Who Are Fascists?

[Sava]

from a STANFORD UNIVERSITY WEBSITE

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/marxism.html

Under capitalism, capitalist ideology penetrates other classes and must be struggled against by the proletariat.

Even your commie hero KARL MARX describes capitalism as an ideology...

CHE YOU ARE WRONG

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ideology.html

here is an expanded discussion about IDEOLOGY for you dopes!

[Tripledoc]

But were people aware of what capitalism was before Marx wrote Das Kapital? When was the first time the word 'Capitalism' was used? I don't think Adam Smith ever used it, and he was anti-mercantilist. So capitalism is a term used to explain the Marxist ideology.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Under capitalism, capitalist ideology penetrates other classes and must be struggled against by the proletariat."

Che would know better then I, but I'd assume by "Capitalist Ideology" he would mean various ideologies that promote what he'd call false consciuousness, such as nationalism, religious conservaitsm etc., rather then capitalism itself.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Actually that's the very basis of capitalism.

No it isn't. You make the same mistake libertarians make, looking at capitalism today and assuming it has always been that way. Capitalism existed before people were even aware that it was something distinct.

Adam Smith did not invent capitalism. He did two things. He described the economic system that had come into being in England, and described methods of making it work better. This is not an ideology any more than an book about cars and making cars is an ideology.

Most early capitalists had a very different set of ideas about the nature of men. They assumed that hard work and thrift and moral virture rewarded better men. They had no view of men as inherently greedy. Nor did they care. Smith doesn't even talk about greed. He talks about self-interest, which is a different thing from greed. Even Marx considers greed irrelevent as a motivating force in capitalism.

[chequita guevara]

WOW, WHEN YOU USE ALL CAPS AND LARGE LETTERS, IT REALLY MAKES YOUR ARGUMENT MORE SOUND!

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
#1, Nazis are fascists. They called themsevles fascists.

Did I explicitly state that nazist wheren't fascists? That's has hardly anything to do with the point at all. The point is that some persons use the term fascists instead of the much more common term nazis.

#2a, calling right-wing authoritarians fascists extends far beyond Marxists. It is common for both liberals and conservatives to hurl that epithet at each other, and has been ever since fascism was created by Mussolini.

I did not in any way claim that liberals or conservatives don't hurl epithets at each other, simply that the over-use of the term fascist mainly is found amoung communists and radical socialists.

#2b, The "laws" of dialectics have absolutely nothing to do with this. The laws of dialectics are: quality v quantity, the negation of the negation, and one more thing which escapes me.

Nor did I claim that it made any sence. It would hardly be a suprise for most people that commie fantatics of the sort that bend over backwards in their efforts to make the party-line (often a lot more pragmatic) fit their narrow world view will end with absurd logics. "Die partei sind immer rechts", or whatever we could call it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sava
from a STANFORD UNIVERSITY WEBSITE

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/marxism.html

Even your commie hero KARL MARX describes capitalism as an ideology...

I hate to break it to you, but that wasn't written by Marx. It also contains several errors.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Did I explicitly state that nazist wheren't fascists?

You imply they aren't fascists when you make this statement:

Some lefties did and do call nazis for fascist in this fashion.

I did not in any way claim that liberals or conservatives don't hurl epithets at each other, simply that the over-use of the term fascist mainly is found amoung communists and radical socialists.

And I am saying this is wrong. It is a common insult outside of the far-left, and therefore is neither the fault of the left nor a defining feature of the insult.

It would hardly be a suprise for most people that commie fantatics of the sort that bend over backwards in their efforts to make the party-line (often a lot more pragmatic) fit their narrow world view will end with absurd logics.

Which has nothing to do with dialectics.

[Sava]

well I'm done with this inane threadjack... I'm disappointed at the ignorance I've seen and can't bear to subject myself to the aggravation of trying to open people's eyes.

If you want Che, go visit the Stanford websites and LEARN. You won't listen to me, maybe you'll listen to them. One last question I have... if capitalism isn't an ideology, then why is it described "as an ideology"?

[Kropotkin]

You imply they aren't fascists when you make this statement

Well, that's your interpetation. That was not at all the point. Even if there's room for a lengthy discussion about to what the degree the NSDAP was a fascist party.

And I am saying this is wrong. It is a common insult outside of the far-left, and therefore is neither the fault of the left nor a defining feature of the insult.

It's my understanding that the over-use of the word fascist is much more common amongst socialists. In my original post I said that communists/socialists "Partly, at least,.." was responible for the use of the ephitiet in unsuitable situations. You're clearly making a hen out of a feather. I have certainly not stated what you accuse me off.

Which has nothing to do with dialectics.

I'm not really arguing about it has or hasn't anything to do with diamat. I just pointed out that I've read quite a few texts where people have tried to fit in fascism into diamat. I don't really care.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sava
If you want Che, go visit the Stanford websites and LEARN.

I did visit the Stanford website. It seems to me that reading a student's ex-comp sci professor's ("I am a professor of computer science (now emeritus) at Stanford University and this web site is a spare time activity that I hope will do some good.") interpretation of things isn't a terribly good way to learn. As I pointed out before, upon going through it, I notived several errors in their description. Really Sava, try and vet your "proofs" before showing them.

One last question I have... if capitalism isn't an ideology, then why is it described "as an ideology"?

Like I care what the libertarians call capitalism. They've redefined the term to suit their own agenda.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Well, that's your interpetation. That was not at all the point.

It's what you wrote.

Even if there's room for a lengthy discussion about to what the degree the NSDAP was a fascist party.

What room would there be? It fits every definition of fascist. It's like saying the People's Party of Bum****istan isn't a communist party cuz it doesn't use the word communist in its name.

It's my understanding that the over-use of the word fascist is much more common amongst socialists.

Maybe in Sweden, not where I'm from.

I'm not really arguing about it has or hasn't anything to do with diamat.

You said it was because of dialectics. That is arguing it has semomthing to do with dialectis. Dialectics is the logic of change, nothing more. You can't make anything do anything with dialectics. Dialectics proves nothing. It is not a formula. It is simply a way of undertanding that things change over time and how.

[Kropotkin]

I said that some communists use the term fascists for whom most others use the term nazis. That those groups use different terms for the same thing doesn't mean that they differ in their perception of the ideology of the NSDAP. Your interpetation is questionable.

Another mature remark. There's obviously room for debate over to what degree the nazi regime, the nazi movement and/or the nazi ideology was fascist. There has been a lot of scholary debate about the definitions of fascism and nazism. The nazis didn't show much interest for the corporative ideas from the italian fascists for example. But that goes for Mussolinis Italy also. Regimes hardly ever do what their ideologies aim for. Or maybe you're of the opinion that the Soviet union was true communism?

Well, doh. I haven't made field research about the political terms used in Jacksonville. Obviously that means that I must be a moron.

[Shi Huangdi]

IIRC The early Soviet Union refered to the Social Democratic movements they loathed so much as "Social Fascists"

[The Andy-Man]

It seems to me that Fascists are a cross bread between center-Left social Democracy and Extreme Right-wing nationalism. Henmce why they piss both sides off.

It is interesting to note that the German Aristocrats of the 1930;s hated Hitler and the Nazi's largley because they saw them as lefties.