 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:24
|
|
quote:
My very first post on poly was a bunch of anarchist rhetoric and I spent most of my first year on poly mostly argueing about that (taking on five libertarians single handed etc.  ) |
Needless to say, you was whooped  I was there, right?
If there are varying gradients of socialism with communism being one result, then there can be gradients of fascism with Hitler being one result. In my sig I quote the leader of Italy's fascist party and his name isn't Hitler. Do these two fascists reflect 2 fascistic ideologies? What about all the other fascists who differed with them on the details?
Yes, nation states throughout history often employed tactics that would later be called fascistic. Irrational nationalism, strong leader either deified or exalted far above others, aggressive foreign policy based in part on a sense of superiority and "law and order" at home, shouting down critics or worse, slanderous accusations of treason, helping the enemy or "un/anti" this or that. Under communism the state controls the media, under fascism the state and its corporate allies eventually control the media if not mandated by the state. If this control is not complete but overwhelming nonetheless, does it cease being fascistic?
In the US big business owns most of the media and there exists a tenuous relationship between the state and those media owners. Neither side wants to really anger the other since both can do damage, so both sides eventually come closer together and the information supplied by this media becomes propaganda.
Fascism is not some aberation isolated to a couple countries over a decade or two, its a not so rare mindset with roots going to our tribal past. Economically its about big government and big business working together to benefit big government and big business. All this and more is sold to people under utilitarian principles as Benito says in my sig. Most governments have fascistic elements, some more than others. To limit fascism to Hitler is like limiting socialism to Stalin.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Fascism is not some aberation isolated to a couple countries over a decade or two, its a not so rare mindset with roots going to our tribal past. Economically its about big government and big business working together to benefit big government and big business. All this and more is sold to people under utilitarian principles as Benito says in my sig. Most governments have fascistic elements, some more than others. |
Your problem is you identify corporatism with fascism. While fascism is definiately a coporatist movement, not all corporatists are fascists. Thus, the fact that the Nazis, Fascists, and the US have similar elements does not make the U.S. fascist. Corporatism is extremely common.
Fascism is more than that. It is a movement of the enraged middle class, declassé workers, lumpens, veterans, etc. This is a fundimental aspect of fascism. Fascism doesn't necessarily mean a military dictatorship, though a couple have been.
Calling the U.S. fascist because if shares some aspects with fascism makes about as much sense as calling it socialism because it shares some aspects with socialism. It's just stupid.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
techumseh
|
 |
of the frozen North.
Apr 1999
time: 22:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Your problem is you identify corporatism with fascism. While fascism is definiately a coporatist movement, not all corporatists are fascists. Thus, the fact that the Nazis, Fascists, and the US have similar elements does not make the U.S. fascist. Corporatism is extremely common.
Fascism is more than that. It is a movement of the enraged middle class, declassé workers, lumpens, veterans, etc. This is a fundimental aspect of fascism. Fascism doesn't necessarily mean a military dictatorship, though a couple have been.
Calling the U.S. fascist because if shares some aspects with fascism makes about as much sense as calling it socialism because it shares some aspects with socialism. It's just stupid. |
I think your definition of fascism is wrong. The best definition I've heard is that "fascism is the open, terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary elements of finance capital." It may seek to impose this through a political party such as the Nazis which has a social base similar to the one you describe, or it may use a military dictatorship. Regardless of the social base that fascism is able to establish, it is a movement financed and directed by the most right wing elements of big business, intended to crush the left and the working people by force when that can no longer be done by traditional democratic means.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by techumseh
Hitler was just one example of fascism, which can take other forms. And here is something very important that is often overlooked: Hitler did not TAKE power, democraticaly or otherwise. He was HANDED power by big business, acting through Hindenberg, the President. This was done after the Nazi's had recently lost millions of votes in an election for the Reichstag. |
Yes, Fascism can take other forms than Hitler, but not from what I described. Fascism is a reactionary and radical ideology based on the nation. It looks back to mythical past and looks forward in totally reshaping the society so that the state is the source of everything good.
And your take on Hitler's taking power is simplified. Business leaders did want to have Hitler in high position in the government, but the Nazis were STILL the largest party in the Reichstag (ever after losing some votes in the November 1932 election) and the DNVP, the other right wing party in Germany, cajoled Hindenburg into allowing Hitler as Chancellor because of the DNVP's coalition with the Nazi party. Hindenburg didn't want to put him in that position, but he had little choice since the DNVP joined up with the Nazis.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Yes, Fascism can take other forms than Hitler, but not from what I described. Fascism is a reactionary and radical ideology based on the nation. It looks back to mythical past and looks forward in totally reshaping the society so that the state is the source of everything good. |
Correct. I'd also add that another future goal is to create a society that produces what the party regards as the perfect nation: a nation in which all of the citizens live up to the standards set by the party. That's why the Nazis believed in euthanizing the retarded and the mentally ill, as they were inferior, could never become anything but inferior, and thus were a waste of the nation's resources.
People also tend to confuse the "corporatism" associated with Fascism. Corporatism in the European Fascist sense doesn't mean government controlled by large corporations (such as Microsoft, Haliburton, etc). Corporatism in the Fascist sense involves the tripartite settlement of economic policy and disputes betweeen business leaders, labor leaders, and the government. Each segment of the economy would have a "corporation." In that corporation, there would be three groups": an umbrella group representing all of the business firms involved in that sector of the economy, an umbrella group representing all the various labor unions in that sector, and a group representing the government. The heads of these groups would decide the policies for their segment of the economy. Labor was recognized as a key part of the process, and unions were given the chance to (at least ostensibly) directly influence policy decisions.
Last edited by Wycoff on 08-09-2005 at 22:23
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
The best definition I've heard is that "fascism is the open, terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary elements of finance capital." |
I wouldn't accept that either. Hitler was not simply a reactionary. He was also a radical (to use one example). Hitler did exalt Seigfried and the ancient German mythos, but his society was very radical. A purposeful isolation of the individual so that he saw the leader and the state as the only thing he belongs to. It created a corporatist system where business and labor would be considered no more than cogs in the machinery of the state. Hitler did come up with social programs which outstriped the programs under prior regimes.
It's too easy to call Fascists reactionaries, but to deny their radicalism is setting yourself up for failure. |
Another good post, Imran. I don't think that the quote that Tecumseh puts up does a very good job explaining the 3rd Reich.
Big business did have a party in Weimar Germany: Hugenburg's DNVP. They were the reactionary conservatives. They thought that the Nazis were altogether too radical and distateful, but some thought that they could subordinate the Nazis and use them to support their conservative (but not Fascist) regime. That is what Franco did in Spain.
Franco's party wasn't Fascist, it was reactionary conservatist. The Spanish Phalange was the Fascist party, led by Antonin Primo de Rivera. After Rivera's assasination, Franco co-opted Rivera's Party's name and its theatrics, but largely discarded its radical philosophy. Franco's dictatorship was basically a run of the mill autocratic, conservative dictatorship.
In the end, the DNVP could not control Hitler and the Nazis, nor could they do much to influence them. The Nazi regime was something completely different than a simple military dictatorship or a oligarchic corporate puppet state.
A good book on this topic is Payne's History of Fascism It does a great job detailing the differences between far right conservative movements and Fascist movements.
http://www.wisc.edu/wisconsinpress/books/0133.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara That would be incorrect, since the first thing the fascist do when they take power is smash the unions and jail or kill the labor leaders. They might then create fascist unions, which are not unions in the traditional sense, but rather a way of controling labor in the interests of capital. |
That's why I said "ostensibly." They did create the German Labor Front (DAF), a Fascist labor union. The thing that I diagree with you on is the spirit of that subordination. The Nazis didn't subordinate labor to capital for big capital's sake. They wanted to subordinate big capital to the Nazi Party as much as they wanted to subordinate labor. To me this is different than the charges that W. is dominated by corporate interests.
W. would want to subordinate labor because he wants to benefit the corporations for their own sake. Nazis wanted to subordinate labor because it would help them reach their party goals. Enriching big business wasn't a goal on the Nazi agenda (whereas enriching big business IS W's agenda (or so it seems)); any big business enrichment was a side effect. This conflicts with the view that Techumsah's quote seems to hold: that enricing big business was the reason for the Nazis, and that the Nazis were merely a front for radical economic control of Germany by big business. I do not agree with that at all.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
techumseh
|
|
of the frozen North.
Apr 1999
time: 22:24
|
|
Some of these posts show the difficulty in understanding the nature of fascism if we concentrate on the forms, and even the trappings, rather than on the underlying content. Corporatism is just one way to organize a fascist state. Under Mussolini, the corporate model was led and controlled by the big corporations, and operated in their interests. Unions and other organizations were organized under state auspices in the interests of capital.
Hitler organized the "Night of the Long Knives" to purge Ernst Rohm and his Brown Shirts (SA) because they were demanding the long promised "Second Revolution" whose target was to have been German banks and corporations. Hitler killed many of his long term associates in the Nazi Party in order to protect big business. He was their agent in crushing the communists, socialists and trade unions. He was expanding their access to markets, labor and resources when he started the Second World War. Even his war on the Jews provided factories, capital and other assets to his big business supporters.
I think Che overstates the case when he says, "Krupps said jump, Hitler said, "How high?", because Hitler could operate somewhat independently given the political base of the Nazi Party. Nevertheless, he is absolutely right when he says that Hitler and the Nazi's were subordinate to German capital in a general sense.
It's also incorrect to say that Franco's regime was not fascist because his original party was not. The important thing is that once in power he WAS a fascist - he crushed, through terror, the left and the trade unions, and used the state to control the economy in the interests of big business. School and church were turned into propaganda arms of the state. All these features were shared with the fascist regimes of Italy and Germany.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by techumseh
Hitler organized the "Night of the Long Knives" to purge Ernst Rohm and his Brown Shirts (SA) because they were demanding the long promised "Second Revolution" whose target was to have been German banks and corporations. |
Hitler purged the SA for a variety of reasons. One of the foremost was to assuage concerns held by the Wehrmacht that the SA would absorb the Wehrmacht and Röhm would take control of them. To avert a military coup, Hitler showed his devotion to the Wehrmacht by killing some problematic SA leaders.
Another reason for the purge was to rid the party of possible rivals. Hitler feared that Röhm, with the support of the SA, could overthrow Hitler and assume the role of Führer. Hitler thus weakened the SA, both through the purge and through the creation of the SS.
Yet another reason was because Röhm and other high profile SA men were homosexuals. This was extremely distasteful to many leading Nazis, and provided another useful excuse for killing these men.
quote:
It's also incorrect to say that Franco's regime was not fascist because his original party was not. The important thing is that once in power he WAS a fascist - he crushed, through terror, the left and the trade unions, and used the state to control the economy in the interests of big business. School and church were turned into propaganda arms of the state. All these features were shared with the fascist regimes of Italy and Germany. |
Yeah, but those features aren't what made Germany and Italy Fascist. Those traits that you listed are also traits of conservative, non-Fascist movements. Fascism is not conservatism. There are key traits that Fascists have that conservatives don't. Here are some general examples: the promise of a utopian future, the goal of creating an idealized "new man," a dedication to scientific development, the subordination (and eventual destruction) of religion, exhalting war for war's sake, emphazizing the collective above the individual, and coming to power because of a broad based mass movement.
Last edited by Wycoff on 09-09-2005 at 06:00
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-09-2005 21:14
|