Fascism: The Logical Climax Of Monopolistic Capitalism?

[4588686]

This thread took a surprisingly substantive turn. I was not expecting this since I did not foresee this thread being taken seriously. I don't think the Marxist claim that fascism is the logical outcome of capitalism is correct. I was just after the lols.

[4588686]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1345326686' post='2469817']
Well most of my familiarity is with Nazi Germany (and, tangentially, Fascist Italy). Latin America would probably be the best case study for what you're talking about, but I'm not familiar enough with that to speak on it.
[/quote]

That's what I was thinking. And maybe Serbia. I also don't think that Carl Schmitt would say that you need one leader. But I think I agree that practically speaking, it would be exceedingly difficult to have a fascist state that didn't at least nominally invest authority in the leadership of one man.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1345326744' post='2469818']I don't think the Marxist claim that fascism is the logical outcome of capitalism is correct. I was just after the lols.
[/quote]
Is that Marxist or Bolshevik? As I understand it capitalism was considered a necessary stage before Socialism, but the Bolsheviks didn't want to wait.

Edited August 18, 2012 by Era Might

[Papist]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1345317496' post='2469768']
Does Bill Gates believe in public/private partnership?

Does he support private ownership of capital, with heavy regulation by government?

Did he support any of the bailouts? Does he support the Federal Reserve? The New Deal?


He probably is. Damned near every American is.
[/quote]
For one who has all the answers, you ask a lot of questions.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1345324750' post='2469800']
None of these things has anything to do with fascism.
[/quote]
Fascist regimes don't pursue price controls? They don't nationalize currencies or seek to control currencies? Confiscation of gold in order to maintain the illusion of property whilst gaining massive amounts of power for the government is a great maneuver for fascists.

Certainly, it's not unique to completely fascist political groups, but "nothing" to do with fascism? Really?

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1345328441' post='2469831']
For one who has all the answers, you ask a lot of questions.
[/quote]
your face asks a lot of questions

[4588686]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1345328966' post='2469834']
Fascist regimes don't pursue price controls? They don't nationalize currencies or seek to control currencies? Confiscation of gold in order to maintain the illusion of property whilst gaining massive amounts of power for the government is a great maneuver for fascists.

Certainly, it's not unique to completely fascist political groups, but "nothing" to do with fascism? Really?


your face asks a lot of questions
[/quote][quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1345328966' post='2469834']
Fascist regimes don't pursue price controls? They don't nationalize currencies or seek to control currencies? Confiscation of gold in order to maintain the illusion of property whilst gaining massive amounts of power for the government is a great maneuver for fascists.

Certainly, it's not unique to completely fascist political groups, but "nothing" to do with fascism? Really?

[/quote]

It's not unique at all to fascism. Sure, a fascist state may do all those things but so could a Marxist state (or rather a state claiming to be transitioning to a Marxist society), or a liberal democracy, or a Monarchy, or the Papal states. Your claiming that FDR was a fascist on the grounds that he did those things but not one of them indicates that he was a fascist and more than Lenin's pursuit of NEP indicates that he was some sort of crypto-Libertarian.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1345341857' post='2469927']
It's not unique at all to fascism. Sure, a fascist state may do all those things but so could a Marxist state (or rather a state claiming to be transitioning to a Marxist society), or a liberal democracy, or a Monarchy, or the Papal states. Your claiming that FDR was a fascist on the grounds that he did those things but not one of them indicates that he was a fascist and more than Lenin's pursuit of NEP indicates that he was some sort of crypto-Libertarian.
[/quote]
FDR's pursuit wasn't to remove private ownership, but to control that ownership. So no, it's not of the same kind.

You said it had nothing to do with fascism. I acknowledged that it was not unique to fascism. Thank you for admitting your initial response was too extreme to be correct.

[4588686]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1345349813' post='2470014']
FDR's pursuit wasn't to remove private ownership, but to control that ownership. So no, it's not of the same kind.

You said it had nothing to do with fascism. I acknowledged that it was not unique to fascism. Thank you for admitting your initial response was too extreme to be correct.
[/quote]

It wasn't extreme. Because my initial response was in rebuttal to your claim that the features you listed supported your claim that FDR was a fascist. Your boyish charms won't save you this time. Even if you do somehow make rightism seem intellectually respectable with your thoughtful commentary and wit. You flooping panda. You giant flooping Panda. I like whiskey. Hollaz!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1345279219' post='2469640']
I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
[/quote]
Absolute poppycock.

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1345413869' post='2470269']
Absolute poppycock.
[/quote]

I don't think you read the thread

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1345488006' post='2470682']
I don't think you read the thread
[/quote]
Read enough of it. It's still poppycock.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1345288767' post='2469651']
Fascism is nationalistic and conservative/traditional (or at least it uses the facade of traditional society to unite everyone).
[/quote]
While that might describe Franco's Spanish version of fascism, fascism began in Italy, and the original Italian fascism led by Benito Mussolini, while nationalistic, was anything but conservative and traditional.

Mussolini began his political career as a revolutionary socialist, and was an anti-Christian and anti-clerical atheist influenced by the ideas of Neitzsche, and while he broke from orthodox socialism, he retained a lot of socialist ideas, advocating a "national socialism."
In fact, when Mussolini first came to power in the 1920s, many American progressives hailed him as a progressive leader and modernizing force for Italy.

While leftists have tried to equate fascism and conservatism since the end of WWII, this equation is simply not accurate.

In reality, the statist policies of the current American Left resemble those of fascism more than those of the right.

[quote] Capitalism is individualistic and will sacrifice anything in the interests of capital...traditional society cannot survive capitalism.[/quote]
I you mean by "capitalism" a free market economy, it is in itself simply an economic system. Those who participate in a free market economy may or may not adhere to traditional societal values.

Statist totalitarianism in its various forms is not compatible with a truly traditional society.

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1345588512' post='2471508']
While that might describe Franco's Spanish version of fascism, fascism began in Italy, and the original Italian fascism led by Benito Mussolini, while nationalistic, was anything but conservative and traditional.
[/QUOTE]

Fascism is not conservative AND traditional (although it often invokes tradition). But it is conservative. It began in the writings of conservative reactionaries opposing the French Revolution, men like Josep de Maistre. It did not begin in Itally. By your logic Marxism began in Russia.

[QUOTE]Mussolini began his political career as a revolutionary socialist, and was an anti-Christian and anti-clerical atheist influenced by the ideas of Neitzsche, and while he broke from orthodox socialism, he retained a lot of socialist ideas, advocating a "national socialism." [/QUOTE]

Right. And Stalin began his career as an Orthodox Seminarian. National Socialism is the attempt to socialize a national economy for the sake of the nation. Men like Hitler and Mussolini did attempt to harness a centralized economy where many assets were owned by the state but their philosophies and theories of government were extremely different from the Socialist tradition which tended to have a strong pretense to rationalism and internationalism. Very different intellectual milieus.


[QUOTE] In fact, when Mussolini first came to power in the 1920s, many American progressives hailed him as a progressive leader and modernizing force for Italy. [/QUOTE]

Yep.

[QUOTE]While leftists have tried to equate fascism and conservatism since the end of WWII, this equation is simply not accurate.[/QUOTE]

Yes it is. Continental conservatism is different from Anglo-American conservatism. Look at where Fascism took root. Spain, Portugal, Latin America, Yugoslavia, Romania. There are all conservative countries where the government often cloaked itself in the Church. There is a strong like, intellectually and demographically, between reactionary Catholicism and fascism. Now let's see the different ways you twist this factually correct statement to set up a straw man.

[QUOTE]In reality, the statist policies of the current American Left resemble those of fascism more than those of the right.[/QUOTE]


Sophist.

[4588686]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1345327256' post='2469823']
Is that Marxist or Bolshevik? As I understand it capitalism was considered a necessary stage before Socialism, but the Bolsheviks didn't want to wait.
[/quote]

The Bolshevics were Marxists. Bolshevik just comes from the Russian Bolshoya (sorry, don't know proper transliteration but that's roughly the sound of the word) which means 'big' (or in this context, majority) was was pure propaganda since the Bolsheviks were actually a minority party. How they managed to get power is a bit tricky but basically they outmaneuvered their competitors and the liberal government and harnessed peasant fear that the whites and conservatives would restore the old oppressive order.

Marx did posit that capitalism was a necessary prerequisite to Socialism and therefore believed that the societies that would achiever true Socialism would be developed areas like Germany and the UK. The Bolsheviks tried to get around this stumbling block by rapidly industrializing Russia (Hence the 5 year plans and collectivization) to make it sort of a managed capitalist transitory socio-economic system that could sort of harness the power of Capitalism without really becoming a liberal market state and jumping quickly to Socialism. That's one reason the Soviet state always claimed to be a revolutionary state. The were not yet at true Socialism, they were transitioning to true Socialism under the guidance of a Vanguard (a Lenist concept).

Now, to actually answer your question, I really don't know. I don't think that fascism was really a developed enough concept by the time that even Lenin died that there would have been much theoretical work on it. It was a belief of Stalin's which is part of his logic for creating a buffer region between the Allies and the Soviet Union. He never really considered the war over. He was buying time and space for the inevitable showdown between global capitalism/fascism and global Socialism. I really don't know what Marx would have said to that. I'm not a Marxist and don't know enough of Marx to guess. I don't think he would have disagreed with the idea. Marxism observes imperialism and colonialism as sort of necessary byproducts of capitalism since capital must expand to survive. But you can have imperialism that isn't fascist (obviously) so I don't know if he would have said that capitalism's expansionist impulse would necessarily manifest as fascism. It's an interesting question though. Wish I knew enough to give a really good answer. I can ask a Marxistish friend of mine though if you'd like.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Hasan

[Era Might]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1345593429' post='2471569']
The Bolshevics were Marxists. Bolshevik just comes from the Russian Bolshoya (sorry, don't know proper transliteration but that's roughly the sound of the word) which means 'big' (or in this context, majority) was was pure propaganda since the Bolsheviks were actually a minority party. How they managed to get power is a bit tricky but basically they outmaneuvered their competitors and the liberal government and harnessed peasant fear that the whites and conservatives would restore the old oppressive order.
[/quote]
Yeah I know who the Bolsheviks were...but it's debateable whether they were true Marxists (hence their disagreement with the Mensheviks). The idea that fascism is the logical outcome of capitalism seems to me a useful argument for the Bolsheviks, since it justifies their seizure of power and their institutionalization of the Communist party. But the Russian revolution could have been Marxist/socialist and democratic (as it was partly during the Duma years, even though it was in disarray). Had the SR party and other democratic-minded forces in Russia won the revolution rather than the Bolsheviks, who knows where it would have gone, but the Menshevik idea was to wait and let things develop (as you say, waiting for the global revolution). As it was, it seems that if anything, fascism is the outcome of Bolshevism (fascism in a general sense of tyranny).

Edited August 22, 2012 by Era Might