Arguing with Stupid Leftists

[child of Thor]

Arguing with Stupid Leftists .......is about as entertaining as arguing with Stupid Rightists

But i echo other peoples calls to try to boot out this looney fringe element if you can(it is your group afterall), they will do you no political favours when trying to argue your points with other groups imho. all extremists deserve marginalising.

[chequita 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.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara 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.

That's why I said "ostensibly." They did create the German Labor Front (DAF), a Fascist labor union. The thing that I diagree with you on is the spirit of that subordination. The Nazis didn't subordinate labor to capital for big capital's sake. They wanted to subordinate big capital to the Nazi Party as much as they wanted to subordinate labor. To me this is different than the charges that W. is dominated by corporate interests.

W. would want to subordinate labor because he wants to benefit the corporations for their own sake. Nazis wanted to subordinate labor because it would help them reach their party goals. Enriching big business wasn't a goal on the Nazi agenda (whereas enriching big business IS W's agenda (or so it seems)); any big business enrichment was a side effect. This conflicts with the view that Techumsah's quote seems to hold: that enricing big business was the reason for the Nazis, and that the Nazis were merely a front for radical economic control of Germany by big business. I do not agree with that at all.

[chequita guevara]

The Nazi party was subordinate to big Capital. Krupps said jump, Hitler said, "How high?"

I strongly recommend the best book on fascism, Big Business and Fascism, by Daniel Guerin. He's one of the smart anarchists.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The Nazi party was subordinate to big Capital. Krupps said jump, Hitler said, "How high?"

This is among the most ridiculous of your beliefs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
This is among the most ridiculous of your beliefs.

Yep, and it always has been. He's managed to convince himself of this.

[RGBVideo]

This is among the most ridiculous of your beliefs.

Yep, and it always has been. He's managed to convince himself of this.

And it's false... how?

Nazis couldn't have grasped power without the donations of big corporations such as Krupp steel and IG Farben. Their election campaign budgets during the recession were completely dependant from big business. C'mon Imran, we both know this.

It would be obvious that Hitler (or at least his inner circle) would've given at least some quid pro quo deals to big business.

[Last Conformist]

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

[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.

[RGBVideo]

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.

In practice, how much difference there is between this post and Che's post?

You're both speculating with the motives of people and organisations long dead. There is no higher truth here, since you can't prove that your perception of the situation is more true or more false than che's perception.

[GePap]

Big business backed the Nazis because they sqw them as a counterbalance to the Socialists and Communists. the Great tragedy is that if the Communists had made a deal with the socialists, the left would have won the 1932 elections and been able to form its own government.

As for fascism, I don;t think a clear definition has ever been worked out, because you get disagreements about which governments can be called fascists. Mussolini's obviously was, and its clear Hitler's regime and its biological obscessions went beyond Fascism. I assume most of the Axis allied states in Europe are labelled Nazi, certainly the Croatian regime and the Romanian regime modelled themselves on a mix of Mussolini and HItler. The Horthy regime was probably not fascist, and the Franco regime is debateable- after all Franco let most of the true fascists in Spain go let themselves get killed in the grand anti-Bolshevik crusade.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ninot


that is sound advice.

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

Damn Socialism

One more vote for Yahad

[techumseh]

Some of these posts show the difficulty in understanding the nature of fascism if we concentrate on the forms, and even the trappings, rather than on the underlying content. Corporatism is just one way to organize a fascist state. Under Mussolini, the corporate model was led and controlled by the big corporations, and operated in their interests. Unions and other organizations were organized under state auspices in the interests of capital.

Hitler organized the "Night of the Long Knives" to purge Ernst Rohm and his Brown Shirts (SA) because they were demanding the long promised "Second Revolution" whose target was to have been German banks and corporations. Hitler killed many of his long term associates in the Nazi Party in order to protect big business. He was their agent in crushing the communists, socialists and trade unions. He was expanding their access to markets, labor and resources when he started the Second World War. Even his war on the Jews provided factories, capital and other assets to his big business supporters.

I think Che overstates the case when he says, "Krupps said jump, Hitler said, "How high?", because Hitler could operate somewhat independently given the political base of the Nazi Party. Nevertheless, he is absolutely right when he says that Hitler and the Nazi's were subordinate to German capital in a general sense.

It's also incorrect to say that Franco's regime was not fascist because his original party was not. The important thing is that once in power he WAS a fascist - he crushed, through terror, the left and the trade unions, and used the state to control the economy in the interests of big business. School and church were turned into propaganda arms of the state. All these features were shared with the fascist regimes of Italy and Germany.

[Kuciwalker]

Some of these posts show the difficulty in understanding the nature of fascism if we concentrate on the forms, and even the trappings, rather than on the underlying content.

Beautiful!

I believe che is now allowed to claim 100-nil.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by techumseh
Hitler organized the "Night of the Long Knives" to purge Ernst Rohm and his Brown Shirts (SA) because they were demanding the long promised "Second Revolution" whose target was to have been German banks and corporations.

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.

It's also incorrect to say that Franco's regime was not fascist because his original party was not. The important thing is that once in power he WAS a fascist - he crushed, through terror, the left and the trade unions, and used the state to control the economy in the interests of big business. School and church were turned into propaganda arms of the state. All these features were shared with the fascist regimes of Italy and Germany.

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.