[truthypants]

QUOTE (Iminicus @ Sunday, Feb 19 2012, 10:34)

some sh*t

You talk sh*t.

And Communism isn't an autocratic ideology you utter mug, it's anti-Government. Just because socialist régimes of the 20th century were often autocracies doesn't mean the ideology is authoritarian.

I think we'd all be better off if you would stop making crass generalisations based on your conservative prejudices.

Also that Nolan Chart is crap and clearly advances Nolan's own libertarian bias... economic "freedom" is not achieved through the workings of the free market.

This post has been edited by truthypants on Sunday, Feb 19 2012, 14:36

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (truthypants @ Sunday, Feb 19 2012, 15:31)

And Communism isn't an autocratic ideology you utter mug, it's anti-Government.

Sorry, but what on earth are you talking about? The primary defining characteristic of Marxist-Communist ideologies (if you ignore other varieties of Communism such as anarcho-Communism, which is what you seem to be actually talking about) is that it requires a centralised party authority and essentially strips any degree of direct democratic influence from the population.

QUOTE (A dictionary)

Authoritarian 2) of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.

Collectivist local-level governance as a form of Communism isn't intrinsically authoritarian but it's also not inherently anti-Government. When you view it at a national and political level, then it requires a powerful centralised political authority to enforce a methodology which contrasts starkly with the basic principals of human nature and developed society. Communist ideology may not speak of authoritarian in such obvious terms, but authoritarianism is as much a part of Communism as it is Fascism.

[truthypants]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Sunday, Feb 19 2012, 14:50)

QUOTE (truthypants @ Sunday, Feb 19 2012, 15:31) And Communism isn't an autocratic ideology you utter mug, it's anti-Government. Sorry, but what on earth are you talking about? The primary defining characteristic of Marxist-Communist ideologies (if you ignore other varieties of Communism such as anarcho-Communism, which is what you seem to be actually talking about) is that it requires a centralised party authority and essentially strips any degree of direct democratic influence from the population. QUOTE (A dictionary) Authoritarian 2) of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people. Collectivist local-level governance as a form of Communism isn't intrinsically authoritarian but it's also not inherently anti-Government. When you view it at a national and political level, then it requires a powerful centralised political authority to enforce a methodology which contrasts starkly with the basic principals of human nature and developed society. Communist ideology may not speak of authoritarian in such obvious terms, but authoritarianism is as much a part of Communism as it is Fascism.

The primary defining characteristic of Marxist-Communist ideologies is that they are stateless. Yes, a period of socialism is required to safeguard the revolution, consisting of a centralised authority (Marx's dictatorship of the Proletariat). So to the extent that a period of authoritarianism is required, it is a part of Communism; but it is only a part - the ultimate goal of the ideology of Communism is a classless, stateless society: a utopian ideal that would constitute both the end of society as we know it and of dialectical history.

And don't forget that this topic is supposed to be a discussion of ideology and not of practice, just because the ideology hasn't been accomplished does not mean that attempts to do so can be used to characterise the nature of the ideology itself.

[Brad]

QUOTE (Iminicus @ Sunday, Feb 19 2012, 10:34)

That goes against everything conservatives stand for. We don't believe one person has the right to supreme rule. So, once again Fascism is not right wing.

I think you're trying to make conservatism an ideology, which is what conservatives are against. Conservatism is about reacting and conserving, going by what has worked before and moulding it around the state. This is why conservatism is disjointed if you look at from an international perspective. Say, a conservative in the United States will not advocate a supreme ruler but a conservative in Saudi Arabia would advocate the hereditary rule of the royal family, as it has worked in the country for several years.

Secondly, fascism is a right-wing ideology. You have spoke about the Nazi regime essentially controlling all of means of production. Yes, to an extent but no in general. The majority of Nazi policies was Keynesian with the end-game of creating an autarky economy. The whole economic machine of the Nazi party is not enough to label it a left wing ideology. A left wing ideology advocates an egalitarian society (which is evidently not the case in Nazi Germany) while using a strong capitalist mechanism to produce wealth for the nation. Mussolini himself said that fascism is essentially the synthesis of the state and corporatism.

The thing is, they are sides which are pinned on either side to advocate it one wing nor the other but to say that it is objectively one side would be inaccurate. An ideology may have elements of right and left-wing ideals but the best way to conclude would be the horse-shoe or cross political model.

[Rown]

I feel like I am being sodomized by semantics.

Well at least I can take solace in the fact that we can all quote/paraphrase Mussolini at the drop of a hat.

Rown

[illspirit]

QUOTE (truthypants @ Sunday, Feb 19 2012, 11:06)

The primary defining characteristic of Marxist-Communist ideologies is that they are stateless. Yes, a period of socialism is required to safeguard the revolution, consisting of a centralised authority (Marx's dictatorship of the Proletariat). So to the extent that a period of authoritarianism is required, it is a part of Communism; but it is only a part - the ultimate goal of the ideology of Communism is a classless, stateless society: a utopian ideal that would constitute both the end of society as we know it and of dialectical history.

The idea that Marxism's end result is a stateless society is and always has been a sick joke as far as I'm concerned. Even if it were possible to get past the supposedly transitional dictatorship part, you're still left with a system in which the collective has essentially unlimited authority to initiate force against the individual in order to allocate property/resources/etc.. While the traditional, visible apparatus of state may theoretically cease to exist in a Marxist "utopia," it is not because the underlying authority has evaporated, but rather because it has become so large and pervasive that there is simply nothing and nobody outside of its sphere of influence to serve as contrast.

Using a farm for a metaphorical example, it would be as if one tore down the barn where the dairy cows live, moved the fence beyond the horizon, then told the cows they're free as long as they continue to share their milk. Sure, the recognizably institutional aspect of the farm is no more, and the cows can wander around a bit without ever seeing a fence, but ultimately they are still contained and being milked. Whether the authority doing the milking is the kulak farmer, some revolutionary vanguard cows, or some post-revolutionary cow community is pretty much beside the point if their only "choice" is to become hamburger if they don't share the fruits of their labor.

As such, to say that one system in which the collective has the inherent authority to initiate force against recalcitrant individuals in order to serve some abstract "greater good" is somehow the opposite of another system which aims to do the exact same thing is ridiculous.

While Fascists do tend to aim for somewhat smaller collectives than Marxists (e.g., race or nation, as opposed to all the workers of the world or whatever), they both stand in opposition to the individual. If anything, that the Fascists see a strong national government as an end goal while the Marxists view it as a transient stage away from individualistic hedonism should put Fascists towards in the middle of an objective political spectrum with the least collectivist ideologies (such as anarcho-capitalism or even tribalism) on the far "right." Other than the size and scope of the collective, most of the differences between the various flavors of Communism and Fascism are methodical, and have far more to do with local cultural differences and sheer pragmatism than any high ideals or values.

And even these functional differences tend to be quite minor and poorly understood, as evidenced by the OP. Especially this post on page 2:

QUOTE (TheShogunOfHarlem @ Sunday, Feb 19 2012, 01:27)

Because it [Socialism in National Socialism] is a disingenuous part of their name. Both Hitler and Mussolini gave huge subsidies to big businesses within their respective countries. They both were anti-union and rabidly anti-communist.

From the end and working backwards, yes, they were anti-communist. But just as a Blood can be anti-Crip without being anti-gang, this does not make Fascists into Capitalists. The primary reason Hitler was able to rally the Germans against the Jews is by playing off the stereotype that they were the greedy, rich one-percenters of the day..

Second, err, no, they weren't anti-union.

QUOTE (Adolph Hitler @ Mein Kamph, Chaper 12)

(1) Are trade unions necessary? .. I think that I have already answered the first question adequately. In the present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation. Not only are they important in the sphere of social policy but also, and even more so, in the national political sphere. For when the great masses of a nation see their vital needs satisfied through a just trade unionist movement the stamina of the whole nation in its struggle for existence will be enormously reinforced thereby. Before everything else, the trades unions are necessary as building stones for the future economic parliament, which will be made up of chambers representing the various professions and occupations.

To the extent the Fascists did weaken unions was largely a result of the growing belief by the non-union workers that the powerful trade unions were becoming the new bourgeoisie class, as it were.

And finally, yes, they did subsidize big business.. and seized them or started their own national business to crush them if they didn't play along (see also: Volkswagen). What most people fail to realize is that the "corporate" in Corporatism does not pertain solely to businesses, big or otherwise. The basic idea of Corporatism is that groups of people with common interests would group together as one "body" (corp being the Latin root meaning same) and form a sort of partnership with the state. While this does, obviously, legitimize the power of big business (as opposed to them bribing pols under the table as they do otherwise), the concept of corporative public-private partnerships also applies to unions (like in those chambers of economic parliament Hitler mentioned) , scientific groups, or whatever. The theory here is that people with actual experience their respective fields would be better suited to help develop policy than random bureaucrats or elected officals who have never even been to the place being regulated.

And if you get right down to it, this is hardly much different than the Russian soviet model of setting up small councils at local and factory levels to ostensibly manage things they were familiar with.

Now, as for "family-values" "republican" moralists, well, while they are quite nasty creatures at times, this in itself does not make them the opposite of the Communist "left" or top or whatever direction you wish to chart it in. Though they would be loathe to admit it, all the crap about being "Christian nation" or whatever really puts them on an identity-politics boat next to the Marxist class warriors they claim to be against. They may not agree on which way to steer the boat, but either way the wind is blowing it away from the concept of individualism.

[vinnygorgeous]

I can see why people use these charts to plot political dimensions, because they are simple and convenient but they can never be used as an accurate means of determining anything. I don’t see why people would even bring them up in this context, unless one of you has had Marx or Hegel plot their personal preferences on one of them that is.

And all that crap that apart from Thatcher and some US presidents every government has been left wing. That requires a psychiatrist not a response.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (vinnygorgeous @ Tuesday, Feb 28 2012, 08:10)

And all that crap that apart from Thatcher and some US presidents every government has been left wing.

Because it works... even your Queen got sick of Thatcher's stupid right wing bullsh*t.

[Iminicus]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Feb 28 2012, 11:43)

QUOTE (vinnygorgeous @ Tuesday, Feb 28 2012, 08:10) And all that crap that apart from Thatcher and some US presidents every government has been left wing. Because it works... even your Queen got sick of Thatcher's stupid right wing bullsh*t.

The Queen has no say in who is Prime Minister. Also, I believe the Queen preferred Thatcher over Blair.

[vinnygorgeous]

But the queen didn't like the effects of Thatcherism that's the important distinction; Blair was just a git it wasn't about his government. Thatcher was a vandal the great destroyer that's what the Queen supposedly didn’t like.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (Iminicus @ Tuesday, Feb 28 2012, 18:40)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Feb 28 2012, 11:43) QUOTE (vinnygorgeous @ Tuesday, Feb 28 2012, 08:10) And all that crap that apart from Thatcher and some US presidents every government has been left wing. Because it works... even your Queen got sick of Thatcher's stupid right wing bullsh*t. The Queen has no say in who is Prime Minister. Also, I believe the Queen preferred Thatcher over Blair.

As vinny said, the Queen had reportedly questioned Thatcher during their weekly meetings about her actions toward rolling back welfare and hurting Britain's poor. As for Blair, it wasn't his policies she disliked, it was him as a person.

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

QUOTE (illspirit @ Monday, Feb 20 2012, 22:40)

QUOTE (TheShogunOfHarlem @ Sunday, Feb 19 2012, 01:27) Because it [Socialism in National Socialism] is a disingenuous part of their name. Both Hitler and Mussolini gave huge subsidies to big businesses within their respective countries. They both were anti-union and rabidly anti-communist. From the end and working backwards, yes, they were anti-communist. But just as a Blood can be anti-Crip without being anti-gang, this does not make Fascists into Capitalists. The primary reason Hitler was able to rally the Germans against the Jews is by playing off the stereotype that they were the greedy, rich one-percenters of the day.. Second, err, no, they weren't anti-union. QUOTE (Adolph Hitler @ Mein Kamph, Chaper 12) (1) Are trade unions necessary? .. I think that I have already answered the first question adequately. In the present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation. Not only are they important in the sphere of social policy but also, and even more so, in the national political sphere. For when the great masses of a nation see their vital needs satisfied through a just trade unionist movement the stamina of the whole nation in its struggle for existence will be enormously reinforced thereby. Before everything else, the trades unions are necessary as building stones for the future economic parliament, which will be made up of chambers representing the various professions and occupations. To the extent the Fascists did weaken unions was largely a result of the growing belief by the non-union workers that the powerful trade unions were becoming the new bourgeoisie class, as it were. And finally, yes, they did subsidize big business.. and seized them or started their own national business to crush them if they didn't play along (see also: Volkswagen). What most people fail to realize is that the "corporate" in Corporatism does not pertain solely to businesses, big or otherwise. The basic idea of Corporatism is that groups of people with common interests would group together as one "body" (corp being the Latin root meaning same) and form a sort of partnership with the state. While this does, obviously, legitimize the power of big business (as opposed to them bribing pols under the table as they do otherwise), the concept of corporative public-private partnerships also applies to unions (like in those chambers of economic parliament Hitler mentioned) , scientific groups, or whatever. The theory here is that people with actual experience their respective fields would be better suited to help develop policy than random bureaucrats or elected officals who have never even been to the place being regulated. And if you get right down to it, this is hardly much different than the Russian soviet model of setting up small councils at local and factory levels to ostensibly manage things they were familiar with. Now, as for "family-values" "republican" moralists, well, while they are quite nasty creatures at times, this in itself does not make them the opposite of the Communist "left" or top or whatever direction you wish to chart it in. Though they would be loathe to admit it, all the crap about being "Christian nation" or whatever really puts them on an identity-politics boat next to the Marxist class warriors they claim to be against. They may not agree on which way to steer the boat, but either way the wind is blowing it away from the concept of individualism.

Again I should clarify that this thread isn't limited to discussing Nazism and Italian Fascism. Fascism like many other forms of Government come in numerous variations. We all know that both Italy and Germany were not the only Fascist governments in existence at the time nor was WW2 the end of Fascism. The point of this thread is to discuss Fascism (historically speaking) as a whole.

As for whether or not Nazism or Hitler was anti-union the SA (or brownshirts) would disagree with Hitler's stance that you quote from Mein Kampf. Mussolini himself had his Brownshirt squad that attacked the interests of leftist movements in Italy. Even to this day the term "Brownshirts" are often associated with union busting. Whether or not it's a fair analogy is open for debate.

You do make an interesting point on the Corporate Subsidies/Corporatism topic. Corporatism isn't about Big business authoritarian rule/influence over the State. It's a partnership as you say. Corporatism as it may be applied to the US on the other hand (some say) actually does coincide with your explanation of Corporatism. I for one don't buy into the notion that (some) Corporations run the US Government. There is a partnership between many Politicians and Corporations: Oil/Energy Companies, the Prison and Military industrial complexes to name a few. Does that make America a Fascist country? Not really but one can make the argument that some US right-wing ideology does have some things in common to come to the conclusion that the US right want to adopt a modern day variation of Fascism. Michael Parenti breaks it down in his lectures in my OP.

The Christian right-wing in the US on the other hand isn't so much an example of Neo-fascism as it is an example of authoritarian, Big Government hypocrisy the American right often exhibits. I wouldn't lump them in with Marxists either, if anything the Christianity card is more of a divisive tool used by the right in conjunction with xenophobia as a means of getting a huge base (political?) of people as a voting block to vote for the Right political agenda and candidates.

Aside from all the petty social issues, To me the biggest, most horrifying overreach of the American right woulf be Michigan's "Financial Martial Law" rule which literally denies Michigan residents of their Democratic rights. Is it Neo-Fascism? Possibly.

[El_Diablo]

I don't know about Fascism per se, but Right Wing ideology (at least as it currently exists in the United States) more than implicitly favors Racism and Sexism.

this isn't to say that all Republicans are racist or sexist.
but this is absolutely to say that if you happen to be a person who is racist or sexist then you most likely vote Republican.

again it's not necessarily explicit or something they openly endorse as a party.
but current GOP policy and rhetoric is very negative in regards to social minorities and anyone whose "lifestyle" conflicts with Adam and Eve's.

[Leftcoast]

QUOTE

I don't know about Fascism per se, but Right Wing ideology (at least as it currently exists in the United States) more than implicitly favors Racism and Sexism. this isn't to say that all Republicans are racist or sexist. but this is absolutely to say that if you happen to be a person who is racist or sexist then you most likely vote Republican. again it's not necessarily explicit or something they openly endorse as a party. but current GOP policy and rhetoric is very negative in regards to social minorities and anyone whose "lifestyle" conflicts with Adam and Eve's.

I agree with you about the Republicans in the US currently, however, I don't believe that those views should be attached to conservatives as a generalization.