Left-Wing Fascism?

[Remus Bleys]

Okay, I know I am opening up a can of worms here (if it is not appropriate, then just trash it), but just say there is an ideology that takes the economic dimensions of communism (classless society where the workers own the means of production, industrialization), so it is not third-positionist, they aren't strasserites. The people are real into class war, and have a communist definition.
In regards to social views, they are fascists. They are racists, they are homophobes, sexists all the other works. They might want the community to propagate these views and not necessarily a state.
I am just wondering, are there people who have the economic views of a Marxists, and view fascism as a way to get to a specific culture? I dunno, after the New Man (or whatever they call it) they wouldn't have a need for a state.

Not that this is good or anything, but could it exist? If not, why?
And what would it be called?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Last I checked, women and non-whites are workers too. And together, they make up the majority of the earth's population in comparison to the very small minority of white males.

What you are asking is impossible. These people would be right-wing fascists fighting for a racially based class society. It's almost identical to one of the many playing cards the NSDAP liked using to take their opportunism to every wing of society (other examples being talking to crowds about how unions were the 'aryan way', before going to another more conservative town and calling unions 'communist-zionist traps', also calling the NSDAP the fight of the 'white workers' against the 'jew bankers'). Reactionary rightist nonsense that's catered to draw members of the (white) proletariat to take up arms against their fellow workers.

You also have to remember that many modern rightist and far-rightist elements in society have historically consumed and used leftist rhetoric in incorrect settings to push an agenda. Examples include the concept of a 'dolebludger leeching off of the hard-working labourer's earnings', a purposeful mutation of 'capitalist leeching off of the hard-working labourer's earnings'.

[Kingfish]

Ive heard the term National-Bolshevism being thrown around (and seen pictures of their rallies), however Im not sure if people are being serious or it is just a joke / result of photoshopping.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Ive heard the term National-Bolshevism being thrown around (and seen pictures of their rallies), however Im not sure if people are being serious or it is just a joke / result of photoshopping.

No they're real.

Russian Nazis with a hard on for Stalin and Hitler. They're physical manifestations of the myths made by American Cold-war politicians.

Trust me when I say that there are about a thousand 'communist' political parties in Russia that hold not a thread of leftist politics - a prime example being the repulsive, racist, conservative, NKVD-fetishising CPRF.

[Comrade Jacob]

I'm not sure if the "National-Bolsheviks" in Russia count, they seem to match your description. They are a bunch of tossers, communist philosophy goes against fascist philosophy.

[Comrade Jacob]

DAFAQ? Man it's like being part of a miners union and voting for Thatcher!

[Sea]

Left-wing fascism, jumbo shrimp, devout agnostic, military intelligence, microsoft works, rush limbaugh (oops), good grief, noble fool, pretty ugly, plastic silverware...

[Hexen]

"Left-Wing Fascism" is a oxymoron.

[bcbm]

just say there is an ideology that takes the economic dimensions of communism (classless society where the workers own the means of production, industrialization), so it is not third-positionist, they aren't strasserites. The people are real into class war, and have a communist definition.
In regards to social views, they are fascists. They are racists, they are homophobes, sexists all the other works. They might want the community to propagate these views and not necessarily a state.

fascism is defined by its economic views though, not sheer bigotry.

[Remus Bleys]

I was just wondering though, because I came across this:
https://www.facebook.com/fascismplus
Here is what they have to say for themselves:

We are...
Fascists PLUS we care about social justice,
Fascists PLUS we support women's rights,
Fascists PLUS we protest racism,
Fascists PLUS we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Fascists PLUS we use critical thinking and skepticism.

Are they just confused on what words mean?

[BIXX]

I was just wondering though, because I came across this:
https://www.facebook.com/fascismplus
Here is what they have to say for themselves:
Are they just confused on what words mean?

Yes , they're confused.

[ComradeOm]

Okay, I know I am opening up a can of worms here (if it is not appropriate, then just trash it), but just say there is an ideology that takes the economic dimensions of communism (classless society where the workers own the means of production, industrialization), so it is not third-positionist, they aren't strasserites. The people are real into class war, and have a communist definition

That's the inherent contradiction, right there. The key element to fascism, the real selling point, has always been its claim to relegate class divisions in favour of national unity. It presents a national solution to sectarian problems. (Often by purging society of such supposedly 'divisive' elements but hey ho.) You cannot be fascist and support a communist economic platform because that completely undermines, blatantly so, the pretence of rising above internal divisions for the benefit of the nation/volk

[Ace High]

Well in order to to considered a fascist society, class division must actually exist. Fascists simply use this strange theory of "class collaboration" as opposed to a classless society. So by pure definition, it cannot be called fascist if it advocates a classless society.

You're basically asking if leftists can be racist/homophobic/sexist, etc and still be leftists. Or at least, that's what I think you're asking. The answer is no, because the core of left wing philosophy correctly states that you have much more in common with members of your socioeconomic class than anybody else. A so-called "leftist" who is a racist is someone who is actually a fascist because they call for the complete control of a minority over the majority. A leftist literally cannot have that view and be on the left. It's actually literally impossible.

[d3crypt]

Well in order to to considered a fascist society, class division must actually exist. Fascists simply use this strange theory of "class collaboration" as opposed to a classless society. So by pure definition, it cannot be called fascist if it advocates a classless society.

You're basically asking if leftists can be racist/homophobic/sexist, etc and still be leftists. Or at least, that's what I think you're asking. The answer is no, because the core of left wing philosophy correctly states that you have much more in common with members of your socioeconomic class than anybody else. A so-called "leftist" who is a racist is someone who is actually a fascist because they call for the complete control of a minority over the majority. A leftist literally cannot have that view and be on the left. It's actually literally impossible.

Aren't Maoists class collaborationists?

[Forward Union]

Last I checked, women and non-whites are workers too. And together, they make up the majority of the earth's population in comparison to the very small minority of white males.

Fascism isn't necessarily Racist, there's nothing logically inconsistent about having a merger of corporatism and state and incorporating a mult-ethnic or multi racial workforce. Actually, Fascism was borne out of the far left. Look at the French Socialist and theorist Georges Sorel probably the key theorist of early Revolutionary Syndicalism, and a later supporter of the Russian Revolutions he wrote in an open letter "Lenin may with good right be proud of what his comrades have done; the Russian workers have to their eternal glory begun to realize what was hitherto only an abstract idea" He's interesting because he's not only remembered as the necessary theorist of Revolutionary Syndicalism and certain strains of Anarchism, but also of Fascism. Don't believe it? Hear it from the horses mouth:

“I owe most to Georges Sorel. This master of Syndicalism by his rough theories of revolutionary tactics has contributed most to form the discipline, energy and power of the fascist cohorts" - Benito Mussolini

It's an uncomfortable quote isn't it?. But let's not be mistaken here, Sorel was quite a confused man. He suggested once that revolutionary Syndicalists align themselves with the Monarchy. Lenin once said of him "There are people who can give thought to absurdity; to that class belongs the notorious muddlehead, Georges Sorel" I think 'notorious muddlehead' is kindly worded. There's no doubt that Fascism was a movement used by the Bourgeoisie to crush the European Labour movement, but it's philosophical roots come from a bastardization of some of the romantic (in the philosophical sense) elements of our movement.

[Ace High]

Aren't Maoists class collaborationists?

If Maoists are class collaborationists then they are are not leftists. Leftists aim for the elimination of class. Simple as that. Just as many people strangely believe Stalin to be a leftist, which I don't think he was.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Fascism isn't necessarily Racist, there's nothing logically inconsistent about having a merger of corporatism and state and incorporating a mult-ethnic or multi racial workforce. Actually, Fascism was borne out of the far left.

Uh, i don't think using pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric is the same as being "born(e?) out of the far left". I don't think Mussolini saying he was inspired by this or that (maybe-not-so-much-but-at-least-self-proclaimed) revolutionary socialist makes him so. Fascism wasn't born out of the far left, fascism was capital's reaction to the revolutionary situation from around 17-18 and into the twenties. So it was very much born out of capital, not the far left.

I also think that although fascism doesn't have to be fascist, its historical examples very much are, and the self-proclaimed non-racist tendencies of fascism are incredibly small.

[Zukunftsmusik]

If Maoists are class collaborationists then they are are not leftists. Leftists aim for the elimination of class. Simple as that. Just as many people strangely believe Stalin to be a leftist, which I don't think he was.

except that leftism generally means left of capital. I don't think communists are leftists as it's commonly understood, and I don't think most people calling themselves leftists aim to eliminate class - or if they do, they think it's possible simply through participating in parliament.

[d3crypt]

If Maoists are class collaborationists then they are are not leftists. Leftists aim for the elimination of class. Simple as that. Just as many people strangely believe Stalin to be a leftist, which I don't think he was.

I agree that maoist are not leftists. But the general consensus is that they are.

[Forward Union]

Uh, i don't think using pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric is the same as being "born(e?) out of the far left". I don't think Mussolini saying he was inspired by this or that (maybe-not-so-much-but-at-least-self-proclaimed) revolutionary socialist makes him so. Fascism wasn't born out of the far left, fascism was capital's reaction to the revolutionary situation from around 17-18 and into the twenties. So it was very much born out of capital, not the far lef.

Welll we need to Separate fascism as a theory from as a practice. Sorel is one example of a theorist taking a path from Syndicalism to fascism (maybe I didn't make it clear but Sorel lived long enough to witness Mussolinis rise and openly supported him to). He didn't suddenly reject his entire worlview - within his earlier thinking's were the tools to justify fascism. Do you know how fascism actually came to exist as a distinct philosophy? Sorel along with other revolutionary theorists like Berth and Valois and Henri Lagrange founded a nationalist (in the early, revolutionary French sense of the term 'nationaliste') discussion circle in Paris which was open to non-nationalists who were anti-democratic, "Anarchists" of some sorts and Revolutionary Syndicalists. This proto-fascist think tank was called the "Cercle Proudhon" Or the Proudhon Circle and began developing some very bizzare concepts about Proletarian Morality, about how some nations embody revolutionary principals which are being 'rotted' by the domestic bourgeoisie, how Marxism is comparable Christianity and is against the real interests of the working class etc. They shifted slowly from the Idea that the Unions were the revolutionary bodies to the idea that some nations were more revolutionary than others, and that the Marxists were not able to defend these revolutionary national identities - so the Union movement ought to do it. I should say that I am summarize this to such an extent that what I am saying is almost wrong - but it's not and it gives you an overview of what happened.

This group did have some (SOME) influence amongst Labour organisers, in Italy for example "a number of Italian revolutionary syndicalists including Arturo Labriola, Agostino Lanzillo, Angelo Oliviero Olivetti, and Sergio Panunzio sought to unify the Italian nationalist cause with the syndicalist cause and had entered into contact with Italian nationalist figures such as Enrico Corradini" they tried to unite around "the rejection of bourgeois values" and defined Italy as "a proletarian nation". The Utopian and Romantic element of this rejected of Marxist materialism and lead them to list Marxism as one of the enemies of the "Proletarian Nation" (emphasis on the Nation more than the 'proletarian') you ca see how a series of baby steps can take you from one place to the other. Fascism in Italy did actually give Unions decision making power in the running of corporations as well as implimenting the 8 hour day and a minimum wage.

Fascism was first developed by Revolutionary Syndicalists and Anarchists in France. Not that Anarchism and Syndicalism have anything to do with the end result of that process; Fascism. They are incomparable political and economic systems. But I wasn't suggesting otherwise. The reality is that the international ruling class used Fascism as a tool to completely obliterate the real workers movements in Europe, so whatever its origins or development the result was what it was.