Capitalism, Communism, and Fascism


#21

Fair enough. Though I did say in part, p sure the red also represents some of the German maritime states.


#22

It’s important to note simply because these claims are used by some to claim nazis were socialists/communists


#23

This is @Alexandrovich’s point though; fascists have historically appropriated the symbols, rhetoric and ideology of the Labour movement to win over the working class, but have failed to actually help them in practice and institute real socialism.


#24

But bingo’s point is that it’s irrelevant because Nazism aimed to solve the problems of the Labour movement.


#25

And @Alexandrovich’s point was that in reality they didn’t help the Labour movement at all, they were liars. They appropriated the symbols but didn’t follow up with the policy, and thus they shouldn’t be trusted by socialists or the working class. He made this point pretty clearly.

Everyone keeps berating alex for being stupid or dumb but the guy is just trying to have a proper debate. If people listened to him and took him seriously they would see he has interesting ideas, and whilst they may not be as strong or well-thought out as they could be by engaging him in a serious constructive debate (which he seems totally ready and willing to engage in) then he will develop his ideas and learn more about socialist/fascist ideology/history. Just ignoring him and brushing him off without addressing his points is counter-productive, no one on the forum seems to be listening or trying to understand what he is saying.


#26

There’s three main points here- fascists appropriating socialist rhetoric, fascism being an enemy of capitalism, and fascism’s purpose being to protect capitalism.

The first one- that fascists appropriate socialist rhetoric, slogans, etc, is true. But what of it? This is politics. The Nazis addressed many of the issues relevant to German workers and alleviated many of their ailments in the pre-war period, and the Nazi state / Hitler was certainly stronger than any financial special interest groups within Germany. They didn’t transfer ownership of the means of the production to the workers, but I don’t think that’s the only thing people imagine as the alternative when asked “what is capitalism”.

To the second point- that fascism isn’t an enemy of capitalism. Perhaps not, but it was certainly an enemy of the laissez-faire free-market ideology that was very predominant in the time period.

Finally- that fascism is an ideology that comes in to force when capitalism is most under threat, in order to protect it. This argument is self-evidently communist rhetoric made to attach meaning and intent to historical circumstance. Communist revolutionaries certainly drove immense amounts of reactionary sentiment across the continent, but the core of far-right movements were always nationalists. Tribalism is older than most economic theory, and it’s ignorant to try and simply erase the motives and philosophy behind it in favor of a purely class-based worldview. This rhetoric is a transparent attempt by communists to shift blame for people choosing an alternative solution after far-left revolutionary violence / rejection of traditional moral systems.

TL-DR:

  1. Fascists did address the issues of workers, just not in the revolutionary way you prefer.
  2. Fascists opposed the free-market ideologies of the time that greatly defined what people called capitalism.
  3. Pretending that the end-all of motivation for fascism is just playing crony to capitalist interests is blind dogma.

#27

The dude responded to me earlier when i was saying capitalists and fascists are not friends (it seems people were referring to rich dudes rather then people who favor free markets or low restriction markets which was whom i was referring to) by simply saying “lol”. Strange signal had to give me context to the terms being used, when alex should have done that, and many of his posts are ahem lets say are not the highest quality, and thats coming from me. He also ignored my questions, I asked him what do fascists and capitalists(the free market/low regulations marketeers like myself and other right libertarians) believe, still waiting on him.


#28

I don’t really think it’s relevant, you can easily argue that there are X reasons that it never happened, and you can argue that Nazi’s did help the working class. (As @Ricky did above) It’s not as simple as “X ideology doesn’t work, the end”, people do that shit against socialism/communism all the time, we both see it, and it pisses both of us off, so why am I supposed to take that same logic in this case?

Not really relevant to me.

You’re thinking that just because people are disagreeing with Alex that we don’t understand him; the same thing @Cameron says. We understand him, we just think he’s wrong.


#29

Tbf some NatSocs were socialist


#30

Capitalism is defined as an economic system where private property over the means of production exist, and it’s characterized by wage labor and the profit motive. This definition sounds marxist, and indeed it is, but it’s widely agreed on — even though there are more specific definitions, these points are something most of them have in common. Fascism, or corporatism, doesn’t change any of these things, it can’t be considered its own mode of production. Else, you would have to agree that Social Democracy isn’t capitalist, because the economic ideas between Fascism and Social Democracy don’t differ a lot.

The problem with Mussolini is that he changed his ideas on some things like he changed his uniforms. And boy, the guy had tons of uniforms. This is what makes it hard to make an accurate description of a fascist-esque economy.

Social Democracy has its roots on socialism, too. So much so that several social democrats today still overlap with reformist Democratic Socialists. For more than half a century social democrats agreed in building a socialist society by gradual reforms; it wasn’t until World War I and the split of the Second International that Social Democracy changed to mere reformism. It is because of things inherent to that split, too, that Mussolini abandoned socialism… although the split of the Second International could require a thread on its own for how complex it was.

They weren’t fascists in name, but they did share many practices in common with truly fascist regimes, like militarism, nationalism, belief in stong national security, social conservatism, suppression of political groups, class collaborationism, and some more depending on the country. The last Argentine dictatorship, for example, created many social plans. They also killed our heavy industry, but made business easier for private owners by paying them. It’s not uncommon these days to see an upper-middle class moron shilling for the dictatorship to come back.


#31

That’s because fascists and NatSocs saw themselves as the solution to the labour struggle.

The colour red =/= ‘real’ socialism

You could equally say the same of the USSR.

Whether they actually helped is largely irrelevant, it was the intent behind it.

In relation to trying to help the working class, they did follow-up in some policies.

>looks at the KdF and OND

>I did respond respond with constructive debate


#32

Yes, the Strasserites, whom I mentioned before. They were killed or sent to concentration camps under Hitler’s own orders during the Night of the Long Knives, precisely because they were socialists.


#33

Fascism was literally born from socialism, with Mussolini and other leaders of the Fascist Party having all been Marxists in their youth who had read numerous socialist thinkers. It was less an “appropriation” and more an evolution from their previous ideology.

Even French forms of proto-Fascism tended to be the result of a synthesis of socialism and nationalism.

This is ironic because just about anyone who is literate in Fascist history and political theory knows that Fascism more often than not found itself having to deal with a hostile bourgeoisie on account of their populist and revolutionary nature.

Maybe stop reading Trotsky (or Lenin, whatever socialist ideologue you’re reading) who are biased in favor of a “materialist analysis” and actually look at the facts?


#34

And before that?

The symbolism and rhetoric was used while there were still many socialists, your point is mute.


#35

Sure but they were purged by Hitler. Most Nazi’s are/were not socialists and Nazi’s are not inherently socialist.


#36

Maintenance of the mode of production by private ownership under a capitalist system is different from maintenance of the mode of production by state-owned industries mobilised into corporations or guilds. The decision to implement a form of joint ownership between proletariat and bourgeoisie within a corporatist system does make it, at least on a theoretical level, distinct from normal capitalist forms of production. Fascist corporatism is an incredibly different beast to the kind of corporatism we see nowadays. You’re right in saying that that’s still better for bourgeois interests than socialism however, and that capitalist classes can align with fascist or authoritarian movements as a result of this. This is what clearly happened in practice too.[quote=“StrangeSignal, post:30, topic:110853”]
Social Democracy has its roots on socialism, too. So much so that several social democrats today still overlap with reformist Democratic Socialists. For more than half a century social democrats agreed in building a socialist society by gradual reforms; it wasn’t until World War I and the split of the Second International that Social Democracy changed to mere reformism. It is because of things inherent to that split, too, that Mussolini abandoned socialism… although the split of the Second International could require a thread on its own for how complex it was.
[/quote]
I said roots, not that it still is or was ever part of the socialist movement.[quote=“StrangeSignal, post:30, topic:110853”]
They weren’t fascists in name, but they did share many practices in common with truly fascist regimes, like militarism, nationalism, belief in stong national security, social conservatism, suppression of political groups, class collaborationism, and some more depending on the country. The last Argentine dictatorship, for example, created many social plans. They also killed our heavy industry, but made business easier for private owners by paying them. It’s not uncommon these days to see an upper-middle class moron shilling for the dictatorship to come back.
[/quote]

They weren’t fascists at all. There is a significant overlap in terms of their authoritarianism and, in many cases, the importance of nationalism to their cause (though in some cases they did not go as far as the palingenetic ultranationalism at the heart of fascism), but fascism is an ideologically separate beast that should be treated as such – at least if we’re to talk of fascism in its ‘ideal’ or ‘theoretical’ state. On a practical level many fascist regimes shared similarities because of the context, but the movements themselves were different. I wouldn’t even call Franco a fascist, and I caution describing individuals like Salazar as fascist either even though Salazar was arguably the most successful at implementing a corporatist model – albeit a bottom-up approach and not the top-down approach advocated by the fascists of the 1910s/1920s.


#37

And pre-purging they were a large party of the party, and the symbols and rhetoric was appropriated pre-purging.


#38

Both NatSocs and Fascists were born out of a merger of radical nationalism with socialism, this dates back to 1914 (hence why I consider Nazism and Fascism not the same thing - they’re more like branches from the same tree rather than the tree itself).


#39

[QUOTE]
Most Nazi’s are/were not socialists and Nazi’s are not inherently socialist. Nazism is not socialist even if members of it are socialist.
[/QUOTE]


#40

>Except many were

Many =/= most

Not to mention Gregor Strasser and his Wehrverband merged with the NSDAP in 1921, and Otto Strasser (who was previously a member of the SPD) also joined the NSDAP and further stressed the importance of socialism and socialist ideals within the NSDAP