Fascists are opposed to imperialism? Yes I'm sure that was Hitler's mindset when he invaded Poland.
Results 1 to 20 of 54
Fascist analysis of capitalism
One of the things I think about fascism is that although it was responsible for horrific crimes in the 21st century and is an evil ideology from an intellectual view fascism has more in common with communism and any other ideology than free-market capitalism because it is opposed to capitalism in theory. Fascists are opposed to imperialism like Communists are.
The fascist analysis of capitalism is that "high finance" and cosmopolitanism are wrong but petty-bourgeois "small" capitalists are not wrong to an extent.
This also leads me to question why are free-market monetarists in favour of globalization and social liberalism. For example, the economist magazine and the financial times, two organs of "high finance" and cheer leaders of the free market, regularly have articles praising equal marriage, gay rights and multiculturalism.
This leads me to a conclusion that free-market monetarists are as immoral as fascists. The number of people who die from malnutrition because of third world poverty out numbers the victims of fascism. And the number of people who die because of world trade and capitalism is greater than those who were killed by fascists. The difference between fascism and free-market monetarism is that free-market monetarism won and is winning. Fascists want a racist state because they believe it to be in societies best interests. History shows that it is not in societies best interests although you can argue that Fascists saw that it was in the best interests of who they looked after (their own race). Free-market monetarists want a free-market because they believe it to be in societies best interests but to hold that position they have to be also blind to the death, famine and conflict around them whereas fascism is at least coherent in its terror because they arguably did look after what they saw as their "own race". It seems to me that wanting the best for your own "race" is as immoral as ignoring the problems of capitalism and wanting the best for a minority of the rich to the detriment of all peoples.
In that case, worshiping capital the same way fascists worship their own race is immoral and to the detriment of society.
Last edited by Alexander99; 7th June 2013 at 17:43.
Fascists are opposed to imperialism? Yes I'm sure that was Hitler's mindset when he invaded Poland.
FKA Chomsssssssky, Skwisgaar, The Employer Destroyer, skybutton
That sounds like base apologia for the 'socialism of fools', going back to the right-wings of Social Democracy and the Comintern, people like Mussolini and Juenger; the breeding ground of contemporary 'social justice' fascism in the 'National Bolshevik'/'Third Positionist' nonsense that does nothing but draw people into support of capitalism and the worst excesses of capitalist society (the inevitable violent xenophobic and racist practice underlying this pseudo-Marxist language). It sounds like you want a way to claim to be a communist and hold on to backward, reactionary prejudices.
Being a communist means not supporting any ideologies. Not supporting recuperative efforts to make capitalism a better place. But it also means recognizing that only communism, a classless, stateless world community, can break down all of the barriers that divide people (race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality) definitively.
Some fascists dont considr Nazism fascism, for which they do have a few good points.
OK, substitute Hitler's imperialism for Franco's or Mousolini's. Makes no difference since they were all obvious imperialists.
FKA Chomsssssssky, Skwisgaar, The Employer Destroyer, skybutton
I disagree. Fascism isn't opposed to capitalism in theory nor practice. At best you can argue that its rhetoric can take slight anti-capitalist connotations but has historically emerged in the context of a strong labour movement and used to push workers away from focussing on the actual problems of capitalism and passing blame not on capitalism but on an 'other' thats invariably a cultural and/or ethnic minority.
Fascism's aim is to weaken the working class.
Seriously?
It appeals to the petit bourgeosie yet furthers the aims of the haute bourgeoisie.
You're mistaking rhetoric for policy. Free-market monetarists as you call them don't want a free-market because they believe it to be in society's best interests but because they see it as in the best interests of their class.
Modern far-rightists may spew out bullshit about how they are not imperialist/not nazi but don't let them fool you. A fascist is always social-darwinist and idealizes "nations" and "peoples" as if they were individuals. And in social-darwinist ideology there is always a conflict between all the parties involved. For a randian reactionary, the conflict happens between individuals, the fascist on the other hand sees the conflict betweenn "peoples". Of course you also have those kind of new age "traditionalist" who dissociate themselves from fascism and claim to simply worship old european culture, pagan gods, nature and whatnot but I don't include those types in the dangerous fascist category because of their lack of nationalism.
I absolutely diagree with the idea of fascists being "better" than liberals because they are more "honest". What the fuck? So a genuine liberal humanist who happens to be involved in a bad system is worse than someone who openly admits that he wants to exterminate other people? I think you would reconsider your thoughts on fascism vs. liberal-capitalism if you were living in a fascist surveillance state instead of our developed liberal nations.
Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. - V.I. Lenin
Sup again, Graffic.
Uhh, no they certainly aren't. Neither in theory nor practice.
Because capitalism needs constant growth and because they don't care who kisses who or whatever.
There's a whole lotta capitalists who are also opposed to multiculturalism and gay marriage. Taking your reasoning here, we're taking on "capitalist ideology" one way or another.
I agree, though, that "bourgeois identity politics" suck. However, what you fail (intentionally, I suspect, because I have a hard time believing people can be so thick) is that marxists have a fundamentally different approach to these social issues than liberals. You, however, just seem to look at us, see that we don't hate gay people or women or immigrants, and think that means we're coming from the same place as free-market libertarians in our thinking, which is a supremely shallow way of looking at things.
You're bad at this, Graffic. please stop.
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
But contrary to capitalist media it would seem to me that fascism has more in common with Communism than with free-market capitalism. Fascists oppose imperialism and are opposed to big business exploitation in theory. From an objective materialist analysis that holds greater moral weight than free-market capitalists who support exploitation and big business but also support gay rights and multi-culturalism.
I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what free-market monetarism is all about. When you study politics you learn to coherently explain fascism, communism, conservatism, liberalism and other ideologies but free-market monetarism is outside of all of it because it has no moral base. Its basically saying shafting everyone is fine. And what I'm saying is that from a humanitarian perspective anyone who agrees first and foremost that shafting people is fundamentally wrong, whether they be fascists or whatever, are more moral than those who think shafting people is fine, whatever else they must believe. Every single religion and philosophy acknowledges that shafting people is wrong other than free-market monetarism that appeared in the 80's.
You learn when you are a child to share and that stealing is wrong. Free-market individualism isn't just an affront to humanity, its an attack against our fundamental nature more serious than any other ideology or religion that came before it.
Why are people calling this person Graffic? Was Graffic some fascist sympathiser on here from before? If so i think it's better to assume this is a different fascist sympathiser unless there's evidence to the contrary
I'm not a fascist sympathiser. Fascism is an evil ideology.
I was saying that free-market individualism is as morally bankrupt as nationalism in theory and free-market liberalism is almost as bad as fascism.
The elite and the powerful are no longer the conservative Landed gentry who owned 3/4s of the country and provided jobs for the little people in it. The conservative landed gentry, who may have been religious, conservative and homophobic protected their own country and investment in it.
Free market individualists see politics as a way of grabbing power and making their own millions at any price to society and with no sense of duty to country. The new globalised elite don't care about ties to nation.
Theoretically although the old landed gentry were hated by the have nots, the old landed gentry did a better job at protecting their country and its people because they were moral and they did not believe in individualism. From a materialistic perspective the starting point of being moral and not believing in shafting people for your own benefit objectively outweighs any liberal tolerance of multiculturalism and gay rights.
I refuse to go a long with the bullying mockery and see a Catholic priest who spends energy helping the poor and in class struggle as a "homophobe" by a globalised secular elite who only care about themselves. From the outside it looks like a very impoverished and thin idea of social good.
The idea that anyone who believes in the tenets of free-market individualism can tell me whats "moral" or see themselves as morally superior to religious fundamentalists or fascists is completely wrong. Free-market individualism is a debased, primal ideology which makes religion look sophisticated and modern, and makes conservatism look advanced, but the media tell us individualism and "the market" is the "future".
because i'm a nerd who remembers internet arguments like a chessmaster.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/socially-l...hlight=Graffic
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
Free market monetarists and fascists are just different factions of the capitalist class. One wants monetary value defined by the free market, the other wants political and economic power to be monopolized by a particular community of humanity which will be less constrained by the travails of the market than other communities.
Socialist Party of Outer Space
And Mussolini the anti-imperialist went on a massive campaign were he took control of many Greek Islands, Balearic Islands, Albania, Libya, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia. Come on, basic shit here.
Or Franco and Western Sahara, Northern Morocco and Equatorial Guinea
Or the Estado Novo in Angola, Mozambique, Timor-Leste, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bassau and São Tomé and Príncipe.
Fascists love string up nationalist fever with 'good' old military showings abroad and the prestige of victory.
I agree but money being the source of liberty is an extremely impoverished, thin, backward anti-human idea.
The religious attitude that money is not the source of liberty and that the free-market is a bad idea is more morally entrancing and persuasive than the free-market regardless if they are opposed to gay marriage.
The idea that "liberal tolerance" resides at the apex of public morality is an effort by the powerful (because there is money behind these issues, there has to be) to encourage us so that our sense of civic morality is an almost cost-benefit analysis collectively. It is about mass consumer, collective utilitarian decisions.
No one says they "don't care either way" about a raise in taxes. People are either in favour or against. Why is it any different with equal marriage or any other issue?
The legislation on gay marriage is an extension of a libertarian elite who were given power in the 1980's and now are more powerful than the government so instead of the government governing and reigning back corporations, in globalisation the government "manages" instead. The collective utilitarian decisions are a way of managing society. When the government take ideas from the left (such as gay rights) it weakens opposition to capitalism.
Because the establishment and elite are now libertarian they are not only above Conservative ideology, but above all ideology so the government does not govern by ideology, it "manages", and the gay marriage legislation is a recent manifestation of that. Its chutzpah from corporations designed to bring out the religious and conservatives and mock them because they have no power, will lose the fight and will make the government seem "leftist" and weaken opposition to neo-liberalism.
Last edited by Alexander99; 8th June 2013 at 13:49.
The OP is confusing fascists like Mussolini (who claimed the the Mediteranian would be an Italian lake) with nationalist-populists like Metaxas. However, even people like Metaxas are ready to engage in pointless warmongering to strengthen their grip on capital in their countries and build the war propaganda up.
Hardley; compare the wages and profits at major industrial enterprises like Krupp before and after the fascist seizure of power. With the workers movement physically annihilated by the repressive-coercive, reinforced state apparatus, German industrialists increased the rate of exploitation while vastly increasing productivity through technical and scientific innovations.
History is not a battle of ideas that shape society; the free-market rhetoric of politicians in the US and Britain, the 'socialist' phraseology of Vietnam, China and Cuba, and the fascist ravings in Italy and Germany meant little to the actual practice of these regimes (who all have to act in the interest of capital accumulation- which often involves state intervention in the domestic economy).
Wait a second, I usually just read, but I call bullshit on this. The legislation comes from a raising of national conscienceness. You forget that humanity consistently takes steps towards the social ideas of equality. (albeit with missteps) blaming it totaly on the "libertarian elite" completely looks over the fact that there is a general call for Marriage to be equalized. Also, your looking into a board full of people who are probably the least elitist (I hope) friendly, who all believe it should be equalized. So your argument that this legislation comes from just our enemies is bullshit. I'm a christian, but I fucking hate religion for the very reason that your a hypocrite, and your conserving an old order of bigotry.
In short, not one person who has responded to you is a "libertarian elite" and we all want the same thing, a world without bigotry. So. Your just wrong.
Humanity, Equality, Solidarity
No because if we were still ruled by the old Conservative elite something like equal marriage wouldn't come about. Its only because of free market reforms encouraging individualism which have allowed foreign people and corporations to become more powerful affecting politics so that it does not represent ideology. The type of people in the Conservative party who would oppose this and prevent it from happening have been driven out by Libertarian, socially liberal "Conservatives" similar to the way that old Labour people have been driven out of the Labour party and replaced by "New Labour" people who are also libertarian free-market believers. Libertarianism is bourgeois ideology that does not have feudal ideology within Conservatism bogging it down, and its taken over, which is an inevitable consequence of giving power to corporations. "Gay Marriage" is a symptom of the death of old fashioned Conservative morality as a force in politics, and its been replaced with individualism and Libertarianism.
Although the parasdox is that libertarianism is an inherently elitist ideology (it does not stir crowds like Communism, nationalism and fascism do) so instead of Burkean one nation conservatives being replaced by libertarian yuppies, there simply aren't enough libertarian yuppies out there so there has been a decline of participation in politics both in voting turnout and party membership.
There has been no mass protests or marches for gay marriage like the protests for homosexual rights in the 60's and 70's, or the marches for black civil rights in the 50's and 60's because its an elitist measure enforced by a Libertarian elite which corporatises the homosexual rights struggle and weakens opposition to neo-liberalism because it makes it look as though the left are in power.
Fascism is opposed to capitalism in a way, yes. Fascism does not like the globalism and the pursuit of hedonistic, private interests rather than the interests of the collective (i.e, in the case of fascism, the nation.)
This depends on the fascist you talk to. Some are in favor of imperialism, some are not.
I agree with you. Honestly I would rather live under fascism than I would this society. At least in fascism they at least pursue the national interest.
Racist state? That depends on the fascist in question. Mussolini had a spiritual conception of race; he thought of race in the cultural sense. Franco had a racial hierarchy but his state did not treat other races badly and actually promoted race mixing. In regards to modern fascism today, there are certainly a notable amount of racist fascists, but there are also non-racist fascists who do not want a racist state. Especially American fascists.
