etc.)?

[communard resolution]

That last example of yours is MOST SURPRISING! Typical fascism - colonial, national, and SOCIAL - has OPPOSED the concept of "class struggle," preferring something like the post-WWII "consensus" of "social democracy" (with the British variant being actually social-fascist).I promise. They literally say that unlike historic National Socialism, they don't want to hold the doors open for exploiters from their own nation after getting rid of international capitalists - instead, they want to smash capitalism in all shapes and guises. I only came across that group recently, I'll have a look and see if I can find their website.

It looks like things are not so simple anymore in this postmodern day and age. :crying: There are all kinds of strange currents and random ideological pastiches.


Would it be appropriate to describe those parties instead as "neo-Stalinist" (the Great-Russian chauvinist precedent, late-Stalinist anti-Semitism, that all-important SIOC, etc.)?Perhaps, but they don't refer to Stalin or anything 'red' at any point. They see themselves as influenced by 'Conservative Revolutionaries' such as Ernst Juenger, and all the other groups their website links to are from the far-right spectrum, neo-NS groups included.

[Red Flag Rising]

Fascism is simply the rule of the terrorist rule of the bourgeoisie to break down the working movement when it becomes to strong to control. They're only interested in profits. National identity can be used in order to create some popular support afterwards but in the end its a group of oligarchs trying to get richer and richer.

This explanation is a problem I keep bumping up against with comrades. This explanation is just wrong and it was developed to fit a particular political expedientcy of the times. Fascism did not come from the bourgeouis, it came from the left. Mussolini was one of the most able of the Italian socialists. Lennin admired him. He took power in Italy by out Lenninizing the Lenninists themselves! He sold his soul to devil and allied with the industrialists as a means to power. They exerted more influence on him than he preferred. As head of the Italian Social Republic, he was free to exert his old socialist impulses and did, controlling the economy and pulling the reigns tighter than he could in Italy from 1926-43.

If we continue to hold to this totally outdated view of fascism we will never come to grips with its true nature and be able to defeat it.

[spartan]

This explanation is a problem I keep bumping up against with comrades. This explanation is just wrong and it was developed to fit a particular political expedientcy of the times. Fascism did not come from the bourgeouis, it came from the left. Mussolini was one of the most able of the Italian socialists. Lennin admired him. He took power in Italy by out Lenninizing the Lenninists themselves! He sold his soul to devil and allied with the industrialists as a means to power. They exerted more influence on him than he preferred. As head of the Italian Social Republic, he was free to exert his old socialist impulses and did, controlling the economy and pulling the reigns tighter than he could in Italy from 1926-43.
I agree that Mussolini came from Italian socialism, but the reason he was able to take control more effectively of the Italian economy late in the war was because Italy was in the middle of a war, not because he was trying to implement a more socialistic fascism!

The national Bourgeois don't mind their assets being put under state control when they are under threat, especially when the state in question is under the control of the Bourgeois themselves as a collective.

Also look up "war economy".

[communard resolution]

Red Flag Rising:

that's and interesting view. But as much as the Italian Fascists and German Nazis had former socialists in their ranks, they were also ridden with traditionalists, reactionaries, ultra-conservatives, the religious Right, etc.

I cannot see an ounce of socialism or left traits in Hitler, for instance - all I see is an ultra-reactionary, anticommunist, right-wing Catholic.

I think our mistake might be to paint all Fascists and Nazis with the same brush instead of looking at them as heterogeneous movements. By the same token, 'fascists' refer to everybody and their dog as 'reds' or 'commies', whether they are left liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists, Stalinists, anarchists, etc etc... this kind of approach doesn't help them understand our ideas either, does it?

Maybe the lowest common denominator of all 'fascist' ideologies is the promotion of irrationalist ideas rather than any economic agenda (as I pointed out in an earlier post, their economic ideas are quite diverse).

I once read a text written by a Fascist in which he explained the core of all Fascist ideology in his terms. He said that Fascism was basically the rejection of the Enlightenment and the ideas that derived from it. According to him, Fascists perceive Liberalism as a moderate expression of post-Enlightenment ideology, and Marxism as the very extreme thereof.

If you look at all the 'fascist' groups I mentioned in an earlier post, they all uphold an irrational ideal (e.g. a homogeneous nation and culture, a pure race, religion, blood and soil, folkish mysticism, a romanticized traditional 'way of life') by which they define themselves against an 'Other'.

So... perhaps this is the real core of all 'fascism'?

[Die Neue Zeit]

That last example of yours is MOST SURPRISING! Typical fascism - colonial, national, and SOCIAL - has OPPOSED the concept of "class struggle," preferring something like the post-WWII "consensus" of "social democracy" (with the British variant being actually social-fascist).

I promise... It looks like things are not so simple anymore in this postmodern day and age. :crying: There are all kinds of strange currents and random ideological pastiches.

Don't worry about it!


They literally say that unlike historic National Socialism, they don't want to hold the doors open for exploiters from their own nation after getting rid of international capitalists - instead, they want to smash capitalism in all shapes and guises. I only came across that group recently, I'll have a look and see if I can find their website.

Either they remind me of the "socialists" in the Nazi party (the SAs who were crushed by Hitler), or these newbies are even more radical.


Perhaps, but they don't refer to Stalin or anything 'red' at any point. They see themselves as influenced by 'Conservative Revolutionaries' such as Ernst Juenger, and all the other groups their website links to are from the far-right spectrum, neo-NS groups included.

How ironic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Revolutionary_movement

"The Conservative Revolutionaries based their ideas on organic rather than materialistic thinking, on quality instead of quantity and on Volksgemeinschaft ("folk-community") rather than class conflict and ochlocracy."

[Charles Xavier]

This explanation is a problem I keep bumping up against with comrades. This explanation is just wrong and it was developed to fit a particular political expedientcy of the times. Fascism did not come from the bourgeouis, it came from the left. Mussolini was one of the most able of the Italian socialists. Lennin admired him. He took power in Italy by out Lenninizing the Lenninists themselves! He sold his soul to devil and allied with the industrialists as a means to power. They exerted more influence on him than he preferred. As head of the Italian Social Republic, he was free to exert his old socialist impulses and did, controlling the economy and pulling the reigns tighter than he could in Italy from 1926-43.

If we continue to hold to this totally outdated view of fascism we will never come to grips with its true nature and be able to defeat it.
Sorry you are quite mistaken. First Lenin Never admired Mussolini.

Second, outdated view of fascism? What is your view? Everything you disagree with is fascism? Fascism has always presented itself as a champion of the nation, against exploitation, etc,

As in the Keynote of the 7th congress of the Communist International Dimitrov explains,"Fascism is not a form of state power "standing above both classes -- the proletariat and the bourgeoisie," as Otto Bauer, for instance, has asserted. It is not "the revolt of the petty bourgeoisie which has captured the machinery of the state," as the British Socialist Brailsford declares. No, fascism is not a power standing above class, nor government of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations."

Later on he continues explain some fascist slogans, "Fascism aims at the most unbridled exploitation of the masses but it approaches them with the most artful anti-capitalist demagogy, taking advantage of the deep hatred of the working people against the plundering bourgeoisie, the banks, trusts and financial magnates, and advancing those slogans which at the given moment are most alluring to the politically immature masses. In Germany -- "The general welfare is higher than the welfare of the individual," in Italy -- "Our state is not a capitalist, but a corporate state," in Japan -- "For Japan without exploitation," in the United States -- "Share the wealth," and so forth."

[Benos145]

Where is social-fascism discussed in this?

[communard resolution]

Where is social-fascism discussed in this?

Nowhere, because we are discussing the nature of far-right fascist currents here, not the nature of reformists who got their first taste of actual fascism behind the walls of the Dachau camp. Open a separate thread if you wish to discuss social democracy.

[communard resolution]

Either they remind me of the "socialists" in the Nazi party (the SAs who were crushed by Hitler), or these newbies are even more radical.Yes, they seem to be building on the left wing of even the SA and on those nationalist/National Bolshevik currents that were too far to the left to find a place in the NSDAP even in its early days. The problem that this poses is that it renders the classic analysis of Fascism obsolete: there are 'fascist' currents that are explicitly opposed to class collaboration and consider this difference a central point.

Fascists have an entirely different, irrational and anti-materialist way of looking at the world. To understand fascism, it may be helpful to look at how they define and understand themselves rather than forcefully apply the "last bulwark of the bourgeoisie" model to everything and hope that it somehow fits.

Hence my suggestion of understanding fascism as Anti-Enlightenment Idealism that usually upholds an irrational ideal to define an imagined/artificial community against an alien Other.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes, they seem to be building on the left wing of even the SA and on those nationalist/National Bolshevik currents that were too far to the left to find a place in the NSDAP even in its early days. The problem that this poses is that it renders the classic analysis of Fascism obsolete: there are 'fascist' currents that are explicitly opposed to class collaboration and consider this difference a central point.

OK, then: how deep is the racism of these "socialist" currents? The National-Bolsheviks, as you said, completely drop their racism the moment some ethnic-minority person proudly declares himself to be an assimilated Russian ("They want to curb immigration, but they accept anyone who declares themselves 'Russian' as Russian, regardless of ethnicity or color of skin"). Is it possible that their racism is more of the Lou Dobbs type? [Lou Dobbs is a populist CNN anchor who rants about "illegal aliens" coming from Mexico.]

[Revolutiondownunder]

Sorry you are quite mistaken. First Lenin Never admired Mussolini.

."

Funny you should say that, I will try and run up a quote and a link but when "Il Duce" first took power Lenin DID make some remarks that could be seen to be admiring Mussolini as a PERSON. This was in the early 1920s, by the time of the 7th conference things would have changed quite a bit.

The same as Stalin said that Hitler was "quite a guy". Doesnt mean that Lenin or Stalin were fascists however.

The problem with a marxist analysis of Fascism is that there have been so many, I read once that Gramsci had three differing analysis of it running up until his death.

The truth is that aside from a hard core, racist groups like the BNP and the Front National are not really fascist at all. What they do [when they are winning] is make most of the bad things about fascism seem not so bad.

Most people today are not class conscious, telling them that fascisms main aim is to destroy the organisations of the working class wont get them angried up.

But everybody these days hates racism, and even though we say that mainstream capitalistic parties are racist too, they are no-where near as racist as groups like the BNP. The Labour party in the UK wants to use Immigration and racism to split the working class. The BNP wants to kick all the "non-british" out.

Its important to see, that no matter how corrupt New labour is, they are not as bad as the BNP, which is why groups like the BNP NEED to be labelled as Fash even when they are not Fash.

To stop groups like the Tories or the Labour party from stealing the BNPs ideas and making them mainstream.

But i dunno, thats just my take, what do you reckon?

[communard resolution]

OK, then: how deep is the racism of these "socialist" currents?

The level and type of racism depends on the individual group.


The National-Bolsheviks, as you said, completely drop their racism the moment some ethnic-minority person proudly declares himself to be an assimilated RussianYes, the National Bolsheviks of Russia literally say in their programme that they are "a national party of the Russian people. Being Russian is not determined by blood or by religious conviction. He who considers the Russian language his, the history of Russia his history, who spills and is prepared to spill his and foreign blood in the name of Russia, and only for Russia's sake, and does not think of another nation as his motherland, is Russian."

http://nbp-info.ru/new/partia/programm.html
(in Russian)

Their xenophobic rhetoric is limited to the occasional populist promise of curbing 'illegal immigration', but is not central to their agenda. Instead, they focus on nationalism and the restoration of a Greater Russia (in fact they want a "Eurasian Empire", as they call it) while declaring "The West" and the liberal "open society" their enemies, the 'Other' that is alien to the 'Russian spirit'. They even go as far as using religious lingo when referring to the USA as the "Great Satan" much like Khomeini would.

While the Russian National Bolsheviks have incorporated fascist concepts of nationalism, national romanticism, and esotericism they too differ from historical Fascism in how they do not believe in class cooperation nor 'national capitalism'. They believe in a proletarian-agricultural-soldierly type of 'Russian Socialism' (which involves collectivization etc), or an anti-bourgeois "Red Fascism". To them, capitalism in any shape or guise is a bourgeois parasite and must be smashed by real Russian National Socialism.

Mind you, the Russian NazBols do think of Stalin as the spiritual Godfather of their movement, and yet they take cues from Fascists such as Mussolini and Julius Evola at the same time.

They are another reason for me to believe that the Anti-Enlightenment model of understanding Fascism that I suggested (which can be applied to the NazBols and to every other far-right group) has more validity than the classic economic analysis.

I'll update you on the racism of that other group I mentioned when I find their website.

[GPDP]

Nero, I find your suggestion to look at Fascism as an anti-Enlightenment movement intriguing. Indeed, using such an analysis explains quite a bit, and does more to encompass the majority of the Fascist spectrum, in all its currents and oddities, than the strictly class-based analysis I see here at RevLeft all the time.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, given the class flexbility of "fascism" (the old one was petit-bourgeois, while the new ones are working-class), the anti-Enlightenment stuff is intriguing. I remember reading something about Hitler saying to the effect that the Nazi rise to power in Germany was the end of "liberte, egalite, fraternite."

[Revolutiondownunder]

They are another reason for me to believe that the Anti-Enlightenment model of understanding Fascism that I suggested (which can be applied to the NazBols and to every other far-right group) has more validity than the classic economic analysis.

.

Yeah that sounds very true.

It fits much easier than the economic model[s] and it explains a lot of why nazis/fascists think how they do. They are willing to be "cross class" or "working class" or "middle class" whenever it suits their anti-enlightenment ideals.

The only common factor is the anti-enlightenment attitude which links them with many other reactionary groups.

Its the best theory I have heard and it fits the facts and the history, wouldnt make a great marching slogan though....:lol:

[communard resolution]

its the best theory i have heard and it fits the facts and the history, wouldnt make a great marching slogan though....:lol:

"The people enlightened will never be divided!" :)

[Revolutiondownunder]

"The people enlightened will never be divided!" :)

You WOULD have to stop and explain it to everyone.... :lol::thumbup:

[Charles Xavier]

:confused:

Well, given the class flexbility of "fascism" (the old one was petit-bourgeois, while the new ones are working-class), the anti-Enlightenment stuff is intriguing. I remember reading something about Hitler saying to the effect that the Nazi rise to power in Germany was the end of "liberte, egalite, fraternite."

Fascism is the rule of capital. Its partys like all parties are by in large made up of workers and peasants. When Parliamentry Democracy does not work they elect to bring to power the fascists. And by no means they may just choose the Nazi bols or other far right parties. They may use them as roaming gangs who smash the worker organizations though.

[Red Flag Rising]

I cannot see an ounce of socialism or left traits in Hitler, for instance - all I see is an ultra-reactionary, anticommunist, right-wing Catholic.

On the surface, yes, but look deeper. Hitler understood the things that brought so many to communism. That is why the Nazi flag is RED and that is why so very many comrades found it easy to move between the Nazi Party and the Communist Party. They even had a name for them, Beefsteak Nazis: brown on the outside, red on the inside.


I think our mistake might be to paint all Fascists and Nazis with the same brush instead of looking at them as heterogeneous movements.

You are so right. Real fascism is rare.


Sorry you are quite mistaken. First Lenin Never admired Mussolini.

No, it is you who is mistaken. Lenin read Avanti and praised Mussolini's thinking and abilities. When Mussolini siezed power in Italy -- along classic Leninist lines -- Lenin lamented losing, what he called 'an able man' to anti-communism.

Fascism is not irrational. It attempts to overcome the class struggle by uniting the classes through corporativism, which is based upon Syndicalism. Fascism is modernist and utopian. Do not forget that the Futureists were attracted to it.

The Nazis were primarily Hitlerites. National Socialism was never really corporativist it's main organizing principle was "working toward Hitler." Essentially, Nazism was whatever Hitler said it was.

Also, don't get it in your heads that all socialists, communists and other shades of leftists are anti-racist. Through history, a number of great leftists were also racists of anti-white or non-white varieties. Marx himself had embarassing views of blacks and Africa in general. I know a number of commrades who privately are harshly critical of non-whites and commrades who embrace revolutionary worldviews as a way to 'destroy the white race.'

You'd better damn well know what fascism is and what it is not, because it is dangerous. It has seduced many a good leftist to its cause.

[Charles Xavier]

On the surface, yes, but look deeper. Hitler understood the things that brought so many to communism. That is why the Nazi flag is RED and that is why so very many comrades found it easy to move between the Nazi Party and the Communist Party. They even had a name for them, Beefsteak Nazis: brown on the outside, red on the inside.



You are so right. Real fascism is rare.



No, it is you who is mistaken. Lenin read Avanti and praised Mussolini's thinking and abilities. When Mussolini siezed power in Italy -- along classic Leninist lines -- Lenin lamented losing, what he called 'an able man' to anti-communism.

Fascism is not irrational. It attempts to overcome the class struggle by uniting the classes through corporativism, which is based upon Syndicalism. Fascism is modernist and utopian. Do not forget that the Futureists were attracted to it.

The Nazis were primarily Hitlerites. National Socialism was never really corporativist it's main organizing principle was "working toward Hitler." Essentially, Nazism was whatever Hitler said it was.

Also, don't get it in your heads that all socialists, communists and other shades of leftists are anti-racist. Through history, a number of great leftists were also racists of anti-white or non-white varieties. Marx himself had embarassing views of blacks and Africa in general. I know a number of commrades who privately are harshly critical of non-whites and commrades who embrace revolutionary worldviews as a way to 'destroy the white race.'

You'd better damn well know what fascism is and what it is not, because it is dangerous. It has seduced many a good leftist to its cause.

Wow, we got a full blown fascist apologist here. Everyone of his ideas here is wrong.

Fascism claims to transcends class, but it is a sham. The Nazi party as part of its con to working people, appeared to be very anti-constitutionalist, very "revolutionary" using these mythologies simply because the class conciousness of the working class was high and otherwise it would not be acceptable. Fascism is the complete rule of Capital, it is the terrorist dictatorship of capital against labour. It is the greatest enemy of the working people, for it seeks to destroy the working class organizationally and reduce them to serfdom.

Secondly to claim German fascism is somehow a deviation of fascism is incorrect, it performed what was required of fascism, destroy the working class's gains and organizations and institute a rule of terrorist dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
Further, it is quite metaphysical to claim german fascism was hitler's invention. Hitler was not a superman, he was a man who was chosen to lead the terrorism of capital against the working class, if not him there would be others, Hitler was chosen by the Industrialists, the Bankers, the Land owning elites, not the other way around.

Sure there were many racists non-white leftists, but leftist describes those who lean toward economic equality, not necessarily communist. But what you are trying to accuse is Marx of being a racist. Marx was no racist, the words used to describe things 150 years ago are used in different context today. The expressions which were acceptable back then are now no longer acceptable.

There is no serious revolutionary who wants to destroy a race of people. You can find a talking head in any orientation who is loony doesn't mean they represent anyone other than themselves in that.

And fascism is dangerous but it is not anything you describe.

[Revolutiondownunder]

Fascism is not irrational. It attempts to overcome the class struggle by uniting the classes through corporativism, which is based upon Syndicalism. Fascism is modernist and utopian.


Thats always been my understanding. Which makes it scary that many countries in the world are sleepwalking towards corporatism.

It may not have the race or nation aspects of fascism and nazism, but its still just as bad for the working class.



Do not forget that the Futureists were attracted to it.


My understanding was that they founded it.



Fascism claims to transcends class, but it is a sham.


Fascism offers a compromise between labor and capital. The capitalists are forced to concede a little {a very little} to maintain the system, the Workers are given slightly better scraps from the table in exchange for stability, strong leadership and a non-materialistic "nation" myth.

Thats how its supposed to work, the reality would be quite different. This compromise is the reason why fascism has only come to power after a workers revolution has failed, the capitalists are frightened and willing to put power in the hands of the fascists to maintain the system.

Well thats my analysis, its a work in progress but Im doing a lot of reading on the subject, Dave Rentons book is a good one.

[ships-cat]

.....which is why groups like the BNP NEED to be labelled as Fash even when they are not Fash. ...


Wow... so the only way to prevent the apparant increase in the BNP's popularity is to mis-label them (e.g. to lie ? ).

MOST interesting :D

Whatever happened to "the truth shall set you free" ? :p

Meow Purr :)

[communard resolution]

On the surface, yes, but look deeper. Hitler understood the things that brought so many to communism.

As for Hitler, I would actually say it was the other way round: revolutionary on the outside (at least initially, when the NSDAP attempted to appeal to workers rather than to the industry), the epitome of reaction on the inside.

Of course there were also 'leftist' elements within his party - they may even have included some anti-bourgeois currents, and as I already pointed out, don't forget those National Bolsheviks too left-wing to fit in the NSDAP at all. Fascism comes in many shapes and guises, with a variety of economic programmes, and arranges itself with different allies in different situations.

What all the different brands of fascism have in common is the radical rejection of Enlightment ideas, e.g. the notion that all people are equal. This principle is intrinsic to all currents from historic Fascism and Nazism through present-day National Anarchism and Russian NazBol.

Every fascist will construct and uphold a community of 'chosen ones' that can only be defined against a (real or imagined) enemy.


Fascism is not irrational. Enlightenment ideas: reason, the freedom to use one's own intelligence, the "determination and courage to think without the direction of another. Sapere aude! Dare to know!" (Immanuel Kant, 'What Is Enlightenment?'), equality, brotherhood, universalism.

Fascist ideas: anti-intellectualism, nationalism, fate, difference (between races, between nations, between individuals), tradition, the family, religion, emotion, instinct, national romanticism, esotericism, an intrinsic human nature, psychological characteristics intrinsic to large groups of people (nations, races), romanticised 'forces of nature', idealism.

I would think that true socialism embraces all of the former while rejecting all of the latter. Liberalism falls somewhere in between the two. There might be a socialist-fascist overlap when it comes to the question of individualism - the liberty and importance of the individual.


Do not forget that the Futureists were attracted to it."We will glorify war - the world's only hygiene - militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman."

This is from the Futurist Manifesto. Do these sentiments sound particularly rational, progressive, or *enlightenened* to you? Or do they sound like the expression of an idealist, anti-materialist, *irrationalist* mindset?

As Revolutiondownunder soundly put it to describe his take on the subject, my approach too is a "work in progress", so please regard it as such.

I think this is an interesting subject that is well worth discussing further.

[Spartacist]

Wow, we got a full blown fascist apologist here. Everyone of his ideas here is wrong.

Actually it is you who is wrong. Your analysis of Fascism is stuck back in the 1920s and I see no apologizing for the Fascists, just a straight down the line reading of them. Don't be so convinced that your own ignorance is the truth.

[Spartacist]

Wow... so the only way to prevent the apparant increase in the BNP's popularity is to mis-label them (e.g. to lie ? ).

I find nothing wrong with lying to advance revolution. There have been and will be times in the future when telling a tactical lie could provide the means to victory. What, you think we should adhere to the 10 commandments?!?!

[spartan]

I find nothing wrong with lying to advance revolution. There have been and will be times in the future when telling a tactical lie could provide the means to victory. What, you think we should adhere to the 10 commandments?!?!
But it isn't lying as deep down the BNP are Hitler loving Fascists who seek to expel all non-whites from Britain.

This picture shows the BNP founder, John Tyndall, on the left:
http://maws.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/tyndallnazi.jpg

Of course they now say that they will only get rid of all illegal immigrants but they only say that as they are scared of the negative public perception they would get if they said what they really meaned (something along the lines of "kill all pakis" I would imagine).

To give them credit the BNP are quite smart with their terminology. For instance they say "muslim" instead of "paki", "British" instead of "white" and "culture" instead of "race" making what they say partially acceptable to people who are pissed off with political correctness and society in general, but who don't know the history, and therefore real intentions, of this parties entire leadership.

This allows them to get away with incitement to racism charges even though Griffin has been charged, though later acquitted in court, several times because of this.

[Charles Xavier]

Actually it is you who is wrong. Your analysis of Fascism is stuck back in the 1920s and I see no apologizing for the Fascists, just a straight down the line reading of them. Don't be so convinced that your own ignorance is the truth.

So whats the defination of fascism then? Everything you disagree with?

[Revolutiondownunder]

What all the different brands of fascism have in common is the radical rejection of Enlightment ideas, e.g. the notion that all people are equal. This principle is intrinsic to all currents from historic Fascism and Nazism through present-day National Anarchism and Russian NazBol.


This is the bare bones. Fascism has certain economic avenues that it finds easier to use, but it will any to achieve its overall anti-enlightenment goal.



Enlightenment ideas: reason, the freedom to use one's own intelligence, the "determination and courage to think without the direction of another. Sapere aude! Dare to know!" (Immanuel Kant, 'What Is Enlightenment?'), equality, brotherhood, universalism.

Fascist ideas: anti-intellectualism, nationalism, fate, difference (between races, between nations, between individuals), tradition, the family, religion, emotion, instinct, national romanticism, esotericism, an intrinsic human nature, psychological characteristics intrinsic to large groups of people (nations, races), romanticised 'forces of nature', idealism.



Exactly. Orthodox economic analysis can take one only so far. You cant deny that to people without a clear class identity both of these strains could be tempting ways of looking at the world.

THAT is the danger of fascism I feel. Whenever mainstream capitalist parties steal fascist slogans the fascists see it as a defeat, in reality it is not.



Wow... so the only way to prevent the apparant increase in the BNP's popularity is to mis-label them (e.g. to lie ? ).

MOST interesting :D

Whatever happened to "the truth shall set you free" ?


Obviously it wouldnt be the best solution, but if needed, yes.



But it isn't lying as deep down the BNP are Hitler loving Fascists who seek to expel all non-whites from Britain.


The leadership sure, I dont think anyone can doubt that, but the BNP have 10,000 or so members now. Most of whom have only joined since the "modernisation". These new members would have no love for the old-style Hitler worship and have legitimate quarrels with the capitalist state. While most will hold outdated racist views, they are not fascists.

Sadly the fools in the BNP MUST be labelled as fascists to stop more fools joining them.

The only problem is that the BNP is presenting itself as a better solution to the problems of capitalism than any real working class revolutionary party in Britain today, I am just glad that there is no group like it in my country. They are doing what the left used to be the best at, going street by street and doorstep to doorstep and convincing people that they are the answer to the problem.

If it wasnt for the fact that they are so easily attacked with the Nazi tag which drives most people away from them, they might have had a lot more wins than they already have.

I think we can all hope and pray {well not to god obviously:lol:} that Nick griffin remains in the little Hitler role he so clearly likes. Put a well spoken, well presented person with no history of Holocaust denial in his place and the BNP would be more than just a freakshow.



So whats the defination of fascism then? Everything you disagree with?


Hey i kinda like that definition!:lol:

Anyway im not pretending to be an expert at all I would need to do a lot more thinking and research before writing any of the above into stone. But I think its clear that a purely economic analysis of fascism is incomplete.

[Red Flag Rising]

Ahhhhhh! I am a full-flown fascist apologist! Run for your lives!:laugh:

The problem is that too many commrades see fascism as secondary to the main enemy, capitalism and try to fit it into their worldview by lumping it in with capitalism as part of the transition from a traditional society to a modern one. In doing so, they miss fascism's revolutionary thrust. Mussolini called for a "revolution of the spirit." Hitler spoke of the "German Revolution." Fascism encouraged activism, the fight against the existing order and the system. Like all revolutionary movements, fascism in power had to restore order and prop up its own authority which diminished its revolutionary zeal. But fascism in its main thrust sought to remake the world. With Mussolini, it was based on futurist ideas, with Hitler it was an imagined pagan past.

What is fascism? Let me quote a fascist:

Real fascism is the Corporate State mobalizing society to move in one direction. It is the dynamic syntheis of opposites: capitalism and socialism to create a new, third way between the tyrannies of both. Fascism is the regeneration of the nation through the unity that comes via mass allegiance. Mass allegiance being the mobalizing of both the elites and the people into a single force. While being dynamic, fascism also recognizes and incorporates the traditional as the foundation of the society. Again, synthesis: dynamism with tradition.
Fascism stands for values and policies directly opposed to the old order's philosophy; for patriotism against communism; order and discipline against chaos and anarchy; social justice against exploitation; nationalism against internationalism; national unity against class conflict; individual effort and creative toil against high finance. Central to the fascist philosophy is the need for a higher form of civilisation, built by a new type of man; a fascist man.

To this romantic drivel I would add militarism, the cult of personality and imperialism.

[communard resolution]

Like all revolutionary movements, fascism in power had to restore order and prop up its own authority which diminished its revolutionary zeal.

I fully agree: that's exactly what happened so far. Now there are currents which claim they will not spare their homegrown bourgeoisie when in power. I'm sure sooner or later they too will come up with their own theory of permanent revolution (in the original sense, not the Trotskyist one).


With Mussolini, it was based on futurist ideas, with Hitler it was an imagined pagan past. Yes, but may I add that Mussolini saw himself as a "new Roman emperor", which again involves the notion of a romanticised past rather than anything forward-looking. Mythology not analysis, soul not mind - typical of all fascism.

[Charles Xavier]

Ahhhhhh! I am a full-flown fascist apologist! Run for your lives!:laugh:

The problem is that too many commrades see fascism as secondary to the main enemy, capitalism and try to fit it into their worldview by lumping it in with capitalism as part of the transition from a traditional society to a modern one. In doing so, they miss fascism's revolutionary thrust. Mussolini called for a "revolution of the spirit." Hitler spoke of the "German Revolution." Fascism encouraged activism, the fight against the existing order and the system. Like all revolutionary movements, fascism in power had to restore order and prop up its own authority which diminished its revolutionary zeal. But fascism in its main thrust sought to remake the world. With Mussolini, it was based on futurist ideas, with Hitler it was an imagined pagan past.

What is fascism? Let me quote a fascist:

Real fascism is the Corporate State mobalizing society to move in one direction. It is the dynamic syntheis of opposites: capitalism and socialism to create a new, third way between the tyrannies of both. Fascism is the regeneration of the nation through the unity that comes via mass allegiance. Mass allegiance being the mobalizing of both the elites and the people into a single force. While being dynamic, fascism also recognizes and incorporates the traditional as the foundation of the society. Again, synthesis: dynamism with tradition.
Fascism stands for values and policies directly opposed to the old order's philosophy; for patriotism against communism; order and discipline against chaos and anarchy; social justice against exploitation; nationalism against internationalism; national unity against class conflict; individual effort and creative toil against high finance. Central to the fascist philosophy is the need for a higher form of civilisation, built by a new type of man; a fascist man.

To this romantic drivel I would add militarism, the cult of personality and imperialism.

Fascism is capitalism. You are confusing the terms. Fascism is merely its open terrorist dictatorship of the bourgeioisie to crush the working class' organizations and depress its living conditions in the pursue of profits.

Theres bourgeioisie democracy which is when the bourgeioisie respect their parliamentary traditions while still maintaining their dictatorship and there is bourgeoisie terrorist rule, which would be fascism, the rule of capital with no respect of parliamentary procedures.

The fascists always declare themselves saviours of the country, but merely they are saviours of capital, they bring back mega profits and super exploitation.

You also need to see what while in some countries the fascist governments clouded their dogma with anti-capitalist rhetoric, it wasn't anti-capitalist. Others in fact even embraced capitalism, in the United States you cannot forget that the fascists declared themselves Pro-State Pro-Constitution, or in Bulgaria, Poland, Romania and others as well.

Whatever the dogma, fascism is the rule of capital itself. Its there to restore the good ol' days to the banks, the factory owners, and other captains of industry.

[communard resolution]

Fascism is capitalism.

GeorgiDimitrov, your latest post could as well have been the opener for this thread. Why don't you read the points everybody else has made since and engage with them? You keep reciting the same old 1920s/1930s mantra of Fascism being Capitalism even though this clearly doesn't apply to all fascist currents, and probably never did.

Do you seriously think, for instance, that deep down the National Anarchists just want to protect capital? Do you think the bourgeoisie finances them so they can crush the barely existent organised proletariat?

[Holden Caulfield]

what ive been trying to say is that once 'Fascism is capitalism' was true, but now it has dripped down and set its roots in the working class support it has,

so less 'Fascism is capitalism' and more 'national fascism is a product of modern multi-national capitalism', perhaps

[Red Flag Rising]

Yes, but may I add that Mussolini saw himself as a "new Roman emperor", which again involves the notion of a romanticised past rather than anything forward-looking. Mythology not analysis, soul not mind - typical of all fascism.

Oh yes, Nero, Mussolini used Roman imagry and themes of Imperial Rome to stir Italian nationalism and to sell imperialism. And, yes again, mythology played a huge role in fascism. Much of it came from Georges Sorel's Reflections on Violence which focused on the significance of political myths. According to Sorel, these myths are not objective reflections of political reality, but simply expressions of the will. They are emotionally based. Even if an idea does not make rational sense, said Sorel, if enough people believe it, then it can work. Fascism used this as a basis to promote itself. According to fascism, the important truths of life defy rational thought. The fascist source of higher truth is instinct, rather than rationality, an Enlightenment conception of the pursuit of truth.

See how dangerous fascism is? It can seduce the anti-fascist as easily as the devil can seduce the missionary!

[GPDP]

You know, this reminds me of my study of Conservatism in my Political Economy class. Unlike the other political currents we studied (Classical Liberalism, Radicalism, and Modern Liberalism), Conservatism, as embodied by the thinking of people like Edmund Burke, sustains the idea that human beings are not rational, and that values such as honor, patriotism, and nationalism are important to keep society functional. Conservatism, then, was a reaction to the rise of Enlightenment ideas, particularly those coming out of Classical Liberalism, and later Radicalism. And indeed, the connection to Fascism was drawn here.

Fascism, as we know it, only came to be in the 20th century, but its roots, I would say, do stretch back to classical Conservatism, as a rejection on the Enlightenment.

[Red Phalanx]

Fascism came out of the French Revolution as part of the Jacobin tradition. I don't see conservatives as fascists.

Red Flag: Interesting account of fascism. I never considered it revolutionary but in looking back upon some of the things I have read about it, it does have a kind of false revolutionary aspect to it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Nowhere, because we are discussing the nature of far-right fascist currents here, not the nature of reformists who got their first taste of actual fascism behind the walls of the Dachau camp. Open a separate thread if you wish to discuss social democracy.

Actually, this was my thread. ;)


As a side benefit, it also allows for discussion on fascism of the "social" type.

While this guy isn't a Marxist per se, Takis Fotopoulos is a revolutionary leftist:

From Social Democracy to Social Fascism (http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/newsletter/socialfascism.htm)

[communard resolution]

Actually, this was my thread. ;)

OK sorry about that, I should have held my horses. I still think that 'social fascism' is a scare word more than anything. While it's possible to construct the notion of social democracy as 'social fascism' if we hold on to the classic analysis of fascism, this construct becomes indefensible the moment we look at the essential characteristics of all real fascism, some of which have been discussed in this thread.

Social Democrats may have used (proto-) fascists such as the Freikorps to crush the organized working class, but not everybody who defends capitalism by force is neccessarily a Fascist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ If you read the link above, comrade, you would have noted that I was actually referring to the Blairites. I concede that not every "social-democrat" is a social-fascist (they are divided into soc-fash and so-called "pinkos"). I would also say that Trotsky has some key points right about the Comintern's labelling abuse. If anything else, the SPD of the day wasn't anywhere near the Blairites in terms of both inter-class "unity" and political authoritarianism (although, given the modern German constitution, the modern SPD could be social-fascist indeed).

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I find nothing wrong with lying to advance revolution. There have been and will be times in the future when telling a tactical lie could provide the means to victory. What, you think we should adhere to the 10 commandments?!?!


No but bullshiting people is a shit tactic. You need to grow the fuck up

[avantgarde]

I think defining Zionism as fascism is a little off, I don't think it's fascist, it's just the Jewish version of petitebourgeois nationalism.

That being said, modern 'fascists' have mostly dropped any facade of being pro-working class, and have let out their disdain for all 'leftist' movements. That is why they are by now irrelevant, they have no working class sentiment.

Franco was never really a fascist, even though he gave a fascist 'image' to Hitler and Mussolini. The guy was basically a paternal autocrat. But that is the story for almost ALL fascist movements, they can use pro-worker rhetoric but once in power they let loose their plainly pro-bourgeois agendas.

[Holden Caulfield]

That being said, modern 'fascists' have mostly dropped any facade of being pro-working class, and have let out their disdain for all 'leftist' movements. That is why they are by now irrelevant, they have no working class sentiment.


where do you live?! the BNP are growing on stolen leftist ideas twisted beyond reason to fit into their fascist ideology, and gaining the support of a substantial number of workers

[Charles Xavier]

^^^ If you read the link above, comrade, you would have noted that I was actually referring to the Blairites. I concede that not every "social-democrat" is a social-fascist (they are divided into soc-fash and so-called "pinkos"). I would also say that Trotsky has some key points right about the Comintern's labelling abuse. If anything else, the SPD of the day wasn't anywhere near the Blairites in terms of both inter-class "unity" and political authoritarianism (although, given the modern German constitution, the modern SPD could be social-fascist indeed).

You should read the 7th congress of the Comintern, you will see Trotsky's criticism are just phrasemongering and not reality.

[Die Neue Zeit]

where do you live?! the BNP are growing on stolen leftist ideas twisted beyond reason to fit into their fascist ideology, and gaining the support of a substantial number of workers

Yeah - a few years ago I did read their alarmingly left-wing economic programme.

[Red Flag Rising]

No but bullshiting people is a shit tactic. You need to grow the fuck up

Really, REALLY? Some of the best -- grown up -- revolutionaries have used the useful lie to push forward and make gains for the cause. We're not christians and we're not namby pamby social democrats either. Lie, cheat, steal and win.

Go back to your Sunday school, junior.

[spartan]

Really, REALLY? Some of the best -- grown up -- revolutionaries have used the useful lie to push forward and make gains for the cause. We're not christians and we're not namby pamby social democrats either. Lie, cheat, steal and win.

Go back to your Sunday school, junior.
But what if what we have said is exposed as lies?

This makes the public sympathetic to them and scornful and untrusting towards us.

Thing is though the BNP are fascists so calling them that isn't lying.

[Revolutiondownunder]

But what if what we have said is exposed as lies?

This makes the public sympathetic to them and scornful and untrusting towards us.

Thing is though the BNP are fascists so calling them that isn't lying.

But are they?

Is the fact that nearly every member of their leadership [well pretty much] has a fascist past enough to make the entire organisation fascist when most of the post-Tyndall membership would probably consider themselves to be ANTI fascist.

Its a mixed organisation to say the least. You only have to look across the net [no not at their official website, more at the independent sites of their supporters] to see that most of the time they use the "finest hour" from WW2 as propaganda and images from that historical period feature in nearly every video they put up on youtube.

Like it or not, the majority of BNP activists would probably be upset if people in their branch began spouting fascist crap.

I have looked into it on the net and talked to BNP members because I wanted to find out what they believed.

BNP members are racist, but not fascist. Mostly just pissed off at the capitalist parties [even though they wouldnt put it like that]. Nearly every one who is not a long term far right supporter or previously apolitical is an ex-labour party supporter.

If the fascist [or ex-fascist] BNP leaders started coming out saying some of the stuff they did in the 90s most of the membership would run a mile.

My view is that this is likely to become a pattern on the far right, ditch the hitler worship and keep the racist propaganda. Eventually the normal people joining up will so outnumber the old fascists that it becomes an entirely different group.

This is whats happening inside the BNP. And it makes them ten times more dangerous to US than it did before.

There may be less racist attacks stirred up, but if the BNP worldview becomes widespread convincing the working class to work together against capitalism will be all the more harder.

Calling the BNP fash and using the examples of the past conduct of the leaders is a good thing, but dont delude yourself. The average BNP member is now an ordinary working class person who has been convinced that race matters more than class.

Calling the leadership fascists would probably be a better strategy, try to alienate these new members so the whole party collapses from the inside. Since Griffin will fight tooth and claw to stay leader this approach might actually work.

But calling EVERY bnp member a fascist just entrenches a seige mentality, in the end its probably counter-productive.

If anyone disagrees seriously with what I have put down here I would love a reply.:thumbup:

[Die Neue Zeit]

The two things I see most from far-right parties getting bigger shares of the vote in Europe are Nativism and Populism.

The Nativism is used to create opposition to immigrants from "native" (hence the Nativism) working-class people who are *turns into a Nativist* "losing their jobs, having to accept lower wages because of the influx of cheaper labour, and having their public services (which they, and not the immigrants who use them anyway, prop up with their taxes) suffer under the strain of the increase in population which immigration naturally produces."

The Nativism allows these once avid racists a chance to play at "socially acceptable" Xenophobia without any dire consequences, indeed even being applauded by people sick and tired of political correctness and pussy footing around issues which they deem important.

The Populism is used to create an "us" and "them" atmosphere against their own country's ruling elite and traditional parties who they say are "alike" and "not representing our intrests" which to be fair they are right about that.

The Populism also allows them to appear "Socialistic" (especially with their worker friendly economic policies such as cooperatives and nationalisation) and is a good way to shut the left out from the working-class.

These far-right parties are tapping into genuine (misdirected) anger from working-class people and it's proving quite beneficial as they are getting more and more votes (just look at Austria where the two far-right parties collectively got the highest share of the national vote in the recent elections!).

How do we as Socialists combat this growing threat?

Working-class people don't seem intrested in what we have to say and our solutions to their problems, and are more intrested in blaming the immigrant and electing people who used to go around with Nazi flags about a decade ago before they "wised-up" and started offering easy to implement solutions to working-class people and their country's problems.

One of the things that scares me the most about these far-right parties is that they are doing things legitimately and Democratically, and are getting more votes and potentially into positions of real power with the majority of people's support!

Most normal people don't like violence and the far-right know this and play the victim card whenever anti-Fascists shoot themselves in the foot by attacking these people at their events which have been approved by the police and local government and mean that the far-right are thus doing nothing wrong in the public's eyes (which gives us a bad name for attacking "peaceful law-abiding people at a legal event" blah blah blah, etc, etc).

We have to change tactics on these smart break-away racists as ironically violence aimed at them by us is actually helping them and hurting us!

Nativism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_(politics)

Populism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

My reply from the Learning forum post above was that "nativist fascism" is more accurate than "national fascism" in terms of stressing defensive nationalism. Colonial fascism still applies to the expansionist, conquistador type.

And some recent news on soc-fash:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/british-government-begin-t91263/index.html

[AFA_Sab]

But calling EVERY bnp member a fascist just entrenches a seige mentality, in the end its probably counter-productive.
If anyone disagrees seriously with what I have put down here I would love a reply.
No, sadly to say I can't argue that one...


What is fascism? Let me quote a fascist:
Real fascism is the Corporate State mobalizing society to move in one direction. It is the dynamic syntheis of opposites: capitalism and socialism to create a new, third way between the tyrannies of both. Fascism is the regeneration of the nation through the unity that comes via mass allegiance. Mass allegiance being the mobalizing of both the elites and the people into a single force. While being dynamic, fascism also recognizes and incorporates the traditional as the foundation of the society. Again, synthesis: dynamism with tradition.
Fascism stands for values and policies directly opposed to the old order's philosophy; for patriotism against communism; order and discipline against chaos and anarchy; social justice against exploitation; nationalism against internationalism; national unity against class conflict; individual effort and creative toil against high finance. Central to the fascist philosophy is the need for a higher form of civilisation, built by a new type of man; a fascist man.
To this romantic drivel I would add militarism, the cult of personality and imperialism.
Who were you quoting there?

Funny thing is, no one ever seems to argue about who 'the Fash are!':lol:

[Charles Xavier]

Those of you who are asking fascists to define themselves their ideological leanings and what they hope to achieve is like asking a capitalist what a capitalist is. Of course they are going to paint a rosy picture of themselves and by no means is their analysis going to be scientific which as revolutionaries of socialism we must be scientists on this front.

It is our job, as socialist, as materialists to dissect and analysis what fascism is, what is its essence. Its essense is in the face of a strong working class movement who is unwilling to give concessions after concession, a working class that is unwilling to bare the brunt of a capitalist crisis and is willing to resist every attack on the democratic gains of workers, in the face of crisises of the capitalist economy, is to save the power of capital. To uproot the working class movement by force and crush it as hard as possible.

Under a weak working class movement, under a capitalist crisis, fascism isn't nessicary its the working class that will still bare the brunt of the crisis but without the violent confrontations of capital, it will still cut wages, jobs, social benefits, raise taxes, and the like. The school yard bully with a smile is taking everything without any resistance from the kid.

[Sprinkles]

Those of you who are asking fascists to define themselves their ideological leanings and what they hope to achieve is like asking a capitalist what a capitalist is. Of course they are going to paint a rosy picture of themselves and by no means is their analysis going to be scientific which as revolutionaries of socialism we must be scientists on this front.

It is our job, as socialist, as materialists to dissect and analysis what fascism is, what is its essence.


This... Who cares what absurd ideas the fascists have about themselves. Even the standard idealist and mystified bourgeois view of fascism, which perceives fascism as an abnormal perversion of Western civilization and a degradation of democracy and it's values; which can only be explained by psychological factors like mass hysteria and Hitler's seduction of the masses is useless.



Its essense is in the face of a strong working class movement who is unwilling to give concessions after concession, a working class that is unwilling to bare the brunt of a capitalist crisis and is willing to resist every attack on the democratic gains of workers, in the face of crisises of the capitalist economy, is to save the power of capital. To uproot the working class movement by force and crush it as hard as possible.


This... Not so much. :D

Fascism wasn't an obstacle for the working class to take power, it was the result of it's failure to take power. Fascism only came to power after Social Democracy had destroyed the revolutionary movement and proved itself unable to restore order by unifying all of the classes behind the Nation State.



Under a weak working class movement, under a capitalist crisis, fascism isn't nessicary its the working class that will still bare the brunt of the crisis but without the violent confrontations of capital, it will still cut wages, jobs, social benefits, raise taxes, and the like. The school yard bully with a smile is taking everything without any resistance from the kid.

Okay, this as well...

[Melbourne Lefty]

Of course they are going to paint a rosy picture of themselves and by no means is their analysis going to be scientific which as revolutionaries of socialism we must be scientists on this front.

right, a fascist is a fascist.

I mean we all know what a fascist is right? Someone who is a racist. So can you call all racists fascists? Well yes, because they have the same ideas as fascists. Not the EXACT same ideas maybe, but enough to make no difference.

And if they dont believe that they are fascists, then too bad, they are now.

[Holden Caulfield]

right, a fascist is a fascist.

I mean we all know what a fascist is right? Someone who is a racist. So can you call all racists fascists? Well yes, because they have the same ideas as fascists. Not the EXACT same ideas maybe, but enough to make no difference.

And if they dont believe that they are fascists, then too bad, they are now.

that is exactly what we are trying to get away from, its not wrong entirely but it is too easily shattered by the likes of the BNP

[Charles Xavier]

right, a fascist is a fascist.

I mean we all know what a fascist is right? Someone who is a racist. So can you call all racists fascists? Well yes, because they have the same ideas as fascists. Not the EXACT same ideas maybe, but enough to make no difference.

And if they dont believe that they are fascists, then too bad, they are now.
That is exactly not what a fascist is.

[Melbourne Lefty]

that is exactly what we are trying to get away from, its not wrong entirely but it is too easily shattered by the likes of the BNP


who listens to the BNP? Even the crypto-racist tabloids attack them.



That is exactly not what a fascist is.


no its not, but who are you going to have define what a fascist is? Racism is a part of fascism. So you could call racists fascists and they have no come-back. If it keeps people away from racist and fascist ideas then whats the problem.

[Sprinkles]

no its not, but who are you going to have define what a fascist is?


Not that I want to oppress your vocabulary or anything, but there are commonly accepted definitions of what certain terms mean, which helps facilitate a constructive debate about them.
If one person decides to call a cat a cow, it makes him look a bit weird and makes having a meaningful debate or conversation about the subject a bit hard to follow.



Racism is a part of fascism.


Not really, they're not mutually inclusive, which is why they are two different words for two differents concepts.
So why not just use one term or the other when and where they are appropriate? Just two letters can make a lot of difference. :D



So you could call racists fascists and they have no come-back. If it keeps people away from racist and fascist ideas then whats the problem.


The over usage of the term "fascist" to denounce everything and anything that leftists disapprove of, makes them look like hysterical loons. It's the exact kind of reasoning that causes granola eating hippies to call people fascists, since it will keep them away from eating meat. It doesn't really help anyone understand what historic fascism actually was though.

[Melbourne Lefty]

The over usage of the term "fascist" to denounce everything and anything that leftists disapprove of, makes them look like hysterical loons.


I think this is a stereotype, people in many countries dont like the conservative parties, but because they are not openly racist they dont get called fash.

I think that 'fascist' is such an open term that it should be used as a tool, call racists fash and they will lose, it worked in Australia with the One nation party, they had 10% of the vote, but in the peoples minds they were associated with fascism because of their racism.

If fascism is not an exact term, then calling openly racist parties fascist is a good use of the word.

[Sprinkles]

I think this is a stereotype,


It's hardly a stereotype considering you yourself are arguing in favor of using the term "fascism" as a slur to denounce your opponents instead of using it to signify a specific political movement contained in a certain period of European history.



people in many countries dont like the conservative parties, but because they are not openly racist they dont get called fash.


Racism = / = Fascism.



I think that 'fascist' is such an open term that it should be used as a tool, call racists fash and they will lose, it worked in Australia with the One nation party, they had 10% of the vote, but in the peoples minds they were associated with fascism because of their racism.

If fascism is not an exact term, then calling openly racist parties fascist is a good use of the word.


The problem here is that it's not an open term at all. Fascism is a term which has a clear definition in common usage and depending on which particular political analysis one has of fascism as a historic movement, it can be a very clear and well defined term.

Regardless of any perceived political expedience it may provide, using "fascism" as a more severe substitute for the term "racism" prohibits any understanding of what historic fascism actually was.

[Melbourne Lefty]

It's hardly a stereotype considering you yourself are arguing in favor of using the term "fascism" as a slur to denounce your opponents instead of using it to signify a specific political movement contained in a certain period of European history.

ummmm.... I hate to say it but I think you got me here.:(

Given me something to think about anyway...:cool:

But here I must disagree...


The problem here is that it's not an open term at all. Fascism is a term which has a clear definition in common usage and depending on which particular political analysis one has of fascism as a historic movement, it can be a very clear and well defined term.

Its not.

If Roger Griffin and the others who spend way to much time thinking about fascism cannot define it. And if like this thread suggests the traditional marxist analysis is not only incomplete but in some cases self serving.

Then I cant see fascism as having a clear definition at all.

If this is true then there are two options.

Use the power and negativity of the term as a battering ram to advance the interests of the working classes [and lets face it some on the left ARE doing this and have been for a while].

Dont use the term at all and stick to definitions that can be clearly defined.

Most of the revolutionary left of the spectrum seem to be somewhere in between.

[ashaman1324]

out of curiousity
would you define nationalism as a watered down fascism?
i would. to me elitism= fascism but this isn't the case to some people i've talked to. what are your thoughts?

[Holden Caulfield]

fascism is just end of the capitalist spectrum, it is the 'worst' and most opressive form, the other end being 'liberal social-democracy' being the most favourable (yet still massively opressive)

[Tower of Bebel]

Fascism is counterrevolution in the era of imperialism, aimed at destroying a workers' movement that has the ability to take power. It is capitalism's last resort. This analysis explains why fascism doesn't have to originate from the right (nationalism), it could also come from the left (Mussolini, the NSDAP). Though nationalism is a common feature of fascism because as a product of the crisis of capital it is bound to operate within the limits of nation states.

[Melbourne Lefty]

out of curiousity
would you define nationalism as a watered down fascism?
i would. to me elitism= fascism but this isn't the case to some people i've talked to. what are your thoughts?

Yeah thats an interesting question.

But nationalists fought against the fash, aside from the revolutionary left they fought the hardest against the fascists.

But then again when fascism happened in their own country the nationalists were only too eager to jump on the gravy train.



Fascism is counterrevolution in the era of imperialism, aimed at destroying a workers' movement that has the ability to take power. It is capitalism's last resort. This analysis explains why fascism doesn't have to originate from the right (nationalism), it could also come from the left (Mussolini, the NSDAP). Though nationalism is a common feature of fascism because as a product of the crisis of capital it is bound to operate within the limits of nation states.


thats the orthodox marxist explanation, and I think its not expansive enough because it constricts the argument to purely economic forces and the relationships between class conflicts.

If class conflict based analysis was always correct half the world would be socialist by now.

Fascism has another level. I think its something we find difficult to define for the same reason that religions are difficult to define in a class analysis, they believe in another level.

And its not like the left has not appealed to the irrational in its time. The Irrational is a powerfull force in human affairs, we may think as rational beings, but we FEEL in different ways.

Ask a fash why they join a fascist group and they might give you a few simplistic answers, which makes it look like they are blind idiots who cannot see the world around them. But look at the fash marches on Youtube, the people in those marches FEEL something that perhaps we dont.

Im just throwing this out here, has anyone ever noticed something similar?