Communism and Fascism

[GePap]

Imran:

you just don't seem to get it.

HOw does someone become a man in Fascism? How is their indentity created? Communists have families too, you know. But for a communist, the idea is that an adult forms his vital identity at work. Man is an economic animal, and he identifies himself primarily by the wrok he does. For a communist, you think of yourself as a man as "a farmer", a "tradesman", a "merchant", so forth and so on. It is the identity built by your experiences at work that matter and this is what decides your class, and then, even mroe pwoerfully, your class conciousness.

For a facist, ones conciosuness is derived fom them myths and stories, the customs of the nation in so far as they differ from those of others. The memories that matter to you in creating your identity are not what i did at work, but the culture I partake in. What for a communist is nothing but superstructure on top of the real basics is all that matters for the Facists. That superstructure of particularism is what makes you you. And that particularism is defined by one thing, Nation.

Fasicsm does not spring from some cotidian love of family: remember how many fascist were initially socialists, such as Mussolini. But the first world war radicalized them, and they stopped believing in the notion of universal class consciousness and went back to particularists national ones.

Fasicsm is inherently a modenist movement that seeks t overthrow what is an install a radical and revolutionary program. As such it only invokes conservative tradition when useful, a mantle as it were. Germany did go further in fascism than Italy, and even ignoring the pseudo-biological ideology that infused Nazi thinking, fi you look at what the nazi period did to the german family and society, you see that it shook it up, it overthrew the old village structure, for example, in order to further the interests of the state, which is the nation in facist thinking. If fascists wanted large families, it is not because they had some Aristetolean vision that family is the model for all political structures. fascists are radicals (which is why calling any right-wing dic. fascism is wrong) after all.

[Sava]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

And starve to death.

Ask the Russians which system was better.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by nationalist


Explain yourself? Are you confused?

Not at all. You seem to be, though.

There's no single "value" you can assign to a particular political viewpoint. Wrapping the old political spectrum into a circle doesn't make it any less one-dimensional; it simply chooses to associate the extreme left and right wings of the spectrum.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Neither did mercantalism, but that isn't capitalist either.

Your original point was that fascism was anticapitalist due to its dislike of income disparities, though.

Which is still wrong...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
Saddam's Iraq is more like Nazi Germany than any state since WWII. In fact, Saddam outdoes Hitler in ruthlessness and in cruelty.

I think the common factors are between Saddam and Hitler are

1) a Furhrer.
2) a secret police composed of thugs, torturers and killers
3) a private army loyal to the leader to keep the other elements in line
4) elite troops controlled by the private army that keep the rest of the army in line
5) extreme militarism
6) all private enterprised subordinated to and potentially directed by the state
7) no independent power blocks, such as unions.

Stop trying to hijack a thread which has the capacity for interesting discussion.

[chequita guevara]

The two-bit philosphical difference is that communism want to get towards ultimate democracy. We should collectively decide all things which effect us: work, school, etc. We maximize our individuality by working together with others to do all the necessary work of running a society, which leaves us with the maximum time to develop ourselves.

Fascism, on the other hand, believes in the total submission of the will to the nation and its state which finds its ultimate representation in one leader. Communism wants to create educated rational people. Fascism says that emotions and irrationalism are our true beings. Fascism glorifies violence.

In practical terms, under communism there is the collective ownership of all wealth producing property, including land. Under fascism, private property is protected. In fact, the real purpose of the fascist state is to bail out a floundering capitalist economy (shut up, Imran, and just agree to disagree with me about terms). Indepednent unions are smashed, wages and benefits crushed, massive government contracts are handed out to corporations, and ultimately, war is waged to capture new areas for investment and plunder and slaves.

The differences for the individual living under Stalin or Hitler, however, weren't all that great. Trotsky called them the twin faces of the coin of reaction. Both Hitler and Stalin were reactionary developments to the stalemate in the class war, and each system had to resort to massive brutality to maintain itself.

[Ned]

Frogger, In execution, there is very little difference between communism and fascism. In the former, the economy is centrally owned and planned. In the latter, it is directed. But, what both seem to have in common is the police state apparatus. In addition, both seem to maintain large armies.

The fascists, however, seem much more aggressive than communists in trying to conquer militarily.

I would put both Saddam's Iraq and Assad's Syria in the fascist camp.

As to justifying communism by alluding to an idealized future: well there are sucker born every day.

[Imran Siddiqui]

GePap, I don't think you get it.

For a facist, ones conciosuness is derived fom them myths and stories, the customs of the nation in so far as they differ from those of others.

Yes, and what does these customs do? They create a familial relationship. Look in Italy and Spain, they didn't care where you came from, but if you just bought into the traditions. Kind of like in-laws, they became part of the family. Every nationalist theory comes back to the idea that everyone is part (or should be a part) of the national family.

And to say that Fascists didn't believe in traditional morality is reaaaly streaching it. After all, why should women be relegated to the home? You can't try to explain it away saying they are biologically providers, because you can care for children AND be productive in the work force. The Fascists took the women back into the home, because they believe that was the way it has been and should be. The Enlightenment screwed it all up, and we should go back.

--

Che: sure we can agree to disagree, just so we both know you are wrong .

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
...

Fascism, on the other hand, believes in the total submission of the will to the nation and its state which finds its ultimate representation in one leader. Communism wants to create educated rational people. Fascism says that emotions and irrationalism are our true beings. Fascism glorifies violence.

In practical terms, under communism there is the collective ownership of all wealth producing property, including land. Under fascism, private property is protected. In fact, the real purpose of the fascist state is to bail out a floundering capitalist economy (shut up, Imran, and just agree to disagree with me about terms). Indepednent unions are smashed, wages and benefits crushed, massive government contracts are handed out to corporations, and ultimately, war is waged to capture new areas for investment and plunder and slaves.

...

[che]
I'll have to agree with you on this Che, except that true Marxists would argue that Communism is inherently violent. The Manifesto's whole argument is that the bourgeoise society must be cast down violently by workers in order to achieve a workers paradise. Fascism employs violence to further it's own means (as you mentioned).

[/che]

as anyone can see, Fascism tightens the yoke on the individual to support those individuals at the top of society whereas Communism utilizes everyones abilities in order for everyone to make it to the top.

[Frankychan]

I thought that the whole deal with National Socialism's belief of women was that it was their duty to the state and society to remain at home to expand Aryan influence by having more children?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Frogger, In execution, there is very little difference between communism and fascism. In the former, the economy is centrally owned and planned. In the latter, it is directed.

The economy is not directed by the fascist state (except when wartime necessitates it, and not always then). Pretty much up until the very end, Hitler and Co. took his orders from I.G. Farben and Krupps and the like. Sure, these companies were led by Nazis, because the leadership all joined the Nazi party. Kinda like how Schindler was a Nazi.

But, what both seem to have in common is the police state apparatus. In addition, both seem to maintain large armies.

The fascists, however, seem much more aggressive than communists in trying to conquer militarily.

Well, the commies were under attack from day one. They have good reason to be paranoid. People justify the relatively mild restrictions on our civil liberties today in the name of security. Why deny the Communists the same right when they were under more severe threat than we have ever faced?

The fascists' whole purpose, on the other hand, is to crush the unruly elements of society, i.e., people like me. War is necessary to gain more room for the capitalists to have exclusive rights of investment, as well as gaining plunder and slaves.

I would put both Saddam's Iraq and Assad's Syria in the fascist camp.

You'd be wrong. Facsism is a response to decaying industrial capitalism. Ba'athism may share idelogical similarities and as well as a certain methodology, but it lakes the indutrial base necessary. It's like claiming mock crab is crab. They taste similar but the fake stuff is no substitute for the real thing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Partly, franky... but that also tied into the traditional morality. The Nation must be supported by more young, but that was also the reasoning behind keeping the woman in the home in some Medieval societies.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Frankychan
[che]
I'll have to agree with you on this Che, except that true Marxists would argue that Communism is inherently violent. The Manifesto's whole argument is that the bourgeoise society must be cast down violently by workers in order to achieve a workers paradise. Fascism employs violence to further it's own means (as you mentioned). [/che]

Violence being necessary isn't the same as glorifying it. Yeah, some young testosterone poisoned commies really get into the idea of Texas-justice on the ruling class, but for the most part we see violence as a necessary evil. If we aren't violent, we'll be overthrown on day two of the revolution by the former ruling class.

Fascism, on the other hand, glorifies violence as an end unto itself. Violence is seen as the paragon of human activity. It is through violence that we become truely human.

If you can find a copy of Berteluci's 1900 I suggest watching it. It's one of the best movies on fascism there is, without being expository or preachy (it stars Pacino and Donald Sutherland among others, and is very long). That goes for everyone curious as to waht fascism really is.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
GePap, I don't think you get it.
Yes, and what does these customs do? They create a familial relationship. Look in Italy and Spain, they didn't care where you came from, but if you just bought into the traditions. Kind of like in-laws, they became part of the family. Every nationalist theory comes back to the idea that everyone is part (or should be a part) of the national family.

And to say that Fascists didn't believe in traditional morality is reaaaly streaching it. After all, why should women be relegated to the home? You can't try to explain it away saying they are biologically providers, because you can care for children AND be productive in the work force. The Fascists took the women back into the home, because they believe that was the way it has been and should be. The Enlightenment screwed it all up, and we should go back.

The thing Imran is that women were not just relegated to the home to have babbies; Girls, for example, were given ideological training, and had their own political groups like the boys. Education is key. If you just want women to give you babies, why have this sort of political indoctrination for women?
The facisst did think the enlighttenment was wrong, but it was wrong not becuase it overthrew old traditions: Edmund Burke thought the same thing, as do many conservatives, like George Will. They though the problem was the call for a sort of universalism that ignored the particularism they view as most important. Facism comes form many Romantic thoughts: the thing to understand though is that even if romantiscist and others thought the enlightenment was wrong, their programs was not just simple reactionalism. They were radicals in their cause, revolutionary.

I don't think Franco is much of an example of fascism. He acted thoughtout his rule like an old fashioned caudillo, making strong alliences with the Church. Mussolini did not have that strong a relation with the Chuch, and that was certainly true of the Nazis.

The maiin point is that similar actions might be taken for very different aims. Fascism was a modernist system,a radical and revolutionary one, and one that did not justify itself simply on tradition. They may love the cultue they believe is so central to destiny, but they had a new and radical program for it.

[chequita guevara]

Franco wasn't really a fascist, even if he was supported by fascists. Calling him a fascist was a bit of bait-and-switch on the anti-Franco forces part, in order to gather support for the Republican side.

There are definately shared aspects with fasism, such as the mass movement of reaction and many of the same classes (the ruined middle class, soldiers and veterns, land owners, etc) that supported the fascists in Italy and Germany supported the Falangists in Spain. The underling conditions existed too, the presence of a powerful workers' movement that had failed to make the revolution for subjective reasons alone. What was lacking in Spain, however, was developed industrial capitalism, though what capitalists did exist supported Franco.