Arguing with Stupid Leftists

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Are they the remnents of Living Marxism, the Marxist-turned-libertarian group that got sued by that Brit news network?

Otherwise known as 'Shopping & F*cking With Lenin' .

[Odin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


True, but there are more leftists who oppose Marxism religiously without knowing anything about it.

Then there are leftists like me, who understand Marxism.

Drake,

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). But you can't know future trrends because that would need a knoledge of future technology.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't remember runzas... but GO BIG RED all the way baby!!

Damn straight.

So who are we going to trade for Theben? Is Ted Striker enough? Or do we have to find someone else?

[Last Conformist]

Ted Striker is rathery lefty these days. Try Berz.

[Berzerker]

My very first post on poly was a bunch of anarchist rhetoric and I spent most of my first year on poly mostly argueing about that (taking on five libertarians single handed etc. )

Needless to say, you was whooped I was there, right?

If there are varying gradients of socialism with communism being one result, then there can be gradients of fascism with Hitler being one result. In my sig I quote the leader of Italy's fascist party and his name isn't Hitler. Do these two fascists reflect 2 fascistic ideologies? What about all the other fascists who differed with them on the details?

Yes, nation states throughout history often employed tactics that would later be called fascistic. Irrational nationalism, strong leader either deified or exalted far above others, aggressive foreign policy based in part on a sense of superiority and "law and order" at home, shouting down critics or worse, slanderous accusations of treason, helping the enemy or "un/anti" this or that. Under communism the state controls the media, under fascism the state and its corporate allies eventually control the media if not mandated by the state. If this control is not complete but overwhelming nonetheless, does it cease being fascistic?

In the US big business owns most of the media and there exists a tenuous relationship between the state and those media owners. Neither side wants to really anger the other since both can do damage, so both sides eventually come closer together and the information supplied by this media becomes propaganda.

Fascism is not some aberation isolated to a couple countries over a decade or two, its a not so rare mindset with roots going to our tribal past. Economically its about big government and big business working together to benefit big government and big business. All this and more is sold to people under utilitarian principles as Benito says in my sig. Most governments have fascistic elements, some more than others. To limit fascism to Hitler is like limiting socialism to Stalin.

[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). But you can't know future trrends because that would need a knoledge of future technology.

I am forced to repeat myself: there are more leftists who oppose Marxism religiously without knowing anything about it. By this, I mean YOU, Odin.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Fascism is not some aberation isolated to a couple countries over a decade or two, its a not so rare mindset with roots going to our tribal past. Economically its about big government and big business working together to benefit big government and big business. All this and more is sold to people under utilitarian principles as Benito says in my sig. Most governments have fascistic elements, some more than others.

Your problem is you identify corporatism with fascism. While fascism is definiately a coporatist movement, not all corporatists are fascists. Thus, the fact that the Nazis, Fascists, and the US have similar elements does not make the U.S. fascist. Corporatism is extremely common.

Fascism is more than that. It is a movement of the enraged middle class, declassé workers, lumpens, veterans, etc. This is a fundimental aspect of fascism. Fascism doesn't necessarily mean a military dictatorship, though a couple have been.

Calling the U.S. fascist because if shares some aspects with fascism makes about as much sense as calling it socialism because it shares some aspects with socialism. It's just stupid.

[Az]

that is sound advice.

but shes moving to Israel at the end of the year, so I'm not touchin that.

Damn Socialism

arty: arty: arty:


So, where's she moving?

[techumseh]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Your problem is you identify corporatism with fascism. While fascism is definiately a coporatist movement, not all corporatists are fascists. Thus, the fact that the Nazis, Fascists, and the US have similar elements does not make the U.S. fascist. Corporatism is extremely common.

Fascism is more than that. It is a movement of the enraged middle class, declassé workers, lumpens, veterans, etc. This is a fundimental aspect of fascism. Fascism doesn't necessarily mean a military dictatorship, though a couple have been.

Calling the U.S. fascist because if shares some aspects with fascism makes about as much sense as calling it socialism because it shares some aspects with socialism. It's just stupid.

I think your definition of fascism is wrong. The best definition I've heard is that "fascism is the open, terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary elements of finance capital." It may seek to impose this through a political party such as the Nazis which has a social base similar to the one you describe, or it may use a military dictatorship. Regardless of the social base that fascism is able to establish, it is a movement financed and directed by the most right wing elements of big business, intended to crush the left and the working people by force when that can no longer be done by traditional democratic means.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The best definition I've heard is that "fascism is the open, terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary elements of finance capital."

I wouldn't accept that either. Hitler was not simply a reactionary. He was also a radical (to use one example). Hitler did exalt Seigfried and the ancient German mythos, but his society was very radical. A purposeful isolation of the individual so that he saw the leader and the state as the only thing he belongs to. It created a corporatist system where business and labor would be considered no more than cogs in the machinery of the state. Hitler did come up with social programs which outstriped the programs under prior regimes.

It's too easy to call Fascists reactionaries, but to deny their radicalism is setting yourself up for failure.

[techumseh]

Hitler was just one example of fascism, which can take other forms. And here is something very important that is often overlooked: Hitler did not TAKE power, democraticaly or otherwise. He was HANDED power by big business, acting through Hindenberg, the President. This was done after the Nazi's had recently lost millions of votes in an election for the Reichstag.

[MarkG]

I'm also a member of a tendency within the party that seeks to promote more action and less debate for debate's sake. I'm actually a founding member of the tendency, but it quickly became a haven for the Party's anarchists. I'd say good bye, but there are still a good number of Marxists and other revolutionary socialists.

sounds like you ought to have established some filters on accepting people to your club

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by techumseh
Hitler was just one example of fascism, which can take other forms. And here is something very important that is often overlooked: Hitler did not TAKE power, democraticaly or otherwise. He was HANDED power by big business, acting through Hindenberg, the President. This was done after the Nazi's had recently lost millions of votes in an election for the Reichstag.

Yes, Fascism can take other forms than Hitler, but not from what I described. Fascism is a reactionary and radical ideology based on the nation. It looks back to mythical past and looks forward in totally reshaping the society so that the state is the source of everything good.

And your take on Hitler's taking power is simplified. Business leaders did want to have Hitler in high position in the government, but the Nazis were STILL the largest party in the Reichstag (ever after losing some votes in the November 1932 election) and the DNVP, the other right wing party in Germany, cajoled Hindenburg into allowing Hitler as Chancellor because of the DNVP's coalition with the Nazi party. Hindenburg didn't want to put him in that position, but he had little choice since the DNVP joined up with the Nazis.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Yes, Fascism can take other forms than Hitler, but not from what I described. Fascism is a reactionary and radical ideology based on the nation. It looks back to mythical past and looks forward in totally reshaping the society so that the state is the source of everything good.

Correct. I'd also add that another future goal is to create a society that produces what the party regards as the perfect nation: a nation in which all of the citizens live up to the standards set by the party. That's why the Nazis believed in euthanizing the retarded and the mentally ill, as they were inferior, could never become anything but inferior, and thus were a waste of the nation's resources.

People also tend to confuse the "corporatism" associated with Fascism. Corporatism in the European Fascist sense doesn't mean government controlled by large corporations (such as Microsoft, Haliburton, etc). Corporatism in the Fascist sense involves the tripartite settlement of economic policy and disputes betweeen business leaders, labor leaders, and the government. Each segment of the economy would have a "corporation." In that corporation, there would be three groups": an umbrella group representing all of the business firms involved in that sector of the economy, an umbrella group representing all the various labor unions in that sector, and a group representing the government. The heads of these groups would decide the policies for their segment of the economy. Labor was recognized as a key part of the process, and unions were given the chance to (at least ostensibly) directly influence policy decisions.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The best definition I've heard is that "fascism is the open, terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary elements of finance capital."

I wouldn't accept that either. Hitler was not simply a reactionary. He was also a radical (to use one example). Hitler did exalt Seigfried and the ancient German mythos, but his society was very radical. A purposeful isolation of the individual so that he saw the leader and the state as the only thing he belongs to. It created a corporatist system where business and labor would be considered no more than cogs in the machinery of the state. Hitler did come up with social programs which outstriped the programs under prior regimes.

It's too easy to call Fascists reactionaries, but to deny their radicalism is setting yourself up for failure.

Another good post, Imran. I don't think that the quote that Tecumseh puts up does a very good job explaining the 3rd Reich.

Big business did have a party in Weimar Germany: Hugenburg's DNVP. They were the reactionary conservatives. They thought that the Nazis were altogether too radical and distateful, but some thought that they could subordinate the Nazis and use them to support their conservative (but not Fascist) regime. That is what Franco did in Spain.

Franco's party wasn't Fascist, it was reactionary conservatist. The Spanish Phalange was the Fascist party, led by Antonin Primo de Rivera. After Rivera's assasination, Franco co-opted Rivera's Party's name and its theatrics, but largely discarded its radical philosophy. Franco's dictatorship was basically a run of the mill autocratic, conservative dictatorship.

In the end, the DNVP could not control Hitler and the Nazis, nor could they do much to influence them. The Nazi regime was something completely different than a simple military dictatorship or a oligarchic corporate puppet state.

A good book on this topic is Payne's History of Fascism It does a great job detailing the differences between far right conservative movements and Fascist movements.

http://www.wisc.edu/wisconsinpress/books/0133.htm