 |
| |
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
Both sides can be, but very few on either side are. A Fascist is an authoritarian. They can be right wing (like Pinochet), left wing (like Stalin) or centrists (like Hitler).
However, the grey area comes with ideas like Anarchism. Anarchism is the opposite of fascism, in style, however it will almost certainly lead to vigilante justice, which becomes another form of Fascism. Libertarianism, in having laws to protect liberty, but still having laws, doesn't have the same problem, although it is often accused of such.
Communism can be viewed as Fascism because of the authoritarian style of monetary and fiscal policy. However in communism, the people are free, and so it is again a largely false accusation.
People on boths sides, or neither side, can be Fascist. However the vast majority of both sides, and of centrists, is not Fascism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
Fascists believe that their nation is above all. Everything else must die. The fact that Fascism is authoritarian is not the main thing. This is just a means to an end. Ultimately fascist are nihilists. There is this basic inconsitency to Fascism that once their nation is the only one left logic dictates that this nation will split into smaller entities and the strongest of these entities will wipe out the other.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:33
|
|
How was there communism in Italien fascism? Remember Italy defines fascism, not Germany... that's why fascism is authoritarian, not totalitarian, originally...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kropotkin
Partly, at least, this is due to the traditional view amoungst marixsts to look at reactionaries as a result of the laws of dialectics, thus collecting them all under one name; fascists |
This is utter crap.
DaShi,
The true answer is neither. Capitalists are the owners of capital, and may individually be fascists or socialists or whatever political ideology they wish to hold.
Communists are the polar opposites of fascists, but there is some superficial similiarity between then, just as there is superfical similiarity between dolphins and sharks. For those who are analitcally lazy, the forms become the totality, and they don't bother to look at the differences, the functions in society, ideologies, etc.
This is compounded by the use of the term fascist as an insult, and tends to be flung at those would rule by force or would restrict the insult-hurlers idea of freedom.
Both fascism and communism have tended to rule by absolute force without respect for the law. Both have tended to be excessively violent and murderous. Both have tended to try to retrict free-thought. Both have tended to rely on cults of the individual. Both fascism and communism are industrial society movements (despite communism's rising to power in non-industrial societies). Fascism also relies heavily on socialist rhetoric, and Naziism even called itself National Socialism. There are many similarities, unarguably.
The roles they play in society, however, are utterly different. Communism seeks to abolish capitalism and capitalists, while fascism seeks to save capitalism and capitalists (even while spouting anti-capitalist rhetoric). Communism is a movement of the workers and peasants. Fascism is a movement of the middle classes and the lumpen classes with financial support from the ruling class. Communists are opposed by the capitalists with every weapon at their disposal. Fascists are a desperate last resort by capitalists to save themselves. The Communist bureaucracies are based upon the needs of working class and peasantry, even if they've ruled over them with an iron fist. Fascists are subservient to the needs and wishes of the capitalists.
Communism seeks to establish an egalitarian and democratic society (even if it failed miserably at the latter). Fascism seeks to abolish democracy and scoffs at the notion of egalitarianism, instead enshtring the idea of the superior man. Communism officially abhors violence (but mostly has no qualms about using it). Fascism glorifies violence as the supreme human activity. Communism is far less aggressive than even capitalism (historicaly and ideologically). Fascism not only glorifies war, war is a necessity for it. Fascism seeks to divide humanity. Communism seeks to unite humanity. Fascism argues about the supremacy of blood, communism for international brotherhood.
Fascism is a very specific form of society. Military authoritariansm, ala Chile or Argentina, aren't fascism. Personal dictatorships, ala Peron or Garza, aren't fascism. It has taken power at least twice, maybe a few more. Italy and Nazi Germany are the two definate fascisms that have come to power. It may also have come to power in Hungary (I haven't studied it enough to say definitively) and Spain (there were definate aspects of fascism in the Falange, but it was also missing key components). At any rate, Spain did not remain fascist throughout Franco's rule if it was fascist in the begining.
The Baltic states and Poland were called fascist during the 1930s, but they lacked too many aspects of the essentials of fascism to be fascism. France under Napoleon III had many aspects of fascism. I would argue that it probably was a fascist movement that put Louis Napoleon in power and maintained him, but again, I don't know enough to make a definitive case.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kropotkin
I would tend to disagree. Not just 'cause it's my text you're calling crap, but mostly due to the fact that I've seen/read that kind of argument come from a number of communists/socialists. For example: Some lefties did and do call nazis for fascist in this fashion. People that want to boil down everything into class-struggle. |
#1, Nazis are fascists. They called themsevles fascists. They were different from the Italians only in their racial theories and actions, which is not enough of a difference to catagorize them as something different from fascism.
#2 you stated:
quote:
Partly, at least, this is due to the traditional view amoungst marixsts to look at reactionaries as a result of the laws of dialectics, thus collecting them all under one name; fascists |
#2a, calling right-wing authoritarians fascists extends far beyond Marxists. It is common for both liberals and conservatives to hurl that epithet at each other, and has been ever since fascism was created by Mussolini.
#2b, The "laws" of dialectics have absolutely nothing to do with this. The laws of dialectics are: quality v quantity, the negation of the negation, and one more thing which escapes me.
Thus, it is utter crap.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
What about Turkey? Has there not been some fascist periods in Turkish history? I am especially thinking of the genocide of the Armenians and the continuos war waged against the Kurds. The continous rejection by the Turkish state to accept responsibility in either is also suspicious. Also the severe anti-communism of the state. The founder if the Turkish republic. Atatürk, is still revered as a godlike leader.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-02-2004 17:06
it's too bad people are too proud to admit they are wrong, even when presented with undeniable proof 
|