|
Fojar38 posted:How do you know that? Seems like history had demonstrated that communism is heavily predisposed to authoritarian tyranny and its idealism is easily and almost unavoidably perverted to such ends. Democratic Socialist governments like Allende, and even authoritarian Communist governments like Cuba which have been considerable improvements over what they have replace and have higher standards of living than their neighbors. Also "pink tide" countries like Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador to some extent. Also, the most reformist systems of Europe happened to be ones that at least pretended they wanted evolutionary socialism (even if they didn't). You could say USSR outside the Stalinist period was authoritarian but had is own benefits which were preferable to the capitalist option. Basically, Stalin and Mao aren't the end all of all socialism. That said, there aren't examples of unreformed capitalism not only abusing people but eventually leading to its own type of authoritarian. 1890s America could be argued to be considerably authoritarian in nature even if there were free elections for white men. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:14 on Sep 8, 2013 |
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 09:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:02 |
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:You do realize that global capitalism has killed at least 100,000,000 people by starvation alone in the past Your white guilt is your own problem, buddy. The question I was responding to was "why is fascism looked down on so much more than communism" not "why is fascism looked down on so much more than communism and oh by the way how many people does Owlbot 2000 think died of capitalism". Also let's not talk about the farm policies of communist nations. I don't think you want to go there 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 09:12
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Your white guilt is your own problem, buddy. The question I was responding to was "why is fascism looked down on so much more than communism" not "why is fascism looked down on so much more than communism and oh by the way how many people does Owlbot 2000 think died of capitalism". Let's not talk about the agricultural trade policy of the British Empire then either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 09:15
|
|
|
Rogue0071 posted:I don't think it follows that socialists rejecting Stalin are doing so in order to deny culpability for crimes in the USSR under Stalin. The largest anti-Stalinist bloc within revolutionary socialists are Trotskyists. Trotsky and Trotskyists fought against Stalin before and during his regime, with tens of thousands killed or sent to gulags for their efforts. Yet by your formula, Trotskyists who challenge the legitimacy of Stalin's regime are only doing so in order to try to cleanse their hands of his crimes - which is obviously nonsensical. Show me the fascist ideology whose members fought for years at great personal risk against Hitler. Why else would they reject Stalin? The Soviet Union and communism achieved their greatest triumphs under his leadership. And yet today it's quite common to see people who call themselves socialists, communists or Marxists to argue that Stalin and his regime "weren't really socialist/communist/Marxist at all". As for Trotsky, he opposed Stalin because of a power struggle within the party. But I don't think that was what NikkolasKing was after. His post was directed at "Marxist apologists these days", not disputes within the leadership of the Soviet Union. I guess Strasserism could be seen as an example of fascists opposed to a Fascist regime, comparable to the Left Opposition. But I don't understand what internal opposition in Fascist and communist regimes is supposed to prove here. Ardennes posted:Democratic Socialist governments like Allende, and even authoritarian Communist governments like Cuba which have been considerable improvements over what they have replace and have higher standards of living than their neighbors. That's moving the goalposts considerably. You wrote that "Ultimately, the faults of capitalism and Fascism are unavoidable, the same can't be said of Marxism." That's not the same as saying that some socialist governments improved the quality of life in their respective countries, or that they were superior to the regimes they replaced. And besides, it's hard to see on what basis many of the examples you provide could possibly be described as Marxist. Of course there are many possible interpretations of Marxism beside those of Stalin and Mao, but they all come with their own faults. And it's not at all obvious that they, unlike those of capitalism or Fascism, are avoidable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 10:36
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:That's moving the goalposts considerably. You wrote that "Ultimately, the faults of capitalism and Fascism are unavoidable, the same can't be said of Marxism." That's not the same as saying that some socialist governments improved the quality of life in their respective countries, or that they were superior to the regimes they replaced. And besides, it's hard to see on what basis many of the examples you provide could possibly be described as Marxist. The unique fault of capitalism and fascism is the application of violence, that exists really in all states or organized societies to varying degrees (and most of the time it is more severe than many assume it is, especially in liberal societies). It is economic exploration, and by extension sexism and racism (which is purposeful in capitalism). Fascism is an evolution and embrace of the honest faults of capitalism. Marxist societies can have faults but economic exploration is not one of the fundamental ones. And Marxism can't be limited only to Marxist-Leninist/Maoist states even if you don't acknowledge the work of democratic socialist parties in South America. The goalposts of only traditional state socialism really shouldn't be accepted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
The biggest thing in the Fascism vs. Marxist thoughts is that; Marxist idealistic end game is to the benefit of all (except existing power structure of course) while Fascism's ideal is to the expressed exclusion of others (while strengthening existing power structure). This is why Socialism and Communism get a pass to most when viewing, as the idealistic end game actually has benefits far reaching as opposed to Fascist best case scenario where they exclude anyone they want from receiving any positive benefits from that power structure, and probably are taking measures to remove the out groups from said fascist society.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The unique fault of capitalism and fascism is the application of violence, that exists really in all states or organized societies to varying degrees (and most of the time it is more severe than many assume it is, especially in liberal societies). It is economic exploration, and by extension sexism and racism (which is purposeful in capitalism). Fascism is an evolution and embrace of the honest faults of capitalism. Again, all you need to do is look at history to see that Marxism involves violence as well. It is very common for Marxist ideologues to advocate violence as a means of overthrowing the state, and your argument that somehow prejudice and exploitation would vanish under a Marxist system is laughable; you're arguing that under a Marxist system some very fundamental aspects of the human condition would radically change. This is why many people don't take Marxists seriously. When it comes down to it they tend to promise the sun, moon, and stars via magical means. This is why one of the biggest arguments against Communism is the "looks good on paper" one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
It's funny how Leninists and people who hate communism agree that only Leninism and its descendents are real socialism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Your white guilt is your own problem, buddy. Sorry, don't have any. "White guilt" is for liberals. -Troika- posted:The question I was responding to was "why is fascism looked down on so much more than communism" not "why is fascism looked down on so much more than communism and oh by the way how many people does Owlbot 2000 think died of capitalism". Your question was phrased in such a way to make historical socialism seem just as bad as fascism ("why isn't communism looked down on as much as fascism?"), or at least make it seem significantly more deadly than Capitalism. And it's "not how many people I think died", it's not terribly hard to calculate. if you've got estimates for the number of deaths per day due to starvation and malnutrition (21,000 - 25,000), adjust for population growth and subtract whatever happens in North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba. Try it yourself! quote:Also let's not talk about the farm policies of communist nations. I don't think you want to go there
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The unique fault of capitalism and fascism is the application of violence, that exists really in all states or organized societies to varying degrees (and most of the time it is more severe than many assume it is, especially in liberal societies). It is economic exploration, and by extension sexism and racism (which is purposeful in capitalism). Fascism is an evolution and embrace of the honest faults of capitalism. Economic exploitation, sexism and racism all predate capitalism, and are perfectly capable of existing under any political and economic system, including various forms of socialism. And they're not necessarily any less purposeful in other societies. quote:Marxist societies can have faults but economic exploration is not one of the fundamental ones. And Marxism can't be limited only to Marxist-Leninist/Maoist states even if you don't acknowledge the work of democratic socialist parties in South America. The goalposts of only traditional state socialism really shouldn't be accepted. All societies have faults. The question was if the faults of Marxism are avoidable, unlike those of capitalism or Fascism. Economic exploitation can (and did) exist in Marxist societies. Even if it couldn't there'd still be plenty of other faults to address. And what does “fundamental” signify in this context? I'm not arguing that the label of Marxism should be restricted to its Leninist and Maoist interpretations. The problem with the parties of South America and Western Europe isn’t their work so much as whether the societies they govern(ed) can justifiably be called Marxist. If only the commanding heights and certain national resources are nationalized, but private ownership of the means of production remains otherwise intact; if there is no revolution and no dictatorship of the proletariat; if the institutions of bourgeois society remain in control; what Marxism is there then to speak of in such a society?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
What's a greater mystery to me is why, in a thread on neo-Fascism in Europe, we've again derailed into 20h century socialism and equivalence seeking. Fojar38, we get it: Many of the prominent states which are or have at least called themselves some flavor of Marxist have at times been pretty lovely and had their piles of skulls much like everyone else then or now. What you seem determined to avoid, however, is a fundamental difference in the essential nature of Facism from most* forms of Socialism: One can at least conceive of a Marxist system, however laughable and utopian, that in its end state would be a pretty decent place to live and non-violent. Contrarily, one cannot do the same for any Fascist state as struggle and violence is an inherent, irremovable part of Fascism. There is no peaceful end state where things are great, only an endless series of bloody triumphs over whomever the enemy of the Herrenvolk is. *I qualify most here due to some of the more nightmarish edge cases such as the Khmer Rouge, or Maoist China during the GLF/Cultural Revolution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:your argument that somehow prejudice and exploitation would vanish under a Marxist system is laughable Exploitation is a technical term here, the amount of money the owners of a business get from the products workers make. The owners get: [amount of value created by workers] - [workers' pay], and the workers just get a wage. It's also called "profit". If you were to create a system in which workers are also the owners and get the full value of what they create, then by definition there's not that kind of exploitation happening.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:What's a greater mystery to me is why, in a thread on neo-Fascism in Europe, we've again derailed into 20h century socialism and equivalence seeking. Fojar38, we get it: Many of the prominent states which are or have at least called themselves some flavor of Marxist have at times been pretty lovely and had their piles of skulls much like everyone else then or now. What you seem determined to avoid, however, is a fundamental difference in the essential nature of Facism from most* forms of Socialism: One can at least conceive of a Marxist system, however laughable and utopian, that in its end state would be a pretty decent place to live and non-violent. Contrarily, one cannot do the same for any Fascist state as struggle and violence is an inherent, irremovable part of Fascism. There is no peaceful end state where things are great, only an endless series of bloody triumphs over whomever the enemy of the Herrenvolk is. Its almost like liberals view communism as a greater threat than fascism, a ideology that can accurately be summed up as "blood for the blood god," or something.  The history of communism has its share of genocidal assholes, just like all ideologies given enough time to exist. For some dumb reason that they are not as pure as the driven snow means they are worse than ideology based on non-stop killing.Side note: reading reports and memoirs of German generals in the last days of the third reich are really the greatest evidence against the fascist idea of violence purifying and strengthening society. All the generals at some point or another bring up how that idea is crap as all their best soldiers are dead or crippled leaving them nothing but, their words not mine, cowards that were incapable of achieving the goals their predecessors could have. E: or to put it another way this entire dumb derail has been, Person A: I think fascism can be defined as F= {w,x,y,z} Person B: But communism, as C={q,r,y,s}, also contains Y, therefore both are actually the same! Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Sep 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Its almost like liberals view communism as a greater threat than fascism, a ideology that can accurately be summed up as "blood for the blood god," or something. Honestly I haven't seen as much correlation to specific ideologies and piles of skulls so much as I have with strong, centralized governments seeking to impose major ideology-based culture shifts on their populations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Honestly I haven't seen as much correlation to specific ideologies and piles of skulls so much as I have with strong, centralized governments seeking to impose major ideology-based culture shifts on their populations. Yeah, nobody in D&D likes Thatcher.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:Economic exploitation, sexism and racism all predate capitalism, and are perfectly capable of existing under any political and economic system, including various forms of socialism. And they're not necessarily any less purposeful in other societies. We shouldn't assume that any of those things are unavoidable parts of human nature either, though. American slavery predates capitalism, for example, but what we think of as racism developed from slaveholding societies and in response to successful abolition movements. This did not occur just in America; Carlyle popularized the term"friend of the family" in Britain as part of a larger cultural backlash against a culture of middle-class compassion in Britain that included the anti-slavery movement. Carlyle argued that freed slaves in the Caribbean had failed to govern themselves productively as free workers, and explained this as the product of inherent flaws specific to people of African descent. Before that point, people only had vague ideas about heredity, usually in terms that justified the aristocracy as being the product of families of good breeding or which attempted to explain what we would now call national or cultural divisions. Slavery was occasionally explained in these terms, but those theories were less popular than explaining behavioural differences as the result of factors such as climate and diet. Keep in mind, applying ideas based on both genetics and culture are anachronistic; both ideas developed during the Nineteenth Century. The debate over slavery in its own day tended to assume an inherent human equality that would be expressed as approximately middle-class British behaviour upon the adoption of Christianity. It was this idea of equality that Carlyle and others needed to challenge with ideas about inherent differences in human worth along newly-developed "racial" lines, which had been given new weight in a context that was rapidly adapting to Darwin's theories of natural selection. Pretending that racism has always existed is as anachronistic as asking why Columbus didn't consult Google Maps. People have had all sorts of ideas about how and why they are better or different than other groups of people. Our ideas are not theirs. And we are responsible for our ideas, not some nebulous "human nature" that is really a euphemism to flatter our own willful ignorance. Marxism, Liberalism, and for that matter Christianity have all shared some common goals in regards to how we might improve human societies. At present, however, only socialism offers one any ambition in that regard. Edit: this isn't exclusively a reply to you, Sakarja, but you provided a nice quote that summarizes what I am objecting to. /quote] Raskolnikov38 posted:Its almost like liberals view communism as a greater threat than fascism, a ideology that can accurately be summed up as "blood for the blood god," or something. Societies for the Socialism God, Work for the Throne of the Workers? Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Sep 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
I think the question that triggered the derail is still interesting. If Fascism is nothing more than an “evolution”, “agent” or “form” of capitalism, as some seem to suggest, why then are liberal societies in general more tolerant towards socialism? The fact that violence is absolutely fundamental to any Fascist doctrine, in a way that isn’t true of socialism, is only important here on the assumption that the powers that be actually give a drat about it. It amounts to saying that the people in charge of liberal societies are so disgusted by Fascist violence (against the people they themselves exploit ruthlessly) that they regard it as worse than the doctrines and movements that promise to end capitalism, take their stuff and throw them into camps.Hodgepodge posted:We shouldn't assume that any of those things are unavoidable parts of human nature either, though. It’s a good point that we shouldn’t make assumptions about human nature. And I understand that your post wasn’t exclusively a reply to me. But I didn’t say that racism is simply due to human nature (or anything about “human nature” at all) or that racism has always existed, in its current form or otherwise. I wrote that racism can exist under any political or economic system, and that it wasn’t invented under capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:What's a greater mystery to me is why, in a thread on neo-Fascism in Europe, we've again derailed into 20h century socialism and equivalence seeking. Fojar38, we get it: Many of the prominent states which are or have at least called themselves some flavor of Marxist have at times been pretty lovely and had their piles of skulls much like everyone else then or now. What you seem determined to avoid, however, is a fundamental difference in the essential nature of Facism from most* forms of Socialism: One can at least conceive of a Marxist system, however laughable and utopian, that in its end state would be a pretty decent place to live and non-violent. Contrarily, one cannot do the same for any Fascist state as struggle and violence is an inherent, irremovable part of Fascism. There is no peaceful end state where things are great, only an endless series of bloody triumphs over whomever the enemy of the Herrenvolk is. Wouldn't the desired end-state for the fascist to have accomplished their goals? Via a Final Solution or something? The end-state of fascism is utopian for those of the right class. It's possible to imagine a utopian fascist society; it just needs to be done from the perspective of one of the state's patriotic ideal rather than your own perspective. "Ah, finally no more Jews and we can finally relax" is the way I would imagine it. ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Sep 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:Wouldn't the desired end-state for the fascist to have accomplished their goals? Via a Final Solution or something? This is actually one of the (many) contradictions in fascist "philosophy." They believe that a permanent state of warfare must exist so that the weaker elements of the master race are constantly bled away. If there are no more enemies to fight (such as the Jews in your example), then they'll begin fighting/slaughtering the weaker members of said master race until only a small group remains and then the human race goes extinct. Your last statement is how the average non-committed fascist living in a fascist society would probably feel after the completion of another holocaust. The truly committed fascist sees any prolonged period of peace as causing the master race to weaken. e: To clarify, fascist-lite or fascist-esque groups usually believe in an utopian state after removing whoever they deem their enemies. More traditional fascist groups believe in the forever war thing. Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Sep 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
That seems more like you trying to pull a "no true fascist" thing though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:That seems more like you trying to pull a "no true fascist" thing though. God forbid that ideologies actually have defined meanings and tenets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
it goes ---> Fascists(badguys)---> Liberals(goodguys)---> Communists(badguys) Truth is in the middle. Its not complicated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:God forbid that ideologies actually have defined meanings and tenets. Fascism has tended to have that the least. And there are very few inarguably fascist entities that managed to stick around long enough to make the policies for after all the "trash" have been cleared out become apparent. Like I guess if you wanted to be really technical about it you could consider the ongoing infanticide of birth defect or otherwise undesirable children to be "war" but that's about as far as the fascists would be likely to go once they've established complete extermination of everyone outside the desired group - something that in itself would take a really long time to accomplish, due to needing to ferret out them all from hiding.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:That seems more like you trying to pull a "no true fascist" thing though. I mean it's kinda hard not to when dealing with such a poorly defined ideology. e: Perhaps if I changed the quasi-fascist bit to Neo-Fascism it'd be less no true scotsman-y. Post WW2 fascistic groups seemed to have moved away from the forever war to purify the race aspect of the first fascist groups/parties. Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Sep 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:Wouldn't the desired end-state for the fascist to have accomplished their goals? Via a Final Solution or something? These ideas, in and of themselves, weren't particularly new -- the link between physical, moral, and societal health goes back at least to Classical Greece, and probably much further. And, of course, the glorification of war as an ennobling, manly activity has been exploited by warrior aristocracies and warmongering politicians since time immemorial. (And, yes, by militant revolutionaries as well.) And in the 19th and early 20th century, these themes experienced a tremendous revival -- in the official propaganda used to drum up support for various colonial wars, and eventually the Great War; in the discourse linking disease, madness, and sexual deviancy; even in the growing popularity of physical culture, bodybuilding, and "muscular Christianity." Fascism, however, explicitly made the notion of military glory the center of its ideology (such as it was.) The ideal Fascist society could never have been peaceful; at the bare minimum, there would need to be some kind of constant low-grade warfare to serve as a proving ground for the sons of the elite. Liberal societies like to rationalize wars as "peacekeeping" or "police actions," but Fascists like to turn even minor disputes into bloodbaths as a way to "prove their worth." The Spartans and the Aztecs used to periodically "declare war" even on their conquered subjects for precisely this reason; a successful Fascist society would presumably end up doing the same thing during the rare periods where they didn't have an obvious external enemy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Again, all you need to do is look at history to see that Marxism involves violence as well. It is very common for Marxist ideologues to advocate violence as a means of overthrowing the state, and your argument that somehow prejudice and exploitation would vanish under a Marxist system is laughable; you're arguing that under a Marxist system some very fundamental aspects of the human condition would radically change. This is why many people don't take Marxists seriously. When it comes down to it they tend to promise the sun, moon, and stars via magical means. This is why one of the biggest arguments against Communism is the "looks good on paper" one. Yes, there is violence in Marxist societies, but economic exploration is not an implicit part of the way they are organized compared to capitalist/fascist societies. Once you start talking about more mixed economic states it becomes less clear, but parties that try to honestly address economic exploitation are at least fighting in that direction even if capitalism still goes on. Exploitation wouldn't necessary vanish but the whole point of Marxism unlike capitalism/fascism is to eliminate it rather than tolerate it or encourage it. As far as "only looks good on paper," capitalism and fascism doesn't even past that test to begin with. Sakarja posted:Economic exploitation, sexism and racism all predate capitalism, and are perfectly capable of existing under any political and economic system, including various forms of socialism. And they're not necessarily any less purposeful in other societies. Granted, Marxism has a way of explaining about how that developed. Exploitation did not begin with capitalism, it was part of a history process in which capitalism is a distinct phase. Also, there is clear arguement to be made that capitalism and by extension fascism encourage racism and sexism by their very nature in a way Marxism or other forms of leftism do not by virtue of ensuring immutable exploitation. quote:All societies have faults. The question was if the faults of Marxism are avoidable, unlike those of capitalism or Fascism. Economic exploitation can (and did) exist in Marxist societies. Even if it couldn't there'd still be plenty of other faults to address. And what does “fundamental” signify in this context? Personally, I think there are many routes to a class-less society rather than a strict Marxism-Leninist/Maoist methodology (by your interpretation, the USSR wouldn't be Marxist under Lenin because of the early years of the NEP). In fact there isn't a clear historical line in these examples to say this is when the USSR became a Marxist society or not. Was the USSR only Marxist under Stalin or only after 1927? Also, dismissing hybrid societies is throwing out a lot of history for political sake even if there existed private ownership. What caused these societies to become more successful than unreformed capitalist ones? Sorry, I thought these posts were worth responding to even if it is stuck on the same Marxism topic. Btw, in utopian Fascist society, economic exploitation, sexism and racism would still exist even if you killed off all the undesirables. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Sep 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:Wouldn't the desired end-state for the fascist to have accomplished their goals? Via a Final Solution or something? Others have already answered this adequately, but I would like to lend my weight as well to the idea that this is one of what I've argued previously in this thread are the many internal contradictions of fascist "thought." I'd go further and extend the idea of endless martial struggle to the neo-Fascist groups, albeit in different language and forms that lend more to street violence and what we'd term domestic terrorism against whatever hated out-group is in their crosshairs at the moment, then to more classic armed struggle by men in uniform. Despite this difference in form, the function remains the same; you see the same sort of "we must preserve the strength of our blood and toughen it up against the weakening effects of decadent/effeminate modernism" sentiments laced with violent implications in modern fascist groups as you do the classical ones, they just have somewhat different avenues for their violent struggles than did their fore-bearers (and some do retain the same, especially with regards to Israel and what they'd very much like to do to it). That's not to say that your average brownshirt didn't/doesn't think "well after this war/struggle/campaign against (whomever) is over, then the Master race will rule in glory forever!", but that he's deluded to think that the Party will ever cease beating the wardrums. Then again, if he's a fascist it's unlikely introspection's really his thing to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Others have already answered this adequately, but I would like to lend my weight as well to the idea that this is one of what I've argued previously in this thread are the many internal contradictions of fascist "thought." I'd go further and extend the idea of endless martial struggle to the neo-Fascist groups, albeit in different language and forms that lend more to street violence and what we'd term domestic terrorism against whatever hated out-group is in their crosshairs at the moment, then to more classic armed struggle by men in uniform. Despite this difference in form, the function remains the same; you see the same sort of "we must preserve the strength of our blood and toughen it up against the weakening effects of decadent/effeminate modernism" sentiments laced with violent implications in modern fascist groups as you do the classical ones, they just have somewhat different avenues for their violent struggles than did their fore-bearers (and some do retain the same, especially with regards to Israel and what they'd very much like to do to it). Granted, a large part of the heterodoxy of Fascist thought is that it is based largely on imagined culture, and is there those particularist. Hungarian neo-fascists have their own native brand of fascism to harken back to, and their own historical and cultural motives for example their own brand of revanchism. There will be of course many similarities with other fascist movements, but it is more difficult to great a ideological basis for certain individual cultural elements of those movements.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
So it would seem that fascism is a reactionary ideology without an answer for what would be better. Rather than having a specific end-goal in mind, it instead has a set of reactions against what it perceives to be failings of the modern world. People are too sissified. Group X is inferior and dragging us down. We deserve our ancestors' homeland... and those people's too, because they aren't using it to its full potential. Marxism on the other hand is a reactionary ideology in that it replies to the misgivings of capitalism, however it has an answer for what would be preferable and a clear way of evaluating how close to ideal society is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, a large part of the heterodoxy of Fascist thought is that it is based largely on imagined culture, and is there those particularist. Hungarian neo-fascists have their own native brand of fascism to harken back to, and their own historical and cultural motives for example their own brand of revanchism. There will be of course many similarities with other fascist movements, but it is more difficult to great a ideological basis for certain individual cultural elements of those movements. Oh I don't disagree, and furthermore we shouldn't also ignore that fascists tend to be collosal assholes which makes intergroup solidarity that much more unlikely on top of the problem of identity chauvinism. For recent examples of both problems, we need look no further than the clownshow that was the 2012 Alliance for European National Movements conference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:Marxism on the other hand is a reactionary ideology in that it replies to the misgivings of capitalism, however it has an answer for what would be preferable and a clear way of evaluating how close to ideal society is. Marxism is a reactionary ideology  I think you misunderstand what reactionary means while applied to political thought
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Marxism is a reactionary ideology Would you care to go deeper...?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Oh I don't disagree, and furthermore we shouldn't also ignore that fascists tend to be collosal assholes which makes intergroup solidarity that much more unlikely on top of the problem of identity chauvinism. For recent examples of both problems, we need look no further than the clownshow that was the 2012 Alliance for European National Movements conference. The cultural primacy that makes up the better part of Fascism can make cooperation more difficult simply because there can only be some many dominate cultures at one time. Not everyone is can be on top. That isn't to say there aren't divisions between Marxists but that is almost always on a ideological level rather than the natural result of cultural emphasis. quote:Would you care to go deeper...? Two different definitions of reactionary, to react to present society to form a method of improving society or to react to present society by moving to previously established cultural morays and economics. Marxism falls under the first one and fascism under the second one. (Granted, I think the second use if by far the more common more, while the first one seems ad hoc.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Sep 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
Reactionary political ideologies are a reaction to radicalism, Fascism in reaction to Communism, Metternich in response to the revolutions of 1848. Reactionaries want a return to the status quo. Marxism seeks to overturn that, so while Marxism develops as an alternative as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism it is not a reactionary ideology as defined by political thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Capitalism has been around longer than either Fascism or Communism. That alone means it's gonna have more points in whatever you're scoring it in, both good and bad. SickZip posted:communism is currently more the domain of the upper and upper middle class.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:I think the question that triggered the derail is still interesting. If Fascism is nothing more than an “evolution”, “agent” or “form” of capitalism, as some seem to suggest, why then are liberal societies in general more tolerant towards socialism? When has this ever happened?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
ErichZahn posted:When has this ever happened? Yeah. If anything, liberal democracies tend to be (initially) more sympathetic towards fascists as they act as bullyboys and curbstompers towards the hated and feared Reds, see also how post-Weimar German society, still fairly liberal and not yet heavily Nazified, by and large breathed a sigh of relief after Hitler came to power and "cleaned up the streets" ie: arrested and/or deported the communists and socialists. It wasn't until after everything went south and the Red Army had steamrolled into Berlin that German moderates suddenly remembered they'd always hated fascism and were really its first victims when you stop to think about it. Similarly, the liberal West, here defined at the US and its allies during the Cold War, had no problem with quasi-fascist/reactionary nationalists all over Central and South America rounding up and disappearing inconvenient socialists. I mean, I get that popularly, at least in America, "fascist" is still a harsher accusation to toss around than "socialist" (though not by much, due to right-wing talking heads having muddied those waters as furiously as they can for the last several decades), but historically liberal states tend to be much more afraid of native socialists than fascist encroachment. Often as they incorrectly presume the latter can be kept on a leash, whereas the former is the stalking horse of the International Communist Conspiracy or ZOG or whatever. Ardennes posted:The cultural primacy that makes up the better part of Fascism can make cooperation more difficult simply because there can only be some many dominate cultures at one time. Not everyone is can be on top. That isn't to say there aren't divisions between Marxists but that is almost always on a ideological level rather than the natural result of cultural emphasis. Sure, I just don't think we should ignore just how personally unpleasant and repellant most of these people tend to be, and how that contributes to there not being a successful Fieldgrey Internationale or anything. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Sep 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:Would you care to go deeper...? Typically "reactionary", to put it really basically, is used to mean "extremist conservative." If a conservative could be said to want to hold back change and maintain the status quo, a reactionary wants to not only prevent further progessive change in society, but to actually undo progress that's been made and make things back into how they used to be. In this sense fascism could be said to be reactionary in wanting to return the nation to some vague state of greatness based on (what they perceive to be) past values, culture, racial purity, whatever. It would be confusing to call Marxism reactionary under this use because Marxists generally want to radically change society without much particular regard to traditional culture and institutions and the like. I mean, it's clear you meant "reactionary" in the sense of "this ideology formed in reaction to", but in political ideology-speak it's not a term typically used that way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, Marxism has a way of explaining about how that developed. Exploitation did not begin with capitalism, it was part of a history process in which capitalism is a distinct phase. Also, there is clear arguement to be made that capitalism and by extension fascism encourage racism and sexism by their very nature in a way Marxism or other forms of leftism do not by virtue of ensuring immutable exploitation. I take no issue with the claim that Marxism attempts to explain the origins of racism. The problem is statements to the effect that bigotry is the defining characteristic of capitalism, or its sine qua non. And even if we were to agree 100 % that the roots of bigotry are to be found in exclusively in economic exploitation, that is no guarantee that abolishing exploitation (easier said than done) will result in the removal of bigotry from society. quote:Personally, I think there are many routes to a class-less society rather than a strict Marxism-Leninist/Maoist methodology (by your interpretation, the USSR wouldn't be Marxist under Lenin because of the early years of the NEP). In fact there isn't a clear historical line in these examples to say this is when the USSR became a Marxist society or not. Was the USSR only Marxist under Stalin or only after 1927? Also, dismissing hybrid societies is throwing out a lot of history for political sake even if there existed private ownership. What caused these societies to become more successful than unreformed capitalist ones? I agree that there’re many routes, it’s just that only one of them has ever been successful up until now. I wouldn’t have any problem characterizing the early USSR as Marxist, since it was the product of a proletarian revolution and was ruled by the dictatorship of the proletariat (both according to their Leninist definitions). The NEP was simply a tactical retreat in the face of economic disaster. All doctrines have to make concessions to reality of some kind once they go from opposition to authority. The problem with the countries you mentioned is that they fail to meet any of the criteria required for us to call something Marxist, if the word is to have any meaning beyond “welfare reformism and revolutionary rhetoric”. As for “Fascist utopia” I’m not at all sure that it’s commonly accepted that Fascist movements strive towards to a utopia in the same way as Marxists do. There is of course no shortage of utopian and apocalyptic themes in Fascism, but there's also this: Mussolini posted:Outside history man is a nonentity. Fascism is therefore opposed to all individualistic abstractions based on eighteenth century materialism; and it is opposed to all Jacobinistic utopias and innovations. It does not believe in the possibility of "happiness" on earth as conceived by the economistic literature of the XVIIIth century, and it therefore rejects the theological notion that at some future time the human family will secure a final settlement of all its difficulties. This notion runs counter to experience which teaches that life is in continual flux and in process of evolution. So while I don’t disagree with you that bigotry and exploitation would still exist in a Fascist “end state”, I’m not exactly sure how we should go about defining the latter. ErichZahn posted:When has this ever happened? After WWII, although I guess it’s possible to include the popular fronts as an example. I don’t think there’s room for any doubt that Fascism carries far more stigma these days than socialism or communism. At the very least it should be perfectly obvious that socialists are tolerated to a far greater extent than fascists in academia, politics, the media etc. Additionally (and this is just an anecdotal observation) it also seems perfectly socially acceptable to advocate socialist revolution, discuss who’s to be robbed and executed once the progressive forces are victorious and blame the victims of crimes committed by socialist regimes. The same isn’t (and shouldn’t be) true for Fascism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 08:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:02 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:This is actually one of the (many) contradictions in fascist "philosophy." They believe that a permanent state of warfare must exist so that the weaker elements of the master race are constantly bled away. If there are no more enemies to fight (such as the Jews in your example), then they'll begin fighting/slaughtering the weaker members of said master race until only a small group remains and then the human race goes extinct. It's like stack ranking, but for humanity itself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 08:55
|
|