|
Well, I am a researcher (graduate student anyway) who has written on that particular topic and I don't think it's wrong? The fascists both in Italy and in Germany articulated a particular understanding of capitalism which allowed them both to oppose their idea of bourgeois culture while at the same time enforcing capitalist relations; if you're not a fascist (and disagree with their articulation) it makes perfect sense to call them capitalist. The Wikipedia section is not an impressive source because a) its references are either general histories of Nazi Germany or primary sources (implying it's just the original research of whoever wrote it) -- it doesn't reference any of the studies specifically on Nazi economic ideology, like Keith Tribe's chapter 'Capitalism, Totalitarianism, and the Legal Order of National Socialism' in Strategies of Economic Order, which conclude something quite different, and b) methodologically, Nazi articulation of economic ideology changed in quite radical ways and it's disingenuous to take statements that represent only particular snapshots of their ideology at a given time made with a particular party-political goal in mind and present them as a totalising analysis of their whole ideology.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:52 |
|
|
Which is why I said I'm lazy and don't feel like quoting some the numerous books and studies on the subject. I totally agree Wikipedia is not a preferable source, but the gist of the article is, in broad terms, correct. It depends on the interpretation of what is or isn't capitalism. If you stretch the definition of capitalism ridiculously thin then you can include nazism and fascism, but that's ignoring so many factors that oppose that view it's almost an embarrassing thing to say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
HighClassSwankyTime posted:Enjoy, if you think that Hitlers ideas about German entrepeneurship and Jewish capitalism are one and the same, I'm sorry to say this, but you're an idiot. HighClassSwankyTime posted:More citations and less accusations please.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
HighClassSwankyTime posted:More citations and less accusations please. I have brought it up before, but a really interesting but quite short and essayistic work is 'The Origins of Nazi Violence' by Traverso. He takes a look at different ideological tendencies in 19th-century Europe as 'sources' of Nazi ideology. You will read him arguing the point that Nazism, while in a sense a revolutionary movement, did not emerge out of thin air, and used a lot of concepts that were basically mainstream from the nineteenth century, and not only in Germany, but arguably in all of Europe plus the US and Japan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Haven't read the Traverso essay, but it's worth pointing out that the very idea of a 'national socialism' was, I think, first articulated by Friedrich Naumann, who was definitely not an anti-capitalist given that in a sense his whole project was figuring out a way to pacify the working classes without disrupting capitalist relations by introducing actual socialism. As I understand, generally historians have tended to deny the connection between Neumann and Hitler's Nazism, but there was an article published just last November titled 'National Socialism before Nazism' which makes quite a good case that they're actually very similar. e: Naumann, not Neumann
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Zohar posted:Haven't read the Traverso essay, but it's worth pointing out that the very idea of a 'national socialism' was, I think, first articulated by Friedrich Naumann, who was definitely not an anti-capitalist given that in a sense his whole project was figuring out a way to pacify the working classes without disrupting capitalist relations by introducing actual socialism. As I understand, generally historians have tended to deny the connection between Neumann and Hitler's Nazism, but there was an article published just last November titled 'National Socialism before Nazism' which makes quite a good case that they're actually very similar. Yes fascism is very often formulated as a program to destroy the weak, feminized, cabal-influenced, decadent etc. liberal state, to replace it with one that can compete with outside forces and 'focuses national energies' and 'destroys parasitic elements' or 'cancers'. What exactly these cancers or parasites are, depends on specific historic contexts of the nation in question of course. That's why one of the defining moments in European history, often overlooked, is the so-called 6 February crisis in France. Socialists and communists rallied in a 'defence of the Republic', which they may have to do again in a couple of years... Antwan3K fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Feb 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
The fact that outsourcing is so ever-present in the developed world, makes me suspect that that the nationalist resolution to the social question is going to gain traction over a marxist/socialist resolution. So we could see a future where the fascists make a comeback and gain traction, but the radical leftists don't.HighClassSwankyTime posted:More citations and less accusations please. rudatron fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Feb 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
We basically are. The European communist parties are shells of their former selves, and European leftists on a whole are suddenly finding themselves in the curious and very uncomfortable position of playing conservatives in the face of a neo-liberal ideological onslaught. This leaves fascism as an obvious "progressive", active response to the problems of international capitalism. We see this in Denmark, in France and elsewhere - proto-fascist parties (or parties veering on bona fide straight-on fascism) are massively on the rise already in response to the european crisis, and they're gaining confidence. For now, most right-populists are sort of fixed in this weird racial-libertarian paradigm, but I doubt that this will last.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:We basically are. The European communist parties are shells of their former selves, and European leftists on a whole are suddenly finding themselves in the curious and very uncomfortable position of playing conservatives in the face of a neo-liberal ideological onslaught. This leaves fascism as an obvious "progressive", active response to the problems of international capitalism. We see this in Denmark, in France and elsewhere - proto-fascist parties (or parties veering on bona fide straight-on fascism) are massively on the rise already in response to the european crisis, and they're gaining confidence. V. Illych L. posted:For now, most right-populists are sort of fixed in this weird racial-libertarian paradigm, but I doubt that this will last.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Jobbik, which I think is proportionally the most powerful far-right party in Europe, is very definitely working on an old fascist paradigm and not the right-libertarian one you see further west. They have the whole third-way ideology of opposition to both 'Zionist' neoliberalism and communism. Of course in Hungary the left is basically non-existent, even more so than in places like the UK without a major leftist movement but which still have factions like Old Labour, so that's probably one reason why.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Is there much expectation that radical leftism will return to prominence? It seems things are very similar to the 30s, in terms of context and elite power, and like the 30s the elite don't like but will tolerate fascism but absolutely will not give an inch to far left under any circumstances. The left, let alone the radical left are so much weaker than they were in the 30s it seems like there is no chance of the left being able to reassert itself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Is there much expectation that radical leftism will return to prominence? It seems things are very similar to the 30s, in terms of context and elite power, and like the 30s the elite don't like but will tolerate fascism but absolutely will not give an inch to far left under any circumstances. Fascism is also much weaker than in the 30s in everywhere but Europe, though, and nationalism in general is not that high.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Fascism is also much weaker than in the 30s in everywhere but Europe, though, and nationalism in general is not that high. Well this is the Fascism in Europe thread so that was the context I was referring to. Still the Far Right are doing very well in the US to in the form of the increasingly well funded Tea Party: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/us/politics/rebel-conservatives-lead-way-in-gop-fund-raising.html?referrer= and if you don't count Israel as European then that is another example of the far right doing very well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Well this is the Fascism in Europe thread so that was the context I was referring to. Far right does not mean fascist and one of the defining points of Fascism in the 30s was its worldwide appeal. You don't see that here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Fascism is also much weaker than in the 30s in everywhere but Europe, though, and nationalism in general is not that high. We won't see widespread extremism like the 30s until living conditions fall to the 30s' level. In most places in Europe things aren't all that bad compared to the 30s. "Great" movements or leaders don't arise from societies where the vast majority of people are reasonably content (compared to the 30s).
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
We kind of already have seen some real fall in living conditions in terms of the GFC, but the troubling part is that only the fascists have really seemed to benefit in popular support from the GFC. Suppose another crisis occurs, will this pattern continue?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Far right does not mean fascist and one of the defining points of Fascism in the 30s was its worldwide appeal. You don't see that here. Nonetheless we have an increasing shift to the right and far right parties and ideas can and do legitimise fascism. There is no corresponding resurgence of left wing parties thus your assertion that 'fascism is weaker (outside of Europe) too' is irrelevant. We have fertile conditions for fascism to grow or expand in the face of likely large economic crises to come.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Nonetheless we have an increasing shift to the right and far right parties and ideas can and do legitimise fascism. Not inherently, no. Most of the far right reaction in the US is due to (relatively more) left gains, not an inherent shift to the right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
rudatron posted:We kind of already have seen some real fall in living conditions in terms of the GFC, but the troubling part is that only the fascists have really seemed to benefit in popular support from the GFC. Suppose another crisis occurs, will this pattern continue? I'm not going trying to be a prognosticator just by looking at the past, but the future doesn't bode well for the left if another crisis were to occur within, say 2 to 3 years. Which isn't that unlikely, given how nothing of the underlying causes have been fixed that led to the great recession.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
rudatron posted:We kind of already have seen some real fall in living conditions in terms of the GFC, but the troubling part is that only the fascists have really seemed to benefit in popular support from the GFC. Suppose another crisis occurs, will this pattern continue?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Outside the Red-Green Alliance of Denmark, has any European far left parties really made major gains since then? I wouldn't mind making a map (or seeing one if it already exists) that shows the gains the far right has made in Europe since the GFC, compared to the far left, but I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough about the various parties to do it properly. (What with the names not being very good indicators of anything most of the time.) Shouldn't be too difficult to do if people wrote down the names of the actual far right/far left parties in their own countries though, and any others they feel comfortable about. Syriza in Greece would be the most obvious example. IU in Spain, Sinn Fein in Ireland and SP in Netherlands have also made rather impressing polling gains.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Outside the Red-Green Alliance of Denmark, has any European far left parties really made major gains since then? I wouldn't mind making a map (or seeing one if it already exists) that shows the gains the far right has made in Europe since the GFC, compared to the far left, but I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough about the various parties to do it properly. (What with the names not being very good indicators of anything most of the time.) Shouldn't be too difficult to do if people wrote down the names of the actual far right/far left parties in their own countries though, and any others they feel comfortable about. You have the Portuguese Communist Party, which has been gathering all those protest votes, and climbing up the polls. Third and going up up up. It's probably going to win big these European elections, and going to make life hell for the Socialist Party next general election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Fascism is also much weaker than in the 30s in everywhere but Europe, though, and nationalism in general is not that high. Well in most respects it's certainly much weaker than in the 30s in Europe as well -- we don't have any explicitly far-right governments, at most there's something like Hungary which flirts unsubtly with it. Like I pointed out towards the beginning of the thread though, there's a similar resurgence happening in at least Northeast Asia so I don't think it's helpful to perceive it as a purely European phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Stefu posted:Syriza in Greece would be the most obvious example. IU in Spain, Sinn Fein in Ireland and SP in Netherlands have also made rather impressing polling gains. Electronico6 posted:You have the Portuguese Communist Party, which has been gathering all those protest votes, and climbing up the polls. Third and going up up up. It's probably going to win big these European elections, and going to make life hell for the Socialist Party next general election. But really, the way some of these parties had been described in the Eurocrisis thread made me think pretty much every "Communist/Socialist" party in Europe was basically just social-democrats at best.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Not True Communists! Every one with a shot at getting elected, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:and European leftists on a whole are suddenly finding themselves in the curious and very uncomfortable position of playing conservatives in the face of a neo-liberal ideological onslaught. The problem here is the traditional left stopped making demands worth a drat decades ago. When the liberals propose the pension age going up to 67, the response shouldn't be calls to keep it at 65, but to lower it to 60 and cut the working week in half. When they want to privatize healthcare (further), the response should be calls for nationalizations in the health, public transport, energy and banking sectors. When they want to suck off the almighty job creators the response should be calls to have their heads on pikes. There should be at least one party giving a real voice to radically changing the country in the opposite direction of the neo-liberals, and yet in most places that I am aware of, there isn't any. You can have milquetoast leftists who want to desperately and futilely maintain a system that's coming apart, neo-liberals who want to neo-liberal it up and the far right who want to neo-liberal it up with a side serving of gently caress dem blacks/muslims/jews/gypsies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:The problem here is the traditional left stopped making demands worth a drat decades ago. When the liberals propose the pension age going up to 67, the response shouldn't be calls to keep it at 65, but to lower it to 60 and cut the working week in half. When they want to privatize healthcare (further), the response should be calls for nationalizations in the health, public transport, energy and banking sectors. When they want to suck off the almighty job creators the response should be calls to have their heads on pikes. There should be at least one party giving a real voice to radically changing the country in the opposite direction of the neo-liberals, and yet in most places that I am aware of, there isn't any. You can have milquetoast leftists who want to desperately and futilely maintain a system that's coming apart, neo-liberals who want to neo-liberal it up and the far right who want to neo-liberal it up with a side serving of gently caress dem blacks/muslims/jews/gypsies. A few months ago I made a post referring to just this too, calling it the left's ressentiment. Always reactive, letting the right eat first then asking for table scraps and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Not True Communists! Lenin himself blessed PCP in 1921! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Electronico6 posted:Lenin himself blessed PCP in 1921! And they haven't ideologically changed since! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Not True Communists! Not trying to derail too much here, but the "Not true communists" thing always makes me laugh. It's like they're ashamed of red fascism and spit out whatever comes to their mind when you mention Stalin and the likes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
KoldPT posted:And they haven't ideologically changed since! And aren't you the guy that supported the independent neoliberal dude from PSD in Porto just because he went "independent" while receving full support from PSD and CDS? Still hoping for that one honest liberal?  A Buttery Pastry posted:Not True Communists! You don't need to be Hezbollah to be communist and to dismiss their important role in the resistance to neoliberalism is just silly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
I think it's more because they're not even trying to advocate a socialist economy. Kind of a cornerstone of, uh, socialism..
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
What is a "socialist economy" and how is any of the idyllic "socialist economic policies" possible to implement in Denmark, Portugal and Greece without before focusing on direct problems that people actually want to see solved? The answer to this question is the difference between moderately organized leftist parties as seen in Portugal, Germany, France, Denmark, Czech Republic and Greece and poo poo shows like the million trot parties in England and Italy and the ever increasing cult groups that are appearing through the rest of Europe by people who think they're special leftist snowflakes who will be the next Lenin (but a perfect Lenin, not real life Lenin who was a communist, god forsake him).
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Mans posted:What is a "socialist economy" and how is any of the idyllic "socialist economic policies" possible to implement in Denmark, Portugal and Greece without before focusing on direct problems that people actually want to see solved? And yeah, not advocating for a Socialist economy is what I mean by Not True Communists. I'm just unsure whether the people who had said various parties weren't proper Socialist had the same definition as me, or it was down to them not being an exact copy of the poster's ideals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 09:11
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I think it's more because they're not even trying to advocate a socialist economy. Kind of a cornerstone of, uh, socialism.. Well, it's difficult. Unless they give up on democratic elections and start an armed revolution (and I can't see bunch of octagenarians doing that) they can't alienate voters by taking a more radical stand than necessary (which means marginally left of the socdem).
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 10:23
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yes, a view to the present is important, for PR if nothing else. It's not worth much without sticking to the eventual goal of overthrowing Capitalism though, because without that foundation it doesn't seem to take much for the party to race to the right in the name of "pragmatism". Actually, might sticking to a revolutionary program, which leads to the usual condemnation from the "center" as being dangerous lunatics, actually work in terms of PR? At least when you're being called a dangerous lunatic it's harder to also smear you with the "tired old conservative" brush. (Which as people have pointed out, seems to be a problem for actual social-democrats.) Plus it's basically what the successful right has done, turning condemnation into endorsement because many people lost the faith in the people doing the condemnation. Or you'll just be tarred with "reactionary" since that's the code word for "people who do revolutionary activities in a direction I disagree with".
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
Mans posted:snip I knew I was going to make you angry with that post, I had to do it  On a more serious note, after Santiago Carrillo started his whole Eurocommunism thing, many parties went along with it, of which the most notable is probably Italy's party, which was very influential - one of their former prominent figures, Giorgio Napolitano, has been president of Italy for a while. After the fall of the SU, most of those parties did end up turning into democratic socialist parties, some of which by now are probably full of neoliberal shitlords. I dunno about Cyprus' party, but they were in power for a while. Russia's commies are still relatively important, as well. Greece's are in parliament too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
I don't have much insight about Cyprus but they're pretty much a tax haven, no? Is this compatible with communism or socialism in any way?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:I don't have much insight about Cyprus but they're pretty much a tax haven, no? Is this compatible with communism or socialism in any way? Sure, it just means the capitalists have already done the hard job of rounding up the emigres.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:52 |
|
|
Stefu posted:Syriza in Greece would be the most obvious example. IU in Spain, Sinn Fein in Ireland and SP in Netherlands have also made rather impressing polling gains. SP always polls great, watch them lose all of those gains and more in the 2 weeks before the election. Also the SP is coming from a rather weak position so it should really be considered a return to normal. Not that it matters if the results should actually favour the SP. Even the labour party prefers to cooperate with the neo-liberal VVD before the (supposedly idealogically closer) SP. Most parties have shown themselves willing to co-operate with the quasi fascist PVV where almost no one will cooperate with the SP. I have to agree with the sentiment that the elites would rather tolerate fascists than socialists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 19:41
|
|