Left-Wing Discussion Thread II: Behind 700,000 Bunkers

[Grenartia]

Same.



I mean, Stalin was basically a fascist in all but name anyways.

No he wasn't. Unless Revolutionary France was also fascist.

I'm just saying, when actual fascists were positively comparing his rule to their fascism, he's pretty fucking fash.

[Grenartia]

Ayn Rand is a liberal

Nah, she was a fucking reactionary.

[Grenartia]

you'll uh
you'll have to define liberal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

i.e. "liberalism" in its original sense

Nobody ever uses it in its original sense any more, aside from pretentious libertarians. Adjust your linguistics accordingly for minimal confusion in the future.

[Trotskylvania]

As far as the debate about how similar to socialism Fasicsm is, Fascism from a capitalist perspective has leftist elements. But socialists are not content to merely be the left wing of capital we seek to abolish the current state of things, which means abolishing currency, abolishing commodity production for exchange and abolishing class. So, basically no similarities with the things fasicsts want.

In fact fascisim is the reaction to socialism. When liberal capitalism fails and the proletariat start organising and supporting the communist movement fascism is the answer of the bourgeoisie (mainly the petit bourgeoisie who feel abandoned by liberal capitalism in such a scenario whilst the big bourgies are still living large on accumulated capital) to socialism. it presents it's self as something new, revolutionary in fact. Something that will fix the system to work for everyone so that everyone can work together for the country whilst still maintaining the same class relations.

That's only true after the various long knive moments fascist movements had.
The NSDAP programme for instance had Georgist proposals, alongside a ban on debt interest, social democratic reforms, etc.

Franco was nominally a syndicalist and supported workers cooperatives (Just not ANARCHISM, ermagerd.), right up until he didn't.

The commonalities are sufficient that Beefsteak Nazis were a thing, and support for the Communist party of Germany collapsed when it became apparent the Nazis were more popular, even before suppression.

Then you've got unofficial stances like the Rohm cult, and the "permanent war" against capitalism he proposed, which could be argued to be a wing of the party.

This is factually incorrect.

The KPD increased it's vote share in each election from 1928 to year end 1932. Only in the March 1933 election, amidst a widespread campaign of state-sponsored Nazi and reactionary political violence against their opponents, did their vote share drop. And in spite of this mass campaign of violence and intimidation, including the use of Brownshirts as poll-watchers, the Nazis failed to increase their vote above 43 percent.

The demographics that supported the Nazi Party were the rural landowners, the peasantry, the middle-class petit-bourgeoisie, and ultimately large business. These were the supporters of traditional reactionary parties in Germany prior to the rise of the Nazis, and the Nazis rose primarily by displacing the vote of the traditional reactionary parties.

From the establishment of the Weimar Republic until its dissolution, the left-wing bloc held a steady command of between 36 and 40 percent of the vote (divided between, variously, the SPD, the USPD, and the KPD) in every election but one, the May 1924 election. This was their core constituency, centered around the urban working class. During the rise of the Nazi Party, this voting bloc remained solidly for the SPD and the KPD.

The notion of a mass working-class appeal to Nazism during its rise is a mythology propagated by the Nazis. The German working class did not trust them to serve their interests in any great numbers. The SA's core membership may have been committed to a National Socialism, but they were not the core of the Nazi electorate. The SA recruiter overwhelmingly from the unemployed demobilized veterans of the war, and the newly declassed members of the petit-bourgeoisie and peasantry searching for work, so to the extent that the Nazi phenomenon cut into support for the traditional left, it was only by catching economically frustrated German nationalists before they could be thoroughly proletarianized by German work culture.

It should never be forgotten that Otto Strasser was expelled in 1930 along with his supporters. And that the whole of the party was quite keen to remove Rohm and the SA once they had outlived their usefulness. The left-wing of the Nazi Party were never anything more than useful idiots to the Party. Nor should we take any genuflection towards socialism to be left-wing; that's a thoroughly Anglozone phenomeonon.

The right-wing co-opting of socialism with militarist nationalism and conservative class society is a long phenomenon in Germany. The archconservative Otto von Bismarck called his social reforms in the 1880s variously "practical Christianity" and "state socialism," which did very little to change the socialist working class party's opinion of him. Again in World War I, the military government that had effectively subverted the German state adopted the name of "war socialism" for it's wartime economic mobilization, and the Prussian dominated army was one of the most aristocratic and exclusionist clubs in the whole of Europe.

Right wing "socialism" devoid of any class content has a long tradition in Germany, and Nazism was just the most recent flavor of it.

[War Gears]

Its a bit more complicated than that. Fascism started off socialist, Mussolini even wrote an article in 1918 ranking socialists (with Bakunin and Proudhon on top and Marx at the bottom). Though Stalin is no more a "Red Fascist" than Lenin (who came to power before Fascism was even an established ideology).

Mussolini started as a socialist, not fascism.

In 1918, when Mussolini had published the article, he was head of the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento, which had it's origins in the expulsion of pro-interventionist socialists from the Italian Socialist Party, Mussolini chief among them. The movement drew in prominent syndicalists such as Alceste De Ambris and there was apparently some controversy around 1926 when a Fascist labor leader called capitalists "vampires." whatever way you want to argue it, Fascism had it's origins in socialism and sprung up in numerous different countries quite independently as a merger between ultra-nationalism and socialist economics (usually syndicalist in Latin countries).

Considering how heavily influenced it was by the ideology, and how many of its early proponents were ex-Socialists, yes, it most certainly did.

Fascism wasn't really influenced by socialist theory (if you mean it in any advanced sense). It was influenced by proto socialist theory, I would even argue Rousseau. But ex socialists flocking to fascism didn't actually lead to it being influenced by socialist theory, it was in fact socialists rejecting socialism and looking for an alternative.

As much as I'm loathe to mimic Stirner, I really do think that you're arguing over a "spook" of Fascism, as opposed to the actual historical Fascist parties and their ideology. Rousseau's influence is extremely minimal to the point of probably being next to zero.

The influence of anarchist and syndicalist tradition is immense, Mussolini even admitted in the 30's that he owed the French syndicalist Georges Sorel an immense debt, along with other syndicalist thinkers such as Olivetti. The anarcho-syndicalist Alceste De Ambris co-authored the Fascist Manifesto with Filippo Marinetti who's politics were a combination of anarchic libertarianism with Italian nationalism.

So in other words, socialists calling right-wingers "fascist" should probably be careful with their glass houses. :^)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

i.e. "liberalism" in its original sense

Nobody ever uses it in its original sense any more, aside from pretentious libertarians. Adjust your linguistics accordingly for minimal confusion in the future.

Says the socialist who continually insists to be called a "social democrat."

No he wasn't. Unless Revolutionary France was also fascist.

I'm just saying, when actual fascists were positively comparing his rule to their fascism, he's pretty fucking fash.

Have you stopped to consider that maybe Fascism and Bolshevism both had their origins in socialism and that's the reason for the numerous similarities, instead of Stalin being a covert fascist?

As far as the debate about how similar to socialism Fasicsm is, Fascism from a capitalist perspective has leftist elements. But socialists are not content to merely be the left wing of capital we seek to abolish the current state of things, which means abolishing currency, abolishing commodity production for exchange and abolishing class. So, basically no similarities with the things fasicsts want.

In fact fascisim is the reaction to socialism. When liberal capitalism fails and the proletariat start organising and supporting the communist movement fascism is the answer of the bourgeoisie (mainly the petit bourgeoisie who feel abandoned by liberal capitalism in such a scenario whilst the big bourgies are still living large on accumulated capital) to socialism. it presents it's self as something new, revolutionary in fact. Something that will fix the system to work for everyone so that everyone can work together for the country whilst still maintaining the same class relations.

Not all socialists want to abolish currency, or commodity production, or even necessarily class (petit-bourgeois, industrial worker, farmer, all probably going to exist in a non-post-scarcity world). It's doubtful most Marxists in backwards early 20th century Italy wanted those things at their present moment either, it'd have been disastrous for the development of the country.

Fascism never advocated for the abolition of a lot of those things because it was not in their interest to do so at the time. To gain power, they were willing to forego their previous socialist allegiance. After 1943 they switched back to their former left-wing republican position, trying to socialize industries and making overtures to Communists such as Bombacci.

The problem with this dialectical materialist analysis is that it tries to arrange into a neat ideological picture what was really a complicated and chaotic string of events, most of them psychological and social as opposed to economic. Fascism's rise in Fiume with the Italian poet Gabriele D'Annunzio had nothing to do with "reacting" to socialists; anarchists and republicans were some of the most prominent participants in the whole episode, and one of whom drafted the constitution. Nor did the proto-fascist Cercle Proudhon, which was a merger between ultra-nationalist royalists and far-left syndicalists.

The Iron Guard in Romania was probably the most prominent example of Fascist anti-capitalism, though I'm not as well acquainted with their history as the Italian, German, and Spanish models.

[Olivaero]

As far as the debate about how similar to socialism Fasicsm is, Fascism from a capitalist perspective has leftist elements. But socialists are not content to merely be the left wing of capital we seek to abolish the current state of things, which means abolishing currency, abolishing commodity production for exchange and abolishing class. So, basically no similarities with the things fasicsts want.

In fact fascisim is the reaction to socialism. When liberal capitalism fails and the proletariat start organising and supporting the communist movement fascism is the answer of the bourgeoisie (mainly the petit bourgeoisie who feel abandoned by liberal capitalism in such a scenario whilst the big bourgies are still living large on accumulated capital) to socialism. it presents it's self as something new, revolutionary in fact. Something that will fix the system to work for everyone so that everyone can work together for the country whilst still maintaining the same class relations.

That's only true after the various long knive moments fascist movements had.
The NSDAP programme for instance had Georgist proposals, alongside a ban on debt interest, social democratic reforms, etc.

Franco was nominally a syndicalist and supported workers cooperatives (Just not ANARCHISM, ermagerd.), right up until he didn't.

The commonalities are sufficient that Beefsteak Nazis were a thing, and support for the Communist party of Germany collapsed when it became apparent the Nazis were more popular, even before suppression.

Then you've got unofficial stances like the Rohm cult, and the "permanent war" against capitalism he proposed, which could be argued to be a wing of the party.

Yes, these are the things that appeal to the petit bourgeoisie. anything that does not fundamentally change how society is governed and who is doing the governing is not socialist in nature. Taxing people, is just that a tax on things they have if that's the final goal and not something greater how can it be a socialist movement? "Anti-Capitalist" is such a catchall phrase what does it mean? that one is anti capitalists as a class or anti capitalism as a system? because I dont see how anyone in the nazi party could of thought it was opposed to the capitalist system apart from those outside the hierarchy who were lied to. And that's what I would describe socialism as simply, being against the entire capitalist system.

Mussolini started as a socialist, not fascism.

In 1918, when Mussolini had published the article, he was head of the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento, which had it's origins in the expulsion of pro-interventionist socialists from the Italian Socialist Party, Mussolini chief among them. The movement drew in prominent syndicalists such as Alceste De Ambris and there was apparently some controversy around 1926 when a Fascist labor leader called capitalists "vampires." whatever way you want to argue it, Fascism had it's origins in socialism and sprung up in numerous different countries quite independently as a merger between ultra-nationalism and socialist economics (usually syndicalist in Latin countries).

Fascism wasn't really influenced by socialist theory (if you mean it in any advanced sense). It was influenced by proto socialist theory, I would even argue Rousseau. But ex socialists flocking to fascism didn't actually lead to it being influenced by socialist theory, it was in fact socialists rejecting socialism and looking for an alternative.

As much as I'm loathe to mimic Stirner, I really do think that you're arguing over a "spook" of Fascism, as opposed to the actual historical Fascist parties and their ideology. Rousseau's influence is extremely minimal to the point of probably being next to zero.

The influence of anarchist and syndicalist tradition is immense, Mussolini even admitted in the 30's that he owed the French syndicalist Georges Sorel an immense debt, along with other syndicalist thinkers such as Olivetti. The anarcho-syndicalist Alceste De Ambris co-authored the Fascist Manifesto with Filippo Marinetti who's politics were a combination of anarchic libertarianism with Italian nationalism.

So in other words, socialists calling right-wingers "fascist" should probably be careful with their glass houses. :^)

Nobody ever uses it in its original sense any more, aside from pretentious libertarians. Adjust your linguistics accordingly for minimal confusion in the future.

Says the socialist who continually insists to be called a "social democrat."

I'm just saying, when actual fascists were positively comparing his rule to their fascism, he's pretty fucking fash.

Have you stopped to consider that maybe Fascism and Bolshevism both had their origins in socialism and that's the reason for the numerous similarities, instead of Stalin being a covert fascist?

As far as the debate about how similar to socialism Fasicsm is, Fascism from a capitalist perspective has leftist elements. But socialists are not content to merely be the left wing of capital we seek to abolish the current state of things, which means abolishing currency, abolishing commodity production for exchange and abolishing class. So, basically no similarities with the things fasicsts want.

In fact fascisim is the reaction to socialism. When liberal capitalism fails and the proletariat start organising and supporting the communist movement fascism is the answer of the bourgeoisie (mainly the petit bourgeoisie who feel abandoned by liberal capitalism in such a scenario whilst the big bourgies are still living large on accumulated capital) to socialism. it presents it's self as something new, revolutionary in fact. Something that will fix the system to work for everyone so that everyone can work together for the country whilst still maintaining the same class relations.

Not all socialists want to abolish currency, or commodity production, or even necessarily class (petit-bourgeois, industrial worker, farmer, all probably going to exist in a non-post-scarcity world). It's doubtful most Marxists in backwards early 20th century Italy wanted those things at their present moment either, it'd have been disastrous for the development of the country.

Fascism never advocated for the abolition of a lot of those things because it was not in their interest to do so at the time. To gain power, they were willing to forego their previous socialist allegiance. After 1943 they switched back to their former left-wing republican position, trying to socialize industries and making overtures to Communists such as Bombacci.

The problem with this dialectical materialist analysis is that it tries to arrange into a neat ideological picture what was really a complicated and chaotic string of events, most of them psychological and social as opposed to economic. Fascism's rise in Fiume with the Italian poet Gabriele D'Annunzio had nothing to do with "reacting" to socialists; anarchists and republicans were some of the most prominent participants in the whole episode, and one of whom drafted the constitution. Nor did the proto-fascist Cercle Proudhon, which was a merger between ultra-nationalist royalists and far-left syndicalists.

The Iron Guard in Romania was probably the most prominent example of Fascist anti-capitalism, though I'm not as well acquainted with their history as the Italian, German, and Spanish models.

It's true I was using the Marxist definition of socialism as I think it's the only one that really has merit as it opposes the systemic way capitalism develops and implements its hierarchy. Marxists do not want to abolish the capitalist system in one fell swoop though, especially in countries under developed in the 20th century. The Dictatorship of the proletariat is a stepping stone to socialism not a instant transition.

I wouldn't say fascists abandoned their principles to gain power more so that their principles were never with the proletariat to begin with. Rather they tried to be for everyone as it were, syncreticism is an important part of fascist philosophy after all. They wished to unite society under the banner of the state and thus did nothing to change that the state was not in the hands of the proletariat because it didn't really matter to them.

The free city of Fiume is an interesting example but it is the ultimate outlier. I dont see how it could be descrivbed as part of a larger trend the important fascist movements were nothing like it and ended up in states that were nothing like it at all. Materialism does not purport to explain every single human action simply through material conditions though so this is not really an issue.

And as for Romania I dont know much about the iron guard movement either, but why would any movement that was anti-capitalism be against the rise of socialism in russia? as according to wiki the iron gaurd was staunchly anti-communist.

With Codreanu as a charismatic leader, the Legion was known for skilful propaganda, including a very capable use of spectacle. Utilizing marches, religious processions, patriotic and partisan hymns and anthems, along with volunteer work and charitable campaigns in rural areas, in support of Anti-communism, the League presented itself as an alternative to corrupt parties. Initially, the Iron Guard hoped to encompass any political faction, regardless of its position on the political spectrum, that wished to combat the rise of communism in the USSR.

Being truly anti-capitalism but also anti-communism makes no sense unless your literally feudalistic.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's only true after the various long knive moments fascist movements had.
The NSDAP programme for instance had Georgist proposals, alongside a ban on debt interest, social democratic reforms, etc.

Franco was nominally a syndicalist and supported workers cooperatives (Just not ANARCHISM, ermagerd.), right up until he didn't.

The commonalities are sufficient that Beefsteak Nazis were a thing, and support for the Communist party of Germany collapsed when it became apparent the Nazis were more popular, even before suppression.

Then you've got unofficial stances like the Rohm cult, and the "permanent war" against capitalism he proposed, which could be argued to be a wing of the party.

Yes, these are the things that appeal to the petit bourgeoisie. anything that does not fundamentally change how society is governed and who is doing the governing is not socialist in nature. Taxing people, is just that a tax on things they have if that's the final goal and not something greater how can it be a socialist movement? "Anti-Capitalist" is such a catchall phrase what does it mean? that one is anti capitalists as a class or anti capitalism as a system? because I dont see how anyone in the nazi party could of thought it was opposed to the capitalist system apart from those outside the hierarchy who were lied to. And that's what I would describe socialism as simply, being against the entire capitalist system.

In 1918, when Mussolini had published the article, he was head of the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento, which had it's origins in the expulsion of pro-interventionist socialists from the Italian Socialist Party, Mussolini chief among them. The movement drew in prominent syndicalists such as Alceste De Ambris and there was apparently some controversy around 1926 when a Fascist labor leader called capitalists "vampires." whatever way you want to argue it, Fascism had it's origins in socialism and sprung up in numerous different countries quite independently as a merger between ultra-nationalism and socialist economics (usually syndicalist in Latin countries).

As much as I'm loathe to mimic Stirner, I really do think that you're arguing over a "spook" of Fascism, as opposed to the actual historical Fascist parties and their ideology. Rousseau's influence is extremely minimal to the point of probably being next to zero.

The influence of anarchist and syndicalist tradition is immense, Mussolini even admitted in the 30's that he owed the French syndicalist Georges Sorel an immense debt, along with other syndicalist thinkers such as Olivetti. The anarcho-syndicalist Alceste De Ambris co-authored the Fascist Manifesto with Filippo Marinetti who's politics were a combination of anarchic libertarianism with Italian nationalism.

So in other words, socialists calling right-wingers "fascist" should probably be careful with their glass houses. :^)

Says the socialist who continually insists to be called a "social democrat."

Have you stopped to consider that maybe Fascism and Bolshevism both had their origins in socialism and that's the reason for the numerous similarities, instead of Stalin being a covert fascist?

Not all socialists want to abolish currency, or commodity production, or even necessarily class (petit-bourgeois, industrial worker, farmer, all probably going to exist in a non-post-scarcity world). It's doubtful most Marxists in backwards early 20th century Italy wanted those things at their present moment either, it'd have been disastrous for the development of the country.

Fascism never advocated for the abolition of a lot of those things because it was not in their interest to do so at the time. To gain power, they were willing to forego their previous socialist allegiance. After 1943 they switched back to their former left-wing republican position, trying to socialize industries and making overtures to Communists such as Bombacci.

The problem with this dialectical materialist analysis is that it tries to arrange into a neat ideological picture what was really a complicated and chaotic string of events, most of them psychological and social as opposed to economic. Fascism's rise in Fiume with the Italian poet Gabriele D'Annunzio had nothing to do with "reacting" to socialists; anarchists and republicans were some of the most prominent participants in the whole episode, and one of whom drafted the constitution. Nor did the proto-fascist Cercle Proudhon, which was a merger between ultra-nationalist royalists and far-left syndicalists.

The Iron Guard in Romania was probably the most prominent example of Fascist anti-capitalism, though I'm not as well acquainted with their history as the Italian, German, and Spanish models.

It's true I was using the Marxist definition of socialism as I think it's the only one that really has merit as it opposes the systemic way capitalism develops and implements its hierarchy. Marxists do not want to abolish the capitalist system in one fell swoop though, especially in countries under developed in the 20th century. The Dictatorship of the proletariat is a stepping stone to socialism not a instant transition.

I wouldn't say fascists abandoned their principles to gain power more so that their principles were never with the proletariat to begin with. Rather they tried to be for everyone as it were, syncreticism is an important part of fascist philosophy after all. They wished to unite society under the banner of the state and thus did nothing to change that the state was not in the hands of the proletariat because it didn't really matter to them.

The free city of Fiume is an interesting example but it is the ultimate outlier. I dont see how it could be descrivbed as part of a larger trend the important fascist movements were nothing like it and ended up in states that were nothing like it at all. Materialism does not purport to explain every single human action simply through material conditions though so this is not really an issue.

And as for Romania I dont know much about the iron guard movement either, but why would any movement that was anti-capitalism be against the rise of socialism in russia? as according to wiki the iron gaurd was staunchly anti-communist.

With Codreanu as a charismatic leader, the Legion was known for skilful propaganda, including a very capable use of spectacle. Utilizing marches, religious processions, patriotic and partisan hymns and anthems, along with volunteer work and charitable campaigns in rural areas, in support of Anti-communism, the League presented itself as an alternative to corrupt parties. Initially, the Iron Guard hoped to encompass any political faction, regardless of its position on the political spectrum, that wished to combat the rise of communism in the USSR.

Being truly anti-capitalism but also anti-communism makes no sense unless your literally feudalistic.

Collective land ownership is a big first step to take.
+
The iron guard were religious fanatics, so their economic model was communal distributism, and opposed to communism on the basis that it lacked religious backing. (Ignoring christian communism for the moment, considering the USSR was state atheist, enormous, and right next door.)

The iron guards conception of things was that all political philosophies ignored the fundamental point that there is no good system, life is a sinful, violent, political war, and we all die and get judged in the end, the important role of any state that cares for the national people should be in shepherding them from birth to death in a state of grace with god, with as little fuss as possible. Economic systems based on quality of life or wealth, as opposed to ensuring close relationship with the church, are therefore failures. Alternative systems to the iron guard vision merely exist to tempt away nations, and lead to strife, conflict, and death, and eventually, hell.

With the added fascistic flair of "And if you don't let us pray we'll fucking shoot everybody!" and ofcourse "Oh, no jews either."

So... feudalism without the lords, just a fascist army in place of them.
A kind of neo-feudalism, with meritocracy (in as far as armies are meritocratic) instead of nobility determining the monopoly of force, and the moral backing and economic centre of the nation being the church.

[The Parkus Empire]

No he wasn't. Unless Revolutionary France was also fascist.

I'm just saying, when actual fascists were positively comparing his rule to their fascism, he's pretty fucking fash.

Stalin comparing himself positively to Ivan the Terrible, doesn't make Ivan the Terrible a revolutionary socialist. Stalin was not a fascist unless you're using the term purely as a pejorative, since fascism stresses class collaboration, whereas socialism stresses class liquidation.

[The Parkus Empire]

so #progressive and #tolerant

It was our Manifest Destiny.

Should we maintain the current reservation policy, or should we phase out the reservation system? In other words, should we preserve native culture or should we integrate natives into American society?

"Phase out"? By that you mean take that land as well?

[The Parkus Empire]

Mussolini started as a socialist, not fascism.

In 1918, when Mussolini had published the article, he was head of the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento, which had it's origins in the expulsion of pro-interventionist socialists from the Italian Socialist Party, Mussolini chief among them. The movement drew in prominent syndicalists such as Alceste De Ambris and there was apparently some controversy around 1926 when a Fascist labor leader called capitalists "vampires." whatever way you want to argue it, Fascism had it's origins in socialism and sprung up in numerous different countries quite independently as a merger between ultra-nationalism and socialist economics (usually syndicalist in Latin countries).

Fascism wasn't really influenced by socialist theory (if you mean it in any advanced sense). It was influenced by proto socialist theory, I would even argue Rousseau. But ex socialists flocking to fascism didn't actually lead to it being influenced by socialist theory, it was in fact socialists rejecting socialism and looking for an alternative.

As much as I'm loathe to mimic Stirner, I really do think that you're arguing over a "spook" of Fascism, as opposed to the actual historical Fascist parties and their ideology. Rousseau's influence is extremely minimal to the point of probably being next to zero.

The influence of anarchist and syndicalist tradition is immense, Mussolini even admitted in the 30's that he owed the French syndicalist Georges Sorel an immense debt, along with other syndicalist thinkers such as Olivetti. The anarcho-syndicalist Alceste De Ambris co-authored the Fascist Manifesto with Filippo Marinetti who's politics were a combination of anarchic libertarianism with Italian nationalism.

So in other words, socialists calling right-wingers "fascist" should probably be careful with their glass houses. :^)

Nobody ever uses it in its original sense any more, aside from pretentious libertarians. Adjust your linguistics accordingly for minimal confusion in the future.

Says the socialist who continually insists to be called a "social democrat."

I'm just saying, when actual fascists were positively comparing his rule to their fascism, he's pretty fucking fash.

Have you stopped to consider that maybe Fascism and Bolshevism both had their origins in socialism and that's the reason for the numerous similarities, instead of Stalin being a covert fascist?

As far as the debate about how similar to socialism Fasicsm is, Fascism from a capitalist perspective has leftist elements. But socialists are not content to merely be the left wing of capital we seek to abolish the current state of things, which means abolishing currency, abolishing commodity production for exchange and abolishing class. So, basically no similarities with the things fasicsts want.

In fact fascisim is the reaction to socialism. When liberal capitalism fails and the proletariat start organising and supporting the communist movement fascism is the answer of the bourgeoisie (mainly the petit bourgeoisie who feel abandoned by liberal capitalism in such a scenario whilst the big bourgies are still living large on accumulated capital) to socialism. it presents it's self as something new, revolutionary in fact. Something that will fix the system to work for everyone so that everyone can work together for the country whilst still maintaining the same class relations.

Not all socialists want to abolish currency, or commodity production, or even necessarily class (petit-bourgeois, industrial worker, farmer, all probably going to exist in a non-post-scarcity world). It's doubtful most Marxists in backwards early 20th century Italy wanted those things at their present moment either, it'd have been disastrous for the development of the country.

Fascism never advocated for the abolition of a lot of those things because it was not in their interest to do so at the time. To gain power, they were willing to forego their previous socialist allegiance. After 1943 they switched back to their former left-wing republican position, trying to socialize industries and making overtures to Communists such as Bombacci.

The problem with this dialectical materialist analysis is that it tries to arrange into a neat ideological picture what was really a complicated and chaotic string of events, most of them psychological and social as opposed to economic. Fascism's rise in Fiume with the Italian poet Gabriele D'Annunzio had nothing to do with "reacting" to socialists; anarchists and republicans were some of the most prominent participants in the whole episode, and one of whom drafted the constitution. Nor did the proto-fascist Cercle Proudhon, which was a merger between ultra-nationalist royalists and far-left syndicalists.

The Iron Guard in Romania was probably the most prominent example of Fascist anti-capitalism, though I'm not as well acquainted with their history as the Italian, German, and Spanish models.

Corporatism doesn't come from socialism. Socialism is about the abolition of private property. And corporatism didn't even come from market socialism. Corporatism is literally reactionary against capitalism, whereas capitalism is reactionary against socialism. Now it is true that nationalism is a leftist cause, but so is internationalism.

Rousseau is the ultimate source of anarchism as an ideology in the West.

[War Gears]

I wouldn't say fascists abandoned their principles to gain power more so that their principles were never with the proletariat to begin with. Rather they tried to be for everyone as it were, syncreticism is an important part of fascist philosophy after all. They wished to unite society under the banner of the state and thus did nothing to change that the state was not in the hands of the proletariat because it didn't really matter to them.

Then why were libertarian syndicalists some of the founders of the Fascist movement and authors of the Fascist Manifesto, were it initially a totalitarian class collaborationist ideology? Bear in mind some of these syndicalists later had to go in hiding because of their stances, De Ambris died in France after being stripped of his Italian citizenship.

Fascism's relationship with the bourgeoisie, churches, and monarchy tended to be much more complicated than syncretism. They all existed with Fascism in an uneasy atmosphere, and after 1943, Fascism basically reverted back to what it had been in 1920: a left-republican ideology.

The free city of Fiume is an interesting example but it is the ultimate outlier. I dont see how it could be descrivbed as part of a larger trend the important fascist movements were nothing like it and ended up in states that were nothing like it at all.

The Free State of Fiume was essentially the birth of the Fascist movement, it provided the aesthetics, violent methods, corporatism, the "proletarian nationalism," and other features that would become part of Fascism. There's no way to consider Fascist movements as a whole without taking into consideration the immense role that Fiume had.

And as for Romania I dont know much about the iron guard movement either, but why would any movement that was anti-capitalism be against the rise of socialism in russia? as according to wiki the iron gaurd was staunchly anti-communist.

Because of the brutal repression of the Church under state atheism, the implicit materialism of Marxism, and the territorial threat that Russia posed to Romania. These are all good reasons to be opposed to the ideology of Russia if you're a Romanian Orthodox Christian.

Being truly anti-capitalism but also anti-communism makes no sense unless your literally feudalistic.

There have been tons of anti-capitalists who were anti-communist but not feudalist, even socialists such as Proudhon.

[War Gears]

Reading some of Plekhanov's writings on the anarchists, they are quite well written and accurate.

An Anarchist will have nothing to do with “parliamentarism”, since it only lulls the proletariat to sleep. He will none of “reforms”, since reforms are but so many compromises with the possessing classes. He wants the revolution, a “full, complete, immediate, and immediately economic” revolution. To attain this end he arms himself with a saucepan full of explosive materials, and throws it amongst the public theater or cafe. He declares this is the “revolution”. For our own part it seems to us nothing but “immediate” madness.

“Whenever the proletariat makes an attempt to somewhat ameliorate its economic position, ‘large-hearted people’, vowing they love the proletariat most tenderly, rush in from all points of the compass, and depending on their halting syllogisms, put spokes into the wheel of the movement, do their utmost to prove that the movement is useless. We have had an example of this with regard to the eight-hour day, which the Anarchists combatted, whenever they could, with a zeal worthy of a better cause. When the proletariat takes no notice of this, and pursues its ‘immediately economic’ aims undisturbed – as it has the fortunate habit of doing – the same ‘large-hearted people’ reappear upon the scene armed with bombs, and provide the government with the desired and sought-for pretext for attacking the proletariat. We have seen this at Paris on May 1, 1890; we have seen it often during strikes.”

[The Liberated Territories]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

i.e. "liberalism" in its original sense

Nobody ever uses it in its original sense any more, aside from pretentious libertarians. Adjust your linguistics accordingly for minimal confusion in the future.

Tbh nobody called themselves a classical liberal before 1930. Previously, they were just liberals, but the word got redefined, so a distinction between the new and old type had to be made.

[Taihei Tengoku]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

i.e. "liberalism" in its original sense

Nobody ever uses it in its original sense any more, aside from pretentious libertarians. Adjust your linguistics accordingly for minimal confusion in the future.

How delightfully postmodern.

In 2030 "liberal" will be a slur by both trads and progs and the shoe will be on the other foot.

[Eibenland]

Nobody ever uses it in its original sense any more, aside from pretentious libertarians. Adjust your linguistics accordingly for minimal confusion in the future.

Tbh nobody called themselves a classical liberal before 1930. Previously, they were just liberals, but the word got redefined, so a distinction between the new and old type had to be made.

The word didn't get redefined. There's no reason why classical liberals and social liberals can't both exist. The Netherlands has large parties of both types and they don't get confused.

[Sriker]

I'm a Socialist but I can recall 10 times I've been called a(Jew loving Islamic Liberal SJEW Catholic lover commie

[The Liberated Territories]

Tbh nobody called themselves a classical liberal before 1930. Previously, they were just liberals, but the word got redefined, so a distinction between the new and old type had to be made.

The word didn't get redefined. There's no reason why classical liberals and social liberals can't both exist. The Netherlands has large parties of both types and they don't get confused.

Those are more like neoliberals who accept some critiques from the left already. And the fact that Europe is economically more open to collectivism too, so the distinction is blurred unlike in the US.

[Northern Davincia]

Ayn Rand is a liberal

Nah, she was a fucking reactionary.

In what sense?

[Proctopeo]

Nah, she was a fucking reactionary.

In what sense?

If a normally stable chemical came in contact with her, it would react.
Hence, "reactionary".

[Communist Xomaniax]

Is reading Kim il Sung a valuable use of my time or is it just meaningless nonsense?

[Herador]

Is reading Kim il Sung a valuable use of my time or is it just meaningless nonsense?

It's valuable as a tool to understand how dictatorships are formed, but that's about it imo

[Shefkland]

Is reading Kim il Sung a valuable use of my time or is it just meaningless nonsense?

It's both really. It revises pretty much every core of the Marxist theory that it claims to be based on, ending up pretty idealistic in the end. Then again I read some, and if you want to get a clearer picture of what North Korea really is, I recommend you do too. At least a bit.

[Proctopeo]

Is reading Kim il Sung a valuable use of my time or is it just meaningless nonsense?

It's both really. It revises pretty much every core of the Marxist theory that it claims to be based on, ending up pretty idealistic in the end. Then again I read some, and if you want to get a clearer picture of what North Korea really is, I recommend you do too. At least a bit.

tbf though Marxism is itself pretty idealistic

[Trotskylvania]

It's both really. It revises pretty much every core of the Marxist theory that it claims to be based on, ending up pretty idealistic in the end. Then again I read some, and if you want to get a clearer picture of what North Korea really is, I recommend you do too. At least a bit.

tbf though Marxism is itself pretty idealistic

That's not what he means by idealism.

Idealism is philosophical stance that that the unfolding of ideas is what drives history and human society. Marxism is materialist.

[Proctopeo]

tbf though Marxism is itself pretty idealistic

That's not what he means by idealism.

Idealism is philosophical stance that that the unfolding of ideas is what drives history and human society. Marxism is materialist.

Oh, the other kind of idealism.
Not the "everyone can get along if we want them to hard enough" kind.