09-09-2005 23:01									#151
	Got spare money?

Speech at the Graveside of Karl Marx
“Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case. [Engels, 1883]

	09-09-2005 23:06									#152
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by techumseh Wycoff: Whether or not your claim that "the majority of academics agree with Imran and myself", is true or not, it's not a valid argument. Let's take a few of the characteristics you use to define fascism: the promise of a utopian future, the goal of creating an idealized "new man," emphazizing the collective above the individual, And let's ask how this might affect someone's actual conditions of life. They might be fooled into believing some or all of these, thereby giving some support to the regime. Placing the collective above the individual will only apply to the lower classes, in actual practice the very rich get even wealthier under fascist regimes. None of these things really tell us much about how someone's life will be affected, in a practical way, by fascism. The thing these things have in common is that they are idealogical. They merely serve to legitimize what is going on under the regime. They don't explain what is actually going on. On the other hand, if we define a type of government by the following things: elimination of trade unions and left wing parties by force, using state control of the economy to benefit big business, taking direct control of media and educational systems in order to propagandize the population, resorting to systematic terror in order to silence critics and persecute scapegoats, - we get a very good idea what's going on in the society and how people might be affected by it.

Actually, we don't, because a variety of conservative regimes will do that.

Wycoff is right about fascism. Read the works of the Fascistys themselves, read the works of Mussolini and Mein Kampf and you see a real radicalism at work.

Business is a component of making the nation strong, but the fact was that big business never had a real say in overall national policy. Yes, big business could benefit from working with the Fascist state, and made handsome profits as these regimes armed for war or expanded, and exploited other resources, or saw comptetitors removed, but these are incidental benefits, not the point of policy.

Just look at the radical breaks in families in germany under the Nazi regime. Systsme like the HItler youth were there to indoctrinate children into a party ideology- one that might very well contrast with the wishes of parents. The Nazi's sought to break the family and institute party loyalty instead. That is a radical action that real conservatives don;t take. You never see right wing dictatorships do such things. Fascists compete with religion, conservatives use it for ther own ends. That is one place were the radicalism comes out.

Old time conservatives might ally themselves with landowners and other statist parties to keep the system as is. Fasicsts seek economic expansion and modernism in order to strenghten the nation vs. its competitors-therefore they seek more radical economic plans. Large industry here is definitelly and ally, but increasing business is not the point, greater wealth is not the point, only a tool towards greater power.

	09-09-2005 23:35									#153
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

A little more on fascists. Fascism is a modern ideology, and therefore shares a lot of the baggage of modernity, post enlightenment, even if fascism rejects much of the enlightenment.

In my understanding, fascism, like Communism, believes there is a singular force that drives human history. BUt whereas Marx views a materialistic base, the Fascists view a cultural base. Communists would argue (as Che does here) that culture does not exists free of the material basis for life and how man meets those basic needs. And certainly, the culture of an agrarian settled community is very different from that of a nomadic or semi-nomadic one.

But how then does one explain the power and persistance of differences in culture? Why shouldn;t all societies under the same material conditions have different cultures, languages, religions? What was the significant material difference between say Egypt and Summeria that allowed to very distinct cultures to come into existance?

Lots of fascists began as socialists, but then they saw WW1. Why didn't men in Europe come together as classes, but instead willingly fought each other? Socialist parties in France and Germany and Austria and Russia and Italy could not and did not place their common bonds as laborers over what should have been seen as the artificial bonds of nationality and culture supported by the rulling classes. Yes, a few socialists tried to, but they failed. This failure of the working classes to come to see each other as borthers and sisters, this massive failure of the notiont that people's station in life is defined primarily by their mode of production, as opposed to the superstructure, is I think one of the major factors for the rise of fascism. The myth of eocnomic man was shattered by the Great War, since millions were willing to die for the MOtherland and Fatherland, even if they got little or no benefit. And outside of Russia, which was backwards compared to the rest of Europe, the left failed to gain control even after the old regimes fell-the elft lost in Germany and HUngary.

	09-09-2005 23:46									#154
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by techumseh Wycoff: Whether or not your claim that "the majority of academics agree with Imran and myself", is true or not, it's not a valid argument. Let's take a few of the characteristics you use to define fascism: the promise of a utopian future, the goal of creating an idealized "new man," emphasizing the collective above the individual, And let's ask how this might affect someone's actual conditions of life. They might be fooled into believing some or all of these, thereby giving some support to the regime. Placing the collective above the individual will only apply to the lower classes, in actual practice the very rich get even wealthier under fascist regimes. None of these things really tell us much about how someone's life will be affected, in a practical way, by fascism.

Ways that these things affected daily life:

For the Nazi regime, they provided the fundamental justification not only for the Holocaust, but also for the war and the quest for Lebensraum in the east. I'm sure that you'll say that it was simply to enrich the war profiteers, but that doesn't hold up. What capitalists profits by having his entire production base destroyed? What profiteer profits by having his country occupied by foreign armies? The war in the East was integral to Nazi philosopy. It was one of the main reasons people supported the regime. Germany was going to be self-sufficient. German citizens would never again be starved by a blockade (as the British had done long after WW1 had technically ended). The land to the east rightly belong to the Germans because they were the superior people, etc. etc. The ideology was important, as it resonated with the desires of the German people, and it lead the country down the road to a destruction that no government controlled by sane business interests would have followed.

Creating the "new man" was important in numerous ways. The Nazis imposed a cult of physical fitness, introduced efforts to keep the environment clean, eradicated the retarded and other physical / mental defectives, engaged in radical medical experimentation to find ways to keep the Aryan race pure and healthy, frowned upon smoking, and emphasized vegetarianism. See Proctor's The Nazi War on Cancer None of these goals fit within the normal conservative framework. The Nazis wanted to fundamentally reshape life and society. That is not conservatism.

Empahsizing the collective over the individual:

They took nationalism to the extreme. All groups were organized around the Nazi ideal. One labor union. One youth group, etc.. High empahsis on full employment and using public funds to create massive public works projects. Encouragement of militarism. Creation of generous social programs designed to eliminate starvation and homelessness.

quote: The thing these things have in common is that they are idealogical. They merely serve to legitimize what is going on under the regime. They don't explain what is actually going on.

You gloss over important distinctions between conservative and Fascist by saying they're merely ideological. You're missing the big picture: the ideology explains why things happened the way they did. The ideology explains the war, it explains the Holocaust, it explains the creation of the Autobahn and the like, it explains the HJ, Nuremberg, everything. None of these things make sense if your trying to explain them simply with "oh, the Capitalists just wanted things to happen that way"

People were used to regular old authoritarian conservative states back in the 20s and 30s. They recognized that Fascism was something else entirely. Again, do a little research. Examine the differences between the DNVP and the KVP and the NSDAP. The KVP were conservatives, and the DNVP were authoritarian conservatives. The NSDAP were Fascists. If there is no distinction, then why were there two parties? Remember, the DNVP was an important party while the Nazis still languished in obscurity. When the Nazis took over, they quickly removed any DNVP elements from the government, much to the chagrin of the wealthy.

quote: On the other hand, if we define a type of government by the following things: elimination of trade unions and left wing parties by force,

This would apply to many states, even Republics like the U.S. Examine U.S. history from the 1870s - 1930s. Hardly something that can be used as a chief indicator of Fascism.

quote: using state control of the economy to benefit big business,

This is where we disagree. You say the Nazis took power just to benefit big business. I say that big business got more than it bargained for when it supported Hitler, and in the end was another cog in the Nazi war machine. The DNVP was the party of big business, not the NSDAP. When they threw their support behind Hitler, they made a deal with the devil to control the government and lost.

You're also conveniently neglecting the fact that the German quality of life increased dramatically before the war, that much German capital was used on public works projects, that the government made attempts to help the working class through robust social programs, through the subsidized vacations program (I forget the name of the program). Some companies benefitted because the government was putting large amounts of money into the economy, but the people and workers also benefitted from the way that the country was using the capital.

Another reason that some business benefitted from the Nazi regime was because a goal of the Nazi party was to create an autarkic German state, where the German people could be totally self sufficient and never again defeated by a blockade. This policy of autarky necessitated strong German firms, but it wasn't done solely for the benefit of the large industrial leaders. Autarky was another plank in the Nazi platform. Some companies benefitted, but this was not a policy for the sake of big business.

Remember, groups can benefit from government policy without necessarily controlling the government. That's what I mean when I say a "side-effect;" it happened because of policy, but it wasn't the reason for the policy.

quote: taking direct control of media and educational systems in order to propagandize the population,

Again, a common feature of the period, even in the US. Part of the public school system's job was to indoctrinate children into being Americans. You must look more deeply into the content of the propaganda. Propaganda alone doesn't make Fascism. After all, this indoctrination was just as much of a key element of Communism as it was of Fascism.

quote: resorting to systematic terror in order to silence critics and persecute scapegoats

Again, used by every authoritarian and totalitarian regime, so not a very useful indicator of Fascism.

quote: - we get a very good idea what's going on in the society and how people might be affected by it.

I'd say that these aren't useful indicators as to what makes Fascism Fascism.

quote: This just strikes me as incredibly naive. Such a huge transfer of wealth to the rich and powerful - a side effect, an unintended consequence. Really.

"Huge transfer of wealth?" Because the German people were so economically well off in 1930-32? Again, you're forgetting that many common Germans benefitted from the early years of the Reich. The Fascist movements weren't simply and exclusively the tools of big business. At least in Germany, its easier to make an argument that big business was a toll of the Fascists. (If you're looking for a situation in which the government really is a tool of the big business, the current presidential administration is a far better example.)

You seem to want to boil the entire Nazi experience into "Some companies got rich during the Third Reich. Since some companies got rich, that must mean that the companies controlled the country. Therefore, Fascism is any authoritarian regime in which corporations get rich and thus control the company. Everything else is just ideological fluff." That's a fine way to expand the use of the term "Fascist", but its not a very meaningful way to examine history. The ideology and goals of Fascism are distinct from the run of the mill authoritarian. To deny / mitigate this seems to me to be disingenuous.

	09-09-2005 23:50									#155
	Support Apolyton

Good posts Gepap!

	09-09-2005 23:54									#156
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara They weren't encouraged by Marxists not to ignore war and imperialism. Economism was actually a tendency that Marxists argued againt.

Did you mean to type "They weren't encouraged by Marxists to ignore war and imperialism."?

If so then yes, that is my point. Marxists may have argued against economism, but the leaders of the labour movement persued it. With the labour movement focused on direct pay & conditions, the working class was not mobilised as an agent for change. No agency, no socialism. Thus, economism was a hindrance to Marxism.

	10-09-2005 00:30									#157
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara quote: Originally posted by Wycoff No, we're using the definition that's accepted by most historians/ politcal philosophers. While there's not 100% consensus, the majority of academics agree with Imran and myself. That doesn't make it necessarily valid. A lot of historians and poli sci types are right-wingers who strongly avoid issues of class and related issues. I prefer contempory political activists who struggled against fascism. They had a vested interest in understanding what they were dealing with.

... most of them were also Communists who had a vested interest in defining terms in the way that most benefitted their cause. They had an incentive to define Fascism in the broadest possible sense, thus allowing them to apply the label to the widest array of enemies. Fascism is as abhorrent to Conservatives as it is the Communists, and getting stuck with the label "Fascist" carries a powerful stygma. It's a good weapon to use against enemies, and, if people start believing that the people are Fascists, can discredit them far easier than rational argument .

	10-09-2005 00:48									#158
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Yes, he means that the way people get food, shelter, and make the next generation is the real basis of society. Only a great idiot would ignore that. That this foundation is what ultimately underlies everything else in society. As in the example of the Aztecs, a culture which undermines its economic basis fails. Anthropology also shows us that the way peoples think about the world has a great deal to do with the way they produce their means of life. Ancient religion was organized around hunting and agriculture. It's no accident that all of the major religions in the Northern hemisphere have holidays at almost the exact same time. For example, Easter / Passover / etc. is the planting holiday. Nearly all the ancient religions structures were developed in order to chart the stars and sun.

quote: If you wished, but in order to understand capitalism you wouldn't do that. It would be like saying, well you can classify dogs by color when someone says that there are certain catagories of dogs defined by their functions. Why terriers, hounds, etc. when we can say yellow, black, etc. It's a meaningless distinction for a particular conversation.

Well, I'm not questionning historical materialism in this instance (this thread is busy already), just you and Spiffor's claim that Marx held more nuanced views regarding culture that I had believed.

quote: It was in a private letter to a follower, Franz Mehring. Engels wouldn't need to backtrack for him. There are more letters which say the same thing, but I can't find them yet, because it's been over a decade since I'm had to drag them out. I think I've likely read substantially more Marx & Engels than you, so it's a lot easier for me to understand his overall body of work, while you just look for choice quotes to support your theory.

quote: The Manifesto was a political tract produced on the eve of a continent wide coming revolution. You need to learn to distinguish between Marx's political rhetoric and his acutal scientific and philosophical writings.

Yes, well, that's why I asked for a quote from Marx's main body of work in which he treats culture as more than just the icing on the cake of production.

quote: No, he doesn't do that. In the full text, Marx is saying that where the state is not fully developed, America, England, etc., i.e., it might be possible for workers to take power be electoral means. At that time, these countries had no secret police, no large standing armies, etc. There was no means by which an electoral victory could be suppressed. That day passed long ago.

I don't get that message from his speech at all. He made the speech in 1872, when typical working class people in Britain didn't even have the vote. No electoral victory was possible.

	10-09-2005 01:18									#159
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Originally posted by Sandman
Well, I'm not questionning historical materialism in this instance (this thread is busy already), just you and Spiffor's claim that Marx held more nuanced views regarding culture that I had believed.

From The German Ideology

quote: The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux of their material behaviour. The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc., of a people. Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc. – real, active men, as they are conditioned by a definite development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to these, up to its furthest forms. Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of men is their actual life-process. If in all ideology men and their circumstances appear upside-down as in a camera obscura, this phenomenon arises just as much from their historical life-process as the inversion of objects on the retina does from their physical life-process.

From Ludwig Feuerbach

quote: As all the driving forces of the actions of any individual person must pass through his brain, and transform themselves into motives of his will in order to set him into action, so also all the needs of civil society -- no matter which class happens to be the ruling one -- must pass through the will of the state in order to secure general validity in the form of laws. That is the formal aspect of the matter -- the one which is self-evident. The question arises, however, what is the content of this merely formal will -- of the individual as well as of the state -- and whence is this content derived? Why is just this willed and not something else? If we enquire into this, we discover that in modern history the will of the state is, on the whole, determined by the changing needs of civil society, but the supremacy of this or that class, in the last resort, by the development of the productive forces and relations of exchange.

I don't get that message from his speech at all. He made the speech in 1872, when typical working class people in Britain didn't even have the vote. No electoral victory was possible.

You forget the history of the 19th Century. The working class in Great Britain was making great strides in pushing its political agenda. Of course, no one knew it would take another 40 years for the working class to get the vote, but they'd managed to lower the working day, get better prices on grain, etc. One can forgive Marx for thinking that the working class would likely soon get the vote and bring about socialism peacefully in Great Britain.

	10-09-2005 01:18									#160
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Orwell on fascism (early 1941):

quote: But what then is Fascism? Fascism, at any rate the German version, is a form of capitalism that borrows from Socialism just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes. Internally, Germany has a good deal in common with a Socialist state. Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, and—this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathise with Fascism—generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. But at the same time the State, which is simply the Nazi Party, is in control of everything. It controls investment, raw materials, rates of interest, working hours, wages. The factory owner still owns his factory, but he is for practical purposes reduced to the status of a manager. Everyone is in effect a State employee, though the salaries vary very greatly. The mere efficiency of such a system, the elimination of waste and obstruction, is obvious. In seven years it has built up the most powerful war machine the world has ever seen. But the idea underlying Fascism is irreconcilably different from that which underlies Socialism. Socialism aims, ultimately, at a world-state of free and equal human beings. It takes the equality of human rights for granted. Nazism assumes just the opposite. The driving force behind the Nazi movement is the belief in human inequality, the superiority of Germans to all other races, the right of Germany to rule the world. Outside the German Reich it does not recognise any obligations. Eminent Nazi professors have “proved” over and over again that only nordic man is fully human, have even mooted the idea that non-nordic peoples (such as ourselves) can interbreed with gorillas! Therefore, while a species of war-Socialism exists within the German state, its attitude towards conquered nations is frankly that of an exploiter. The function of the Czechs, Poles, French, etc is simply to produce such goods as Germany may need, and get in return just as little as will keep them from open rebellion. If we are conquered, our job will probably be to manufacture weapons for Hitler’s forthcoming wars with Russia and America. The Nazis aim, in effect, at setting up a kind of caste system, with four main castes corresponding rather closely to those of the Hindu religion. At the top comes the Nazi party, second come the mass of the German people, third come the conquered European populations. Fourth and last are to come the coloured peoples, the “semi-apes” as Hitler calls them, who are to be reduced quite openly to slavery. However horrible this system may seem to us, it works. It works because it is a planned system geared to a definite purpose, world-conquest, and not allowing any private interest, either of capitalist or worker, to stand in its way. British capitalism does not work, because it is a competitive system in which private profit is and must be the main objective. It is a system in which all the forces are pulling in opposite directions and the interests of the individual are as often as not totally opposed to those of the State.

	10-09-2005 03:03									#161
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Tecumseh, you have the most ridiculous notion of facism. Though many socialists try to define it that way to define a vast swatch of right leaning governments as fascist (which, of course, has become a slur since WW2).

Your definition is so overly broad to be laughable. As GePap and Wycoff (and Orwell as shown by Sandman) have shown fascism is very different than authoritarian conservatism.

The ideology matters, to say it does makes no sense. And as GePap has shown, it has impact, such as on the family. The family and the church were rendered subservient to the state, while any conservative regime would embrace them (such as Latin American conservative dictators who embraced the family and the Catholic Church).

	10-09-2005 03:08									#162
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Typologies are always a weird matter. Among political scientists, some categorise fascism in the Italian manner as an authoritarian form of government while German national socialism to them is a form of totalitarianism and thus in the ame group as Stalinism. For others though fascism and natioanl socialism go both as totalitarianism, with authoritarianism being left merely to military juntas. The social sciences should get their act together and find proper, commonly used definitions. They're helpful, not simplifying, and not hindering free research. They just make things easier.

	10-09-2005 09:41									#163
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Tecumseh, you have the most ridiculous notion of facism. Though many socialists try to define it that way to define a vast swatch of right leaning governments as fascist (which, of course, has become a slur since WW2).

Ridiculous it's not, it's concrete and specific and practical, unlike the subjective and superficial definition you and your liberal and conservative pals have come up with. Like so many abstract professors, you've come up with a definition that excuses big business and the super rich from the most basic responsibility for fascism. If the truth be known, that's why you and your friends object so strongly to my definition, because it puts the responsibility squarely where it belongs - on big business.

quote: Your definition is so overly broad to be laughable. As GePap and Wycoff (and Orwell as shown by Sandman) have shown fascism is very different than authoritarian conservatism.

Again, utter nonsense. GePap the liberal and Wycoff the conservative haven't shown anything but a shaky argument. Orwell writes about "Fascism, at any rate the German version ..." This shows clearly the error you and your OT comrades have fallen into. You define "fascism" in terms of the historical versons of Hitler and Mussolini. Specific manifestations of these historical models are taken as the defining characteristics of fascism itself, instead of undertaking an analysis of the real basis and content of fascism. This prevents us from understanding modern forms of fascism, such as the Pinochet regime in Chile, dismissing them as "authoritarian conservatives".

quote: The ideology matters, to say it does makes no sense. And as GePap has shown, it has impact, such as on the family. The family and the church were rendered subservient to the state, while any conservative regime would embrace them (such as Latin American conservative dictators who embraced the family and the Catholic Church).

Ideology matters, indeed. Except that it is the rationalization for things rather than the cause of them. Take for example the ideology of the "new man" . The fitness, the discipline, the focus on family and reproduction, were ideas perpetrated for a specific purpose. They were designed to increase the population of fit and obedient citizens and to build a stronger base for the army and the economy, in order to allow the aggression needed to expand markets and secure access to labour and raw materials. The ideas did not create the economic and military objectives; they served them.

	10-09-2005 09:48									#164
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

dp

Last edited by techumseh on 10-09-2005 at 09:54

	10-09-2005 10:28									#165
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by techumseh If the truth be known, that's why you and your friends object so strongly to my definition, because it puts the responsibility squarely where it belongs - on big business.

No. I object because your explanation doesn't make sense. If Big Business was such an omnipotent figure in history, then the crazy radical NSDAP wouldn't have came into power, the DNVP would have. Big business wasn't behind the NSDAP until the writing was on the wall.

quote: This shows clearly the error you and your OT comrades have fallen into. You define "fascism" in terms of the historical versons of Hitler and Mussolini. Specific manifestations of these historical models are taken as the defining characteristics of fascism itself, instead of undertaking an analysis of the real basis and content of fascism. This prevents us from understanding modern forms of fascism, such as the Pinochet regime in Chile, dismissing them as "authoritarian conservatives".

This shows your biases. The most illuminating part is you feel the need to condemn the people with whom you disaggre as "Fascist." What's the big deal? If you hate Pinochet, what does it matter if he was authoritarian Conservative (which he was) or a "Fascist" (which he wasn't)? If you think he was bad, point to his policies, not to his labels. You simply want to apply Fascism as broadly as possible, as you only care about it in the pejorative sense. You complain that we are basing it on historical models. I ask you: what in the world should we base our observations on? Should we ignore historical models because they don't fit your agenda? I really don't see your point here.

quote: Ideology matters, indeed. Except that it is the rationalization for things rather than the cause of them. Take for example the ideology of the "new man" . The fitness, the discipline, the focus on family and reproduction, were ideas perpetrated for a specific purpose. They were designed to increase the population of fit and obedient citizens and to build a stronger base for the army and the economy, in order to allow the aggression needed to expand markets and secure access to labour and raw materials. The ideas did not create the economic and military objectives; they served them.

Right. It served the Nazis in creating settlers for their new Lebensraum, allowing for the future conquest of Earth and the eternal domination of the Aryan race. It served explicitly Fascist purposes, not big business purposes. What does big business care who buys their services? Globalization proves that it doesn't. You're refusing to look beyond the narrow scope that your ideology forces you to adopt.

	10-09-2005 10:34									#166
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Wycoff No. I object because your explanation doesn't make sense. If Big Business was such an omnipotent figure in history, then the crazy radical NSDAP wouldn't have came into power, the DNVP would have. Big business wasn't behind the NSDAP until the writing was on the wall.

That's just completely false. Back in the 20s the Capital had a radical enemy, communism, that could only be fought through radical means.

	10-09-2005 10:38									#167
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: You simply want to apply Fascism as broadly as possible, as you only care about it in the pejorative sense.

I can't speak for him, but it's probably the opposite. After all, he's just defining political systems by looking at what classes they serve. Generally speaking, those people afraid of the pejorative sense are those refusing to call anyone by the name, except the great mythological evil that have become the nazis.

	10-09-2005 11:04									#168
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Wycoff No. I object because your explanation doesn't make sense. If Big Business was such an omnipotent figure in history, then the crazy radical NSDAP wouldn't have came into power, the DNVP would have. Big business wasn't behind the NSDAP until the writing was on the wall.

Oncle Boris has it right. Fascism is a reaction to the threat of socialism and communism. The DNVP, as you call it, was not in any position to stop the left, including communism. The Nazi's were, precisely because they were prepared to use violence and terror to do it. Big business PREFERS democratic and market based societies. When these are threatened, and traditional institutions can no longer hold back the threat of socialism, they will, without hesitation, resort to undemocratic and violent reaction, ie. fascism.

quote: This shows your biases. The most illuminating part is you feel the need to condemn the people with whom you disaggre as "Fascist." What's the big deal? If you hate Pinochet, what does it matter if he was authoritarian Conservative (which he was) or a "Fascist" (which he wasn't)? If you think he was bad, point to his policies, not to his labels. You simply want to apply Fascism as broadly as possible, as you only care about it in the pejorative sense. You complain that we are basing it on historical models. I ask you: what in the world should we base our observations on? Should we ignore historical models because they don't fit your agenda? I really don't see your point here.

I disagree with you, and I don't call you a fascist. I don't even call Bush one. (he's marginal though ) It's not a matter of "hating" Pinochet - this is more evidence of your subjectivism - he was in my view, and according to my definition, a fascist. Most of the Latin American left and even the centre, would agree. And yes, it's clear that you don't see my point - you don't have a definition of fascism beyond what Hitler and Mussolini did.

quote: Right. It served the Nazis in creating settlers for their new Lebensraum, allowing for the future conquest of Earth and the eternal domination of the Aryan race. It served explicitly Fascist purposes, not big business purposes. What does big business care who buys their services? Globalization proves that it doesn't. You're refusing to look beyond the narrow scope that your ideology forces you to adopt.

Globalization did not exist in the 30s and 40s. Nationalism did, and that is what defined the economic policy of the German capitalists. So German fascism had extreme nationalism as its ideological basis. Today, as the interests of big business has changed, so too will the ideology of modern day fascism.

	10-09-2005 11:31									#169
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: You define "fascism" in terms of the historical versons of Hitler and Mussolini.

Because they created it! They defined fascism and implimented it. To say that their definitions don't matter is an act of incredible hubris and just plain wrong.

Oh, and btw, Pinochet was in no way a fascist. Hell, he brought in Chicago school neo-liberal economists! How can that fit it at all with the Fascist hatred for class divisions with both communism and free market capitalism advance? How does that make any sense at all?

quote: They were designed to increase the population of fit and obedient citizens and to build a stronger base for the army and the economy, in order to allow the aggression needed to expand markets and secure access to labour and raw materials. The ideas did not create the economic and military objectives; they served them.

It's amazing... you've been blinded by your own ignorance. In you zeal to call anything to the right fascist, you've basically made the term fascism incredible malliable to the point where it means nothing.

No, the goal of fascism was decidedly NOT to expand markets. The goal of fascism was a radically different society. To dismiss this as 'subjective and superficial' matters is utterly ludicrous and amazing. It's the CORE of Fascism, a POLITICAL ideology. There is a reason that Mussolini, Barres, Hitler came up with and refined the idea of fascism. It wasn't so they could serve business and expand their markets. It was so they could create a new society where the nation was king and all were unified within that national group.

Yes, the economic and military objectives were secondary and subservient to the ultimate goals of the ideology.

One can see it from the origins of Fascism. Big business did not jump on board until the Fascist parties were strong in numbers (or controlling the government). Hitler didn't have the Krupp's at his door during the Beer Hall Putsch. He had to wait until his party was the biggest in the Reichstag. It was the disaffected and isolated middle classes which built the party. To claim that it is a movement led by 'finance capital' is to ignore all history of Fascism (and saying the definition changed to your definition because you said it did isn't a valid counter).

quote: this is more evidence of your subjectivism - he was in my view, and according to my definition, a fascist.

Self-pwnage!

You'd think, btw, if most of Latin America considered Pinochet a fascist, the word would appear in his wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet

It doesn't.

--

Using your overbroad definitions we can come to very interesting conclusions about communism. If you want to look at it specifically and concretely, communism has been an authoritarian government set in place for the benefit of a few party elite. By your style of labeling, Saddam Hussein becomes a communist through his Ba'ath Party (which is ludicrous, but that is what your line of thinking leads to).

Of course you'll say "that's stupid" or "that's ridiculous, it leads to no such thing", because overbroad 'practical' definitions only work for fascism and not communism.

	10-09-2005 12:37									#170
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: You define "fascism" in terms of the historical versons of Hitler and Mussolini. Because they created it! They defined fascism and implimented it. To say that their definitions don't matter is an act of incredible hubris and just plain wrong.

I rest my case. You define fascism as a fixed, historical, unevolving fossil, based on it's superficial aspects. And why on earth would you let Hitler and Mussolini define fascism? Would you let apes define evolution?

quote: Oh, and btw, Pinochet was in no way a fascist.

Oh really. Just another conservative, I suppose? Tell me, is killing and torturing opponents, wiping out trade unions and left wing political parties, establishing control over all media, etc. really just an extension of normal conservatism? Or does it really represent a substantial break in political continuity from traditional conservatism, with it's committment to elections, freedom of speech and so on?

quote: quote: They were designed to increase the population of fit and obedient citizens and to build a stronger base for the army and the economy, in order to allow the aggression needed to expand markets and secure access to labour and raw materials. The ideas did not create the economic and military objectives; they served them. It's amazing... you've been blinded by your own ignorance. In you zeal to call anything to the right fascist, you've basically made the term fascism incredible malliable to the point where it means nothing.

Terrorist dicatorship of finance capital ... crushing trade unions and left wing political parties ... direct control of media and education to communicate proaganda ... state control of the economy in the interests of big business ... resorting to systematic terror in order to silence critics and persecute scapegoats ...

This is a definition that means nothing? You've got to be kidding!

quote: No, the goal of fascism was decidedly NOT to expand markets. The goal of fascism was a radically different society. To dismiss this as 'subjective and superficial' matters is utterly ludicrous and amazing. It's the CORE of Fascism, a POLITICAL ideology. There is a reason that Mussolini, Barres, Hitler came up with and refined the idea of fascism. It wasn't so they could serve business and expand their markets. It was so they could create a new society where the nation was king and all were unified within that national group. Yes, the economic and military objectives were secondary and subservient to the ultimate goals of the ideology.

Why then, learned sir, did the German and Italian regimes invade country after country? Ethiopia, Albania, Greece? Poland, Denmark, Norway , France? Were these aggressions necessary to build the "new society" and the "new man"? Why the crusade against Bolshevism and the Soviet Union? Why the Anti-Comintern Pact?

The fact is that fascism is first of all a reaction against socialism and communism, the last defense of big business. And it is often an agressive, militaristic force, seeking to expand access to markets and resources by force. I don't think I'm going too much out on a limb when I say this will probably benefit the owners of big banks and chemical companies more than a bankrupt grocer.

quote: quote: this is more evidence of your subjectivism - he was in my view, and according to my definition, a fascist. Self-pwnage! You'd think, btw, if most of Latin America considered Pinochet a fascist, the word would appear in his wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet It doesn't.

Imran, what would your professor say to you if you argued in a paper that the lack of a reference to someone as a fascist in an online encyclopedia authored by anyone who wanted to contribute, was proof that he was not, in fact, a fascist?

But since you place such importance on this source of all knowledge, here's something else I found on the Wikipedia:

quote: Nazis Not True Fascists I think that part of the German list is inaccurate. Nazis should not be included as fascist, as they were national(ist) socialists, not fascist. While many elements of socialism are found in fascism, as fascism is an outgrowth of socialism, we should not label socialists as fascists and vice-versa. Unless there's a broad classification of all forms of collectivism involved.

So this unnamed author claims that the Nazi's were not even fascists! Who's left? This is typical of the subjective, non-scientific political definitions currently abroad, here and on various wiki's as well. I'm afraid you'll have to do better research than this if you want to pass my class.

	10-09-2005 12:49									#171
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

So, Imran, did you just DanS me?

	10-09-2005 13:45									#172
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by techumseh Why then, learned sir, did the German and Italian regimes invade country after country? Ethiopia, Albania, Greece? Poland, Denmark, Norway , France? Were these aggressions necessary to build the "new society" and the "new man"? Why the crusade against Bolshevism and the Soviet Union? Why the Anti-Comintern Pact? The fact is that fascism is first of all a reaction against socialism and communism, the last defense of big business. And it is often an agressive, militaristic force, seeking to expand access to markets and resources by force. I don't think I'm going too much out on a limb when I say this will probably benefit the owners of big banks and chemical companies more than a bankrupt grocer.

I guess noone doubts the anticommunist direction of the things you mentioned. This however does not prove the monocausal "it was all the big business'/finance capital's will" argumentation.

You can very well argue that conquest of Europe or even more was a political/ideological goal that fits into the nazi idea of masterrace etc., and esp. into Hitlers personal views.

	10-09-2005 14:31									#173
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Realistically speaking it was also a sensible move, seeing the USSR on the rise and the western powers unwilling to crusade. War would have come eventually. The earlier, the better for the 2 fascist powers. It could have worked, but let's not go there.

	10-09-2005 14:50									#174
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

OK people, I won't get involved in the argument on Marxism. I know just enough to get pwned - better known as making myself sound like an idiot. However, WW2 authoritarian regimes is something I do know a fair bit about.

First - Wycoff. The Nazis CUT the number of students enrolled in engineering and other technical schools by half. They were living off the successes of the German technical school system, by the end of the war the various arms companies complained bitterly over the lack of technical people resulting from the genocide of the Jews, drafting of afore mentioned technical people, and the lack of graduates over the period of the Nazi rule.

The problem is that combining the terms of Facism and Nazism are what is confusing the issue. Some excellent work out of Germany over the last two decades or so looks at the Nazi regime not as Facist, in fact not even as a government as normally understood. They call it the Hitler state, and have instead analyzed it as a cult of personality.

It works surprisingly well. It also accounts for all the contradictions that have been argued over in this thread. It was not a coherent state, as we tend to think of one. In fact, if anything, it had more in common with Che's Aztecs, blindly consuming itself. That is because it was a cult.

Hitler was the Great Leader, and his pronouncements, no matter how ridiculous, were given the utmost credence. One of his primary henchmen, Himmler, could be called a superstitious occultist, except occultist would have considered him ridiculous. Various policy decisions that were stupid, inane, and/or counter-productive were agressively pursued by the state, simply because Hitler declared they were to be pursued. The Hitler state had more in common with today's North Korea than with Facist Italy.

If you eliminate the misidentified Hitler state from the pantheon of Facist states, you will suddenly find some of the disagreements here nicely simplified. Now you end up with the Facist states instead as Conservative dictatorships, more or less espousing traditional values. You folks can sort out the individual arguements you have made, but in general you will find that eliminating the Hitler state/cult from the argument as a Facist example makes it much easier to gain a certain kind of consistancy that lends credence to the point made by those considering it a cult. It's like Stalin's "Communism", which was hardly much of an example of communism but was instead an example of a vicious dictatorship maintaining rule through Terror, definitely not something required by Marx - who of course was not the first nor the final word on Communism, for that matter.

	10-09-2005 18:37									#175
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I don't think Nazi Germany should be consirder an architypal fascist state, but the most radical and extreme version of one. It was extreme fascism, X-fascism.

I agree that Techumseh draws the net a little to broadly. It is true that Pinochet's regime shares aspects of fascism, but there was no mass movement behind the military revolt, and that is crucial. A much more suitable candidate would be the first Peron dictatorship in Argentina.

Nor does big capital turn over power to the fascists unhesitatingly. They hesitate quite a bit, and only allow them to take power as a last resort. This is because they are dangerous. Capital is much more willing to rely on a military coup, than turn over the state to a bunch of radical thugs with delusions of remaking society.

One of the arguments against fascism being controled by big business was the that why would capital want its factories bombed and destroyed, etc. That's a silly question. They didn't start the wars intending to lose. As the fascist armies moved across Europe, big capital found itself with new markets to expand into, looted capital to seize, slaves to work in its factories. Lebensraum might have been sold by the fascists to the public, but behind them were vultures waiting to pick Europe's bones.

	10-09-2005 18:53									#176
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Che - valid point, though I need to go to sleep, I've been up for 27 hours now (rotating shifts). However, when you use the term big capital - would it be more appropriate to say Crony Capitalism, which is most definitively not free markets.

Take for example the Hitler State during it's beginnings, while it was still largely facist (before Hitler and his thugs had totally consolidated control of the Wehrmacht in 1938). Certain companies, like Junkers, had run-ins with various individuals who became part of the Nazi apparatus, and actually lost control of their company. It almost happened to Krupp, FYI.

Conversely, certain favored companies like Messerschmidt got special treatment (access? ), for example the Bf 109 which was a semi-independent design more-or-less given to Messerschmidt. I would have to check my WW2 armor books, but other companies came very close to freezing Krupp out of the gravy train (think Haliburton) and it was only by some very adroit, and expensive maneuvering that Krupp managed to keep it's preeminence. Plus of course it's size helped.

	10-09-2005 19:23									#177
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Since Mussolini coined the term fascism then I believe that his Italy was probably the archtype of fascism. His idea of government combined the statist functions of socialism with the conservative cultural values of 19th century prer-democratic Europe.

	10-09-2005 19:33									#178
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

You have take anyone named Dr. Strangelove serious on the subject of fascism. "I'm coming mein fuhrer!"

	10-09-2005 20:30									#179
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Man, this thread is so aptly named

	10-09-2005 21:53									#180
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I don't think Nazi Germany should be consirder an architypal fascist state, but the most radical and extreme version of one. It was extreme fascism, X-fascism. I agree that Techumseh draws the net a little to broadly. It is true that Pinochet's regime shares aspects of fascism, but there was no mass movement behind the military revolt, and that is crucial. A much more suitable candidate would be the first Peron dictatorship in Argentina. Nor does big capital turn over power to the fascists unhesitatingly. They hesitate quite a bit, and only allow them to take power as a last resort. This is because they are dangerous. Capital is much more willing to rely on a military coup, than turn over the state to a bunch of radical thugs with delusions of remaking society. One of the arguments against fascism being controled by big business was the that why would capital want its factories bombed and destroyed, etc. That's a silly question. They didn't start the wars intending to lose. As the fascist armies moved across Europe, big capital found itself with new markets to expand into, looted capital to seize, slaves to work in its factories. Lebensraum might have been sold by the fascists to the public, but behind them were vultures waiting to pick Europe's bones.

Now we're getting back to a more sensible debate about the nature of the big 'F'. Why don't you think the Pinochet regime was fascist? Because of the lack of an organized fascist party? Didn't it act in every meaningful way just like a fascist regime? You know the old saying, "If it walks like a duck, If it quacks like a duck...".

As I understand your argument, we agree on the basic nature of fascism and who is served by it. But you insist on a mass movement of ruined and disaffected people before it can be called fascism, correct? Any other points of disagreement?