|
Omi-Polari posted:Yes but I don't think it's a very difficult question. Soviet domination of Eastern Europe was terrible but also clearly preferable (!) to Nazi domination of Eastern Europe. Just taking a glance at Generalplan-Ost or whatever it's called: that is enough to close the book on that argument. The ultimate Nazi aim was to kill people on a scale maybe not seen since the genocide of the American Indians. Siding with Stalin was pragmatic, not dogmatic. HItler apparently had a great admiration for the British Empire and wanted to ally with them but Churchill said no loving way and I don't think it's because of Fascism or Communism. Hitler was a fanatic and believed wholeheartedly in forging a European German Empire. Stalin was comparatively conservative and had no such grand ambitions. I also talked to a person who (apparently, I can't vouch for how accurate this is) knows about British history. What has determined English foreign policy, according to this person, is the fear of "a strong continental European power." Back in the day it was what brought England and France to blows but in the early 20th Century it was Germany. Great Britain was not about to help Germany become that strong European power. I don't agree with the claim Fascism is a greater threat than Marxism but that's only because we have a highlyfocused center of Communist uprisings. The biggest ones were in Russia and China, both of which were backwards and lagging behind the rest of the world. Ironically, from what I remember of Marx, Communism is only supposed to happen in a sufficiently advanced liberal society. Russia and China were the complete opposite of that so they had to rush to advance as quickly as possible. In the process, they fed their populations to the machine. Had Marism occurred in a well0to-do nation, maybe there wouldn't be such loss of life. I do recommend looking up the Wiki article on Fascism though. It comes in all forms and not all of them are fierely expansionist. (although you could argue they weren't fascist at that point)
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 11:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Stalinism has had its day, and as far as the post-industrial West is concerned, so have the old idea of the proletariat as (industrial) workers, the efficacy of unions/labor union movements, all forms of council communism and especially the prospects for effective (read: just) decentralized government in the council/zavkom sense. In my humble opinion !!
SSJ2 Goku Wilders fucked around with this message at 11:41 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 11:39
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:You can't really say that liberals fear the International Socialist Organization or whoever more than they do the Ku Klux Klan or even the Tea Party. The liberals I know in my city are going to protests with Marxists and they think the Tea Party are just crazy, Hitler-like people and don't want anything to do with them. So I don't know what universe you are all living in. You seem to be using "liberal" in the colloquial sense mostly originating on the American right. In the ideological sense, mainstream American conservatives are reactionary neoliberals. The mainstream portion of group referred to as "liberals" vary between social democrats (mostly in the base) to progressive neoliberals (actually in power). (Neoliberalism is essentially classical liberalism updated to dismantle or marginalize postwar social democracy.) Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 11:59 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 11:52
|
|
|
Can we maybe discuss modern fascist movements instead of having this thread colonized by the Marxism thread?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Can we maybe discuss modern fascist movements instead of having this thread colonized by the Marxism thread? Well the Marxism thread needs a buffer zone. But seriously, I want to hear more about Fascists in Europe (or the US) just something on topic. I say this as a fellow Marxist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Can we maybe discuss modern fascist movements instead of having this thread colonized by the Marxism thread? That we've had a hard time doing so this far seems to lend credence to the idea that many moderates find the thought of red banners more threatening than the reality of blackshirts. But to do my part to get away from the endless communism derail: one aspect I've brought up previously is the problem of solidarity among fascist groups, past and present, both due to the identity (racial, national, or some mix of the two) chauvinism inherent in fascism ideologies (ie: we, and only we, are the master race!) and also the much more mundane issue of fascists tending to be unpleasant shitheads. Classical fascist parties just before and during the war got around this to a degree by most of the others latching onto the brief dynamism of Hitler's personality cult and (later) early military triumphs. One thing I take as a positive sign, since I flatter myself I'm not the sort of shithead you'd need to be to see the resurgence of fascism as a good thing, is that modern fascist and quasi-fascist groups don't have an equivalent mechanism to forge larger intergroup unity, and at times cannot seem to agree who the Other is they should all be striving to exterminate ("it's the Jews! No, wait, it's the Muslims/Pakis/Wogs! Wrong, it's those drat Gyppos!"). Watching them flop all over the place about whether or not Israel existing in particular can lead to some richly enjoyable comedy, albeit not of the highest brow. So I'm curious what others have to think about this issue within modern fascism, and whether or not it's as large a contributory factor towards keeping these groups from reaching any larger consensus amongst themselves. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
Well I don't consider myself part of any political persuasion but I guess I'm closer to Fascism than Communism. I think the problem is division over what fascism really is. When I first started looking into it, I had all sorts of people online telling me that "no, Fascism is NOT Nazism! There is nothing in Fascist doctrine that says you have to hate the Jews or be a racist." And a lot of fascist group websites I looked into also had the disclaimer "we are not affiliated with Neo-Nazis." Whatever your views on National Socialism, nobody wants to be rubbing elbows with skinheads. But as long as there's this divide, this constant defiance to accept a crucial pat of Fascist history, I think disunity will always be a problem. Speaking of disunity, fascism is such a nation-dependent movement that it came in all forms back in its heyday. For example, the Romanian Iron Guard was fiercely Orthodox. Now I don't really keep up with modern politics but I glanced at this Golden Dawn grou's website and after a cursory glance I couldn't find their religious position, or if they even have one. Religion is obviously an important thing but how important it is depends on the country. There in turn lies more conflict and a further impediment to any sort of international fascist organization. (Marxism is pretty much all about Atheism though there are some fringe elements who reject this) Thanks to the Nazis you're gonna have all these "Aryanists", be they pagan or Christian or whatever. Those ideas, being both crazy and outdated, just aren't going to fly with any adamant religious person or group. NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
So, er, what exactly attracts you more to Fascism, NikkolasKing? Because the only 'problem' you've described about it so far is its disunity. Anything else about the whole idea put you off, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Well I don't consider myself part of any political persuasion but I guess I'm closer to Fascism than Communism. I think the problem is division over what fascism really is. When I first started looking into it, I had all sorts of people online telling me that "no, Fascism is NOT Nazism! There is nothing in Fascist doctrine that says you have to hate the Jews or be a racist." And a lot of fascist group websites I looked into also had the disclaimer "we are not affiliated with Neo-Nazis." Whatever your views on National Socialism, nobody wants to be rubbing elbows with skinheads. I'd argue those sentiments have less to do with sincerely-held beliefs and more to admitting that "Nazi" is a stink that don't come off, and is a label that reasonable people quite rightly abhor. Additionally, I've never once encountered a fascist group that didn't have some Other (almost always a racial or national minority, occasionally a political one) they contrasted themselves against, whom they blamed for their nation's/race's problems, and who's expulsion/extermination they generally called for more or less directly. This latter is occasionally couched in marginally less-horrible language about how people are happiest among their own kinds and wouldn't everyone be better off if quote:Speaking of disunity, fascism is such a nation-dependent movement that it came in all forms back in its heyday. For example, the Romanian Iron Guard was fiercely Orthodox. Now I don't really keep up with modern politics but I glanced at this Golden Dawn grou's website and after a cursory glance I couldn't find their religious position, or if they even have one. I'm not really sure where you're going with the religion angle here, can you clarify? Also, much like Barry Foster I'm curious about what attracts you to fascism in particular? This I ask as, not (yet) willing to prejudge you or your positions, I have a hard time squaring "admires fascism" with "not a shitheel" given, well, what fascism is and how fascists historically have been.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
Many of the people who survived Stalin bizarrely enough are his proudest defenders at least in Russia and large parts of the former Soviet Union. The defense is usually the sacrifice was worth it, since the USSR couldn't survive without brutal industrialization/collectivization. That isn't something that is going to be "worth" millions of lives, but to many people there was at least that rationale. Hitler was killing because he wanted to reshape the world by blood, Stalin was killing because he thought it was worth it in the balance of lives it was going to take to transform/rebuild the Soviet Union.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
Well I'm not a racist for one. I'm a total mut of different ethnicities and I lived the first half of my life in Detroit. Apparently people can still be racists even in giant melting pots like that but I don't see how. I know I couldn't manage it. I'm also not very patriotic. American history and politics bore me. Back when I was on the Left I loved Russian history. Now I'm more interested in Germany and Romania. I always wondered what Amerian fascists in WWII must have thought? Maybe they rationalized it as they were doing their country a service by supporting the Germans. As for why I'm more sympathetic to Fascism, it's because I have no faith in humans to do the right thing on their own. Petty Self-interest is all most people care about. Fascism's most fundamental premise is doing away with that. You live for the State, you die for the State. You live for the common good, you die for the common good. I was on a board called RevLeft many years ago (before they banned me for admitting my change of heart) and I remember all sorts of arguments about how Communism was just so inevitable. That, whether it was through State Capitalism like Lenin attempted, or the Anarchist route, everything would eventually fall into place. It was at this time, as I grew up, that I realized that human beings are not so inherently noble. THe only way to bring out some great end is for everyone to be directed towards said end by a powerful fore. If I can speak more personally though, I'm not really part of any political ideology anymore because politics was just one way I wanted to make myself feel....special I guess you could say. It sounds cliche I know but I wanted a higher purpose in my life. I switched from Communism to Fascism because both are regimes in which you are a part. YOu are a part of a great, sweeping change that promises to roll over a nation or the entire globe. You feel = I felt - that it was a calling worth pursuing because it made me grater than I am. But I realized some time ago that politics are fallible and that's because they are devised by fallible human beings. Politics and faith in politics won't make me feel like I'm doing something worthwhile with my life. As such, I'm looking more towards religion right now. I'm studying a variety of faiths ranging from Taoism to my own Roman Catholic roots, and I hope to find some meaning in my life there. I know it's not exatly hip to be into religion so much when you're a young cynic on the internet but...I might as well give it a shot. At the very least I'll learn something. NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:As for why I'm more sympathetic to Fascism, it's because I have no faith in humans to do the right thing on their own. Petty Self-interest is all most people care about. Fascism's most fundamental premise is doing away with that. You live for the State, you die for the State. You live for the common good, you die for the common good. I was on a board called RevLeft many years ago (before they banned me for admitting my change of heart) and I remember all sorts of arguments about how Communism was just so inevitable. That, whether it was through State Capitalism like Lenin attempted, or the Anarchist route, everything would eventually fall into place. It was at this time, as I grew up, that I realized that human beings are not so inherently noble. THe only way to bring out some great end is for everyone to be directed towards said end by a powerful fore. I've not got much time at the moment to fully reply or post citations or whatever, but 1) In Fascist societies 'the common good' is worship of hierarchical authoritarianism and 'cleansing' violence directed against any given vulnerable Other - do you really think this could ever lead to anything good? People who are forced to 'live for the State and die for the State' are generally completely loving miserable as well. Where's the human good in all of this? 2) No, humans are not inherently noble, but they're not inherently ignoble either. The circumstances in which they are born and live have an overwhelming influence on how they behave. Just for your particular example, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that for most people, 'petty self-interest' - by this I take it you mean greed rather than the desire to live a happy, comfortable life - is only a large part of their psyche because it's a vital part of surviving in and propping up capitalist society. Short of making some claim to Original Sin, there is no evidence to suggest that homo sapiens, a noted social species of ape, is somehow inevitably poisoned by greed and naked self-interest. 3) There are plenty of schools of thought that completely disagree with any sort of teleological claim as to Communism/Socialism's inevitability. I, for one, don't see anything at all inevitable about either, while still thinking that they are desirable goals to aim for. Honestly, it sounds to me like your 'sympathy for fascism' is just lazy cynicism about 'human nature' mixed with more than a hint of depression. EDIT - VVVVV Yeah, listen to Pesmerga. Barry Foster fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Well I'm not a racist for one. I'm a total mut of different ethnicities and I lived the first half of my life in Detroit. Apparently people can still be racists even in giant melting pots like that but I don't see how. I know I couldn't manage it. It sounds more like you're desperate to feel a sense of belonging to something, and you're reaching around for whatever that may be. It might be an idea to drop the fascism, and consider counselling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
To add, NikkolasKing, you might give Dorothy Thompson's Who Goes Nazi? a read. It's from 1941 and not a perfect article to be certain (at times it gets downright sentimental, particularly in class references) but I think broadly it is useful as a commentary from the time about who in society tend to find fascism appealing, and why. I second what Persmerga and Barry Foster have to say as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
nm, other people pointed this out already
Typo fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:What happens if you have German militarism / Polish nationalist buildup in Eastern Poland? Do you allow that on right on your border? Though any occupation Post WWII was unjustified, any serious military leader is going to want a buffer there. quote:Furthermore, Finland were Nazi collaborators and the USSR needed to gain Karelia/Lake Ladoga to ensure supplies to Leningrad during the Siege. There were bigger things at play here, such as, I don't know, the possible victory of Nazi Germany and the enslavement or extermination of tens of millions more. quote:Finland thought Karelia was more important than fighting the Nazis, and that they could sacrifice millions of people for the sake of territorial integrity. While they did help Germany starve to death 650,000 civilians in Leningrad and deplete crucial resources for the anti-fascist cause, they were thwarted in their ultimate goals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
Finland had no reason to fight the Nazis until their national integrity was more at threat by the Nazis than the Soviets. To expect them to become allied with the Soviets is just ridiculous, especially when the USSR attacked Finland before the Second World War even broke out in September 1939. A country that had only just gained independence from the Russian Empire in 1917. During the period of peace between the Winter War and Continuation War Finns turned to Germany as negations with Sweden and Britain where useless due to the World War when trying to make defensive arrangements. So they turned to the Germans for military aid. And then, with the USSR air raids on Finland, the Continuation War and military cooperation with Nazi Germany came into the picture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
Barry Foster posted:1) In Fascist societies 'the common good' is worship of hierarchical authoritarianism and 'cleansing' violence directed against any given vulnerable Other - do you really think this could ever lead to anything good? People who are forced to 'live for the State and die for the State' are generally completely loving miserable as well. Where's the human good in all of this? "Hierarchical authoritarianism"? What society has gone without authority? Without hierarchy? None in modern history; it's simply not possible unless your entire society is a small group of people. Likewise, what political movement hasn't used violence against its Other? And every movement has an Other. Liberals had monarchs and hereditary nobles. Marxists and other left-socialists have the bourgeoisie. But enough about that. Do you really think the entire point of fascism is hierarchy and authority? It's simply a means to an end like it is with Marxism. And people in fascism, both in theory and in practice, aren't separated from the State. They ARE the State. It exists by their will alone. So when they fight they do it willingly: for themselves, their families, their nation. And because they were directly connected with the State they were undoubtedly happier and lead much more fulfilling lives than people in liberal societies. Liberal societies are devoid of meaning. This is a product of the market which alienates and commodifies all but also the individualism that atomizes everything and everyone. No meaningful connections can be forged. Fascism, and other socialist movements on the other hand, can give meaning and this is where the human good comes from.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Emden posted:But enough about that. Do you really think the entire point of fascism is hierarchy and authority? It's simply a means to an end like it is with Marxism. And people in fascism, both in theory and in practice, aren't separated from the State. They ARE the State. It exists by their will alone. quote:So when they fight they do it willingly: for themselves, their families, their nation. And because they were directly connected with the State they were undoubtedly happier and lead much more fulfilling lives than people in liberal societies. Typo fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
Authoritarianism is a disease of human thought whereby totalitarian actions are justified by notions of the inherent righteousness of authority figures, you subhuman piece of poo poo. Not that you would understand that, lacking in language skills beyond those required to poo poo out rhetorical questions that have been posed by better men than you. I'd like to say that I'm not going to dignify your post with a line by line rebuttal, but holy poo poo, I didn't know that Mussolini did ballot initiatives! Oh wait, he was yet another subhuman motherfucker coaching the desire for "expert" rule in populist rhetoric. Yes, please tell me how you're a trained dog who sits in place when faced with the stirring pageantry of state. And speaking of meaning, meaning can be found cleaning a loving bathroom. I suggest that you do sorather than telling the entire world that you're a spoiled prick who uses edgy politics as an escape from your own boredom. e:sorry, too far. I'm going to go take my own advice now. e2:Nope. Scrubbed the toilet and I'm still pissed at him. Big Hubris fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
Typo posted:There were a number of other ways to ensure a buffer state (an independent rump Poland guaranteed by the Soviets, or even occupied Poland where the Soviets didn't shoot the entire Polish Intelligentsia) Both the Poles and the Soviets distrusted each other, a whole series of purges were justified because of assumed connections to the Polish military. In the eyes of Stalin, it was the Poles first then the Nazis. Also "helped murdered" is a bit much, you can't really apply knowledge or motive in this case. The final solution was planned much later: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference. You can say it was an unintended consequence though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
I'm glad Emden and NikkolasKing are posting because presumably if you wanted to learn more about fascism you should talk to actual fascists. One thing that stands out is that both talk about feeling a sense of existential ennui and loss of meaning and purpose in life. One person is mixed race and from Detroit, a city which has had its sense of community, cohesion and ability to absorb change wrecked by neoliberal economics. The individual is lost in that environment, so he's become attracted to an ideology that asserts eternal values that transcend his individuality and promise a revitalization of the entire community and the creation of a new social order that will sweep the nation and the world. Like you're sitting in your apartment in a city somewhere and you think you're part of this elite, militant movement that's going to take over the world. It's wild stuff. The other thing (and excuse me for treating you like a laboratory animal) is that he describes himself as a cynical young guy who has an anxiety about being hip. That's interesting because it shows that fascism is attractive as a form of counter-culture or dissident movement. Historical fascists movements, if you remember, were not staffed by traditional elites but a lot of students, cynics, veterans, artists and journalists. (I think Joseph Goebbels was a dropout and a poet before he joined the Nazi movement.) Like right-wing hipsters. I also think it's interesting that one was a former communist and the other says he has an affinity for the radical left. There was a story I read once where a journalist out drinking during Weimar Germany needed a place to crash, so a friend he met that night offered to put him up. They go back to his space in a rented-out attic, and the journalist is shocked that the walls are covered in Nazi propaganda, portraits of Hitler, and the like. The journalist asks: "Wow, don't you think this a bit much?" And the guy replies: "No you should have seen it six months ago. I was a communist then!" It used to be all red flags of socialism and so on. ErichZahn posted:you subhuman piece of poo poo. Pesmerga posted:It sounds more like you're desperate to feel a sense of belonging to something, and you're reaching around for whatever that may be. It might be an idea to drop the fascism, and consider counselling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Both the Poles and the Soviets distrusted each other, a whole series of purges were justified because of assumed connections to the Polish military. In the eyes of Stalin, it was the Poles first then the Nazis. In the eyes of Stalin, it was always the fault of someone else why he had to exterminate them. He was a sociopath. The Poles might not have trusted the Soviets because they, you know, were invaded by them and went about destroying their economy and culture and extrajudicially murdering anyone who got in their way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Also "helped murdered" is a bit much, you can't really apply knowledge or motive in this case. The final solution was planned much later: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference. You can say it was an unintended consequence though. If you're going to bring up Wannsee then we're going to derail into the Intentionalist vs Functionalist debate with regards to the Holocaust. Don't get me wrong, it's entirely a valid thing to do, but I'm not sure it'd exactly be a fit for a thread at least ostensibly about modern fascism. I take it you fall into the latter category, or were you speaking solely of when the terminology of "final solution" came into regular usage? Omi-Polari posted:That might make you feel good but I don't think that's going to convince him. It's Emden, dude. There comes a point where it's acceptable to stop bothering with polite attempts at convincing and move towards scorched earth. That way at least he serves as an object lesson to other posters who haven't shown themselves horrid. Speaking of which... Emden posted:But enough about that. Do you really think the entire point of fascism is hierarchy and authority? It's simply a means to an end like it is with Marxism. And people in fascism, both in theory and in practice, aren't separated from the State. They ARE the State. It exists by their will alone. So when they fight they do it willingly: for themselves, their families, their nation. And because they were directly connected with the State they were undoubtedly happier and lead much more fulfilling lives than people in liberal societies. Yes, yes, I too believe that fascist states were the selfless servants of the popular will. Indeed, I will now list every prominent examples of this: Seriously, the fascist states which have existed were complex entities which used the carrot to secure the cooperation of fellow-travellers and those deemed to be part of the volksgemeinschaft, and the hard stick of coercion for those who wouldn't play along, or were of undesirable racial/national background. For that last bit alone we ought understand that fascism is fundamentally not some weird variation on populism, and the reason those who did play ball lived "undoubtably happier" and "more fulfilling lives," as you say, was due more to their of social space and real physical wealth from the dispropriated and/or murdered Others who, under the best of circumstances, certainly allowed to have any say or be part of the State This is also to say nothing about how the organs of the State are controlled by the Party in as explicitly undemocratic a fashion as possible, though I imagine you've got some reason why anti-democratic control of government is somehow compatible with the popular will. Given that you, yourself, in other threads have gone off on how race trumps class and no white worker ought feel any form of solidarity with workers of any other race, one would think you'd understand this. Or are you conceding that expulsion and/or extermination of the Other is a necessary and vital component of a properly ordered fascist state? I suspect not, as I rank it highly unlikely you're arguing in any better faith than usual, but odder things have happened. quote:Fascism, and other socialist movements on the other hand, can give meaning and this is where the human good comes from. Fascism isn't socialist you twit, it's third-positionist. Strasser would have been purged even if Hitler hadn't thought he was threat personally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:In the eyes of Stalin, it was always the fault of someone else why he had to exterminate them. He was a sociopath. The Poles might not have trusted the Soviets because they, you know, were invaded by them and went about destroying their economy and culture and extrajudicially murdering anyone who got in their way. The Poles-Soviets also had fought a pretty bitter than contemporaneous with the Russian Civil War. It wasn't just made up on the spot. Katyn connects into that, he didn't want the Polish military to come back. Stalin was obviously a sociopath, but his actions weren't random. quote:If you're going to bring up Wannsee then we're going to derail into the Intentionalist vs Functionalist debate with regards to the Holocaust. Don't get me wrong, it's entirely a valid thing to do, but I'm not sure it'd exactly be a fit for a thread at least ostensibly about modern fascism. I take it you fall into the latter category, or were you speaking solely of when the terminology of "final solution" came into regular usage? If you are functionalist to the point where every action that helped the Nazis was going to promote the Holocaust it gets very cloudy. Stalin obviously wanted the territory he thought rightfully belong to the Soviet Union, those desires actually had little impact on the Holocaust itself especially the timeline worked out that the Nazis were far into the Soviet Union by the time it was actually decided.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:If you are functionalist to the point where every action that helped the Nazis was going to promote the Holocaust it gets very cloudy. Stalin obviously wanted the territory he thought rightfully belong to the Soviet Union, those desires actually had little impact on the Holocaust itself especially the timeline worked out that the Nazis were far into the Soviet Union by the time it was actually decided. I tend to fall more on the Intentionalist side of the debate honestly, as from all I've read it seems more likely to me that Hitler had extermination on his mind long before he was in a position to effect it (though I'm certainly not a nut like Goldhagen, claiming that all of Germany lusted after Jewish blood due to national character defects). I think the Functionalists have a point about how competing power hierarchies accelerated matters as this or that branch of government tried to out anti-Semite the others to win Hitler's favor, but that doesn't negate what seems to me to be clear intentions towards genocide among the Party elites well before the war itself. It's an interesting debate, and I've swung back and forth more than once. My thoughts on Wannsee, though, was not that it was a kicking-off point for some new thing but rather a consolidation and rationalization of those "direct actions" already being carried out by the SS-Einsatzgruppen, Order Police, and others, which were themselves the heirs of T-4 and all the other horrid poo poo that had been going down for years by the time we get to January of 1942. As such, while yes that's where the SS starts talking about a unified camp system and ropes the other organs of government into the plan, and yes that's where the words "final solution" first start popping up regularly, I don't think it's entirely accurate to call Wannsee the point where the final solution was planned. Rationalized, perhaps, but the actual killing had already been going on for a while. Or were you using "final solution" in the narrower sense to only mean the construction of the camp system?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I tend to fall more on the Intentionalist side of the debate honestly, as from all I've read it seems more likely to me that Hitler had extermination on his mind long before he was in a position to effect it (though I'm certainly not a nut like Goldhagen, claiming that all of Germany lusted after Jewish blood due to national character defects). I think the Functionalists have a point about how competing power hierarchies accelerated matters as this or that branch of government tried to out anti-Semite the others to win Hitler's favor, but that doesn't negate what seems to me to be clear intentions towards genocide among the Party elites well before the war itself. It's an interesting debate, and I've swung back and forth more than once. It is just an illustration that its development happen significantly latter than August 1939, and even then there isn't evidence of what was going to happen during that period. If your going to say Stalin helped murder millions of Jews by invading Eastern Poland you can have to back it up. I know massacres and liquidations were happening well in advance but I don't think there was any way for Stalin to know in 1939. If you blame for something he didn't know what was going to happen, then you sort of all of history to that speculation. Chamberlain also helped Hitler commit the holocaust, so did the SDP by splitting with the KDP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It is just an illustration that its development happen significantly latter than August 1939, and even then there isn't evidence of what was going to happen during that period. If your going to say Stalin helped murder millions of Jews by invading Eastern Poland you can have to back it up. I wasn't talking about Stalin one way or the other, incidentally, I just wanted to comment on Wannsee and that it sits fairly prominently in the Intentionalist and Functionalist debate. Others have been trying to make hay of the role the Red Army/NKVD played in Poland in 1939-40 (some honestly, others in the seemingly-ceaseless campaign to derail this thread into "b-b-but Marxism  " territory), but as horrible as they were, particularly at Katyn, I don't think it's quite right to slot those atrocities in with the larger nightmare of the Holocaust.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I wasn't talking about Stalin one way or the other, incidentally, I just wanted to comment on Wannsee and that it sits fairly prominently in the Intentionalist and Functionalist debate. Others have been trying to make hay of the role the Red Army/NKVD played in Poland in 1939-40 (some honestly, others in the seemingly-ceaseless campaign to derail this thread into "b-b-but Marxism It is a interesting question obviously and I get your perspective, but that other point needed to be addressed because it just seems ridiculous if it is just allowed to slide even if it from yet another Stalin derail. That said, I am absolutely not surprised Stalin is popping up so often in a thread about Fascism. So much of what Stalin did was framed in his battle against both his contest with the West and Fascist states, and to a large extent the same could be same in reverse. That said, I think in more day political terms, Fascists and right-wing authoritarians are doing a lot better in the West than Stalinists or orthodox Marxist-Leninists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Yes, yes, I too believe that fascist states were the selfless servants of the popular will. Indeed, I will now list every prominent examples of this: I never said they were 100% perfect selfless servants. Who could ever live up to something like that? Certainly no human. Instead I would say the actually existing fascist states were flawed, but at most times they served the popular will of the people. Mass movements don't obtain power magically after all. They do so through popular support. quote:Seriously, the fascist states which have existed were complex entities which used the carrot to secure the cooperation of fellow-travellers and those deemed to be part of the volksgemeinschaft, and the hard stick of coercion for those who wouldn't play along, or were of undesirable racial/national background. This is literally what every state that has ever existed has done. Good stuff for friends, bad stuff for enemies. No brainer there, huh? quote:
See the above answer. quote:This is also to say nothing about how the organs of the State are controlled by the Party in as explicitly undemocratic a fashion as possible, though I imagine you've got some reason why anti-democratic control of government is somehow compatible with the popular will. The fascist State lives and dies on popular support. The Party is the same way; if it does not embody the will of the people then it can be changed so the two are one. Historically actually existing socialism has been lacking on the Party question; the answer is to be more transparent, more open to reform. We want the Party and the people to be the same entity after all. quote:Given that you, yourself, in other threads have gone off on how race trumps class and no white worker ought feel any form of solidarity with workers of any other race, one would think you'd understand this. Or are you conceding that expulsion and/or extermination of the Other is a necessary and vital component of a properly ordered fascist state? I suspect not, as I rank it highly unlikely you're arguing in any better faith than usual, but odder things have happened. To give you context for those posts I was critiquing Marxism. Yes I think race is ultimately more important than class. I also think solidarity between workers is impossible in an international form; in other words, I reject the internationalism of Marxism and substitute it with nationalism. Thus national socialism/social nationalism/whatever. Fighting Others is a necessary component of every single society; always has and always will be. A fascist society would be no different. On that note we're not all genocidal maniacs [a few Hitlerites probably are, but personally I hold no desire to hurt anyone]. I definitely favor peaceful reform; "separate but equal" is a good slogan that has unfortunately been tainted by bad faith Jim Crow bullshit. quote:Fascism isn't socialist you twit, it's third-positionist. Strasser would have been purged even if Hitler hadn't thought he was threat personally Whatever. All I know is that I draw from both wells and would support either one if given the chance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
The Anatomy of Fascism posted:Officially, Fascism was born in Milan on Sunday, March 23, 1919. That morning, somewhat more than a hundred persons, including war veterans, syndicalists who had supported the war, and Futurist intellectuals, plus some reporters and the merely curious, gathered in the meeting room of the Milan Industrial and Commercial Alliance, overlooking the Piazza San Sepolcro, to "declare war against socialism... because it has opposed nationalism." quote:Another supposed essential character of fascism is it's anti-capitalist, anti-bourgeois animus. Early fascist movements flaunted their contempt for bourgeois values and for those who wanted only "to earn money, money, filthy money." They even promised to expropriate department-store owners in favor of patriotic artisans and large landowners in favor of peasants. Fascism not actually revolutionary, news at 12.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 07:40
|
|
|
Emden posted:I never said they were 100% perfect selfless servants. Who could ever live up to something like that? Certainly no human. Instead I would say the actually existing fascist states were flawed, but at most times they served the popular will of the people. Mass movements don't obtain power magically after all. They do so through popular support. Anyone that tries to shut you down for the "race > class" thing will do so out of their own insecurity and not because of their strong anti-fascist opinion, I'm thinking. I'm actually very interested in what this thread has to say about that, since this has been one of the main blocks over which many of my arguments with people have stumbled. It's not like it isn't an active debate topic within 'our' circles either, to the extent that whiteness is considered a class an sich for all intents and purposes: J. Sakai posted:EC: In the early eighties you wrote Settlers: Mythology of the White Proletariat, a book which had a major impact on many North American anti-imperialists. How did this book come about, and what was so new about its way of looking at things? As much as race is formally just a social construct and completely avoidable as a stumbling block for organization, materially (in practice), it's often the de facto class boundary, moreso than someone's relation to production itself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 09:39
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:Anyone that tries to shut you down for the "race > class" thing will do so out of their own insecurity and not because of their strong anti-fascist opinion, I'm thinking. What a tremendously predictable well-poisoning. quote:I'm actually very interested in what this thread has to say about that, since this has been one of the main blocks over which many of my arguments with people have stumbled. It's not like it isn't an active debate topic within 'our' circles either, to the extent that whiteness is considered a class an sich for all intents and purposes: This continues to be the fascism thread and not the Marxism thread. For gently caress's sake, not everything is about you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 09:45
|
|
|
I'm responding to his post, he brought up the race > class idea as a fascist and tied it directly to his fascism. Where did anyone mention Marxism?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 09:46
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:I'm responding to his post, he brought up the race > class idea as a fascist and tied it directly to his fascism. Where did anyone mention Marxism? You're the one bringing up left-wing organizing here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 10:10
|
|
|
ErichZahn posted:Fascism not actually revolutionary, news at 12. That’s a bit glib. There are many prominent historians of Fascism, such as Stanley Payne, David Roberts and Roger Griffin, who have argued that it is in fact revolutionary. Roberts has gone so far as to speak of a growing “consensus” among non-Marxist historians of Fascism to that effect. None of this of course “proves” anything about Fascism as a revolutionary movement. But it shows that Paxton’s assessment shouldn’t be accepted as received wisdom, or as completely uncontroversial within the field. Anti-Marxist violence doesn’t in itself prove or disprove the revolutionary nature of Fascism. And the “agent theory of Fascism” that Paxton alludes to at the end of the first quote was the basis for disastrous policy decisions made by the Communists. Also, the characterization of Fascism as a tool of capitalism was hardly the result of “thinking of history as the grand unfolding of deep processes through the clash of economic systems”. It was the reflexive response of a highly doctrinaire worldview that couldn’t accept anything outside the official dichotomy of socialism vs. capitalism. While it was useful for propaganda purposes, it had to be abandoned once Fascism was recognized to be a genuine, distinctive threat. There was also more sophisticated analysis of Fascism to be found among contemporary Marxists, such as those of Togliatti and Gramsci. It’s of no great importance here, but it might be worth pointing out that the Fascism wasn't the only (arguably) revolutionary movement that “banned strikes, dissolved independent labor unions, lowered wage earners' purchasing power, and showered money on armaments industries…”. This is not an invitation to yet another derail, but merely pointing out the limited usefulness of such arguments. Paxton seems to argue, by implication, that in order for a movement to be regarded as revolutionary it must oppose the bourgeoisie on the basis of exploitation as it follows from Marx’s labor theory of value. That’d be a very strange argument to make, and I’m guessing that this has more to do with the original context of the quote and the use that you’re making of it. That particular part of the quote seems more appropriate as an argument against the alleged “socialist” affinities of Fascism than its revolutionary credentials (unless, of course, we deem them to be unseparable). In fact, that excerpt seems far more useful against “Red Fascism” type arguments than against claims that Fascism is revolutionary. Sakarja fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 10:10
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:There is a stigma but honestly I blame it on poor organizing more than anything else. You can adapt to being banned as a party and whatnot it's been done before. But like I've told many anarchists,socialists,and communists before yes you're being repressed but your piss poor organizing doesn't help either. Honestly I feel like people in general are having trouble adapting and organizing in more recent years and I can't really pin it on one specific thing. At least in my country I think it comes down to the end of conscription. Just the other day my father was berating my generation for being passive morons while his, when they got fed up with the regime made a coup. The only thing I could come up in defense of my generation was "easy for you to talk, all you guys were war veterans with at least 3 years of active combat, we don't even know how to clean a gun." And honestly I think that plays not a small role in the current state of affairs. The end of conscription seemed like a great idea at the time but in retrospect it deprived the general population of knowledge and discipline indispensable to organize any sort of serious resistance or subversive work, underground or not. And, historically speaking, things quickly go to poo poo when the armed forces stop being filled with general population and are replaced with mercenaries who have a vented interest in maintaining the people that pay them in charge. NikkolasKing posted:I also talked to a person who (apparently, I can't vouch for how accurate this is) knows about British history. What has determined English foreign policy, according to this person, is the fear of "a strong continental European power." Back in the day it was what brought England and France to blows but in the early 20th Century it was Germany. Great Britain was not about to help Germany become that strong European power. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 10:34
|
|
|
Some russian news on the topic: The 8th of September was a "united election day": a number of mayors, regional and municipal councils got elected. As usual, Putin's United Russia won pretty much everywhere, most importantly, at Moscow Mayor Election - to much disappointment of "non-systemic" liberal opposition. The curious exception is Ekatirenburg ("Capital of The Urals"), where the mayoral elections ended with the victory of Evgeni Roisman, a representative of Civil Platform - political party founded by Mikhail Prokhorov (billionaire, owner of Brooklyn Nets among other things).  "Smoking marijuana is the first sign of male homosexuality" - mayor of a 1,3m Russian city Roisman is the leader of City Without Drugs - a controversial organisation that routinely uses vigilante tactics in its activities. Such activities as: 1) Raids on crackhouses; akin to the fancy neonazi gents in OP, thugs go into CWD to "legally" punch addicts and low-rent pushers, preferably of non-Russian nationality. Of course, Russia had not lived through any kind of state-funded War on Drugs, so people genuinely believe that such actions will clean up the cities. 2) More interesting stuff - forceful rehabilitation. CWD has several centers that completely reject replacement therapy and medical methods in general. Employing same kind of thugs that go into raids, centers round up addicts from crackhouses and those that are dumped by their families (who obviously can't afford actual rehab). Treatment consists of beatings, starvation and handcuffing during withdrawals. In his interviews, Roisman doesn't make a difference between drug traders and drug addicts - they are evil scum that needs to be punished and cleaned away from the society. Roisman served time in the 80s for robbing women that he seduced; his lieutenants have juicier biographies: rape, murder, hate crimes. The folk hero does not deny that he got help at starting his business from Uralmash - Ekatirenburg crime syndicate that operated in the 90s. So here you go - in the dire economy and the abscence of competent policework, power fetishism takes place and ultra-right ringleader gets elected against fierceful resistance of the ruling party. fatherboxx fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:Some russian news on the topic: Thanks for this, Guardian reporting on this is loving appalling. They seem to have fallen into the 'Putin bad, opponents of Putin therefore MUST be good' line of reasoning. Here are the two stories mentioning this guy. "The Guardian posted:Russia local elections: Putin's opponents gear up for poll challenge And then, after the win: - "The Guardian posted:Putin's nose bloodied by Russia's rival mayoral candidates So, the one reference is to his beating 'Putin'. Reporting on these people is the worst of cheer-leader politics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Pesmerga posted:*Horrible poo poo from Ekaterinburg* My girlfriend is from Ekaterinburg and it's just a constant stream of  .And some horrible news from  The country of human rights about how 1/3 of the French agree with the National Front. Article in French.http://www.bfmtv.com/politique/34pour-cent-francais-proches-idees-marine-pen-600874.html quote:25% of people asked said they feel "fairly close" to these ideas, and 9% "very close".
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 20:55
|
|
