Arguing with Stupid Leftists

[techumseh]

Here's an article from the Village Voice, referring to Pinochet's fascism: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9844,vest,952,1.html

Here Noam Chomsky describes the Pinochet regime as fascist: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ch...hile_Chom.html

An essay describing Chilean fascism: http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/...ingthefew.html

A detailed accounting of the fascist actions of Pinochet's regime: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/42a/132.html

A Trotskyite web site on Chilean fascism: http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/nov1998/pino-n17.shtml

Al Ahram, Egyptian paper, describes fascist regime of Pinochet: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/407/in2.htm

British paper The Guardian, on Pinochet the fascist: http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve05/1243cult.html

Amnesty International on the brutal Pinochet regime: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index...pen&of=ENG-CHL

[Sandman]

the interchangeable BS sold to the masses

So Hitler was thinking in terms of markets, raw materials and labour when he invaded the USSR, and how best to please his capitalist bosses?

[techumseh]

That, and destroying the citadel of communism.

[Mr. Harley]

Techumsah - you've been set up, and your reply shows that you don't realize it. If you look at Hitler's writings, and every interview, memoir, etc. we have concerning the Hitler state, he invaded the Soviet Union over, to use Hitler's own language, lebanstraum, or expanded living space.

His own generals did not want him to invade, and if it had not been for his takeover of the Wehrmacht in 1938, removing the last independent opposition to him, they well might have rebelled. Business was fat, dumb, and happy with the state of affairs in the Reich, digesting all of the conquered territories and industries.

The only person who wanted to invade the Soviet Union was Hitler, and a few of his disciples. Cult - followers - non-rational decisionmaking. That is why every time someone starts using Hitler as an example of Facism they get in trouble. The regime started off as Facist, until Hitler had completed seizing every rein of power. After that it became a cult-like state, with everything implicit to that. Since it's origins were Facist, it still had many of the trappings of Facism. However, it had transmorgified into a state/cult by that point.

[techumseh]

Well, perhaps I've been set up, but I'm not lost. William Shirer describes some of the planning that went into the invasion of the Soviet Union.

"...Halder went to work on the plans with his General Staff. Though he would later claim to have opposed the whole idea of an attack on Russia as insane, his diary for this day discloses him full of enthusiasm as he applied himself to the challenging new task."

OKW was ordered to "make a detailed survey of Soviet industry, transportation and oil centers both as a guide to targets and later on as an aid for administering Russia."

Most of the claims that Hitler acted alone in his various aggressions are based on the testimony and writings of German generals after the war. Of course, they were trying to avoid prison or worse, and their accounts are suspect.

German documents show great thoroughness in planning the industrial exploitation of conquered areas of the Soviet Union. While Hitler did talk a lot about living space, he didn't ignore industry, metallurgical deposits or oil.

I don't have ready to hand information describing the attitude of German big business towards the invasion of the Soviet Union at the moment. I'll endevour to find it. If you do, please bring it forward. As it now stands, your assertion that the Nazi's were just a cult and that no one else really wanted to attack the SU is just an assertion. Evidence, please.

[Mr. Harley]

You'll note I didn't say business did not want to invade - but that they were "...fat, dumb, and happy with the state of affairs in the Reich, digesting all of the conquered territories and industries." When you told them they could get all these benefits risk free, of course they went along with it. Especially when too much opposition could get you on the wrong side of the barbed wire.

You are mixing up enthusiasm and/or pushing an agenda, i.e. invading the Soviet Union, with the efficiency of General Staff style planning. In that planning even if I disagree with you, I understand what you plan to achieve and will supply the necessary support to achieve the goal. I may bring up problems I see, and even inform you that I think your strategic or operational plan is in error (though depending on my leader I may need to be VERY careful when I disagree). But in the end I will do whatever is necessary to guarantee the success of the operation.

You are asking the wrong question. Find my anybody, besides Hitler and the Nazis (and some of their intellectual predecessors) pushing invading the Soviet Union. I don't think you are going to find much - though you may surprise me. Note I am talking about pushing the invasion independently and if possible prior to Hitler. Remember in the Hitler state it was generally a bad idea, often lethally so, not to be seen as agreeing with the Great Leader. Finding out what people truly felt will run into similiar problems to those your rightfully cite about the Wehrmacht generals claiming to have opposed Barbarossa.

[GePap]

Originally posted by techumseh
Here's an interesting article on defining fascism:

And this is supposed to mean, what? Exactly? Some guy writes an article about what he sees as his definition of fascism, though going by his list, incluidng the inclusion of Suharto as fascist, his grasp on the issue is poor, at best.

And as for your list, are we supposed to care? So if I start brinign up lists from the Weekly Standard, the National review, and the Washington Times on the meaning of Communism, would anyone take it seriously?

Oh, and trying to tie Pinochet to fascism because the Chilean Military accepted a Prussian style of military dress means what, exactly?

Oh, and Imran is correct. If you want to know what Fascism IS, the people to read are those who considered themselves Fascists and were proud of it. In reading what they aspired to, what they want, their aims, there you see what fascism is supposed to be, not by reading its caricatures.

Fascism is a mass movements with wholy POLITICAL roots. It is not the end stage of capitalism. It is not a tool of big business.

And Che is correct by saying that one simply can't look at the Nazi state and try to define Fascism by it, because the Nazi's introduced a biological component to the ideology that made it much more radical.

Marxism rests on a foundation of saying that a human being's identity is defined by the means they use to meet their basic economic needs. This is why CLASS is the defining characteristic. A factory worker in Timbuktu and one in Walla Walla have more in common with each other than with a rich capitalist in either location. This is why, under this theory, all societies, upon reaching the same economic level, face the same choices. This is why you can do a Marxist explination of Rome, or IMperial China, or the Inca Empire, because as different as everything else was, the underlying material forces and economic realities exist and they define the human condition.

Fascists would state that what defines man is their nation-the accumulation of shared values, norms, mores. That a rich factory owner in Timbuktu will share more with any fellow citizens of Timbuktu that he will ever share with any other rich factory workers anywhere.

Both Communism and Fascism seek to harness a mass political movement in a radical manner to create a new relation of man to the state and each other, but the different underlying assumptions about mankind's identity lead to significant ideological differences. NOw, because the Facists tie their identity to what are essentially old values, this makes their system somewhat unstable, as they lurch from Radicalism (in their goals) to being reactionary (because the shared national identity must be protected). It is also this that allows some to mistake the fascist for other conservatives who also place immense value in the old ways, but do so for different reasons than the fascists.

Nazi's went further, as I said before, because they introduce a biological coponent. They state that these basic shared national values and culture have a biological basis. Other fascists like the Italians made no such claims. and there is a fundamental difference between these two camps.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Sandman


So Hitler was thinking in terms of markets, raw materials and labour when he invaded the USSR, and how best to please his capitalist bosses?

True, Hitler turned into an uncontrollable monster. That doesn't mean though that it's what fascism is all about - you claim yourself in another post that Nazi Germany had become a 'cult State'.

Extreme situations like war usually lead to extreme means being undertaken. Surely Hitler would have gone against something else, hadn't the root of his power been opposition to communism?

[BeBMan]

Just want to mention that the Nazis not only depiceted communism, or as they said "Jewish Bolshewism" as teh evil, there was also a strong sentiment against teh evil capitalism (often as teh evil Jewish capitalism) with teh evil UK and US as main agents of those great evils (edit: and that long before WWII).

Capitalism and esp. the industrialization of the 19th century there was depicted as the force that had destroyed the (idealized) good old pre-industrial German society. So looking only at the anti-communist side of Nazi rule isn't enough.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


True, Hitler turned into an uncontrollable monster. That doesn't mean though that it's what fascism is all about - you claim yourself in another post that Nazi Germany had become a 'cult State'.

Except that Hitler was a fascist, while the industrialists were NOT. Hence, one looks to Hitler, his party, the state they created for answers about FASCISM, not to the old men in top hats that ran the large industrial concerns.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
True, Hitler turned into an uncontrollable monster. That doesn't mean though that it's what fascism is all about - you claim yourself in another post that Nazi Germany had become a 'cult State'.

Extreme situations like war usually lead to extreme means being undertaken. Surely Hitler would have gone against something else, hadn't the root of his power been opposition to communism?

Um, I think you're responding to shawnmcc here, not me.

Incidently, I concur with GePap. The blunt truth is that fascists tend to be economically pragmatic. Their primary goals are nationalistic.

If Hitler had invaded the USSR for capitalist reasons, he would have tried to turn it into a captive market for German goods, like Britain did in India. Instead, his plan was to exterminate and enslave the Soviet peoples and extend Germany right the way to the Urals. He actually looked forward to the endless guerilla war this would entail, saying it would keep Germany in state of constant readiness!

[techumseh]

Originally posted by GePap




And this is supposed to mean, what? Exactly? Some guy writes an article about what he sees as his definition of fascism, though going by his list, incluidng the inclusion of Suharto as fascist, his grasp on the issue is poor, at best.

I didn't claim that the article was anything more than interesting. Actually, I think he's trying to tailor the definition to fit the US. What's interesting is that things like "new man" ideology are not included in his definition .

And it's odd that you would just assume that you could just toss off Suharto's name and it would be obvious that the guy didn't know what he was talking about. Suharto led a coup which killed up to a million people, most of them communists. It was also backed by your government, but it wasn't the big bad republicans at that time (1965). No, it was your pals in the Democratic Party.

And as for your list, are we supposed to care? So if I start brinign up lists from the Weekly Standard, the National review, and the Washington Times on the meaning of Communism, would anyone take it seriously?

I don't care if you do. At least it would improve the pathetic standard of debate on this issue. Some people seem to think they can state their uninformed opinion as fact, and carry on as if they've learned something.

Oh, and trying to tie Pinochet to fascism because the Chilean Military accepted a Prussian style of military dress means what, exactly?

Like I said, sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

Oh, and Imran is correct. If you want to know what Fascism IS, the people to read are those who considered themselves Fascists and were proud of it. In reading what they aspired to, what they want, their aims, there you see what fascism is supposed to be, not by reading its caricatures.

No, and here we get to the nub of the issue. We need to define fascism by looking at it externally, analizing it's real goals and makeup, and seeing how it evolves. Much of the stuff H&M wrote was ideological mumbo jumbo to justify their broader goals. It was designed to befuddle the masses with mysticism and psuedo-science. To place it on a par with Voltaire, Hegel or Marx is an act of intellectual vandalism. The ideology of H&M was designed to mislead and confuse. It's clearly still doing so.

Fascism is a mass movements with wholy POLITICAL roots. It is not the end stage of capitalism. It is not a tool of big business.

Why, because you say so?

And Che is correct by saying that one simply can't look at the Nazi state and try to define Fascism by it, because the Nazi's introduced a biological component to the ideology that made it much more radical.

And did I disagree with this?

Marxism rests on a foundation of saying that a human being's identity is defined by the means they use to meet their basic economic needs. This is why CLASS is the defining characteristic. A factory worker in Timbuktu and one in Walla Walla have more in common with each other than with a rich capitalist in either location. This is why, under this theory, all societies, upon reaching the same economic level, face the same choices. This is why you can do a Marxist explination of Rome, or IMperial China, or the Inca Empire, because as different as everything else was, the underlying material forces and economic realities exist and they define the human condition.

Don't lecture me on Marxism, you liberal.

Fascists would state that what defines man is their nation-the accumulation of shared values, norms, mores. That a rich factory owner in Timbuktu will share more with any fellow citizens of Timbuktu that he will ever share with any other rich factory workers anywhere.

Both Communism and Fascism seek to harness a mass political movement in a radical manner to create a new relation of man to the state and each other, but the different underlying assumptions about mankind's identity lead to significant ideological differences. NOw, because the Facists tie their identity to what are essentially old values, this makes their system somewhat unstable, as they lurch from Radicalism (in their goals) to being reactionary (because the shared national identity must be protected). It is also this that allows some to mistake the fascist for other conservatives who also place immense value in the old ways, but do so for different reasons than the fascists.

Nazi's went further, as I said before, because they introduce a biological coponent. They state that these basic shared national values and culture have a biological basis. Other fascists like the Italians made no such claims. and there is a fundamental difference between these two camps.

Fascism arose after the rise of communism, and in response to it. There is not a fundamental difference between German and Italian fascism, nor between them and the Chilean version. All arose out of a desperate desire of the elites of their respective countries to prevent a socialist takeover. In all cases, these classes threw over their democratic trappings and jumped in with the ultra right who promised to save them, which they all did, by means of violence and terror. In all cases there were ideological justifications, but these differed in each case. Basing your analysis on the ideological trappings would lead you to believe they are all quite different. And that's the source of your error.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by BeBro
Just want to mention that the Nazis not only depiceted communism, or as they said "Jewish Bolshewism" as teh evil, there was also a strong sentiment against teh evil capitalism (often as teh evil Jewish capitalism) with teh evil UK and US as main agents of those great evils (edit: and that long before WWII).

Capitalism and esp. the industrialization of the 19th century there was depicted as the force that had destroyed the (idealized) good old pre-industrial German society. So looking only at the anti-communist side of Nazi rule isn't enough.

I don't disagree, Bernd. The claim that capitalism and communism were both part of the same "Jewish conspiracy" was part of Nazi ideology and remains so amoung many neo-nazis today. I think it was part of an attempt to confuse people about the real political and economic forces at play. In practice though, the anti-capitalist and anti-industrialization part was just rhetoric.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
The revolution is dead.

It's been dead since 1990, thankfully!

[Berzerker]

If you want to know what Fascism IS, the people to read are those who considered themselves Fascists and were proud of it.

The "greater good" according to Benito