Fascism as a result of failures of the left

[Rooster]

It is of my understanding that fascism results from a failure of the left to take over the narrative in regards to economic and social crises. Before Hitler and Mussolini, there were strong left movements. But in modern days, the left have become much more marginalised because I think we have failed to show our own narrative to the situation. We have gotten a rise in right wing groups in Europe, over things like immigration and work, the failures of liberalism and even Communist Parties has resulted in fundamentalist Islamic groups, the Spanish Civil War and very nearly, the Russian Civil War. Just to say that fascism is reactionary ignores the revolutionary aspects of it.

Well without a doubt fascism and "extreme" elements in general get a bit of a boost when the economy's in a bad way, but I don't think we have to worry about the BNP ever taking the majority without the pressure of a working class revolt forcing the bourgeoisie into throwing their lot in with the Fascists.

But who knows and we are digressing.

The fact is, while the BNP have increased their base, the left have decreased and have become more fractured. The main base of the BNP are people who used to vote along class lines, such as Old Labour and what not, but now they vote BNP or Conservative. I think this says a lot about how we have failed to take advantage of the situation. Why is this the case? Is it because it's impossible (or at least, very difficult) for the left to mobilise these days? Is it because most people believe we live in the "end of history"?

I'm also interested in the main ideas of what fascism is. Are these ideas connected?

By the by, I'm not against religion, I just don't think the enemy of our enemy is our friend is a good enough argument for supporting for religious groups just because they're anti-capitalist.

[#FF0000]

The fact is, while the BNP have increased their base, the left have decreased and have become more fractured. The main base of the BNP are people who used to vote along class lines, such as Old Labour and what not, but now they vote BNP or Conservative. I think this says a lot about how we have failed to take advantage of the situation. Why is this the case? Is it because it's impossible (or at least, very difficult) for the left to mobilise these days? Is it because most people believe we live in the "end of history"?

Mhm, well I wouldn't say that Fascism needs a strong leftist movement around just to exist. Fascist groups can exist with or without a militant working class threatening capitalism. What I meant to say is that Fascism really can't take power without a strong working class movement (This has been the case historically, at least). The BNP might get a lot more support and groups like the EDL might pop up, but I think it's safe to say that they won't be taking power, and we won't have governments falling to Fascism anytime soon. Liberal democracy is just working too well for the ruling class.

And, as for the question of why working class people are moving to the right and voting BNP or Conservative or whatever, I think it's just reflective of the state of the class struggle at the present time, and I don't think there's much we can do as Leftists or as Communists or as Revolutionaries. Like I said in the other thread, I don't think it's the job of Revolutionaries to try and create struggle.

[Tommy4ever]

Fascism is essentially a reaction against two forces:

Marxism (or leftism in general if you like)

and Liberal laissez faire capitalism

When Fascism arose in Europe capitalism was in a state of collapse (Great Depression) and it seemed clear to many that liberalism could not hold back the tide of the Left. Marxism aimed to topple this seemingly weak system and this terrified people.

Fascism promised a alternative to a discredited ideology in collapse (Liberalism) and the terrifying change of Marxism. Whilst often blustering about defeating ''high finance'' and Marxism Fascism was an ideology to protect the old order.

The state, the coporation and the church were to unite in order to strengthen all three.

As for the blame of the Left. Well you can blame the Left in the sense that Fascism was a reaction against it. But really we must be blamed for our division. In Germany the abject failure of the KPD and SPD (both are to blame equally) to work together was one of the most important reasons for the successful assention to power of the Nazi Party. The divisions in the Left in Spain are well docuemented. I am unsure about the situation of the Left in Italy but I assume that it was similar.

The BNP isn't fascist. Just because something is racist and reactionary doesn't mean it is fascist. However you have the reasons for its relative rise (3% of the vote in the General Election and 6% in the European Election) are pretty accurate. Essentially a significant portion of the working class has become dissatisfied with Labour's abandonment of them and are starting to look for a new party with their interests at heart. As the British far left is pretty impotent the BNP is regarded as a good option by many.

Finally we move on to Islamism - its rise is suprisingly similar to the rise of fascism in Europe in the 20s and 30s. In the Islamic world the collapsing force of Liberalism is represented by the tyrannical capitalistic dictatorships that the West has long backed. Traditionally the opponent to a force such as this should be the Left. However the Left has proven itself impotent in overthrowing these regimes and holding the interests of the people of the region at heart. People wanting liberation from these regimes are thus sent into the arms of radical Islamism. The Western powers hardly help the situation with their aggressive foriegn policy in the region which helps galvanise the Islamists against a perceived invading enemy.

[#FF0000]

The BNP isn't fascist.

This is p. much true, I think. They are ultranationalist and all that, but I don't think they are fascist as per the classical definition of it.

It makes me wonder what constitutes Fascism in the modern day?

[h0m0revolutionary]

I think it's far too easy to blame the left for the rise of the far-right. I mean sure the left's shit attitude towards tackling the far-right plays a part (UAF "nazi scum" etc etc) and a left that is more interested in building their sect group than taking a meaningful part in industrial and community agitation doesn't help either. But the short-comings of the left aren't the main reason the far-right is growing at our expense.

The far-left (or at least most of us *sectarian jibe*) are anti-establishment, we are at odds with the state, we seek a complete transformation of society and to greater or lesser extents, oppose capitalism. That is not the same of the far right - rather the far-right are part and parcel of capitalism, they serve many functions within a liberal democratic [capitalist] state, they police the working class at no cost to the bourgeoisie (enforcing traditional social attitudes), they challenge, often physically, revolutionary activity but of course their most obvious function is exactly why we can contrast the states oppression of the left (unions, self-activity, left wing parties) with that of the far-right.

Fascism is useful to the capitalist class in a way communism is not, when faced with an upsurge in class consciousness and subsequently a threat to the status quo and the rule of profit accumulation, the capitalist class rely on fascism, as a last resort, to destory the workers movement and restore order in ther interests of capital.

So it's not entirely our fault, but there are many, many shortcomings of the left we could do without. But in this analysis, i'd argue our fixation on anti-fascist work is just such a shortcoming, capitalism and fascism are 'two cheeks of the same arse' (to misuse a Galloway quote ). We'd do better to remmeber that and fight consistantly for communism rather than watered down anti-fascism under the guise of 'united fronts'.

[Rooster]

Mhm, well I wouldn't say that Fascism needs a strong leftist movement around just to exist. Fascist groups can exist with or without a militant working class threatening capitalism.

I'm of the opinion that fascism and socialism have the most potential to install their own narrative at the times of greatest economic crisis. Not as a result of a strong working class movement. Look over the last couple of years. The rise of neo-nazi groups and right wing ultra-nationalism came about with a lack of working class movement.

What I meant to say is that Fascism really can't take power without a strong working class movement (This has been the case historically, at least). The BNP might get a lot more support and groups like the EDL might pop up, but I think it's safe to say that they won't be taking power, and we won't have governments falling to Fascism anytime soon. Liberal democracy is just working too well for the ruling class.

True enough, but we're all about class struggle against capitalism. The fact the the left have failed over the board compared to right wing groups shows otherwise. They're more able to work within the Liberal democratic frame work than we appear to. What went wrong? Looking back over my local area's voting turn out, you'd get things like the revolutionary workers party, the communist party, the socialist workers party, getting large amounts of votes. Now there's nothing. You'd be lucky to get half or even a quarter of that these days.

And, as for the question of why working class people are moving to the right and voting BNP or Conservative or whatever, I think it's just reflective of the state of the class struggle at the present time, and I don't think there's much we can do as Leftists or as Communists or as Revolutionaries. Like I said in the other thread, I don't think it's the job of Revolutionaries to try and create struggle.

I think there is a lot we can do. The people today are the same people from 20 years ago. I think the main problem is that much of the left has alienated itself from it's base. Something which right wing groups have seized upon.

[Rooster]

Lol, shit. I have to go to bed for work tomorrow and I only managed to reply to one post. I'll try to get back to this after work.

[Pravda Soyuz]

Lenin-"Fascism is capitalism in decay."

[danyboy27]

fascism is verry often the result of the failure of capitalism itself.

Its the self correcting method of capitalism.

WHen capitalism spin out of control, anger become widespread and its only a matter of time before an entrepreneur who have a lot of ressources use that to take over the contry and put the economy ''under control''

the end result, after ton of death and the end of the regime is a more stable capitalist system.

Spain, germany, Italy, Portugal, the end result was pretty similar for everyone.


Fascist is basicly the RESET button of capitalism.

See how insane it is?

[Rooster]

Fascism is essentially a reaction against two forces:

Marxism (or leftism in general if you like)

and Liberal laissez faire capitalism

When Fascism arose in Europe capitalism was in a state of collapse (Great Depression) and it seemed clear to many that liberalism could not hold back the tide of the Left. Marxism aimed to topple this seemingly weak system and this terrified people.

Fascism promised a alternative to a discredited ideology in collapse (Liberalism) and the terrifying change of Marxism. Whilst often blustering about defeating ''high finance'' and Marxism Fascism was an ideology to protect the old order.

The state, the coporation and the church were to unite in order to strengthen all three.

As for the blame of the Left. Well you can blame the Left in the sense that Fascism was a reaction against it. But really we must be blamed for our division. In Germany the abject failure of the KPD and SPD (both are to blame equally) to work together was one of the most important reasons for the successful assention to power of the Nazi Party. The divisions in the Left in Spain are well docuemented. I am unsure about the situation of the Left in Italy but I assume that it was similar.

I think this is historically at Stalin's feet for calling all other left parties "fascists" at the time.

The BNP isn't fascist. Just because something is racist and reactionary doesn't mean it is fascist. However you have the reasons for its relative rise (3% of the vote in the General Election and 6% in the European Election) are pretty accurate. Essentially a significant portion of the working class has become dissatisfied with Labour's abandonment of them and are starting to look for a new party with their interests at heart. As the British far left is pretty impotent the BNP is regarded as a good option by many.

Explain to me your idea of fascism then. I'm pretty interested.

Finally we move on to Islamism - its rise is suprisingly similar to the rise of fascism in Europe in the 20s and 30s. In the Islamic world the collapsing force of Liberalism is represented by the tyrannical capitalistic dictatorships that the West has long backed. Traditionally the opponent to a force such as this should be the Left. However the Left has proven itself impotent in overthrowing these regimes and holding the interests of the people of the region at heart. People wanting liberation from these regimes are thus sent into the arms of radical Islamism. The Western powers hardly help the situation with their aggressive foriegn policy in the region which helps galvanise the Islamists against a perceived invading enemy.

I'm just going on what I know. Afghanistan was a largely secular country during the.... 70s? where it had a powerful communist party in charge. I'm too tired to look this up but: communist party > liberal stuff + America + taliban > a repressive state. I'm trying to best to answer this but I'm guffed from work. It was the failure of that particular state's CP and left to counter act fundamentalism. The same can be said for any number of Arab countries.

[Rooster]

fascism is verry often the result of the failure of capitalism itself.

And socialism should be the solution, but why isn't it taken as such?

Its the self correcting method of capitalism.

Hmm, I think that's dismissing the revolutionary aspects of it. Many corporations and capitalists were waved aside during Nazism and such, for the good of the state.

WHen capitalism spin out of control, anger become widespread and its only a matter of time before an entrepreneur who have a lot of ressources use that to take over the contry and put the economy ''under control''

the end result, after ton of death and the end of the regime is a more stable capitalist system.

Spain, germany, Italy, Portugal, the end result was pretty similar for everyone.

I think that's a generalisation and I don't think those countries experienced exactly the same thing. Spain was more of a religious conservative, Italy a corporate state, Germany a militaristic state based on race and I'm not too sure on Portugal. But, in Spain, Germany and Italy, there were large communist parties trying to implement their own rule.

See how insane it is?

The world is a pretty crazy place sometimes, comrade.

[Tommy4ever]

Explain to me your idea of fascism then. I'm pretty interested.

Okey dokey.

An all embracing all encompassing state. The most important facet of Fascism is the ideal of unifying church, state and corporation. Mussolini is claimed that fascism would be better labeled as coportationism. This is basically my definition of fascism, that said there are several other prominent characteristics:

Ultra-Nationalism
Militarism
Expansioism
The creation of a national fraternity (in the article I posted in the other thread this is described like a US college fratnerity emcompassing the entire nation)
The hatred of a significant minority in society - this is linked directly to the fraternity idea above. Essentially the minority (in Germany they were Jews) is a group that is excluded from the fraternity and believed to be a direct threat to it - this is the root of the hatred of the minority.
Populism
Anti-Socialism

That's what I call fascism. The BNP shares many characteristics, yet the most important part of fascism (the idea of the unification of state, church and corporation) is not present.

[renzo_novatore]

In my opinion, fascism arose when the left was indeed needed the most. But, as Wilhelm Reich had pointed out, although a left revolution was needed desperately, seeing how capitalism and liberalism had failed, the authoritarian upbringing of people prevented them from being able to accept the type of freedom that a revolution would bring and indeed people were too afraid to overthrow their capitalist masters because of this upbringing. So, it wasn't only the fault of the left, it was the fault of the people themselves. Fascism was a mass movement. I think it's wrong to say that it was simply just the way for the bourgeoisie to reinforce themselves. It wasn't necessarily about that - the people wanted the bourgeoisie to remain in power. They didn't want freedom. I mean, we're dealing with thousands of years of being taught to hate freedom and to be scared of freedom. The masses felt anxiety with the possibility of a revolution, but at the same time, there was indeed a huge economic depression that had made everyone impoverished, include the petite bourgeoisie. That's why the Nazis were able to combine one of the most reactionary ideas (nationalism) with one of the most liberating ideas (socialism).

I mean, the Italian people loved Mussolini - and he was telling them that freedom was a bad thing and that the 20th century shall be the century of authority. Kinda tells you something's up with the people who cheered at that.

Not to say that a revolution is impossible. We've just got to fight against the logic of authority and show people the limitless possibilities that are available for them when they live in freedom.

[Baseball]

It is of my understanding that fascism results from a failure of the left to take over the narrative in regards to economic and social crises. Before Hitler and Mussolini, there were strong left movements. But in modern days, the left have become much more marginalised because I think we have failed to show our own narrative to the situation. We have gotten a rise in right wing groups in Europe, over things like immigration and work, the failures of liberalism and even Communist Parties has resulted in fundamentalist Islamic groups, the Spanish Civil War and very nearly, the Russian Civil War. Just to say that fascism is reactionary ignores the revolutionary aspects of it.



The fact is, while the BNP have increased their base, the left have decreased and have become more fractured. The main base of the BNP are people who used to vote along class lines, such as Old Labour and what not, but now they vote BNP or Conservative. I think this says a lot about how we have failed to take advantage of the situation. Why is this the case? Is it because it's impossible (or at least, very difficult) for the left to mobilise these days? Is it because most people believe we live in the "end of history"?

Perhaps part of the problem is the assumption that there is a tremendous philosophical, ideological, political divide between fascism and socialism.
That assumption might explain the difficulty in understanding why workers and the 'working class' seems so often to be attracted to fascism.
Look to what 'unites' fascism and socialism, rather than what divides it.

[#FF0000]

Perhaps part of the problem is the assumption that there is a tremendous philosophical, ideological, political divide between fascism and socialism.

Er, but there is. Fascism is idealist and Socialism is materialist, which puts them in different worlds from the get go. Then, Fascists are ultra-nationalist, traditionally support National Syndicalism as an economic model, and are based on the idea of class collaboration, with every class taking their place in the hierarchy for the well being of the Nation.

Meanwhile Socialism is internationalist, support, er, Socialism, and are based on the idea of class warfare with the Working Class overthrowing the ruling class, and removing the barriers to control over the means of production.

What is similar?

[Ocean Seal]

This is p. much true, I think. They are ultranationalist and all that, but I don't think they are fascist as per the classical definition of it.

It makes me wonder what constitutes Fascism in the modern day?

I don't really know much about the BNP but I think that they describe themselves as both fascists and white nationalists.
At least according to their wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nationalist_Party

[zeppelin935]

italian fascism rose the ashes of a tattered left benito was himself a socialist before starting fascism, fascism and communism are neither left nor right but command economic government systems that should embrace if the want to have any possibility of overthrowing capitalists. the only reason they consider themselves polar opposits is because the are competeing for a finite number of people to follow their simular but differant doctrines. the true polar opposite of a totalitarian fascists or communists is a libertarain, for the libertarian doesnt believe the socialist when they say thay you can organization and freedom he believes them to be contradictory

[#FF0000]

Benito Mussolini was never a "socialist" as we would understand it. He was one of the so-called socialists who had a hard-on for nationalism and world war 1.

fascism and communism are neither left nor right but command economic government systems that should embrace if the want to have any possibility of overthrowing capitalists.

lol yeah dude. United Fronts with capitalists end with us dead in rivers, so I could just imagine what a "United Front" with Fascists would do for us.

This nonsense. Please.

[Baseball]

Benito Mussolini was never a "socialist" as we would understand it. He was one of the so-called socialists who had a hard-on for nationalism and world war 1.

Mussolini was a rising star not only in Italian socialist circles but in European ones, prior to WW I (he had also received an honorary degree at I believe University of Lausane). Mussolini had written a wrote a study of John Hus, praising his nationalism, sentiments which the Czeck National Socialist Party shared (the latter having been formed as a result of a schism within the Czeck Social Democratic Party). The notion that socialism, in general, has been, or is hostile to nationalism, is baseless.

[#FF0000]

Mussolini was a rising star not only in Italian socialist circles but in European ones, prior to WW I (he had also received an honorary degree at I believe University of Lausane). Mussolini had written a wrote a study of John Hus, praising his nationalism, sentiments which the Czeck National Socialist Party shared (the latter having been formed as a result of a schism within the Czeck Social Democratic Party). The notion that socialism, in general, has been, or is hostile to nationalism, is baseless.

There have been strands of socialism that have been friendly to nationalism. I'm not denying that. However, Marxist Socialism, or the socialism anyone on this forum has to do with, is opposed to Nationalism.

And he was a rising star amongst the weird sort of utopian nationalist syndicalists that were in the party, but he was not universally liked. He was taken off the staff of Avanti, if I remember correctly. He definitely ended up being expelled from the Italian Socialist Party, though.

How about you respond to my other post, too?