05-04-2003 04:54									#61
	Support Apolyton

Imran:

you just don't seem to get it.

HOw does someone become a man in Fascism? How is their indentity created? Communists have families too, you know. But for a communist, the idea is that an adult forms his vital identity at work. Man is an economic animal, and he identifies himself primarily by the wrok he does. For a communist, you think of yourself as a man as "a farmer", a "tradesman", a "merchant", so forth and so on. It is the identity built by your experiences at work that matter and this is what decides your class, and then, even mroe pwoerfully, your class conciousness.

For a facist, ones conciosuness is derived fom them myths and stories, the customs of the nation in so far as they differ from those of others. The memories that matter to you in creating your identity are not what i did at work, but the culture I partake in. What for a communist is nothing but superstructure on top of the real basics is all that matters for the Facists. That superstructure of particularism is what makes you you. And that particularism is defined by one thing, Nation.

Fasicsm does not spring from some cotidian love of family: remember how many fascist were initially socialists, such as Mussolini. But the first world war radicalized them, and they stopped believing in the notion of universal class consciousness and went back to particularists national ones.

Fasicsm is inherently a modenist movement that seeks t overthrow what is an install a radical and revolutionary program. As such it only invokes conservative tradition when useful, a mantle as it were. Germany did go further in fascism than Italy, and even ignoring the pseudo-biological ideology that infused Nazi thinking, fi you look at what the nazi period did to the german family and society, you see that it shook it up, it overthrew the old village structure, for example, in order to further the interests of the state, which is the nation in facist thinking. If fascists wanted large families, it is not because they had some Aristetolean vision that family is the model for all political structures. fascists are radicals (which is why calling any right-wing dic. fascism is wrong) after all.

	05-04-2003 04:57									#62
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc And starve to death.

Ask the Russians which system was better.

	06-04-2003 02:29									#63
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by nationalist Explain yourself? Are you confused?

Not at all. You seem to be, though.

There's no single "value" you can assign to a particular political viewpoint. Wrapping the old political spectrum into a circle doesn't make it any less one-dimensional; it simply chooses to associate the extreme left and right wings of the spectrum.

	06-04-2003 02:32									#64
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Neither did mercantalism, but that isn't capitalist either.

Your original point was that fascism was anticapitalist due to its dislike of income disparities, though.

Which is still wrong...

	06-04-2003 02:33									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned Saddam's Iraq is more like Nazi Germany than any state since WWII. In fact, Saddam outdoes Hitler in ruthlessness and in cruelty. I think the common factors are between Saddam and Hitler are 1) a Furhrer. 2) a secret police composed of thugs, torturers and killers 3) a private army loyal to the leader to keep the other elements in line 4) elite troops controlled by the private army that keep the rest of the army in line 5) extreme militarism 6) all private enterprised subordinated to and potentially directed by the state 7) no independent power blocks, such as unions.

Stop trying to hijack a thread which has the capacity for interesting discussion.

	06-04-2003 02:58									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The two-bit philosphical difference is that communism want to get towards ultimate democracy. We should collectively decide all things which effect us: work, school, etc. We maximize our individuality by working together with others to do all the necessary work of running a society, which leaves us with the maximum time to develop ourselves.

Fascism, on the other hand, believes in the total submission of the will to the nation and its state which finds its ultimate representation in one leader. Communism wants to create educated rational people. Fascism says that emotions and irrationalism are our true beings. Fascism glorifies violence.

In practical terms, under communism there is the collective ownership of all wealth producing property, including land. Under fascism, private property is protected. In fact, the real purpose of the fascist state is to bail out a floundering capitalist economy (shut up, Imran, and just agree to disagree with me about terms). Indepednent unions are smashed, wages and benefits crushed, massive government contracts are handed out to corporations, and ultimately, war is waged to capture new areas for investment and plunder and slaves.

The differences for the individual living under Stalin or Hitler, however, weren't all that great. Trotsky called them the twin faces of the coin of reaction. Both Hitler and Stalin were reactionary developments to the stalemate in the class war, and each system had to resort to massive brutality to maintain itself.

	06-04-2003 03:21									#67
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Frogger, In execution, there is very little difference between communism and fascism. In the former, the economy is centrally owned and planned. In the latter, it is directed. But, what both seem to have in common is the police state apparatus. In addition, both seem to maintain large armies.

The fascists, however, seem much more aggressive than communists in trying to conquer militarily.

I would put both Saddam's Iraq and Assad's Syria in the fascist camp.

As to justifying communism by alluding to an idealized future: well there are sucker born every day.

	06-04-2003 03:24									#68
	Suffering from ads?

GePap, I don't think you get it.

quote: For a facist, ones conciosuness is derived fom them myths and stories, the customs of the nation in so far as they differ from those of others.

Yes, and what does these customs do? They create a familial relationship. Look in Italy and Spain, they didn't care where you came from, but if you just bought into the traditions. Kind of like in-laws, they became part of the family. Every nationalist theory comes back to the idea that everyone is part (or should be a part) of the national family.

And to say that Fascists didn't believe in traditional morality is reaaaly streaching it. After all, why should women be relegated to the home? You can't try to explain it away saying they are biologically providers, because you can care for children AND be productive in the work force. The Fascists took the women back into the home, because they believe that was the way it has been and should be. The Enlightenment screwed it all up, and we should go back.

--

Che: sure we can agree to disagree, just so we both know you are wrong .

	06-04-2003 03:31									#69
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara ... Fascism, on the other hand, believes in the total submission of the will to the nation and its state which finds its ultimate representation in one leader. Communism wants to create educated rational people. Fascism says that emotions and irrationalism are our true beings. Fascism glorifies violence. In practical terms, under communism there is the collective ownership of all wealth producing property, including land. Under fascism, private property is protected. In fact, the real purpose of the fascist state is to bail out a floundering capitalist economy (shut up, Imran, and just agree to disagree with me about terms). Indepednent unions are smashed, wages and benefits crushed, massive government contracts are handed out to corporations, and ultimately, war is waged to capture new areas for investment and plunder and slaves. ...

[che]
I'll have to agree with you on this Che, except that true Marxists would argue that Communism is inherently violent. The Manifesto's whole argument is that the bourgeoise society must be cast down violently by workers in order to achieve a workers paradise. Fascism employs violence to further it's own means (as you mentioned).

[/che]

as anyone can see, Fascism tightens the yoke on the individual to support those individuals at the top of society whereas Communism utilizes everyones abilities in order for everyone to make it to the top.

	06-04-2003 03:34									#70
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I thought that the whole deal with National Socialism's belief of women was that it was their duty to the state and society to remain at home to expand Aryan influence by having more children?

	06-04-2003 03:36									#71
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ned Frogger, In execution, there is very little difference between communism and fascism. In the former, the economy is centrally owned and planned. In the latter, it is directed.

The economy is not directed by the fascist state (except when wartime necessitates it, and not always then). Pretty much up until the very end, Hitler and Co. took his orders from I.G. Farben and Krupps and the like. Sure, these companies were led by Nazis, because the leadership all joined the Nazi party. Kinda like how Schindler was a Nazi.

quote: But, what both seem to have in common is the police state apparatus. In addition, both seem to maintain large armies. The fascists, however, seem much more aggressive than communists in trying to conquer militarily.

Well, the commies were under attack from day one. They have good reason to be paranoid. People justify the relatively mild restrictions on our civil liberties today in the name of security. Why deny the Communists the same right when they were under more severe threat than we have ever faced?

The fascists' whole purpose, on the other hand, is to crush the unruly elements of society, i.e., people like me. War is necessary to gain more room for the capitalists to have exclusive rights of investment, as well as gaining plunder and slaves.

quote: I would put both Saddam's Iraq and Assad's Syria in the fascist camp.

You'd be wrong. Facsism is a response to decaying industrial capitalism. Ba'athism may share idelogical similarities and as well as a certain methodology, but it lakes the indutrial base necessary. It's like claiming mock crab is crab. They taste similar but the fake stuff is no substitute for the real thing.

	06-04-2003 03:36									#72
	Got spare money?

Partly, franky... but that also tied into the traditional morality. The Nation must be supported by more young, but that was also the reasoning behind keeping the woman in the home in some Medieval societies.

	06-04-2003 03:46									#73
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Frankychan [che] I'll have to agree with you on this Che, except that true Marxists would argue that Communism is inherently violent. The Manifesto's whole argument is that the bourgeoise society must be cast down violently by workers in order to achieve a workers paradise. Fascism employs violence to further it's own means (as you mentioned). [/che]

Violence being necessary isn't the same as glorifying it. Yeah, some young testosterone poisoned commies really get into the idea of Texas-justice on the ruling class, but for the most part we see violence as a necessary evil. If we aren't violent, we'll be overthrown on day two of the revolution by the former ruling class.

Fascism, on the other hand, glorifies violence as an end unto itself. Violence is seen as the paragon of human activity. It is through violence that we become truely human.

If you can find a copy of Berteluci's 1900 I suggest watching it. It's one of the best movies on fascism there is, without being expository or preachy (it stars Pacino and Donald Sutherland among others, and is very long). That goes for everyone curious as to waht fascism really is.

	06-04-2003 05:42									#74
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui GePap, I don't think you get it. Yes, and what does these customs do? They create a familial relationship. Look in Italy and Spain, they didn't care where you came from, but if you just bought into the traditions. Kind of like in-laws, they became part of the family. Every nationalist theory comes back to the idea that everyone is part (or should be a part) of the national family. And to say that Fascists didn't believe in traditional morality is reaaaly streaching it. After all, why should women be relegated to the home? You can't try to explain it away saying they are biologically providers, because you can care for children AND be productive in the work force. The Fascists took the women back into the home, because they believe that was the way it has been and should be. The Enlightenment screwed it all up, and we should go back.

The thing Imran is that women were not just relegated to the home to have babbies; Girls, for example, were given ideological training, and had their own political groups like the boys. Education is key. If you just want women to give you babies, why have this sort of political indoctrination for women?
The facisst did think the enlighttenment was wrong, but it was wrong not becuase it overthrew old traditions: Edmund Burke thought the same thing, as do many conservatives, like George Will. They though the problem was the call for a sort of universalism that ignored the particularism they view as most important. Facism comes form many Romantic thoughts: the thing to understand though is that even if romantiscist and others thought the enlightenment was wrong, their programs was not just simple reactionalism. They were radicals in their cause, revolutionary.

I don't think Franco is much of an example of fascism. He acted thoughtout his rule like an old fashioned caudillo, making strong alliences with the Church. Mussolini did not have that strong a relation with the Chuch, and that was certainly true of the Nazis.

The maiin point is that similar actions might be taken for very different aims. Fascism was a modernist system,a radical and revolutionary one, and one that did not justify itself simply on tradition. They may love the cultue they believe is so central to destiny, but they had a new and radical program for it.

	06-04-2003 05:51									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Franco wasn't really a fascist, even if he was supported by fascists. Calling him a fascist was a bit of bait-and-switch on the anti-Franco forces part, in order to gather support for the Republican side.

There are definately shared aspects with fasism, such as the mass movement of reaction and many of the same classes (the ruined middle class, soldiers and veterns, land owners, etc) that supported the fascists in Italy and Germany supported the Falangists in Spain. The underling conditions existed too, the presence of a powerful workers' movement that had failed to make the revolution for subjective reasons alone. What was lacking in Spain, however, was developed industrial capitalism, though what capitalists did exist supported Franco.

	06-04-2003 05:54									#76
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Communist Ideology:

All are equal, each contributing what he can for the good of the state. The state is the only company, and it's purpose is to serve the people, not make money. Which becomes it's downfall.

Fascist Ideology:

Caste system. Know your place, and do not defy the law. Your leader knows better than you. It's strength leans on making a supermajority the priviliged. Fascism has no real downfall, except that the minority is squashed.

Communist reality:

Steals from the rich, to give to the poor. Poor become rich, and do not give back to the poor.

Fascist reality:

The rich stay rich. The poor stay poor.

Any style of government reality:

The little guy loses to the powerful.

Human reality:

Power corrupts.

Mussolini said Government + Corporation = Fascism.

	06-04-2003 08:50									#77
	Got spare money?

The difference is that fascism admits to being violent and oppressive. Communism likes to pretend otherwise.

	06-04-2003 11:12									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: . If you just want women to give you babies, why have this sort of political indoctrination for women?

Because you have to get them believing that their role is to have as many babies as possible. So they don't buy into this crap about women's lib.

quote: The facisst did think the enlighttenment was wrong, but it was wrong not becuase it overthrew old traditions: Edmund Burke thought the same thing, as do many conservatives, like George Will.

I think it is interesting you bring up Burke, because he is contrary to your point. Burke HATED the Enlightenment because it overthrew the old traditions. Burke's whole philosophy (and conservative philosophy) is the belief that traditions should not be case aside because they are the filtering of great thinking throughout the ages. In Reflections on the Revolution in France he talks about how the testing of ideas for the ones that work have led to what we call tradition. The revolution in France was wrong because it threw that old, proven thinking aside.

Gradual changes are ok, but wholesale rejection of tradition is definetly not.

quote: Fascism was a modernist system,a radical and revolutionary one, and one that did not justify itself simply on tradition.

It was also, in many ways, quite reactionary.

	06-04-2003 23:15									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Because you have to get them believing that their role is to have as many babies as possible. So they don't buy into this crap about women's lib. If all you want to do is keep them were they always have been, why the hell would you indoctrinate them in the first place? There was no womens lib movement in Europe at that time, anymore than there was one in the US. Sorry, no dice on this point. quote: I think it is interesting you bring up Burke, because he is contrary to your point. Burke HATED the Enlightenment because it overthrew the old traditions. Burke's whole philosophy (and conservative philosophy) is the belief that traditions should not be case aside because they are the filtering of great thinking throughout the ages. In Reflections on the Revolution in France he talks about how the testing of ideas for the ones that work have led to what we call tradition. The revolution in France was wrong because it threw that old, proven thinking aside. Gradual changes are ok, but wholesale rejection of tradition is definetly not. Yes, thank you: gradual change OK, not revolution. Well, what the hell was facism but a revolutionary movement out to take out the decadent orders tha had taken hold in the decades after? Burke would have seen the fascist just as they saw themselves, as revolutionaries. [QUOTE]It was also, in many ways, quite reactionary.

Certainly the basic ideology of Fascism is muddled, which is why radical revolutionary reactionism (which is what they were) does no make for long-term policies. But as i said, even if they wanted women to be breeders for the state, that is not the same as "abrefoot and in the kitchen" idology of many others.

	06-04-2003 23:49									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: If all you want to do is keep them were they always have been, why the hell would you indoctrinate them in the first place? There was no womens lib movement in Europe at that time, anymore than there was one in the US. Sorry, no dice on this point.

Are you nuts?! There were huge women's lib movements in Weimar. That government, dominated by Socialist Parties, were very into increased rights and oppertunities for women. The Nazis had to drill out of womens' minds that this was good.

quote: Yes, thank you: gradual change OK, not revolution. Well, what the hell was facism but a revolutionary movement out to take out the decadent orders tha had taken hold in the decades after? Burke would have seen the fascist just as they saw themselves, as revolutionaries.

A revolution to return to the ways of doing things would NOT be frowned on by Burke. Remember, he was a big proponent of the Glorious Revolution, because it returned England to its traditions.

quote: But as i said, even if they wanted women to be breeders for the state, that is not the same as "abrefoot and in the kitchen" idology of many others.

It is very very similar.

	07-04-2003 00:06									#81
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui A revolution to return to the ways of doing things would NOT be frowned on by Burke. Remember, he was a big proponent of the Glorious Revolution, because it returned England to its traditions.

Revolutions, by definition, don't go backwards but forwards. If it goes backwards, it's a restoration.

	07-04-2003 00:13									#82
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Revolutions, by definition, don't go backwards but forwards. If it goes backwards, it's a restoration.

Restorative revolution?

It's all semantics, but when reactionaries revolt, Burke wouldn't mind (ie, the counter-revolution).

	07-04-2003 00:22									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

But its not a counter revolution: the Fascist seek to destroy all semblages of democratic institutions that had been built up. That's not restorative, thats radical and totalitarian. Would Burke approve of that? Most certainly not.

Again, and for the hundreath time: Fasicst are radical revolutionaries, not just run of the mill reactionaries. HUGE difference.

	07-04-2003 01:00									#84
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Would Burke approve of that? Most certainly not.

No, but because it was TOO reactionary. As you said democratic institutions had been built up. A progressive revolution would have included more democracy, not less.

They may have been radical revolutionaries in some aspects, but in many aspects they were reactionaries.

	07-04-2003 01:27									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Communism, ultra liberal to the extent your jailed for mentioning other types of government