A return of Fascism in Europe?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > A return of Fascism in Europe?

Gantolandon: Aug 19, 2012

Captain_Maclaine posted:

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

Globalization changed a lot, though. Fascists, being against free flow of goods and people, became much less tolerable for the capitalists than before. It's much harder to get cheap workforce without immigrants from poorer countries, whom fascists tend to not like. Right now, when socialists are much less powerful than in 30s, I think we can expect liberals to be much less tolerant to fascists than before.

# ? Sep 9, 2013 08:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 19:07

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Sakarja posted:

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.

It may not, but Marxist and other leftists movements produce a roadmap to attempt it, the same can't be said for capitalism or fascism.
While the end of economic exploitation may not end bigotry, it is certain that retaining it will allow bigotry to continue to exist.

quote:

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�.

It needs to be said that "economic disaster" of course was at the end of fighting a horrendous civil war, several foreign invasions and being economically and diplomatically frozen out by the West. In addition, while the other societies may not be called truly Marxist, the fact that they are at least attempting to move in that direction is of note and so are the consequences of that direction.

quote:

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. 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.

I would take for example what they individually defined as their hopeful end state, as these end states were tied to their political, military and cultural dreams for their nations. Hitler's new order was a fairly detailed outcome that was rather explicit in what it hoped to accomplish in the future. Mussolini had the outlines of his dream as well. Obviously, these absolute certainly wouldn't be a true end states because the nature of fascism is rather produced by political necessity and the desire for an imagined golden age. That said, in the farther dreams of the New Order, economic exploitation/racism/sexist would not only be around but the very definition of daily life.

quote:

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.

Depends on the circumstances, based on some experience at Georgetown University, supporting socialism, much less communism is completely verboten the point that there is a considerable grey area of which is less acceptable. Maybe not outright Nazism, but lets say grey areas like certain regimes the US has supported in South America. In many fields of American academia have moved significantly to the right, actual Marxists are very very rare nowadays.

# ? Sep 9, 2013 09:05

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Pornographic Memory posted:

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.

But I think the revolutionary/reactionary divide gets confused when talking about fascism. Fascism was also bound up in techno-futurism and high-tech fantasies, and often existed in cooperation with - but also in competition with - reactionary elites who wanted to go back to the way things were. There are some scholars now (non-Marxist ones) who argue that fascism is a distinct revolutionary ideology as distinct from liberalism and communism as they are from each other. The mythic past in fascism is not a literal return to that past, but the basis of a national reawakening and the foundation for a new society.

There's a good paper about this, I'll except the part about what makes fascism different, and also why violence is so inexorably bound up in it:

http://ah.brookes.ac.uk/resources/griffin/fasrevolution.pdf

quote:

The radical destructiveness implicit in the Nazi utopia was compounded by features intrinsic to
fascist ideology as a whole. All revolutions are by definition destructive, and prepared, even if
only in the �transitional period�, to prioritize one segment of humanity over all others which are
holding back �progress�. The liberal revolution necessitates the destruction of a feudal or
communist �ancien regime�. The communist revolution in theory requires the destruction of
bourgeois capitalism, and in practice has led to mass murder and terror on a vast scale in many
of its national variants, e.g. in Russia under Stalin, in China under Mao Tse-Tung, or in Cambodia
under Pol-Pot. Even the Velvet Revolutions of 1989 in Poland and Czechoslovakia destroyed a
Soviet colonial system which had brought to many ordinary citizens some measure of stability,
material security, and social peace all of which were quickly eradicated by the wild capitalism
which ensued.

Where the fascist revolution differs significantly from liberal (bourgeois) and Marxist
ones is that in theory these, though carried out locally, aimed to establish bridge-heads in the
territorial battle against the �old order� in a process which would one day bring benefits to
humanity on a global scale. One of these benefits was to be international peace. Certainly there
was talk in the inter-war period of a �universal� fascism and a number of attempts at forging
international linkages with like-minded movements, linkages which post-1945 fascism has
continued to cultivate and which have become truly global in the 1990s with the advent of the
Internet. Moreover, both the Fascists and the Nazis saw themselves as saving, not just their
nation from decadence, but �civilization� as a whole. Nevertheless, the main focus of fascism has
always been the �home� nation, not �humanity�, and its revolution in that sense is a highly
sectional one. It was Italians whom Fascists wanted to revitalize by reawakening in them the
heroic qualities of the Ancient Romans, while the Nazis resorted to the most extreme measures
imaginable in order to weld all healthy ethnic Germans into a unified national community, or
Volksgemeinschaft.

Another important difference lies in the fact that, unlike the liberal or Marxist, the fascist
cannot envisage a �steady state� of society which has reached a point of social equilibrium and
calm. To a fascist stasis means, not a welcome stability, but stagnation, entropy, and death.
Fascism is thus driven to perpetuate the dynamism of the revolutionary moment that brought
it to power, to create the conditions of �permanent revolution�. A radical, eugenically fixated
fascist regime such as the one which the Nazis actually installed (and others such as the
Romanian Iron Guard or contemporary American neo-Nazis have only been able to dream of
establishing) is forced by its own logic to preside over a constant process of creation and
destruction: the establishment of the �new state� must be accompanied by destroying or
coordinating the old system.

For the fascist revolutionary, then, destruction of enemies is thus neither nihilistic nor
inhuman, but an integral aspect of a permanent revolution. The principle which logically follows
from the mythic premises of his world view is one of destroying to build, or what one fascist
thinker has called �creative nihilism�. The fascist transforms or (in the case of Nazism)
surgically removes the �unhealthy� elements of the nation so that it can be regenerated, prunes
the national tree of its dead branches and excess foliage so that it can grow better, preserves at
least his segment of humanity from the ravages of decadence and the threat of being �swamped�
by �inferior� cultures and races so that civilization can be saved.

And whether fascism has material or immaterial goals: they're quite material:

quote:

The stress I have placed on the subjective dimension of the Fascist revolution should not,
however, detract attention from the changes which both regimes sought to bring about in external
reality. For example, while neither the Fascist nor Nazi state wanted to abolish capitalist
economics and private property, they had no scruples about involving themselves with the
economy on a scale unprecedented in any liberal state except in wartime, whether through the
corporative system as in Italy, or through cartelization and huge state industries as in Germany.
In the build-up to the Second World War both regimes also pursued the goal of self-sufficiency
(autarky), the Nazis to the point of creating a vast European empire whose material and human
resources (i.e. foreign workers and concentration camp inmates by the million) were ruthlessly
exploited for the good of the Third Reich. When large industrial firms such as Krupp, Daimler
Benz, or IG Farben made high-tech products with slave labour it was hardly business as usual
for capitalism.

Both regimes also indulged in a massive programme of social engineering which involved
creating mass organizations for every social grouping, retooling the educational system,
symbolically appropriating all aspects of leisure, sport, culture, and technology, whether by
associating them with the genius of the new state (as in Italy) or through enforced coordination
and social control (as in Germany). The goal common to both regimes, however, was to create
a thoroughly fascistized cultural habitat in which a new type of human being, the fascist �new
man� (and woman), would spontaneously emerge, instinctively and joyfully prepared to devote
all their talents, idealism, and energy to the cause of the nation. Vast public works such as the
building of motor-ways and (in Italy) the draining of marshes, the Nazi plans to rebuild the centre
of Berlin on a monumental scale and rename the city �Germania�, the radical overhaul of the
educational system to mass-produce Fascist or Nazi values: these were hardly symptoms of a
purely �subjective� revolution. It was the sheer scale on which both regimes were prepared to
mobilize the nation�s human and physical resources to pursue their territorial claims on Europe,
and the horrifying extent to which the Nazis carried out their scheme to create a racially pure and
healthy Third Reich which is the most eloquent testimony to the revolutionary dynamic of
fascism.

Fascism was not just a revolution of values, an attempt to make a clean break with the
liberal, humanist, and eventually Christian traditions, but a concerted effort to deploy the
unprecedented capacity of the modern state for social engineering to bring about a fundamental
transformation in the way society was going to be run and every one of its inhabitants was going
to live. It took a massive effort by the British, the Americans and the Russians to create a military
machine sufficiently powerful to prevent the Nazis from turning even more of their utopian
fantasies into grim realities.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Sep 9, 2013

# ? Sep 9, 2013 09:14

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

quote:

And whether fascism has material or immaterial goals: they're quite material:

I can't agree with this. The fact that fascism has no endpoint, no stable node, to me means that the transformation that fascists are after only exists in metaphor, it does not and cannot exist in reality. The fascists transformation has no basis in materialism. The fact that they kill/exile/oppress for the sake of it is what makes it tragic and pointless. I cannot call it a modern way of thinking, but pseudo-modern. If you read people like plato, you'll notice that they tend to fixate on ideas of 'virtue' when talking about politics. The liberal revolution is understanding that a 'virtuous' view of history and society tells you jack-poo poo, you have to talk about a human subject and the environment they are in. Socialism inherited that as well, it's why historical materialism is one of the factors behind Marxism. Fascism inherited the old virtue-based perspective on history and society and combined with the products of modern thinking (technology and bureaucracy). Copying the results without doing the working, as it were.

I'd actually go out on a limb and claim that libertarianism is a kind of Market Fascism (everything within the market, nothing outside the market, nothing against the market) because of it's focus on specific entrepreneurs and 'captains of industry' as part of it's perspective on economics. Everyone does best in never-ending competition, the free market is best because it allows virtuous people to impose their will on everyone else, etc, etc.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Sep 9, 2013

# ? Sep 9, 2013 09:45

Sakarja: Oct 19, 2003; "Our masters have not heard the people's voice for generations and it is much, much louder than they care to remember."

Capitalism is the problem. Anarchism is the answer. Join an anarchist union today!

Ardennes posted:

It may not, but Marxist and other leftists movements produce a roadmap to attempt it, the same can't be said for capitalism or fascism.
While the end of economic exploitation may not end bigotry, it is certain that retaining it will allow bigotry to continue to exist.

Is it really a practicable roadmap though? Isn�t it more accurate to call it the dream that bigotry (along with all other forms of social conflict) will simply disappear once we abolish economic exploitation and the division of labor? And there are plenty of crackpot libertarian and conservative explanations of how government, not capitalism, is responsible for racism. In that sense one could say that there exists capitalist roadmaps to �end racism�, however shallow and intellectually bankrupt they may be.

quote:

It needs to be said that "economic disaster" of course was at the end of fighting a horrendous civil war, several foreign invasions and being economically and diplomatically frozen out by the West. In addition, while the other societies may not be called truly Marxist, the fact that they are at least attempting to move in that direction is of note and so are the consequences of that direction.

There�s no reason to get defensive about the performance of the Bolsheviks and War Communism. I was simply making the point that they chose that road out of necessity and that the NEP didn�t �disqualify� them as Marxists. The issue under discussion was if the faults of Marxism can be avoided. The countries you mentioned might well be attempting to move in that direction, but unless they can actually be considered Marxist, they tell us nothing about whether its faults are avoidable or not.

quote:

I would take for example what they individually defined as their hopeful end state, as these end states were tied to their political, military and cultural dreams for their nations. Hitler's new order was a fairly detailed outcome that was rather explicit in what it hoped to accomplish in the future. Mussolini had the outlines of his dream as well. Obviously, these absolute certainly wouldn't be a true end states because the nature of fascism is rather produced by political necessity and the desire for an imagined golden age. That said, in the farther dreams of the New Order, economic exploitation/racism/sexist would not only be around but the very definition of daily life.

I agree, and the point that there�s really no such thing as a Fascist end state was the one I was trying to make. Sure we could look at the empires that they hoped to build, but that�s hardly comparable to the Marxist �end of prehistory�. I don�t think we actually disagree about the faults of Fascism being unavoidable.

quote:

Depends on the circumstances, based on some experience at Georgetown University, supporting socialism, much less communism is completely verboten the point that there is a considerable grey area of which is less acceptable. Maybe not outright Nazism, but lets say grey areas like certain regimes the US has supported in South America. In many fields of American academia have moved significantly to the right, actual Marxists are very very rare nowadays.

I guess so, but I�d still argue that socialism and communism is tolerated to a far greater extent than Fascism. And regardless of how few Marxists remain in US academia, it still seems perfectly safe to say that there are more of them than there are Fascists.

# ? Sep 9, 2013 10:00

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

rudatron posted:

I can't agree with this. The fact that fascism has no endpoint, no stable node, to me means that the transformation that fascists are after only exists in metaphor, it does not and cannot exist in reality. The fascists transformation has no basis in materialism. The fact that they kill/exile/oppress for the sake of it is what makes it tragic and pointless. In that sense, I cannot call it a modern way of thinking, but pseudo-modern. If you read people like plato, you'll notice that they tend to fixate on ideas of 'virtue' when talking about politics. The liberal revolution is understanding that a 'virtuous' view of history and society tells you jack-poo poo, you have to talk about a human subject and the environment they are in. Socialism inherited that as well, it's why historical materialism is one of the factors behind Marxism. Fascism is the inheritance of the old virtue-based perspective on history and society, combined with the products of modern thinking (technology and bureaucracy). Copying the results without doing the working, as it were.

I'd actually go out on a limb and claim that libertarianism is a kind of Market Fascism (everything within the market, nothing outside the market, nothing against the market) because of it's focus on specific entrepreneurs and 'captains of industry' as part of it's perspective on economics. Everyone does best in never-ending competition, the free market is best because it allows virtuous people to impose their will on everyone else, etc, etc.

I think libertarianism and fascism also share the sense of unleashing the powers of human will. I remember in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four that the state (which was based on Stalinism but had fascistic qualities, it is a general totalitarianism) had no laws as such. It's in the interest of totalitarian ideologies like fascism to break down established legal codes because it's an obstacle to the untrammeled will to power. It's interesting that libertarianism's chief political icon in the U.S. in recent years has now gone back to speaking at schismatic and traditionalist Catholic events with Italian neo-fascists now that's retired. There's this sense you get from libertarians that they need a dynamic "captain" to overthrow corrupted legislative bodies and impose his will.

On the part about fascism being pseudo-modern: I would call it anti-modern modernism. Fascism seeks to construct an alternative form of modernism in response to modernity wrecking traditional values and securities. It wants to impose a universal order, aesthetic and way of life based on older "eternal" myths but also use totalitarian and programmatic means to construct a new society.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 10:23 on Sep 9, 2013

# ? Sep 9, 2013 10:20

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Sakarja posted:

Is it really a practicable roadmap though? Isn�t it more accurate to call it the dream that bigotry (along with all other forms of social conflict) will simply disappear once we abolish economic exploitation and the division of labor? And there are plenty of crackpot libertarian and conservative explanations of how government, not capitalism, is responsible for racism. In that sense one could say that there exists capitalist roadmaps to �end racism�, however shallow and intellectually bankrupt they may be.

It is a roadmap that at least has some positive results to point to, at least to me that makes it more realistic than the liberal/fascist alternatives. Remember, much of liberal reformism was a response to Marxism in the first place and its disappearance isn't accidental.

quote:

There�s no reason to get defensive about the performance of the Bolsheviks and War Communism. I was simply making the point that they chose that road out of necessity and that the NEP didn�t �disqualify� them as Marxists. The issue under discussion was if the faults of Marxism can be avoided. The countries you mentioned might well be attempting to move in that direction, but unless they can actually be considered Marxist, they tell us nothing about whether its faults are avoidable or not.

The history needs to be laid out before a discussion can take place, there are plenty of different versions of the events of that period. The issue is creating a hard line between the two where only discussion can happen regarding the orthodox state socialism rather than other attempts at democratic socialism (Chile) or even anarchism (such as Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War). I do think states attempting at that path have something to say even if they have only moved so far in that direction. I think the division is arbitrary especially since many leftists wouldn't considering some of those states truly Marxist. It seems that definition really hinges on Marxist-Leninism and influences.

Granted, a similar problem could be said of edge cases like Pinochet and to some even Franco/Salazar in regards to Fascism. Even if you don't think Franco's Spain was fascist, you could certainly see the results of elements of his policy and how it fits in the larger scheme of things.

quote:

I agree, and the point that there�s really no such thing as a Fascist end state was the one I was trying to make. Sure we could look at the empires that they hoped to build, but that�s hardly comparable to the Marxist �end of prehistory�. I don�t think we actually disagree about the faults of Fascism being unavoidable.

It is far more of a hodgepodge of ideas than the route of Marxism, but it does show their eventual vision. If anything it shows how limited the future of Fascism is, basically they win and return everything to the way it "should have been" and thats about it.

quote:

I guess so, but I�d still argue that socialism and communism is tolerated to a far greater extent than Fascism. And regardless of how few Marxists remain in US academia, it still seems perfectly safe to say that there are more of them than there are Fascists.

It gets murky when talking about edge cases like Pinochet though, remember the Chicago boys advised him and American academia has only moved to the right then. Honest Fascism is over course not really heard of, but admiration for right-wing authoritarianism is less and less rare as time goes on. Left-wing authoritarians are obviously not as highly regarded or even left-wing non-authoritarians.

As far as libertarianism, I think it is more an natural evolution of liberal capitalism than strict Fascism. Fascism is anything a reaction to cosmopolitanism brought by liberalism while libertarianism eventually pushes for the eradication of regulating mechanism to establish a society controlled by "pure market forces," a type of society as the other have pointed out that is beyond the realm of law or even liberal democracy. Ultimately, it leads to a very similar place through a different route. Market totalitarianism?

Ardennes fucked around with this message at 10:35 on Sep 9, 2013

# ? Sep 9, 2013 10:29

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Captain_Maclaine posted:

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.

I agree with a lot of this particularly regarding U.S. and allied support for quasi/proto-fascist movements in Latin America and Europe, but you don't want to let communist states entirely off the hook either. North Korea was a Soviet allied state that was and still is outright national socialist (maybe even more so than any state the U.S. and NATO ever armed and equipped) in everything but name and the color of the flag. I'm not sure liberal states ever signed anything as heinous as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. But historically I suppose it was true during the 1920s and during the Cold War.

Edit:

Interestingly, the DIA considers "aggressive authoritarian capitalism" a greater threat to the U.S. today. Socialism doesn't even make the list. We should show this to right-wingers and freak them out.

^ Michael T. Flynn

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Sep 9, 2013

# ? Sep 9, 2013 10:42

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Omi-Polari posted:

I agree with a lot of this particularly regarding U.S. and allied support for quasi/proto-fascist movements in Latin America and Europe, but you don't want to let communist states entirely off the hook either. North Korea was a Soviet allied state that was and still is outright national socialist (maybe even more so than any state the U.S. and NATO ever armed and equipped) in everything but name and the color of the flag. I'm not sure liberal states ever signed anything as heinous as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. But historically I suppose it was true during the 1920s and during the Cold War.

Edit:

Interestingly, the DIA considers "aggressive authoritarian capitalism" a greater threat to the U.S. today. Socialism doesn't even make the list. We should show this to right-wingers and freak them out.

Although to be honest North Korea had been moving off and doing it's own thing for a while. It is telling that most of their military and civilian technology seems centered at best in the 1970s. Also admittedly, China has been supporting them in other ways and it can't really be considered communist since Deng. As far as the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, it was a treaty of non-aggression while at least corporations in capitalist countries had been cooperating with the Nazis for a while and their neutrality during the Spanish Civil War was pretty telling as well. Basically everyone was looking the other way for Hitler.

Granted, aggressive authoritarian capitalism could be DIA code for China.

# ? Sep 9, 2013 11:16

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

Ardennes posted:

Although to be honest North Korea had been moving off and doing it's own thing for a while. It is telling that most of their military and civilian technology seems centered at best in the 1970s. Also admittedly, China has been supporting them in other ways and it can't really be considered communist since Deng. As far as the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, it was a treaty of non-aggression while at least corporations in capitalist countries had been cooperating with the Nazis for a while and their neutrality during the Spanish Civil War was pretty telling as well. Basically everyone was looking the other way for Hitler.

Granted, aggressive authoritarian capitalism could be DIA code for China.

As for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, it only came into being because of the so-called liberal democracies of the west bending over backwards for Hitler, up to and including the goddamn Munich Agreement. I don't see how this somehow gives liberals the all-important moral high grund here.

# ? Sep 9, 2013 11:46

Sakarja: Oct 19, 2003; "Our masters have not heard the people's voice for generations and it is much, much louder than they care to remember."

Capitalism is the problem. Anarchism is the answer. Join an anarchist union today!

Ardennes posted:

It is a roadmap that at least has some positive results to point to, at least to me that makes it more realistic than the liberal/fascist alternatives. Remember, much of liberal reformism was a response to Marxism in the first place and its disappearance isn't accidental.

While I agree that this connection obviously existed, I think that Marxist (and leftist radicals in general) make rather too much of it. Yes, to a considerable extent the reformisms of the 19th and 20th centuries were responses of the ruling classes to the pressure of movements invoking Marxism and threatening revolution. But they were also achieved by trade unions and parties that were not associated with Marxism in any way, movements that had no revolutionary ambitions, that worked within the liberal democratic framework and were denounced as revisionists or worse by contemporary Marxists.

quote:

The history needs to be laid out before a discussion can take place, there are plenty of different versions of the events of that period. The issue is creating a hard line between the two where only discussion can happen regarding the orthodox state socialism rather than other attempts at democratic socialism (Chile) or even anarchism (such as Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War). I do think states attempting at that path have something to say even if they have only moved so far in that direction. I think the division is arbitrary especially since many leftists wouldn't considering some of those states truly Marxist. It seems that definition really hinges on Marxist-Leninism and influences.

Granted, a similar problem could be said of edge cases like Pinochet and to some even Franco/Salazar in regards to Fascism. Even if you don't think Franco's Spain was fascist, you could certainly see the results of elements of his policy and how it fits in the larger scheme of things.

The thing that sets the orthodox apart is that they actually practiced something recognizable as Marxism. If we are to include Spanish anarchists then we�ve changed the topic. If we include everything from reformism to anarchism then we�re discussing socialism in the most general sense, not Marxism specifically. In that case we need to establish what separates a socialist state from one that is liberal. In short, what is the �socialist minimum�? Or maybe it�d be better to just end this derail here.

And you�re right that I wouldn�t categorize any of the regimes you mention as Fascist, even if at least two of them were influenced in important ways by Fascism. Of course we could evaluate the faults Franco�s regime in the light of these Fascist influences. But in the same way as with supposedly socialist states that retain many essential features of capitalism, it would be a mistake to judge whether or not the faults of the founding doctrine are avoidable based on a �mixed� state.

quote:

It gets murky when talking about edge cases like Pinochet though, remember the Chicago boys advised him and American academia has only moved to the right then. Honest Fascism is over course not really heard of, but admiration for right-wing authoritarianism is less and less rare as time goes on. Left-wing authoritarians are obviously not as highly regarded or even left-wing non-authoritarians.

My argument that liberal society is more tolerant towards socialists than Fascists isn�t primarily about authoritarian regimes or their leaders during the Cold War. It�s about individuals and institutions within liberal societies that openly espouse socialist views or advocate socialist revolution. It�s about academics and other writers who attempt to develop socialist doctrine and defend it against criticism; that apply historical materialism and Critical Theory or elements thereof in their work. It�s about people who defend the historical record and contemporary practices of socialist or semi-socialist states etc.

The question here isn�t if it�s right for them to do so, or whether liberals are justified in condemning them or not. The question is why - if socialism is (at least potentially) a real threat against the capitalist world order � do liberals tolerate them to a far greater extent than Fascists?

# ? Sep 9, 2013 12:09

Sakarja: Oct 19, 2003; "Our masters have not heard the people's voice for generations and it is much, much louder than they care to remember."

Capitalism is the problem. Anarchism is the answer. Join an anarchist union today!

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact came into being because Stalin came to the conclusion that rapprochement with Hitler was a better guarantee of safety than any arrangement that could realistically be made with the France and the UK. The main problem wasn�t western appeasement so much as their inability to come to an agreement with Stalin on the terms for an alliance. If the liberals have the moral high ground here it�s because Molotov-Ribbentrop was far worse than any of the appeasement France and the UK engaged in.

# ? Sep 9, 2013 12:28

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

Sakarja posted:

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact came into being because Stalin came to the conclusion that rapprochement with Hitler was a better guarantee of safety than any arrangement that could realistically be made with the France and the UK. The main problem wasn�t western appeasement so much as their inability to come to an agreement with Stalin on the terms for an alliance. If the liberals have the moral high ground here it�s because Molotov-Ribbentrop was far worse than any of the appeasement France and the UK engaged in.

This, of course, is complete bullshit. The liberal appeasement both directly caused the Molotov-Ribbentrp pact, and let Hitler build up his strength to the point where we needed a world war to stop him. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, on the other hand, did lead to some terrible poo poo, but it also allowed the USSR to defeat the nazis eventually.

It's also pretty funny how you acknowledge that the Pact was necessary for the USSR in order to have a somewhat tenable strategic position for the war that everybody knew was coming, yet still insist on liberals getting the moral high ground. Guess it's easy to keep the moral high grund when you force everybody else into taking extreme measures just to survive, huh?

Also:

Sakarja posted:

My argument that liberal society is more tolerant towards socialists than Fascists isn’t primarily about authoritarian regimes or their leaders during the Cold War. It’s about individuals and institutions within liberal societies that openly espouse socialist views or advocate socialist revolution. It’s about academics and other writers who attempt to develop socialist doctrine and defend it against criticism; that apply historical materialism and Critical Theory or elements thereof in their work. It’s about people who defend the historical record and contemporary practices of socialist or semi-socialist states etc.

The question here isn’t if it’s right for them to do so, or whether liberals are justified in condemning them or not. The question is why - if socialism is (at least potentially) a real threat against the capitalist world order – do liberals tolerate them to a far greater extent than Fascists?

All of this is hogwash. Liberals are content to let socialists speak as long as there's no chance of that affecting anything. Liberals are also full willing to use any and all means of repression when it starts to look like socialists might actually manage to affect some change, up to and including funding literal fascists to do their dirty work for them. See poo poo like Operation Gladio for illustrative examples. That there are no fascists in academia is indicative of exactly jack and poo poo here.

# ? Sep 9, 2013 12:42

Warbadger: Jun 17, 2006

Sakarja posted:

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact came into being because Stalin came to the conclusion that rapprochement with Hitler was a better guarantee of safety than any arrangement that could realistically be made with the France and the UK. The main problem wasn�t western appeasement so much as their inability to come to an agreement with Stalin on the terms for an alliance. If the liberals have the moral high ground here it�s because Molotov-Ribbentrop was far worse than any of the appeasement France and the UK engaged in.

It also immediately preceded the Soviet invasions of Poland and Finland. The Soviets were perfectly happy doing their own empire building right along with the Germans.

# ? Sep 9, 2013 12:45

SirKibbles: Feb 27, 2011; I didn't like your old red text so here's some dancing cash.

Sakarja posted:

The question here isn�t if it�s right for them to do so, or whether liberals are justified in condemning them or not. The question is why - if socialism is (at least potentially) a real threat against the capitalist world order � do liberals tolerate them to a far greater extent than Fascists?

Because they have to. For one Socialism is not as broken down as fascism is when it comes to the amount of people practicing or sympathetic to it. Secondly liberal societies in general are built on an agree to disagree type principal they tolerate fascists just as much as they do socialists (barely) it's just that there aren't as many fascists so it seems disproportionate. And lastly Right wing nationalist groups have way to much overlap with fascist groups, they're basically stealing their hypothetical members,the same cannot be said of social democrats in Europe and liberals in America when applied to Socialism.

edit: A good example neo-nazi's are legally allowed to march no problem with police protection even.

SirKibbles fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Sep 9, 2013

# ? Sep 9, 2013 13:24

Sakarja: Oct 19, 2003; "Our masters have not heard the people's voice for generations and it is much, much louder than they care to remember."

Capitalism is the problem. Anarchism is the answer. Join an anarchist union today!

Cerebral Bore posted:

This, of course, is complete bullshit. The liberal appeasement both directly caused the Molotov-Ribbentrp pact, and let Hitler build up his strength to the point where we needed a world war to stop him. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, on the other hand, did lead to some terrible poo poo, but it also allowed the USSR to defeat the nazis eventually.

This, of course is nothing but rank apologism. The appeasement didn�t directly cause Ribbentrop-Molotov. It didn�t somehow deprive Stalin of agency, or responsibility for his own actions. No one held a gun to his head and forced him into Hitler�s arms. He continued negotiations with France and the UK after the Munich Agreement. Out of the options available to him, Stalin considered rapprochement and far-reaching collaboration with the Nazis the least objectionable.

Molotov-Ribbentrop didn�t just lead to �some terrible poo poo�, plenty of terrible poo poo was already part of the agreement. And how exactly did the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact contribute to the victory of the USSR over Nazi Germany? Was it by allowing the Nazis a free hand and a safe flank while they invaded Poland and France, along with several other European countries? Was it the raw materials it and subsequent agreements provided them with right up until the launch of Operation Barbarossa?

quote:

It's also pretty funny how you acknowledge that the Pact was necessary for the USSR in order to have a somewhat tenable strategic position for the war that everybody knew was coming, yet still insist on liberals getting the moral high ground. Guess it's easy to keep the moral high grund when you force everybody else into taking extreme measures just to survive, huh?

I never stated that Molotov-Ribbentrop was necessary for the USSR in any way. The fact that Stalin considered it to be the best option doesn�t mean that it was necessary at all. And again, there was no liberal plot to force Stalin into disgracing Soviet communism as the self-proclaimed leader of international anti-fascism.

The liberals have the moral high ground here because their appeasement, disgraceful, destructive and counterproductive as it was, never went nearly as far as the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and subsequent agreements between the Nazis and the Soviet Union did. I�m sorry if this upsets you.

quote:

All of this is hogwash. Liberals are content to let socialists speak as long as there's no chance of that affecting anything. Liberals are also full willing to use any and all means of repression when it starts to look like socialists might actually manage to affect some change, up to and including funding literal fascists to do their dirty work for them. See poo poo like Operation Gladio for illustrative examples. That there are no fascists in academia is indicative of exactly jack and poo poo here.

I�d say liberals allowing socialists to speak has changed plenty of things in liberal society. But you�re missing the point. The fact that there are socialists to be found in academia, media and politics in liberal societies, while there are far fewer Fascists (if any at all, in certain fields and countries) is indicative of the fact that socialism is tolerated to a far greater extent than Fascism.

Sakarja fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Sep 9, 2013

# ? Sep 9, 2013 13:32

SirKibbles: Feb 27, 2011; I didn't like your old red text so here's some dancing cash.

Sakarja posted:

I�d say liberals allowing socialists to speak has changed plenty of things in liberal society. But you�re missing the point. The fact that there are socialists to be found in academia, media and politics in liberal societies, while there are far fewer Fascists (if any at all, in certain fields and countries) is indicative of the fact that socialism is tolerated to a far greater extent than Fascism.

I'd say in due to the fact that there are less fascists, than the fact that they aren't tolerated. There's also the fact that fascists decimated Europe in a war. Add the fact that America's "Golden Age" is viewed to be kickstarted by beating the Fascists and it makes sense.

SirKibbles fucked around with this message at 13:38 on Sep 9, 2013

# ? Sep 9, 2013 13:36

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Sakarja posted:

I�d say liberals allowing socialists to speak has changed plenty of things in liberal society. But you�re missing the point. The fact that there are socialists to be found in academia, media and politics in liberal societies, while there are far fewer Fascists (if any at all, in certain fields and countries) is indicative of the fact that socialism is tolerated to a far greater extent than Fascism.

What country are you in? This isn't true of any country I can think of. The general trend is that fascists today vastly outnumber socialists in politics and media, academia I wouldn't have a clue about. Worse, you have center parties that have ended up adopting the policies of fascist groups, because they are 'addressing the concerns of the community' etc. etc.

edit:

Omi-Polari posted:

Interestingly, the DIA considers "aggressive authoritarian capitalism" a greater threat to the U.S. today. Socialism doesn't even make the list. We should show this to right-wingers and freak them out.

Read that as code for 'China' rather than as any self-conscious economic policy.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Sep 9, 2013

# ? Sep 9, 2013 13:38

Kieselguhr Kid: May 16, 2010; WHY USE ONE WORD WHEN SIX FUCKING PARAGRAPHS WILL DO?

(If this post doesn't passive-aggressively lash out at one of the women in Auspol please send the police to do a welfare check.)

Fascists probably aren't all that prominent in academia because fascism is pretty fiercely anti-intellectual.

# ? Sep 9, 2013 13:45

Warbadger: Jun 17, 2006

Sakarja posted:

Was it by allowing the Nazis a free hand and a safe flank while they invaded Poland and France, along with several other European countries?

They didn't just provide a safe flank in Poland. The invasion of Poland was a joint affair in which the Germans grabbed the Western end of the country while the Soviets grabbed the Eastern end. The unexpected Soviet invasion effectively denied the Polish military its planned strategy of withdrawing during the initial engagements to prepare for a defense in Southeastern Poland (something they did successfully), where they could hold out and tie up German divisions until allied forces attacked from France.

# ? Sep 9, 2013 13:56

Sakarja: Oct 19, 2003; "Our masters have not heard the people's voice for generations and it is much, much louder than they care to remember."

Capitalism is the problem. Anarchism is the answer. Join an anarchist union today!

Warbadger posted:

It also immediately preceded the Soviet invasions of Poland and Finland. The Soviets were perfectly happy doing their own empire building right along with the Germans.

Invasions? I think it's called "creating a buffer zone" when communists do it.

SirKibbles posted:

Because they have to. For one Socialism is not as broken down as fascism is when it comes to the amount of people practicing or sympathetic to it. Secondly liberal societies in general are built on an agree to disagree type principal they tolerate fascists just as much as they do socialists (barely) it's just that there aren't as many fascists so it seems disproportionate. And lastly Right wing nationalist groups have way to much overlap with fascist groups, they're basically stealing their hypothetical members,the same cannot be said of social democrats in Europe and liberals in America when applied to Socialism.

edit: A good example neo-nazi's are legally allowed to march no problem with police protection even.

If Fascism is broken down as you say - which runs contrary to the main sentiment of this thread, that Fascism is on the rise � that in itself could be indicative of the lack of tolerance for Fascism within liberal societies. I�d argue that the social stigma associated with Fascism and the contempt with which it�s regarded by many people in liberal societies are important factors in explaining its lack of popular support.

As for liberal societies tolerating Fascists and socialists equally, that�s not strictly true everywhere. Many countries have legislation against hate speech and the display of Fascist symbols and salutes. Not that there�s any shortage of �class war� hysteria anytime there are major leftist protests, but it�s hardly the same.

SirKibbles posted:

I'd say in due to the fact that there are less fascists, than the fact that they aren't tolerated. There's also the fact that fascists decimated Europe in a war. Add the fact that America's "Golden Age" is viewed to be kickstarted by beating the Fascists and it makes sense.

I guess so, but couldn�t the same be said of the relationship to the Soviet Union to some extent? Of course the soviets didn�t invade Western Europe, unlike the Nazis. But decades spent as enemies, and under threat of nuclear war combined with the triumphalism that followed in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union should be able to produce the same effect.

rudatron posted:

What country are you in? This isn't true of any country I can think of. The general trend is that fascists today vastly outnumber socialists in politics and media, academia I wouldn't have a clue about. Worse, you have center parties that have ended up adopting the policies of fascist groups, because they are 'addressing the concerns of the community' etc. etc.

Really? I know there are outright Fascist and crypto-Fascist parties that have scored victories in certain European countries. But I never got the impression that they actually outnumber the left, certainly not in the majority of liberal countries. I don�t doubt what you say, but perhaps you could provide some examples?

# ? Sep 9, 2013 14:14

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

Sakarja posted:

This, of course is nothing but rank apologism. The appeasement didn�t directly cause Ribbentrop-Molotov. It didn�t somehow deprive Stalin of agency, or responsibility for his own actions. No one held a gun to his head and forced him into Hitler�s arms. He continued negotiations with France and the UK after the Munich Agreement. Out off the options available to him, Stalin considered rapprochement and far-reaching collaboration with the Nazis the least unobjectionable.

This, of course, is nothing but the old, tired liberal talking point that socialists must adopt losing tactics because of the dear ~moral high ground~. This is bullshit. Stalin had tried to form an anti-Axis alliance with the UK and France before and was rebuffed. Stalin even offered to intervene on the side of Czechoslovakia during the Sudet crisis and was rebuffed. So why the gently caress should he trust and/or cooperate with the western governments who quite openly wanted to topple the USSR and had just handed Hitler, whose desire to topple the USSR was as open as open can be, a huge victory without a single shot fired?

It is typical dumb propaganda to yank events out of their context and pretend that outside pressure is nonexistent when it suits your argument and then blame people when they choose a lovely option when only lovely options are left. Don't do this.

Sakarja posted:

Molotov-Ribbentrop didn�t just lead to �some terrible poo poo�, plenty of terrible poo poo was already part of the agreement. And how exactly did the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact contribute to the victory of the USSR over Nazi Germany? Was it by allowing the Nazis a free hand and a safe flank while they invaded Poland and France, along with several other European countries? Was it the raw materials it and subsequent agreements provided them with right up until the launch of Operation Barbarossa?

It meant that Barbarossa had to be launched from the Bug and East Prussia instead of Belarus and the Baltic. Considering how the actual war turned out, these shorter lines of supply and the fact that the Axis armies could have avoided some pretty unfavorable terrain means that there would have been a real risk of Hitler winning the war, or at least dragging it out even longer with all that that entails. You can whine all that you want about Stalin just being Bad Man who just agreed to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact for shits and giggles, but the fact remains that it turned out to be the right decision.

Sakarja posted:

I never stated that Molotov-Ribbentrop was necessary for the USSR in any way. The fact that Stalin considered it to be the best option doesn�t mean that it was necessary at all. And again, there was no liberal plot to force Stalin into disgracing Soviet communism as the self-proclaimed leader of international anti-fascism.

See above, that is bullshit. The Soviet Union would have been in a competely hopeless strategic situation if it had had the 1939 borders in 1941, because it is pretty inevitable the Poland would have lost anyway.

Sakarja posted:

The liberals have the moral high ground here because their appeasement, disgraceful, destructive and counterproductive as it was, never went nearly as far as the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and subsequent agreements between the Nazis and the Soviet Union did. I�m sorry if this upsets you.

Again, bullshit. Liberal appeasement was a necessary condition for Hitler to be able to wage a successful war in the first place. Without Liberal appesement, WW2 could have been a much shorter and far less destructive war. This is quite obviously far loving worse on every moral level than the bad poo poo that came out of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

Sakarja posted:

I�d say liberals allowing socialists to speak has changed plenty of things in liberal society. But you�re missing the point. The fact that there are socialists to be found in academia, media and politics in liberal societies, while there are far fewer Fascists (if any at all, in certain fields and countries) is indicative of the fact that socialism is tolerated to a far greater extent than Fascism.

Yeah, what's a little murder and repression between friends? Surely that's no indicator of tolerance, whereas some dudes being allowed to speak in academia and media is the loving litmus test here.

# ? Sep 9, 2013 14:17

A Sloth: Aug 4, 2010; EVERY TIME I POST I AM REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THAT I AM A SHITHEAD.

ASK ME MY EXPERT OPINION ON GENDER BASED INSULTS & "ENGLISH ETHNIC GROUPS".

He can't provide examples of fascists outnumbering socialists because it is simply not true.

Far Right parties outnumbering Far Left parties in membership and votes is fairly common though.

A Sloth fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Sep 9, 2013

# ? Sep 9, 2013 14:25

Antwan3K: Mar 8, 2013

Kieselguhr Kid posted:

Fascists probably aren't all that prominent in academia because fascism is pretty fiercely anti-intellectual.

Then who were these people in German universities in the 30's? Why was there a Carl Schmitt, a Heidegger or a Croce?

Omi-Polari posted:

On the part about fascism being pseudo-modern: I would call it anti-modern modernism. Fascism seeks to construct an alternative form of modernism in response to modernity wrecking traditional values and securities. It wants to impose a universal order, aesthetic and way of life based on older "eternal" myths but also use totalitarian and programmatic means to construct a new society.

It is indeed impossible to regard Nazism as a 19th century-type reactionary ideology, akin to say French legitimists or American southern planters. A very interesting take I read some years ago was that Nazi violence is - as you say - anti-modernist but very modern in that it directly employs modern ideas but radicalises and re-contextualizes them. For example, you can say the Nazis waged an imperialist war, but instead of Africa they wanted to settle Germans in Eastern Europe. You can also read the perverse factory discipline of the death camp as inherently modernist (as it necessitates modern logistical and 'production' methods), only employing them to destroy instead of producing.
Of course, scientific racism, total warfare and numerous other cornerstones of Nazi ideology are also very much modern in origin.

Antwan3K fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Sep 9, 2013

# ? Sep 9, 2013 14:35

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Cerebral Bore posted:

This, of course, is nothing but the old, tired liberal talking point that socialists must adopt losing tactics because of the dear ~moral high ground~. This is bullshit. Stalin had tried to form an anti-Axis alliance with the UK and France before and was rebuffed. Stalin even offered to intervene on the side of Czechoslovakia during the Sudet crisis and was rebuffed. So why the gently caress should he trust and/or cooperate with the western governments who quite openly wanted to topple the USSR and had just handed Hitler, whose desire to topple the USSR was as open as open can be, a huge victory without a single shot fired?

You have this backwards. It was the UK and France that tried to bring Stalin into a defensive alliance over Poland, and Stalin rebuffed them, because Stalin believed that the western governments weren't seriously going to fight over Eastern Europe. He was wrong but he had reasons to believe they wouldn't.

But there was also an ideological reason: the Soviets didn't consider fascism to be that different from capitalism. Fascism was considered to be a deformation of capitalism instead of a distinct (and competing, revolutionary ideology), and the Soviets through the Popular Front had already defined social democrats as "social fascists" and they had an alliance there - so why not an alliance with German fascists? The Soviet Union had good relations with capitalist Weimar Germany, so Nazi Germany wasn't that different, from the Soviet point of view.

Plus, a non-aggression pact made sense as a matter of realpolitik: let the "capitalist" states fight and bleed each other. It gave Stalin half of Poland, gave him the go-ahead to attack Finland, and freed up Stalin's forces to pivot against Japan (which Stalin felt was the real threat). He then drastically miscalculated the German build-up in 1941 and nearly lost the war.

Anyways, I initially brought up the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact not to boost liberalism's moral high ground.* Just to respond to someone else who said liberalism has an awful record of collaboration with fascists, which is true, but then mentioned Marxists favorably (in an attempt to boost Marxists' moral high ground). I'm really saying: pot. kettle. black.

Antwan3K posted:

It is indeed impossible to regard Nazism as a 19th century-type reactionary ideology, akin to say French legitimists or American southern planters. A very interesting take I read some years ago was that Nazi violence is - as you say - anti-modernist but very modern in that it directly employs modern ideas but radicalises and re-contextualizes them. For example, you can say the Nazis waged an imperialist war, but instead of Africa they wanted to settle Germans in Eastern Europe. You can also read the perverse factory discipline of the death camp as inherently modernist (as it necessitates modern logistical and 'production' methods), only employing them to destroy instead of producing.
Of course, scientific racism, total warfare and numerous other cornerstones of Nazi ideology are also very much modern in origin.

Oh yeah. Also think of Nazi architecture.

* Ok. Maybe I'm trying to boost it a little bit. But hey, the Soviet Union did do most of the fighting in World War 2 and you can't really beat that in the anti-fascist credibility department.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Sep 9, 2013

# ? Sep 9, 2013 14:50

Sakarja: Oct 19, 2003; "Our masters have not heard the people's voice for generations and it is much, much louder than they care to remember."

Capitalism is the problem. Anarchism is the answer. Join an anarchist union today!

Cerebral Bore posted:

This, of course, is nothing but the old, tired liberal talking point that socialists must adopt losing tactics because of the dear ~moral high ground~. This is bullshit. Stalin had tried to form an anti-Axis alliance with the UK and France before and was rebuffed. Stalin even offered to intervene on the side of Czechoslovakia during the Sudet crisis and was rebuffed. So why the gently caress should he trust and/or cooperate with the western governments who quite openly wanted to topple the USSR and had just handed Hitler, whose desire to topple the USSR was as open as open can be, a huge victory without a single shot fired?

It is typical dumb propaganda to yank events out of their context and pretend that outside pressure is nonexistent when it suits your argument and then blame people when they choose a lovely option when only lovely options are left. Don't do this.

He seemed to trust Hitler quite a lot. And he apparently had less trouble trusting the western imperialists once his winning tactics backfired spectacularly. And there were of course plenty of reasons for France and the UK to distrust Stalin as well. But you�re right that morals are of no concern to a consistent Leninist. If winning requires enabling and assisting Fascists in imperialist warfare, that�s fine so long as it benefits the party in the end.

For some reason �context� and �contextualization� only ever seem get trotted out when it�s necessary to explain away some unfortunate mistake or unpleasant necessity performed by socialists or communists. And if we�re offering each other unsolicited advice, could you try swearing less?

quote:

It meant that Barbarossa had to be launched from the Bug and East Prussia instead of Belarus and the Baltic. Considering how the actual war turned out, these shorter lines of supply and the fact that the Axis armies could have avoided some pretty unfavorable terrain means that there would have been a real risk of Hitler winning the war, or at least dragging it out even longer with all that that entails. You can whine all that you want about Stalin just being Bad Man who just agreed to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact for shits and giggles, but the fact remains that it turned out to be the right decision.

Were the German armed forces of 1941 more or less capable than those of 1939? Would it have been possible for the Nazis to launch a surprise attack in the same way if there hadn�t been an pact that Stalin put an extraordinary amount of faith in? Would it even have been possible for the Nazis to launch the invasion at all without the raw materials provided by the Soviet Union?

And how has it been proved that it "turned out to be the right decision"? Unless we can prove that it would've been impossible to win without Molotov-Ribbentrop your argument boils down to post hoc ergo propter hoc.

And no, I don�t think that it�s �just that Stalin was a Bad Man�, that particular explanation for the development of the Soviet Union is simplistic and sterile. And I never said that Stalin signed the pact �for shits and giggles� (a ridiculous strawman, as you�ll agree). He signed it because he thought it would work out in his favor. And yes, signing that kind of deal with Hitler does kind of make you a bad person, assuming that we bother with bourgeois trivialities like morals.

quote:

See above, that is bullshit. The Soviet Union would have been in a competely hopeless strategic situation if it had had the 1939 borders in 1941, because it is pretty inevitable the Poland would have lost anyway.

But the Nazis would obviously have had a far harder time of it without Soviet assistance. And there would�ve been no question of a surprise attack in the same way as it happened, as well as French and British forces remaining to be dealt with in the west.

quote:

Again, bullshit. Liberal appeasement was a necessary condition for Hitler to be able to wage a successful war in the first place. Without Liberal appesement, WW2 could have been a much shorter and far less destructive war. This is quite obviously far loving worse on every moral level than the bad poo poo that came out of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact did plenty to prolong the war and make it more destructive. The same can of course be said of western appeasement, but again, it never went nearly as far as Molotov-Ribbentrop.

quote:

Yeah, what's a little murder and repression between friends?

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

Sakarja fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Sep 9, 2013

# ? Sep 9, 2013 15:00

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

Sakarja posted:

He seemed to trust Hitler quite a lot. And he apparently had less trouble trusting the western imperialists once his winning tactics backfired spectacularly. And there were of course plenty of reasons for France and the UK to distrust Stalin as well. But you�re right that morals are of no concern to a consistent Leninist. If winning requires enabling and assisting Fascists in imperialist warfare, that�s fine so long as it benefits the party in the end.

If you're put in a situation where the so-called liberal democracies have been egging on the fascists to come over and kill you for years and also handed them the means to do so, then yeah, you're pretty much stuck with only bad options. Also it's funny how preventing the genocide of all non-germanic peoples west of the urals is spun as "fine so long as it benefits the party in the end". Because, you know, that was the end goal of the Nazis.

Sakarja posted:

For some reason �context� and �contextualization� only ever seem get trotted out when it�s necessary to explain away some unfortunate mistake or unpleasant necessity performed by socialists or communists. And if we�re offering each other unsolicited advice, could you try swearing less?

I'm terribly sorry for confusing your little head with Leninist concepts such as "mitigating factors" and "aggravating circumstances". Also it didn't take long for the tone argument to get wheeled out.

Sakarja posted:

Were the German armed forces of 1941 more or less capable than those of 1939? Would it have been possible for the Nazis to launch a surprise attack in the same way if there hadn�t been an pact that Stalin put an extraordinary amount of faith in? Would it even have been possible for the Nazis to launch the invasion at all without the raw materials provided by the Soviet Union?

And how has it been proved that it "turned out to be the right decision"? Unless we can prove that it would've been impossible to win without Molotov-Ribbentrop your argument boils down to post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Providing raw materials to Germany was dumb, yes. However, I'm not arguing that the pact was sunshine and rainbows, I'm arguing that it was the least lovely of lovely options. Especially as the actually significant handover of necessary war materiel came with the Munich Agreement which let the nazis take over the supplies and heavy industry of Czechoslovakia intact. Or you knw what, you tell me, what should Stalin have done differently given the circumstances?

And how kind of you to give an impossible condition for anyone to fulfil.

But hey, I suppose that you can quibble about details here all you want. Doesn't change the fact the entire war wouldn't have happened unless some goddamn liberals had handed Hitler all that he needed to conquer both Poland and France long bofore the USSR gave him anything significant at all.

Sakarja posted:

And no, I don�t think that it�s �just that Stalin was a Bad Man�, that particular explanation for the development of the Soviet Union is simplistic and sterile. And I never said that Stalin signed the pact �for shits and giggles� (a ridiculous strawman, as you�ll agree). He signed it because he thought it would work out in his favor. And yes, signing that kind of deal with Hitler does kind of make you a bad person, assuming that we bother with bourgeois trivialities like morals.

Oh my. What a scathing indictment of the so-called western liberal democracies.

Joking aside, I suppose that this is where we need to invoke the forbidden powers of "context" again. See, since I'm such a bad man who doesn't believe in morals, I'm willing to give a little more slack to somebody who makes a deal with the devil because it's necessary for national survival rather than the people who made a deal with the devil because they couldn't be arsed to expend the effort to stop him.

Sakarja posted:

But the Nazis would obviously have had a far harder time of it without Soviet assistance. And there would�ve been no question of a surprise attack in the same way as it happened, as well as French and British forces remaining to be dealt with in the west.

'

The nazis wouldn't have had any time of it at all if the western powers hadn't folded like a house of cards every time Hitler did exactly what he had repeatedly said he would do in his blueprint for mass genocide. All this hollering about Molotov-Ribbentrop is just a bad attempt at deflecting the fact that the liberal has always been the best friend of the fash.

Sakarja posted:

The Ribbentrop-Molotov pact did plenty to prolong the war and make it more destructive. The same can of course be said of western appeasement, but again, it never went nearly as far as Molotov-Ribbentrop.

You keep saying this even though you have provided nothing to back it up. Unlike, you know, the folding by the western powers that made it possible for Hitler to wage WW2 in the first place.

Sakarja posted:

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

Have we already run out of excuses? You know, for explaining away the fact that western liberals literally hired the fash to be their henchmen in post-war Europe?

# ? Sep 9, 2013 15:36

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Cerebral Bore posted:

Have we already run out of excuses? You know, for explaining away the fact that western liberals literally hired the fash to be their henchmen in post-war Europe?

Right, because Stalin had his own fash he brought with him to run Eastern Europe.

# ? Sep 9, 2013 16:25

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Cerebral Bore posted:

Have we already run out of excuses? You know, for explaining away the fact that western liberals literally hired the fash to be their henchmen in post-war Europe?

Which is totally unlike how the Stasi operated in the DDR. No Nazi war criminals or ex-Gestapo in that organization no siree. :rolleyes:

Edit: http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/ns-verbrecher-und-stasi-wer-nazi-war-bestimmen-wir-a-397473.html

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Sep 9, 2013

# ? Sep 9, 2013 16:34

Randarkman: Jul 18, 2011

Omi-Polari posted:

Which is totally unlike how the Stasi operated in the DDR. No Nazi war criminals or ex-Gestapo in that organization no siree.

I'm not sure if that is correct, I have heard that Stasi secretly supported nazi and anti-semitic groupings in West Germany with the goal of discrediting West Germany, and that they channelled funds to a group that defended Adolf Eichmann. Pretty bad in itself, but I don't think I have heard that they extensively employed ex-Gestapo in their ranks. They certainly might have operated much like Gestapo, but the Gestapo was not unique for being the secret police force of an authoritarian state.

# ? Sep 9, 2013 16:42

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

SirKibbles posted:

I'd say in due to the fact that there are less fascists, than the fact that they aren't tolerated. There's also the fact that fascists decimated Europe in a war. Add the fact that America's "Golden Age" is viewed to be kickstarted by beating the Fascists and it makes sense.

The American right, who essentially own the American political narrative, have been working hard for decades to convince everybody that the Nazis were communists, so I'm not sure this quite applies.

# ? Sep 9, 2013 16:43

iCe-CuBe.: Jun 9, 2011

Pope Guilty posted:

The American right, who essentially own the American political narrative, have been working hard for decades to convince everybody that the Nazis were communists, so I'm not sure this quite applies.

Do you have any evidence for a concerted push on the part of American conservatives to equate fascism with communism or is this an opinion you've formed from reading Conservapedia?

# ? Sep 9, 2013 16:48

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

iCe-CuBe. posted:

Do you have any evidence for a concerted push on the part of American conservatives to equate fascism with communism or is this an opinion you've formed from reading Conservapedia?

He's exaggerating a bit, but there have been more prominent (though still not particularly credible) sources on the American far right that have for some time now gone out of their way to play up the S in NSDAP. In particular, I recall back when Glenn Beck still had a show on FOX he interviewed the chairman of the CPUSA (if I remember the party right). Throughout the interview, Beck repeated referred to that party's platforms as "nationalized socialism" in like every other sentence to dribble from his mouth. Also, you might consider the unfortunate popularity of prodigal cretin Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism another indication of this move to equate fascism with the left.

Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Sep 9, 2013

# ? Sep 9, 2013 17:07

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Captain_Maclaine posted:

He's exaggerating a bit, but there have been more prominent (though still not particularly credible) sources on the American far right that have for some time now gone out of their way to play up the S in NSDAP. In particular, I recall back when Glenn Beck still had a show on FOX he interviewed the chairman of the CPUSA (if I remember the party right) and repeated referred to his party's platforms as "nationalized socialism" in like every other sentence to dribble from his mouth. Also, you might consider the unfortunate popularity of prodigal cretin Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism another indication of this move to equate fascism with the left.

I wouldn't consider Goldberg part of the far right in a Glenn Beck sense, but his book is the most well-known of all that.

It's interesting to track down Paxton and Griffin's critiques of it. These are two of the more well-known historians of fascism and they're normally very respectable in tone and they told him his book was garbage; like, this is loving stupid. Unfortunately you also have the National Bolsheviks and people who are really into Gregor Strasser running around who just end up confusing people.

I see it most often on the far right libertarian end. Where statist = left therefore Nazis = statists = left. And I want to blow my brains out.

# ? Sep 9, 2013 17:28

Warbadger: Jun 17, 2006

Cerebral Bore posted:

If you're put in a situation where the so-called liberal democracies have been egging on the fascists to come over and kill you for years and also handed them the means to do so, then yeah, you're pretty much stuck with only bad options. Also it's funny how preventing the genocide of all non-germanic peoples west of the urals is spun as "fine so long as it benefits the party in the end". Because, you know, that was the end goal of the Nazis.

I'm terribly sorry for confusing your little head with Leninist concepts such as "mitigating factors" and "aggravating circumstances". Also it didn't take long for the tone argument to get wheeled out.

Providing raw materials to Germany was dumb, yes. However, I'm not arguing that the pact was sunshine and rainbows, I'm arguing that it was the least lovely of lovely options. Especially as the actually significant handover of necessary war materiel came with the Munich Agreement which let the nazis take over the supplies and heavy industry of Czechoslovakia intact. Or you knw what, you tell me, what should Stalin have done differently given the circumstances?

But hey, I suppose that you can quibble about details here all you want. Doesn't change the fact the entire war wouldn't have happened unless some goddamn liberals had handed Hitler all that he needed to conquer both Poland and France long bofore the USSR gave him anything significant at all.

Joking aside, I suppose that this is where we need to invoke the forbidden powers of "context" again. See, since I'm such a bad man who doesn't believe in morals, I'm willing to give a little more slack to somebody who makes a deal with the devil because it's necessary for national survival rather than the people who made a deal with the devil because they couldn't be arsed to expend the effort to stop him.

You keep saying this even though you have provided nothing to back it up. Unlike, you know, the folding by the western powers that made it possible for Hitler to wage WW2 in the first place.

USSR intervention in Poland was absolutely key in preventing the Polish forces from consolidating or putting up any kind of protracted defense as had been planned. For most of the conflict the Poles were actually withdrawing to consolidate and either A) envelop the German advance (failed due to the speed of the assault) or B) Establish strong positions in the Eastern portion of the country behind bridgeheads and difficult terrain (failed because the Soviets attacked from behind). This was important, because it prevented any lasting Polish front, enabled the Germans to end the conflict before France or the UK were able to open a Western front, and closed off the avenues of retreat for the Polish army (a large portion of which still managed to make it to Romania - short the quarter million the Soviets captured). Stalin literally handed the Germans a total victory over one of the three largest threats and turned Hitler's anticipated two front war against the European allies into a single front affair.

Even this ignores the impact the Soviets entering on the side of Germany had on immediate allied planning which now had to consider the possibility of having to fight the USSR. Then you've got the materiel contributions, the joint military developments (where do you think the Germans got to practice armored warfare after being banned from building tanks?), and even German factories built in the USSR to secretly build artillery/combat aircraft/etc. in blatant treaty violations.

Warbadger fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Sep 9, 2013

# ? Sep 9, 2013 17:45

Rogue0071: Dec 8, 2009; Grey Hunter's next target.

Omi-Polari posted:

But there was also an ideological reason: the Soviets didn't consider fascism to be that different from capitalism. Fascism was considered to be a deformation of capitalism instead of a distinct (and competing, revolutionary ideology), and the Soviets through the Popular Front had already defined social democrats as "social fascists" and they had an alliance there - so why not an alliance with German fascists? The Soviet Union had good relations with capitalist Weimar Germany, so Nazi Germany wasn't that different, from the Soviet point of view.

This is a completely erroneous portrayal of social fascism. Social fascism was a theory developed by the Stalinist Comintern prior to the rise of the NSDAP and when the KPD was still competing for power in Germany. The idea of social fascist theory was that social democrats were "social fascists" and it was impossible to work with them against fascism and the rise of an actual fascist party would be preferable to the victory of social democrats. After this theory miserably failed in Germany with the rise of the Nazis and crushing of the KPD, the Comintern did one of its frequent zig-zags and adopted the Popular Front instead - which is that communists should work with everyone, including the "progressive bourgeoisie", against fascism (it is in the inclusion of the bourgeoisie where the Popular Front differs from the United Front proposed by Trotskyists). The Popular Front was the complete opposite of social fascism, not its progenitor. The Popular Front idea was tested out in Spain and also failed miserably as it turned out the progressive bourgeoisie and the USSR's bourgeois "ally" in France preferred Franco to the victory of a social revolution in Spain and the Stalinists preferred good relations with France to the defeat of Franco. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was another reversal, away from the Popular Front, but was not really a resurrection of social fascism theory as that was specifically designed for a communist party struggling for power in a country where fascists were also doing so.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, incidentally, did an excellent job in blowing up Communist parties around the world as the shift from Popular Frontism to the "Hitler-Stalin pact" happened completely unexpectedly and without warning. In particular the Communist Party of America lost thousands of members overnight.

As to the military aspects of it, while the Soviet invasion certainly massively undermined the Polish defensive plans, neither France nor Britain had any serious plans to launch a major offensive on the Western front besides a few completely token efforts to fulfill their treaty obligations with Poland.

quote:

In particular, I recall back when Glenn Beck still had a show on FOX he interviewed the chairman of the CPUSA (if I remember the party right) and repeated referred to his party's platforms as "nationalized socialism" in like every other sentence to dribble from his mouth.

That was in fact CPUSA, which does little beyond endorsing the Democratic Party nowadays. That interview was incredibly stupid for both participants.

Rogue0071 fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Sep 9, 2013

# ? Sep 9, 2013 18:16

Sakarja: Oct 19, 2003; "Our masters have not heard the people's voice for generations and it is much, much louder than they care to remember."

Capitalism is the problem. Anarchism is the answer. Join an anarchist union today!

Cerebral Bore posted:

If you're put in a situation where the so-called liberal democracies have been egging on the fascists to come over and kill you for years and also handed them the means to do so, then yeah, you're pretty much stuck with only bad options. Also it's funny how preventing the genocide of all non-germanic peoples west of the urals is spun as "fine so long as it benefits the party in the end". Because, you know, that was the end goal of the Nazis.

Let�s take a closer look at this argument. You already made it once before when you wrote:

�So why the gently caress should he trust and/or cooperate with the western governments who quite openly wanted to topple the USSR and had just handed Hitler, whose desire to topple the USSR was as open as open can be, a huge victory without a single shot fired?�

Stalin can�t trust the liberals because they�re egging Hitler on to go kill him (how? When?). Hitler is completely open about is desire to destroy the Soviet Union. There can be no doubt about this. And the obviously superior solution to this dilemma is to cut a deal with... Hitler? How could he possibly be considered more trustworthy according to the situation as you�ve presented it?

When you�re stuck with only bad options, the difference between �the people who won�t give me carte blanche to invade certain countries� and literally the worst people on the face of the planet should still be clear. Especially if you�ve spent the last four years posturing as the self-proclaimed leader of the international opposition to your newfound BFF.

The defeat of the Nazis and putting an end to the Holocaust is no doubt the greatest achievement of the Soviet Union. But I can�t see why you choose to write about it here, except of course to serve as a distraction from the ample support the Soviets provided the Nazis prior to their invasion. In fact, the genocidal ambitions of the Nazis makes the Pact more reprehensible, not less.

quote:

I'm terribly sorry for confusing your little head with Leninist concepts such as "mitigating factors" and "aggravating circumstances". Also it didn't take long for the tone argument to get wheeled out.

The privilege of context is only ever bestowed upon communists. I don�t see you applying it to western appeasement, for instance. And it�s not even really contextualization, it�s just naked apologism, crocodile tears and handwringing about how the evil imperialists left poor Stalin no choice but join hands with Hitler in the rape of Eastern Europe and provide him with crucial supplies.

What "tone argument"? I guess the vile insult to Joseph Stalin of drawing attention to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is just too much to bear.

quote:

Providing raw materials to Germany was dumb, yes. However, I'm not arguing that the pact was sunshine and rainbows, I'm arguing that it was the least lovely of lovely options. Especially as the actually significant handover of necessary war materiel came with the Munich Agreement which let the nazis take over the supplies and heavy industry of Czechoslovakia intact. Or you knw what, you tell me, what should Stalin have done differently given the circumstances?

And how kind of you to give an impossible condition for anyone to fulfil.

But hey, I suppose that you can quibble about details here all you want. Doesn't change the fact the entire war wouldn't have happened unless some goddamn liberals had handed Hitler all that he needed to conquer both Poland and France long bofore the USSR gave him anything significant at all.

Dumb? I thought you said that it was part of a winning tactic that enabled Soviet Union to triumph in the war? And what is it that makes the handover of Soviet raw materials insignificant? Pretty much anything Stalin could�ve done, short of disbanding the Red Army and declaring himself a pacifist, would�ve been better than the vital support he offered the Nazis in the initial phase of WWII.

How silly of you to make a baseless assertion you couldn�t possibly hope to support.

Quibble, details? Really, are you kidding me? And yet again you make prophetic statements concerning alternative history. But now you combine them with outright falsehoods. Apparently military support and raw materials are insignificant.

quote:

Oh my. What a scathing indictment of the so-called western liberal democracies.

Joking aside, I suppose that this is where we need to invoke the forbidden powers of "context" again. See, since I'm such a bad man who doesn't believe in morals, I'm willing to give a little more slack to somebody who makes a deal with the devil because it's necessary for national survival rather than the people who made a deal with the devil because they couldn't be arsed to expend the effort to stop him.

There�s nothing forbidden about context. It�s just that some people, like you, use the word as a cover for obvious apologism. What you write here is pretty much a perfect demonstration of it. Stalin made a deal with the devil because �it was necessary for national survival� (because you say so), while the imperialist scum made a deal �because they couldn�t be arsed..." (ditto, but I thought it was because they wanted Hitler to kill communists). What rich context indeed, my cup runneth over.

quote:

The nazis wouldn't have had any time of it at all if the western powers hadn't folded like a house of cards every time Hitler did exactly what he had repeatedly said he would do in his blueprint for mass genocide. All this hollering about Molotov-Ribbentrop is just a bad attempt at deflecting the fact that the liberal has always been the best friend of the fash.

Are you now making the claim that the western powers appeased Germany in full knowledge of his plans and ultimate ends? Did Stalin know of these plans? But no, it�s not deflection, it�s proof positive that collaboration with Fascist isn't exclusive to liberals or the right. Communists are as capable of working alongside Fascist as anyone else when they think they�ll benefit from it.

And it�s a pretty bold claim that liberals are the best friends of the Fascists. Is your world populated exclusively by liberals, Fascists and communists?

quote:

You keep saying this even though you have provided nothing to back it up. Unlike, you know, the folding by the western powers that made it possible for Hitler to wage WW2 in the first place.

Are you arguing that it didn�t? What exactly have you yourself provided to back up your claims about the insignifance of Soviet collaboration? And for some reason you keep invoking appeasement as if it�d magically wipe away the stain of Soviet collaboration.

quote:

Have we already run out of excuses? You know, for explaining away the fact that western liberals literally hired the fash to be their henchmen in post-war Europe?

I�m sorry, a cheap joke, I know.

Excuses for what exactly? I�ve made the argument that liberal societies are less tolerant towards Fascism than socialism, and I don�t see how Operation Gladio is supposed to refute this. If it shows anything, it�s that the western bloc enlisted Fascists and former Fascists during the Cold War. But the same was true of the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc, and I�m guessing that that doesn�t lead you to draw conclusions about the deep, abiding love communists must have for Fascism. Or that they consider Fascism preferable to liberalism.

Sakarja fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Sep 9, 2013

# ? Sep 9, 2013 18:49

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Sakarja posted:

While I agree that this connection obviously existed, I think that Marxist (and leftist radicals in general) make rather too much of it. Yes, to a considerable extent the reformisms of the 19th and 20th centuries were responses of the ruling classes to the pressure of movements invoking Marxism and threatening revolution. But they were also achieved by trade unions and parties that were not associated with Marxism in any way, movements that had no revolutionary ambitions, that worked within the liberal democratic framework and were denounced as revisionists or worse by contemporary Marxists.

Even if they didn't have revolutionary ambitions did not mean they weren't Marxist, you're defining Marxism as solely revolutionary Marxism which might be convenient but it isn't true.

quote:

The thing that sets the orthodox apart is that they actually practiced something recognizable as Marxism. If we are to include Spanish anarchists then we�ve changed the topic. If we include everything from reformism to anarchism then we�re discussing socialism in the most general sense, not Marxism specifically. In that case we need to establish what separates a socialist state from one that is liberal. In short, what is the �socialist minimum�? Or maybe it�d be better to just end this derail here.

And you�re right that I wouldn�t categorize any of the regimes you mention as Fascist, even if at least two of them were influenced in important ways by Fascism. Of course we could evaluate the faults Franco�s regime in the light of these Fascist influences. But in the same way as with supposedly socialist states that retain many essential features of capitalism, it would be a mistake to judge whether or not the faults of the founding doctrine are avoidable based on a �mixed� state.

Thats the thing I think the topic should have a broader approach than to only talk about "pure" Marxism (only revolutionary Marxism) or pure Fascism (I don't agree that Franco wasn't a fascist). If there isn't common agreement about definitions then there isn't much to talk about. My point isn't about how necessarily "pure" Marxist and Fascist states need to be compared but that the routes of Marxism and Fascism need to be compared as ideologies. Also, I think it is important to bring other types of leftism and right-wing authoritarianism that are edge cases.

quote:

My argument that liberal society is more tolerant towards socialists than Fascists isn�t primarily about authoritarian regimes or their leaders during the Cold War. It�s about individuals and institutions within liberal societies that openly espouse socialist views or advocate socialist revolution. It�s about academics and other writers who attempt to develop socialist doctrine and defend it against criticism; that apply historical materialism and Critical Theory or elements thereof in their work. It�s about people who defend the historical record and contemporary practices of socialist or semi-socialist states etc.

The question here isn�t if it�s right for them to do so, or whether liberals are justified in condemning them or not. The question is why - if socialism is (at least potentially) a real threat against the capitalist world order � do liberals tolerate them to a far greater extent than Fascists?

They tolerate them because they don't have any power and have already pretty much vanished from at least American academia. You don't fear something that doesn't exist, same with open Fascists. Also, I have no idea where your point is leading, unless you think Fascists are unduly ostracized or Marxists should be more ostracized than they already are.

# ? Sep 9, 2013 19:08

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Btw, the assertion that Stalin wasn't attempting to establish alliances with France and the UK is completely false, there are clear sources that there was a long and sustained effort to create a real alliance but both of them gave Soviet officials the cold shoulder.

Also, Stalin was clearly planning for a war against Germany by the mid-1940s, he thought Hitler would have taken his time and at least crushed the British before a Soviet-Nazi war happened. A large part of his stubbornness about the start of Barbarossa was that he couldn't believe Hitler would have pushed up the time table that far since it didn't make any sense to fight a two front war.

As far as the allies appeasing Hitler, it isn't that far off even if you think the pact was more selfish. Britain and France not only allowed Hitler to obtain a considerable amount of terrible with almost no shots fired, they burned their bridges with the Soviets and exposed how passive they would be during an actual conflict.

Got to remember that part of the reason Stalin was paranoid was he thought the West would attempt another invasion of the Soviet Union, the little know warscare of 1927 confirmed in his mind the West was out to get him. If he involved himself a war with Germany in an offensive situation, he fully expected the West to turn the tables on him.

# ? Sep 9, 2013 19:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 19:07

Hodgepodge: Jan 29, 2006; Can't post for 217 days!

Sakarja posted:

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.

Seriously? You think that it was acceptable to be a Communist in Western nations after World War II? You know who Joeseph MCCarthy was, right?

It is "more acceptable" socially to espouse socialist ideals at the present, in that there is a more-or-less coherent socialist ideology with which to associate those ideals. Even the most hardcore Neo-Fascist organizations identify as nationalist or "racially aware" more often than as Fascists, and it is quite acceptable to espouse many ideas they share in the form of nationalism or conservatism, and even covert racism. There is no need to defend or openly associate with the ideologies of a defeated military enemy in order to do so.

There are likewise overlaps between Liberal and Socialist ideals, to the point where most Americans think the two words mean the same thing. To a point, this allows it to acceptably be a "socialist" within the internal discourse of liberalism in some circles.

Your argument boils down to literally asserting that your conclusion is obvious. It isn't. Stop treating your opinion as self-evident rather than basing your ideas on evidence.

Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Sep 9, 2013

# ? Sep 9, 2013 19:25

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > A return of Fascism in Europe?

«‹›96 »