Arguing with Stupid Leftists

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Wycoff
No. I object because your explanation doesn't make sense. If Big Business was such an omnipotent figure in history, then the crazy radical NSDAP wouldn't have came into power, the DNVP would have. Big business wasn't behind the NSDAP until the writing was on the wall.

That's just completely false. Back in the 20s the Capital had a radical enemy, communism, that could only be fought through radical means.

[Fake Boris]

You simply want to apply Fascism as broadly as possible, as you only care about it in the pejorative sense.

I can't speak for him, but it's probably the opposite. After all, he's just defining political systems by looking at what classes they serve. Generally speaking, those people afraid of the pejorative sense are those refusing to call anyone by the name, except the great mythological evil that have become the nazis.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Wycoff


No. I object because your explanation doesn't make sense. If Big Business was such an omnipotent figure in history, then the crazy radical NSDAP wouldn't have came into power, the DNVP would have. Big business wasn't behind the NSDAP until the writing was on the wall.

Oncle Boris has it right. Fascism is a reaction to the threat of socialism and communism. The DNVP, as you call it, was not in any position to stop the left, including communism. The Nazi's were, precisely because they were prepared to use violence and terror to do it. Big business PREFERS democratic and market based societies. When these are threatened, and traditional institutions can no longer hold back the threat of socialism, they will, without hesitation, resort to undemocratic and violent reaction, ie. fascism.

This shows your biases. The most illuminating part is you feel the need to condemn the people with whom you disaggre as "Fascist." What's the big deal? If you hate Pinochet, what does it matter if he was authoritarian Conservative (which he was) or a "Fascist" (which he wasn't)? If you think he was bad, point to his policies, not to his labels. You simply want to apply Fascism as broadly as possible, as you only care about it in the pejorative sense. You complain that we are basing it on historical models. I ask you: what in the world should we base our observations on? Should we ignore historical models because they don't fit your agenda? I really don't see your point here.

I disagree with you, and I don't call you a fascist. I don't even call Bush one. (he's marginal though ) It's not a matter of "hating" Pinochet - this is more evidence of your subjectivism - he was in my view, and according to my definition, a fascist. Most of the Latin American left and even the centre, would agree. And yes, it's clear that you don't see my point - you don't have a definition of fascism beyond what Hitler and Mussolini did.

Right. It served the Nazis in creating settlers for their new Lebensraum, allowing for the future conquest of Earth and the eternal domination of the Aryan race. It served explicitly Fascist purposes, not big business purposes. What does big business care who buys their services? Globalization proves that it doesn't. You're refusing to look beyond the narrow scope that your ideology forces you to adopt.

Globalization did not exist in the 30s and 40s. Nationalism did, and that is what defined the economic policy of the German capitalists. So German fascism had extreme nationalism as its ideological basis. Today, as the interests of big business has changed, so too will the ideology of modern day fascism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You define "fascism" in terms of the historical versons of Hitler and Mussolini.

Because they created it! They defined fascism and implimented it. To say that their definitions don't matter is an act of incredible hubris and just plain wrong.

Oh, and btw, Pinochet was in no way a fascist. Hell, he brought in Chicago school neo-liberal economists! How can that fit it at all with the Fascist hatred for class divisions with both communism and free market capitalism advance? How does that make any sense at all?

They were designed to increase the population of fit and obedient citizens and to build a stronger base for the army and the economy, in order to allow the aggression needed to expand markets and secure access to labour and raw materials. The ideas did not create the economic and military objectives; they served them.

It's amazing... you've been blinded by your own ignorance. In you zeal to call anything to the right fascist, you've basically made the term fascism incredible malliable to the point where it means nothing.

No, the goal of fascism was decidedly NOT to expand markets. The goal of fascism was a radically different society. To dismiss this as 'subjective and superficial' matters is utterly ludicrous and amazing. It's the CORE of Fascism, a POLITICAL ideology. There is a reason that Mussolini, Barres, Hitler came up with and refined the idea of fascism. It wasn't so they could serve business and expand their markets. It was so they could create a new society where the nation was king and all were unified within that national group.

Yes, the economic and military objectives were secondary and subservient to the ultimate goals of the ideology.

One can see it from the origins of Fascism. Big business did not jump on board until the Fascist parties were strong in numbers (or controlling the government). Hitler didn't have the Krupp's at his door during the Beer Hall Putsch. He had to wait until his party was the biggest in the Reichstag. It was the disaffected and isolated middle classes which built the party. To claim that it is a movement led by 'finance capital' is to ignore all history of Fascism (and saying the definition changed to your definition because you said it did isn't a valid counter).

this is more evidence of your subjectivism - he was in my view, and according to my definition, a fascist.

Self-pwnage!

You'd think, btw, if most of Latin America considered Pinochet a fascist, the word would appear in his wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet

It doesn't.

--

Using your overbroad definitions we can come to very interesting conclusions about communism. If you want to look at it specifically and concretely, communism has been an authoritarian government set in place for the benefit of a few party elite. By your style of labeling, Saddam Hussein becomes a communist through his Ba'ath Party (which is ludicrous, but that is what your line of thinking leads to).

Of course you'll say "that's stupid" or "that's ridiculous, it leads to no such thing", because overbroad 'practical' definitions only work for fascism and not communism.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You define "fascism" in terms of the historical versons of Hitler and Mussolini.

Because they created it! They defined fascism and implimented it. To say that their definitions don't matter is an act of incredible hubris and just plain wrong.

I rest my case. You define fascism as a fixed, historical, unevolving fossil, based on it's superficial aspects. And why on earth would you let Hitler and Mussolini define fascism? Would you let apes define evolution?

Oh, and btw, Pinochet was in no way a fascist.

Oh really. Just another conservative, I suppose? Tell me, is killing and torturing opponents, wiping out trade unions and left wing political parties, establishing control over all media, etc. really just an extension of normal conservatism? Or does it really represent a substantial break in political continuity from traditional conservatism, with it's committment to elections, freedom of speech and so on?

They were designed to increase the population of fit and obedient citizens and to build a stronger base for the army and the economy, in order to allow the aggression needed to expand markets and secure access to labour and raw materials. The ideas did not create the economic and military objectives; they served them.

It's amazing... you've been blinded by your own ignorance. In you zeal to call anything to the right fascist, you've basically made the term fascism incredible malliable to the point where it means nothing.

Terrorist dicatorship of finance capital ... crushing trade unions and left wing political parties ... direct control of media and education to communicate proaganda ... state control of the economy in the interests of big business ... resorting to systematic terror in order to silence critics and persecute scapegoats ...

This is a definition that means nothing? You've got to be kidding!

No, the goal of fascism was decidedly NOT to expand markets. The goal of fascism was a radically different society. To dismiss this as 'subjective and superficial' matters is utterly ludicrous and amazing. It's the CORE of Fascism, a POLITICAL ideology. There is a reason that Mussolini, Barres, Hitler came up with and refined the idea of fascism. It wasn't so they could serve business and expand their markets. It was so they could create a new society where the nation was king and all were unified within that national group.

Yes, the economic and military objectives were secondary and subservient to the ultimate goals of the ideology.

Why then, learned sir, did the German and Italian regimes invade country after country? Ethiopia, Albania, Greece? Poland, Denmark, Norway , France? Were these aggressions necessary to build the "new society" and the "new man"? Why the crusade against Bolshevism and the Soviet Union? Why the Anti-Comintern Pact?

The fact is that fascism is first of all a reaction against socialism and communism, the last defense of big business. And it is often an agressive, militaristic force, seeking to expand access to markets and resources by force. I don't think I'm going too much out on a limb when I say this will probably benefit the owners of big banks and chemical companies more than a bankrupt grocer.

this is more evidence of your subjectivism - he was in my view, and according to my definition, a fascist.

Self-pwnage!

You'd think, btw, if most of Latin America considered Pinochet a fascist, the word would appear in his wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet

It doesn't.

Imran, what would your professor say to you if you argued in a paper that the lack of a reference to someone as a fascist in an online encyclopedia authored by anyone who wanted to contribute, was proof that he was not, in fact, a fascist?

But since you place such importance on this source of all knowledge, here's something else I found on the Wikipedia:

Nazis Not True Fascists
I think that part of the German list is inaccurate. Nazis should not be included as fascist, as they were national(ist) socialists, not fascist. While many elements of socialism are found in fascism, as fascism is an outgrowth of socialism, we should not label socialists as fascists and vice-versa. Unless there's a broad classification of all forms of collectivism involved.

So this unnamed author claims that the Nazi's were not even fascists! Who's left? This is typical of the subjective, non-scientific political definitions currently abroad, here and on various wiki's as well. I'm afraid you'll have to do better research than this if you want to pass my class.

[techumseh]

So, Imran, did you just DanS me?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by techumseh

Why then, learned sir, did the German and Italian regimes invade country after country? Ethiopia, Albania, Greece? Poland, Denmark, Norway , France? Were these aggressions necessary to build the "new society" and the "new man"? Why the crusade against Bolshevism and the Soviet Union? Why the Anti-Comintern Pact?

The fact is that fascism is first of all a reaction against socialism and communism, the last defense of big business. And it is often an agressive, militaristic force, seeking to expand access to markets and resources by force. I don't think I'm going too much out on a limb when I say this will probably benefit the owners of big banks and chemical companies more than a bankrupt grocer.

I guess noone doubts the anticommunist direction of the things you mentioned. This however does not prove the monocausal "it was all the big business'/finance capital's will" argumentation.

You can very well argue that conquest of Europe or even more was a political/ideological goal that fits into the nazi idea of masterrace etc., and esp. into Hitlers personal views.

[Ecthy]

Realistically speaking it was also a sensible move, seeing the USSR on the rise and the western powers unwilling to crusade. War would have come eventually. The earlier, the better for the 2 fascist powers. It could have worked, but let's not go there.

[Mr. Harley]

OK people, I won't get involved in the argument on Marxism. I know just enough to get pwned - better known as making myself sound like an idiot. However, WW2 authoritarian regimes is something I do know a fair bit about.

First - Wycoff. The Nazis CUT the number of students enrolled in engineering and other technical schools by half. They were living off the successes of the German technical school system, by the end of the war the various arms companies complained bitterly over the lack of technical people resulting from the genocide of the Jews, drafting of afore mentioned technical people, and the lack of graduates over the period of the Nazi rule.

The problem is that combining the terms of Facism and Nazism are what is confusing the issue. Some excellent work out of Germany over the last two decades or so looks at the Nazi regime not as Facist, in fact not even as a government as normally understood. They call it the Hitler state, and have instead analyzed it as a cult of personality.

It works surprisingly well. It also accounts for all the contradictions that have been argued over in this thread. It was not a coherent state, as we tend to think of one. In fact, if anything, it had more in common with Che's Aztecs, blindly consuming itself. That is because it was a cult.

Hitler was the Great Leader, and his pronouncements, no matter how ridiculous, were given the utmost credence. One of his primary henchmen, Himmler, could be called a superstitious occultist, except occultist would have considered him ridiculous. Various policy decisions that were stupid, inane, and/or counter-productive were agressively pursued by the state, simply because Hitler declared they were to be pursued. The Hitler state had more in common with today's North Korea than with Facist Italy.

If you eliminate the misidentified Hitler state from the pantheon of Facist states, you will suddenly find some of the disagreements here nicely simplified. Now you end up with the Facist states instead as Conservative dictatorships, more or less espousing traditional values. You folks can sort out the individual arguements you have made, but in general you will find that eliminating the Hitler state/cult from the argument as a Facist example makes it much easier to gain a certain kind of consistancy that lends credence to the point made by those considering it a cult. It's like Stalin's "Communism", which was hardly much of an example of communism but was instead an example of a vicious dictatorship maintaining rule through Terror, definitely not something required by Marx - who of course was not the first nor the final word on Communism, for that matter.

[chequita guevara]

I don't think Nazi Germany should be consirder an architypal fascist state, but the most radical and extreme version of one. It was extreme fascism, X-fascism.

I agree that Techumseh draws the net a little to broadly. It is true that Pinochet's regime shares aspects of fascism, but there was no mass movement behind the military revolt, and that is crucial. A much more suitable candidate would be the first Peron dictatorship in Argentina.

Nor does big capital turn over power to the fascists unhesitatingly. They hesitate quite a bit, and only allow them to take power as a last resort. This is because they are dangerous. Capital is much more willing to rely on a military coup, than turn over the state to a bunch of radical thugs with delusions of remaking society.

One of the arguments against fascism being controled by big business was the that why would capital want its factories bombed and destroyed, etc. That's a silly question. They didn't start the wars intending to lose. As the fascist armies moved across Europe, big capital found itself with new markets to expand into, looted capital to seize, slaves to work in its factories. Lebensraum might have been sold by the fascists to the public, but behind them were vultures waiting to pick Europe's bones.

[Mr. Harley]

Che - valid point, though I need to go to sleep, I've been up for 27 hours now (rotating shifts). However, when you use the term big capital - would it be more appropriate to say Crony Capitalism, which is most definitively not free markets.

Take for example the Hitler State during it's beginnings, while it was still largely facist (before Hitler and his thugs had totally consolidated control of the Wehrmacht in 1938). Certain companies, like Junkers, had run-ins with various individuals who became part of the Nazi apparatus, and actually lost control of their company. It almost happened to Krupp, FYI.

Conversely, certain favored companies like Messerschmidt got special treatment (access? ), for example the Bf 109 which was a semi-independent design more-or-less given to Messerschmidt. I would have to check my WW2 armor books, but other companies came very close to freezing Krupp out of the gravy train (think Haliburton) and it was only by some very adroit, and expensive maneuvering that Krupp managed to keep it's preeminence. Plus of course it's size helped.

[Dr Strangelove]

Since Mussolini coined the term fascism then I believe that his Italy was probably the archtype of fascism. His idea of government combined the statist functions of socialism with the conservative cultural values of 19th century prer-democratic Europe.

[chequita guevara]

You have take anyone named Dr. Strangelove serious on the subject of fascism. "I'm coming mein fuhrer!"

[Az]

Man, this thread is so aptly named

[techumseh]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I don't think Nazi Germany should be consirder an architypal fascist state, but the most radical and extreme version of one. It was extreme fascism, X-fascism.

I agree that Techumseh draws the net a little to broadly. It is true that Pinochet's regime shares aspects of fascism, but there was no mass movement behind the military revolt, and that is crucial. A much more suitable candidate would be the first Peron dictatorship in Argentina.

Nor does big capital turn over power to the fascists unhesitatingly. They hesitate quite a bit, and only allow them to take power as a last resort. This is because they are dangerous. Capital is much more willing to rely on a military coup, than turn over the state to a bunch of radical thugs with delusions of remaking society.

One of the arguments against fascism being controled by big business was the that why would capital want its factories bombed and destroyed, etc. That's a silly question. They didn't start the wars intending to lose. As the fascist armies moved across Europe, big capital found itself with new markets to expand into, looted capital to seize, slaves to work in its factories. Lebensraum might have been sold by the fascists to the public, but behind them were vultures waiting to pick Europe's bones.

Now we're getting back to a more sensible debate about the nature of the big 'F'. Why don't you think the Pinochet regime was fascist? Because of the lack of an organized fascist party? Didn't it act in every meaningful way just like a fascist regime? You know the old saying, "If it walks like a duck, If it quacks like a duck...".

As I understand your argument, we agree on the basic nature of fascism and who is served by it. But you insist on a mass movement of ruined and disaffected people before it can be called fascism, correct? Any other points of disagreement?