Arguing with Stupid Leftists

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, but those features aren't what made Germany and Italy Fascist. Those traits that you listed are also traits of conservative, non-Fascist movements. Fascism is not conservatism. There are key traits that Fascists have that conservatives don't. Here are some general examples: the promise of a utopian future, the goal of creating an idealized "new man," a dedication to scientific development, the subordination (and eventual destruction) of religion, exhalting war for war's sake, emphazizing the collective above the individual, and coming to power because of a broad based mass movement.

Indeed. And the collective which is emphasized is the nation. Hypernationalism is a part of a fascism and is integral to the creation of the utopian society and idealized new man. It also leads to the subordination of religions and class warfare because all of those threaten the unity of the nation. The only religion promoted is a civic religion based on the leader.

And quite right that Fascism is a mass movement. It isn't something led by elites, but through the masses (mostly the middle class).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
The big corps thought they bought a puppet and got something they couldn't control. It's as simple as that.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Bingo (LC's post)!

Big business was backing the Nazis, but Hitler got into power and decided to go for the entire pie on his own. Of course the leaders of business decided quickly to become full fledged members in the Nazi Party so they could continue to function as they had.

Except, for quite a while, they did control the Nazis. Obviously my "How high" comment should be taken as the hyperbole it was, but once in power, the Nazis prostrated themselves before big capital, using the state to give big capital whatever it wanted.

Of course, there was a quid pro quo. Leading Nazis got to associate with the ruling class and style themselves as members of it (which was exceedingly distasteful to the ruling class, but it was something with which they had to put up), and become members of it by seizing the property of leading Jews and other undesireables. Had the Nazis atually tried to carry out their "Second Revolution," the Wermacht would have stepped in and removed the Nazis from power.

Of course, with the power of the state under their control, the Nazis did have recourse to ultimate power (no, not Ninjas ) as long as the military remained loyal at any rate, so in that sense, big capital was subordinate to the state, just as it is in the United States. The state, however, chooses not to excercize that power and instead subordinates itself to the capitalist class (for a number of reasons we won't go into).

Individual capitalists may find themselves on the wrong side of the state, if they are undesirable (Jews, etc) or if they engage in behavior which is harmful to the capitalist class as a whole (Enron, Worldcom, etc). When they threaten to bring down the whole system with their greed, the state reluctantly steps in.

[Patroklos]

That was a great post Wycoff .

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Wycoff


Hitler purged the SA for a variety of reasons. One of the foremost was to assuage concerns held by the Wehrmacht that the SA would absorb the Wehrmacht and Röhm would take control of them. To avert a military coup, Hitler showed his devotion to the Wehrmacht by killing some problematic SA leaders.

Another reason for the purge was to rid the party of possible rivals. Hitler feared that Röhm, with the support of the SA, could overthrow Hitler and assume the role of Führer. Hitler thus weakened the SA, both through the purge and through the creation of the SS.

Yet another reason was because Röhm and other high profile SA men were homosexuals. This was extremely distasteful to many leading Nazis, and provided another useful excuse for killing these men.

One of the best sources on this period is William Shirer, who is not particularly a left winger. His book, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" does indicate that the Wehrmacht was unhappy about Roehms' plan to merge the SA and the army and that Hitler wanted to ensure the support of the Wehrmacht. So that part is correct.

However, he goes on to say that there was no real threat to Hitler from Roehm or the SA. This was fabricated as a justification. Ditto the "homeosexual" rationale.

"These things Hitler had not only tolerated, but defended. ... Now on June 30, 1934, he professed to be shocked by the moral degeneration of some of his oldest lieutenants." (R&FTR - p.225)

Most importantly, Shirer quotes Hitler's account to the Reichstag of his last confrontation with Roehm: "I informed him that I had the impression from countless rumors and numerous declarations of faithful old party members and S.A. leaders that conscienceless elements wre preparing a national Bolshevist action that could bring nothing but untold misfortune to Germany. ... I implored him for the last time to voluntarily abandon this madness and instead to lend his authority to prevent a development that, in any event, could only end in disaster." (R&FTR - p.216)

Yeah, but those features aren't what made Germany and Italy Fascist. Those traits that you listed are also traits of conservative, non-Fascist movements. Fascism is not conservatism. There are key traits that Fascists have that conservatives don't. Here are some general examples: the promise of a utopian future, the goal of creating an idealized "new man," a dedication to scientific development, the subordination (and eventual destruction) of religion, exhalting war for war's sake, emphazizing the collective above the individual, and coming to power because of a broad based mass movement.

The traits that I listed are decidedly NOT characteristic of conservative, non-fascist movements. Conservatives to not routinely eliminate trade unions and left wing parties by force - fascists do. Conservatives do not use state control of the economy to benefit big business - fascists do. Conservatives do not take direct control of media and educational systems in order to propagandize the population - fascists do. Conservatives do not resort to systematic terror in order to silence critics and persecute scapegoats - fascists do.

I must say I am stunned by the passive silence of the conservatives on this forum in the face of Wycoff's slander of conservatives. I don't think you resemble his description at all. Do you?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Odin
My criticism of marxism is the whole concept of historical determinism based on economics. First, culture is ofter a major driving force in history, and is not necissarily associated with economics, second, Marx, using this deterministic Hegelian hypothesis, makes a prediction of what is going to happen in the future (the triumph of Communism).

What I find interesting is that what you think you know about Marxism is so very wrong, and yet, as an aspiring biologist, you see in reality the same things Marxism attmepts to describe. You know that you cannot understand an animal by taking a snapshot of it and examining it only at that point in its life. You need to learn about its conception, birth, rearing, adult life, and how it dies.

Marxism examines society in the same way. You could no more point at an adult lion and say, "That's all there is to being a lion," than you could point at the writings of Adam Smith and say, "that's all there is to capitalism." Understanding the development is the dialectical method, not some rediculous tripe invented by a professor jealous of Hegel's popularity about traids.

When you examine an animal, of key importance is how the animal is produced, how it feeds itself and what it eats, and how it reproduces. An animal that fails to do any of these things dies and becomes extinct. No matter what quirks or peculiarities it may have, no matter what new behavior it may have learned, it must still do those three key things.

Human society is the same way. We have to eat. We have to have shelter. We have to produce and raise new humans. That is what economics is about at its most fundimental. The particulars of each culture may differ in substantial ways, but we are animals, and we have to fulfil our animals needs before we can start worrying about invisible friends, what color to wear, etc. A society which fails to consider its economic base does so at its peril. The case of the Aztecs is instructive.

Aztec religion required human sacrifice, lots of it. As the Aztecs conquored Mexico, they required the conquest to provide tribute, human and material. Like Rome, Tenochtitlan was built upon slavery. It required the tribute of conquored provinces to feed its gorwing population. As they sacrificed more of their subjects, however, less and less food reached the capital, because there were less and less producers. Obviously, the gods were punishing them, so the sacrifices increased, and if the Spaniards are to be believed, tens of thousands were slaughtered to try and appease the gods and make the city prosper again. Of course it did just the opposite. The lesson, of course, is when culture undermines the economy, the whole society collapses. This isn't the only example. We could look to the Maya, the Ottomans, the Romans, etc.

This does not mean that crude monetary decisions determin every aspect of life in a society, despite what crude critics of Marxism might say we claim. When Ottoman Sultans built free hostels across their empire for travelors to stay in because God commanded it it had an economic effect. It enabled trade within the empire to expand and flow more easily. Was that the reason it was done? No. It was a religious duty to take care of travelors. But it's still economic.

The interweaving of religion, culture, nationality, ideology, economics, etc. is very complex, and neither Marx nor Engels ever insisted that society was like a great machine with economics controling all the cogs. Economics is the foundation upon which society is built. If it's weak, society crumbles; if it's strong, society flourishes.

I think Engels says it best, so I'll let the old man speak for himself and his comrade.

[T]here is only one other point lacking, which, however, Marx and I always failed to stress enough in our writings and in regard to which we are all equally guilty. That is to say, we all laid, and were bound to lay, the main emphasis, in the first place, on the derivation of political, juridical and other ideological notions, and of actions arising through the medium of these notions, from basic economic facts. But in so doing we neglected the formal side—the ways and means by which these notions, etc., come about—for the sake of the content. This has given our adversaries a welcome opportunity for misunderstandings. . . .

[DaShi]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Wycoff
Corporatism in the Fascist sense involves the tripartite settlement of economic policy and disputes betweeen business leaders, labor leaders, and the government.

That would be incorrect, since the first thing the fascist do when they take power is smash the unions and jail or kill the labor leaders. They might then create fascist unions, which are not unions in the traditional sense, but rather a way of controling labor in the interests of capital. What you described was the post-WWII form of corporatism, which is currently under attack in Germany.

This is what is done in many Chinese companies. Labor unions are led and controlled by the management of the company. In my school, the teachers were upset over low-pay and a promise of wage increases that was reneged. However, they were powerless to protest because their union leader (their boss) refused to let them. Strange really. The local CCP mouthpiece tried to convince me how liberal the school is by using its unions as an example.

[Berzerker]

Honestly, I don;t mind Marxists, since at least they, if they are true Marxists, try to have a scientific or logical basis to thier arguements. I really can't stand liberterians, anarchists, or the hippie dippie types. Arguements based mostly on emotion and claims of absolutes which they can't possibly back up with anything logical...

Gee, didnt know you cant stand me.

Why is slavery wrong? Is an "absolute" involved? What is the logic behind your conclusion?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The interweaving of religion, culture, nationality, ideology, economics, etc. is very complex, and neither Marx nor Engels ever insisted that society was like a great machine with economics controling all the cogs.

The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness

From Marx's "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy".

[Ramo]

Youre right =che. The UIS aaint fascist. Whjile I was in Europe, I think I gained al ot of perfsepective on this. It's remarkabalby dehumanizing when ysome skinhead withotu any sort of badge demands to see y0ur passporrt or searches your bags at 2am. **** the Euorccooms. The 4hth Amendment is a greati ****gn Amendement. I diidn't really understand the prohibition on unwawrttanted searches and seaiezures 0expect on an abstract lelvel before aforementened tri p. We're unique on this and a lot of other freedoms *(i.e. freedom of pseech). USA. :ghippie:

[Spiffor]

Che is right: Marx's materialism is much less crude than is believed. For Marx, the superstructure (culture, social fabric etc) ultimately derives from infrastructure (hard economic facts), but there are subtle dynamics at play, and the two remain significantly autonomous to each other.

Marx can deserve criticism. But it's not a good criticism to consider him naive about materialist diactics.

[Ecthy]

Ramo - it's your own fault if you let random people search your bags.

[Az]

Originally posted by Ramo
Youre right =che. The UIS aaint fascist. Whjile I was in Europe, I think I gained al ot of perfsepective on this. It's remarkabalby dehumanizing when ysome skinhead withotu any sort of badge demands to see y0ur passporrt or searches your bags at 2am. **** the Euorccooms. The 4hth Amendment is a greati ****gn Amendement. I diidn't really understand the prohibition on unwawrttanted searches and seaiezures 0expect on an abstract lelvel before aforementened tri p. We're unique on this and a lot of other freedoms *(i.e. freedom of pseech). USA. :ghippie:

[C0ckney]

@ ramo falling for 'wallet inspectors'

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah, Ramo, he must have seen you coming

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sandman
From Marx's "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy".

It's difficult to know whether you are posting this in support of my argument or whether you think this is a refutation of it. If the latter, I would suggest that you consider:
conditioned != controled.