Thread: On the right-wing complaint of "Why is Marxism more acceptable than fascism?"

Results 1 to 8 of 8

  1. #1
    Join Date May 2007
    Posts 4,646
    Rep Power 81

    Default On the right-wing complaint of "Why is Marxism more acceptable than fascism?"

    I wrote this elsewhere, but I figure I'd post it here as well.
    ----------
    I'll use the United States as an example.

    The Communist Club of New York, founded in 1857, required its members to "recognize the complete equality of all persons—no matter of whatever color or sex." The first Marxists in this country were active in the abolitionist movement, campaigned for Lincoln, and fought in the Union Army. Marxism has continued to be associated with the struggle for Black civil and economic rights, such as the founding of the NAACP being partly the work of Florence Kelley and other Marxists, and the major role of the Communist Party in defending the Scottsboro Boys. MLK noted in one of his last speeches that, "We cannot talk of Dr. [W.E.B.] Du Bois without recognizing that he was a radical all of his life. Some people would like to ignore the fact that he was a Communist in his later years. . . It is time to cease muting the fact that Dr. Du Bois was a genius and chose to be a Communist. Our irrational, obsessive anti-communism has led us into too many quagmires to be retained as if it were a mode of scientific thinking."

    As early as 1853 Marxists in the US were organizing laborers to unite and strike. William H. Sylvis, leader of the first nationwide labor federation in the US, sought to affiliate the federation to the First International. Marxists had a hand in the founding of the AFL in 1881, while the importance of their organizational work in the CIO in the 1930s and 40s has been amply documented.

    At a time when American politicians and media were praising Hitler and Mussolini, Communists were exposing the dangers of fascism and organizing the Lincoln Battalion to fight it in Spain. 15,000 American Communists volunteered to fight in World War II.

    Marxists were active in the struggle for women's suffrage. The activities and writings of women Communists in the 1930s-50s helped shape the feminist movement of the 1960s-70s (as noted in Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women's Liberation by Kate Weigand.)

    These are just a few brief examples in a single country. Fascists not only have no comparable record, but are obviously against everything I just mentioned. For all the anti-communism that permeates pop culture and textbooks, it is not difficult for most people to distinguish between the Marxist and the fascist position on these and other issues, no matter what these people have heard about the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, or whatever.

    At the same time the US government has never displayed magnanimity toward the left whenever the latter appeared to become a serious threat to capitalism. The Haymarket martyrs, the Palmer Raids, McCarthyism, COINTELPRO, and numerous other examples right up to the present day (e.g. the continued employment of provocateurs and the FBI's raid on the FRSO in 2010) demonstrate this.

    It is therefore easy to see why a Neo-Nazi will receive more flack among the public for advocating the extermination of Jews or police brutality against Blacks compared to the Marxist who argues against anti-Semitism and in favor of the liberation of Blacks.
    Last edited by Ismail; 4th September 2017 at 15:37.
    * h0m0revolutionary: "neo-liberalism can deliver healthy children, it can educate them, it can feed them, it can clothe them and leave them fully contented."
    * rooster: "Supporting [anti-imperialism] is reactionary. How is any nation supposed to stand up [to] the might of the US anyway?"
    * nizan: "Fuck your education is empowerment bullshit, education is alienation, nothing more. You indulge in a dying prestige for a role in a bureaucratic spectacle deserving of nothing beyond contempt."
    * Alexios: "To the Board Administration: Ismail [...] needs to be eliminated from this forum."
  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Ismail For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Join Date Aug 2017
    Posts 19
    Organisation
    American Party of Labor
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    They use the guise of both being relatively 'authoritarian' but they take this at face value. They do not realize (capitalist apologists) that fascists are being authoritarian for them. When, you have the opposite where communists are establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, and they enact political repression they are protecting the complete opposite of the fascists. Fascists are trying to stop the wheel of history from turning forward by committing genocide and doing whatever inhumane acts they can think of to save capitalism. Communism on the other hand is pushing forward the wheel of history by trying to crush bourgeois counter revolution and sabotage.
  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Nah Revisionism For This Useful Post:


  5. #3
    Join Date May 2015
    Location Virgo Supercluster
    Posts 771
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    It should be an easy question to answer, marxist want equality for everyone and fascists want to murder 99% of the world. It's kind of a strange question because marxism isn't really the issue here. The real question being asked is "Why isn't fascism more acceptable?" marxism is only mentioned as the most extreme on the opposite side of the (french) political spectrum. They could easily swap it for anarchism or socialism or even liberalism. Why is liberalism more acceptable than fascism? I suppose we could answer that by listing alot of positive things about liberalism, and claim fascists do not support those things but I dont think it answers the real question being asked.

    "Why isn't fascism more acceptable?"
  6. #4
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,968
    Rep Power 63

    Default


    It should be an easy question to answer, marxist want equality for everyone and fascists want to murder 99% of the world. It's kind of a strange question because marxism isn't really the issue here. The real question being asked is "Why isn't fascism more acceptable?" marxism is only mentioned as the most extreme on the opposite side of the (french) political spectrum. They could easily swap it for anarchism or socialism or even liberalism. Why is liberalism more acceptable than fascism? I suppose we could answer that by listing alot of positive things about liberalism, and claim fascists do not support those things but I dont think it answers the real question being asked.

    "Why isn't fascism more acceptable?"

    Europe has had a much-more-established, more-mainstream legacy of explicitly left-wing politics in their various parliaments / elections, from large mass struggles through the '30s, '40s, etc.

    For example:



    The French Communist Party (PCF) has been a part of the political scene in France since 1920, peaking in strength around the end of World War II. It originated when a majority of members resigned from the socialist French Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) party to set up the French Section of the Communist International (SFIC). The SFIO had been divided over support for French participation in World War I and over whether to join the Communist International (Comintern). The new SFIC defined itself as revolutionary and democratic centralist. Ludovic-Oscar Frossard was its first secretary-general, and Ho Chi Minh was also among the founders. Frossard himself resigned in 1923, and the 1920s saw a number of splits within the party over relations with other left-wing parties and over adherence to the Communist International's dictates. The party gained representation in the French parliament in successive elections, but also promoted strike action and opposed colonialism.
  7. #5
    Join Date May 2015
    Location Virgo Supercluster
    Posts 771
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    Europe has had a much-more-established, more-mainstream legacy of explicitly left-wing politics in their various parliaments / elections, from large mass struggles through the '30s, '40s, etc.

    For example:
    Europe has also had a much-more-established, more-mainstream legacy of explicitly right -wing politics in their various parliaments / elections, from large mass struggles through the '30s, '40s, etc.


    For example:

    he National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (help·info), abbreviated NSDAP), commonly referred to in English as the Nazi Party (/ˈnɑːtsi/), was a far-right political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945 and practised the ideology of Nazism. Its precursor, the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; DAP), existed from 1919 to 1920. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
    Why are two most extreme philosophies both German in origin?
  8. #6
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,968
    Rep Power 63

    Default


    Europe has also had a much-more-established, more-mainstream legacy of explicitly right -wing politics in their various parliaments / elections, from large mass struggles through the '30s, '40s, etc.


    For example:

    [Nazis]


    Why are two most extreme philosophies both German in origin?

    Why would you conceivably use the term 'extreme' to describe the politics of the far-left -- *revolutionary* politics -- ?

    There's nothing 'extreme' about objectively acknowledging how the world really works under capitalism, and then devising strategies for the overthrow of the world's bourgeoisie. The 'extremist' label is a disingenuous and misleading term often used by those who have some vested interests in the system the way it is, and/or have 'false consciousness' (against their own objective collective interests as workers / wage-slaves).

    Germany has been part of the maturation and modernization of the Western 'Scientific Enlightenment' era of history, and has also been a solid economic powerhouse, so it shouldn't be too surprising that intellectual developments have taken place there (not including any nationalist doctrine, of course).
  9. #7
    Join Date May 2015
    Location Virgo Supercluster
    Posts 771
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    Why would you conceivably use the term 'extreme' to describe the politics of the far-left -- *revolutionary* politics -- ?
    Why would you use the word far? The question is only being asked because marxism is the furthest extreme and fascism is juxtapose to it. What would the question be if marxism and fascism didn't exist?
  10. #8
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,968
    Rep Power 63

    Default


    Why would you use the word far? The question is only being asked because marxism is the furthest extreme and fascism is juxtapose to it.
    'Far' doesn't have nearly the same bad connotation that 'extreme' or 'extremist' does.

    Also a double-'extremism' that's implied with including both 'far-left' and 'far-right' isn't justifiable or appropriate since calling for workers power is a *reasonable* approach to politics (far-left), while violence against social minorities in the name of the state is *not* (fascism).

    The only reason *physical*-oriented terms are used at all ('far', 'extreme') is simply to easily refer to the left-right political spectrum, as a structural model.



    What would the question be if marxism and fascism didn't exist?

    Sorry, but this fantastical tangent isn't worth exploring -- it sounds like you're looking for a *semantic* answer, when those terms exist because they happen to correlate to *structural* social reality, that of political economy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Website Security Test