NOT Only is it a branch of Capitalist private property and capitalist way of production, it was supported and financed by Capital to Save Capitalism. Fascism = domestic "War Capitalism" running from "War Communism".
Results 41 to 60 of 110
You know what it sounds like to me? Otto Rühle. Some anarchist gave me all these links to books and I went through them. Basically the message i got from these is "Bolshevism=Fascism('and the first needs to be fought to defeat the latter'...)". Supposedly the Italian fascists were really LEFT Wing and came from the communist tradition (ignoring the fact that the reality is that they were lumpenproletariat). I know, What The Fuck! The second was about how Che Guevara was an evil murderer and really a proto-Fascist. Arguments used were that he was romantic (essentially the point, although not worded like that) and believed in masculinity and fighting the oppressors, and believed that there needs to be a hierarchy of knowledge, Che: "Fidel [Castro] knows more than me, so i listen to him. I know more than you [speaking to uneducated peasant revolutionaries in Bolivia] so you listen to me". Yes, this is obviously Fascism... I swear, some anarchists are real idiots.
"It is necessary for Communists to enter into contradiction with the consciousness of the masses. . . The problem with these Transitional programs and transitional demands, which don't enter into any contradiction with the consciousness of the masses, or try to trick the masses into entering into the class struggle, create soviets - [is that] it winds up as common-or-garden reformism or economism." - Mike Macnair, on the necessity of the Minimum and Maximum communist party Program.
"You're lucky. You have a faith. Even if it's only Karl Marx" - Richard Burton
NOT Only is it a branch of Capitalist private property and capitalist way of production, it was supported and financed by Capital to Save Capitalism. Fascism = domestic "War Capitalism" running from "War Communism".
"It is necessary for Communists to enter into contradiction with the consciousness of the masses. . . The problem with these Transitional programs and transitional demands, which don't enter into any contradiction with the consciousness of the masses, or try to trick the masses into entering into the class struggle, create soviets - [is that] it winds up as common-or-garden reformism or economism." - Mike Macnair, on the necessity of the Minimum and Maximum communist party Program.
"You're lucky. You have a faith. Even if it's only Karl Marx" - Richard Burton
Has anyone read the Charter of Carnaro? Just wondering cos according to the wiki article it "combined anarchist, proto-fascist, and democratic republican ideas" so I guess it might be considered to be "Left-Fascist"
One of the authors, Alceste De Ambris, was also a prominent Syndicalist and Unionist, but a big influence on Mussolini (whose regime he became an opponent of)
Last edited by Bronco; 29th March 2012 at 02:07.
Anyone will have to admit article 64 concerning music (!) is quite charming.
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err.
Most fascists came from the Left. They were former Socialists or Communists. Here is a list:
France: Jacques Doirot led the Fascist Party Populaire Francais. He was a devout Communist prior to that. He collaborated with Hitler during the occupation. He was also a member of Parliament.
Marcel Deat was elected to Parliament as a Socialist but quarreled with Leon Blum, a French statesman who became Prime Minister in 1936. He then left and helped form the Parti Socialiste de France (Socialist Party of France) and was an admirer of German National Socialism. Needless to say, he collaborated with the Nazi regime after France fell.
Belgium: There was a number of Fascist groups that were all proworker and anticapitalist. The most notable case was that of Henry de Man who became the President of the Socialist Party. He did not claim to be Fascist. However, he flirted with Fascists, exchanging warm letters with Mussolini. Also, when Belgium fell to the Nazis, he warmly welcomed them. He called the Belgium defeat as a “deliverance from capitalist plutocracy.” He called upon his comrades to cooperate with the Nazis to “realize the sovereignty of Labor.” When the Germans invaded Belgium, he urged his people not to resist. He said, “For the working-class and for the socialism, this annihilation of a decayed world is not a disaster but a deliverance.”
Hungary:
Ferenc Szalasi founded the Hungarian National Socialist Party which was later banned. He was able to get support for his cause by adopting views that appealed to the industrial workers and the lower economic classes. He became leader of the Arrow Cross Party. He also collaborated with the Nazis.
Norway: Vidkun Quisling attempted to establish the Red Guards for the Labor and Communist parties before becoming a Fascist and forming the National Union Party. He was so notorious in his collaboration with the Nazis that his name entered the English language as a synonym for “traitor.”
United Kingdom: Sir Oswald Mosley was a former Labour MP and the youngest member of the Labour cabinet. He broke with his party to protest its failure to intervene more vigorously in the economy. With other disaffected leftists he founded the more radical New Party, which later merged with the Imperial Fascist League to form the Union, which changed its name in 1936 to the British Union of Fascists and National Socialists.
Germany: Anton Drexler founded the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Drexler abandoned the Social Democratic Party, which was not nationalistic enough for him, and joined the Fatherland Party, which he eventually left. He felt that the Fatherland Party lacked concern for workers. That’s when he decided to form the German Workers’ Party. A few months later, Adolph Hitler joined and the name was changed to National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Hitler had considered himself a Socialist and never claimed to be a Fascist, though that term is commonly applied to him. His combination of nationalism and Socialism qualifies him to be a Fascist in my view.
Fascists and Socialists/Communists are cut from the same cloth. The same pathology that created one also created the other. I consider fascism to be a variant of Socialism.
Last edited by Genghis; 31st March 2012 at 12:48.
I am wondering why you aren't restricted yet.
Fascism was a reaction to socialism. I don't think you quite understand how either came about, or what either of them mean.
Da Fok?
don't worry. i have restricted myself to OI.
That's the leftist party line. But is it true?
Many disagree. I suggest you read this book:
Liberal fascism by Jonah Goldberg.
Here is a quote:
1. otto ruhle was a marxist not an anarchist. a great marxist in fact.
2. comparing ruhle to beck would be bordering on offensive if it wasn't so laughable (and actually i quite like beck for a laugh so i'll let that slip).
3. ruhle's 'the struggle against fascism begins with the struggle against bolshevism', the text i assume you are referring to, only mentions italy in passing and was written when che guevara was like ten or something, so fuck knows why you have shoehorned him into your little narrative.
4. the young mussolini was in the psi, if i'm not mistaken quite a radical faction of it, and syndicalism cannot be seperated from the history of fascism in italy, so while it's untrue to say italian fascism emerged from communism, it's certainly not questionable that it had its routes in part of the italian left. (but as i said, ruhle isn't concerned with this so there's not point even commenting on it).
read it again, you seemed to miss the point massively the first time:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/ruhle/1939/ruhle01.htm
Until now, the left has only managed capital in various ways; the point, however, is to destroy it.
You don't really take such ridiculous piece of ignorant ranting in serious, do you?
Luís Henrique
I guess if you are literally a baby you would think that despite the fact that they are diametrically opposed.
I think it's fair to say that they're both sort of a reaction to liberal democracy but they took two very different positions on it and if you don't recognize this then, well, frankly, i don't think you are very 1) honest 2) smart 3) both of those things.
Last edited by #FF0000; 3rd April 2012 at 12:30.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
They're both a reaction to intensified class struggle, but their similarities end there I'm afraid. It's like saying water and carbon monoxide are similar because they both have oxygen atoms.
You know it's pretty sad when communists get lumped in with fascists or blamed for scaring people into fascism, considering how many communists died fighting against it.
But hey if we are talking about people who joined the fascist parties lets not forget all the liberals, military leaders, and even business owners who also abandoned their principles for opportunistic gain.
Now while that doesn't excuse the cravenly conduct of those leftists who switched sides, it certainly does prove that it wasn't some comfortable affinity between the communists and fascists that made going over so easy. It was the atmosphere of the time which saw fascism triumphing and all other alternatives being denigrated as "ineffective". Some saw defeat and decided to either flee or negotiate the best terms possible given their individual situations.
If the Left can be faulted for anything it is the insidious belief in historical inevitability that forced the remaining communists into inactivity and eventual arrest and execution.
Not that this will get through to anyone who equates fascism with communism because they most likely ascribe to that hysterical brand of triumphalist horse shit that passes as political philosophy and analysis of history these days. A tradition that was inaugurated by Karl Popper in his 2 volume work The Open Society and Its Enemies. (Though I might add that Karl Popper was an honest and intelligent man who at least tried to engage Karl Marx's theories openly and every attempt since his has seen a marked decline in quality. Especially since the fall of the wall.)
It is quite useful in it's practical applications because it can be used to brand any social movement or popular resistance as "Totalitarian".
But now we must pick up every piece
Of the life we used to love
Just to keep ourselves
At least enough to carry on
[QUOTE]It is isn't just a question of looking for the actual, enrolled party members who perhaps left the Communist Party and joined the National Socialist Party (which happened quite frequently during the 20s. After he was elected chancellor, Hitler allowed ONLY former Communist Party to enroll in the browns, as they had the "right stuff" for "revolution"). Its also looking at patterns of who voted for whom, when and where. So when one sees Tuscanny, in Italy, swing from being very red to very brown, very quickly (and the reverse after 1945) its obvious that the people on the ground saw no great diametric opposition.
Its a great myth to to claim that the rise of fascism was the result of some sort of conspiracy. The Italian Communist Party in Italy was about the largest in Europe in the early 20s. Why were they so ineffective in resisting Musolini? Because as the chairman of that party himself said, all the workers joined the browns
It is true the rise of fascism is impossible to conceive without the victory of the reds in Moscow. But I think its rather dishonest of leftists, who like to brag about how diverse of though and ideas their project is, to complain about the unfairness of non-Leftsis in taking them at their word.
If "historical inevitability" is correct, then the actions, or "inactions," of the communists was entirely logical and reasonable. And while the National Socialists believed in historical inevitability, they differed as they sought to take steps to ensure it. They, after all, had presented themselves as being a more "effective" alternative to the socialism arising in Moscow.
It probably would do no good here to remind people that the National Socialists claimed that they were seeking to protect the Germans from the onslaughts of the Jews, Versailles ect ect ect. The National Socialists were "resisting" those forces who sought to grind down the Germans. And the National Socialists were of course "popular" (at least until perhaps 1941-42).
This is a blatant LIE. Are you trying to turn it into truth by Goebbelsian repetition? Where did you find such piece of disinformation?
Luís Henrique
yo i am going to have to see evidence of this
It would be hella interesting to see a source for this since the exact opposite is true from everything I have ever ready in my life ever.
And their failure everywhere else in Europe.
Well it isn't, which is the point.
Yo I am 110% sure the nazis presenting themselves as strongmen who could contain the madness that was Germany in the 1930s has more to do with it than how they looked compared to the leadership of Russia.
But in the end all of this is kind of silly since uh no one has yet explained to me how 'internationalism, classless society' is similar to 'rigid, hierarchical nationalism, flagrant anti-egalitarianism'. I mean, shit, even Hayek had the intellectual rigor to be able to tell the difference (and credit Fascism with saving western europe)
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
Gustav Krupp was a commie, get over it.
More commies:
Proud fighters against fascism:
-Jose Doussinague
Hmm, which segment of the American population is wealthy enough to carry one side to victory in a war that encompassed the entire Spanish population, the USSR, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Mexico, Ireland and German partisans? The working class of course!
I wasn't trying to imply that Fascism was a conspiracy, rather I was trying to show its popularity gave it an overwhelming moral and intellectual force that people of all political persuasions were unable to combat. Rather than fight it, most chose capitulation and while I wouldn't expect much from liberals or businessmen, the communists should have known better. I have no doubt it was the aforementioned belief in historical inevitability that led to some trying to ride the wave of history in a nihilistic attempt to just "get by."
But If I could speak in their defense, some of the best minds of the left were imprisoned or killed by the large scale repression that was carried out by the Italian and German fascists. In fact the first occupants of the concentration camps were leftists. To say they were the exact same or two sides of the same totalitarian coin is a lie that has grown steadily since the end of World War II. It started with the correct observation that both fascism and communism had Hegelian roots and has gotten more dishonest with each passing year.
It is a dishonest political philosophy that attempts to paint the communists and national socialists with the same brush. The argument goes that both are political programmes of hatred which subscribe to a one villain theory of history. They take the ignorant masses (I should note here that a lot of liberals and conservatives today have lost that humanitarian creed so essential to politics and have become cynically elitist.) and mold their desires and passions, not into rational politics, but irrational destruction.
They both identified "enemies" of course, but the communists had the distinction of blaming the people who were actually in charge!
But now we must pick up every piece
Of the life we used to love
Just to keep ourselves
At least enough to carry on
