Political Crossfire Forums

[Raskolnikov]

Quote: It is pretty hard to argue that Fascism is not a merger of the state with the means of production, which is exactly the definition of Socialism.

but that's not the definition of socialism. at least not for socialists, and i'm pretty sure that's what matters.

you see, i could very well say that 'libertarianism' is sticking your head up your butt and running around in circles (which isn't far off), but that's not what libertarians claim, so who am i to define their term for them?

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

Raskolnikov wrote: Quote: It is pretty hard to argue that Fascism is not a merger of the state with the means of production, which is exactly the definition of Socialism.

but that's not the definition of socialism. at least not for socialists, and i'm pretty sure that's what matters.

Agreed. If that was the definition of socialism than libertarian socialism would be an oxymoron.

[MplsBison]

These definitions make sense to me:

Fascism: authoritarian government/command economy

Socialism: limited private property

Communism: no private property

[cap'n queasy]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Raskolnikov wrote: Quote: It is pretty hard to argue that Fascism is not a merger of the state with the means of production, which is exactly the definition of Socialism.

but that's not the definition of socialism. at least not for socialists, and i'm pretty sure that's what matters.

Agreed. If that was the definition of socialism than libertarian socialism would be an oxymoron.

It is an oxymoron.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: * The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories.
* A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth.
* The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor.
* The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industry, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers.
* A minimum wage.
* The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions

Let's talk about these features of the Fascist manifesto, and leave the deconstruction of established terminology out of the conversation, as it is merely an attempt at distraction.

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

cap'n queasy wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Raskolnikov wrote: Quote: It is pretty hard to argue that Fascism is not a merger of the state with the means of production, which is exactly the definition of Socialism.

but that's not the definition of socialism. at least not for socialists, and i'm pretty sure that's what matters.

Agreed. If that was the definition of socialism than libertarian socialism would be an oxymoron.

It is an oxymoron.

How so?

[Raskolnikov]

cap'n wrote: Let's talk about these features of the Fascist manifesto, and leave the deconstruction of established terminology out of the conversation, as it is merely an attempt at distraction.

no. we're actually trying to establish what we're talking about, which is pretty important. i'm a little annoyed at your suggestion that i'm attempting to 'distract' away from the important issues. i'm not. i'm telling you, your 'established terminology' is wrong. you're not talking about socialism. you seem to think that 'command economy' means 'socialism', and that's simply not true. no socialist holds that view. so, shut up about it. you can try to show how socialism leads to a command economy, but you cannot say that 'socialism' is simply another word for 'command economy'. that is incorrect.

let me give you a socialist's definition of socialism to argue with:

Quote: a socialist state is one slowly decentralizing. it's a return to the slow moving but stable and socially rewarding 'cottage' industry. it's the bottom-up transformation of society where the lower classes take control of their lives from the powers that be. socialists are otherwise known as 'return to the land hippies', and are not dangerous or authoritarian.

okay? so, play nice, and don't use straw-men. they're annoying.

[THEXRATED]

I think it is best to view Facism based on what it opposes in terms of political ideologies and what are it's core values.

Facism in general is antithesis of liberal western democracies, as it is has characters that are very anticapitalistic, antiliberal, anti-individualistic and so on. It is equally against communism.

Liberal values such as rationalism, progresss, freedom, equality which were dominating European landscape ever since the French Revolution were overturned in the name of stuggle, leadership, power, heroism and war.

"The facist ideal is that of the 'new man", a hero, motivited by duty, honour and self-sacrifice, prepared to dedicate his life to the glory of his nation or race, and to give unquestioning obedience to a supreme leader". Individual in a sense is nothing under Facism, this is illustrated with the famous slogans such as "strenght through unity".

Italian Facism was quite different from Nazism. Italian version some refer as an extreme for of statism:

"...belief that state is the most approriate means of resolving political problems or bringing about economic and social development. This view is underpinned by a deep and perhaps unquestioning faith in the state as a mechanism through which
collective action can be organised and common goals can be achieved. The state thus seen as an ethical ideal (Hegel), or serving
the 'general will' or public interest. Statism is most clearly reflected in government policies that regulate and control economic life. These range from selective nationalization and economic management to corporatism."

As the Facist philosopher Gentile wrote, 'everything for the state; nothing against the state; nothing outside the state".

Nazism on the other hand was largely build upon racialism, which of course is related to 'master race' ideology and on the other hand with the radical form of anti-semitism.

Quote: Quote: * The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories.
* A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth.
* The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor.
* The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industry, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers.
* A minimum wage.
* The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions Let's talk about these features of the Fascist manifesto, and leave the deconstruction of established terminology out of the conversation, as it is merely an attempt at distraction.

I think it is more important to understand what sets facism apart from other ideologies and another factor of importance would be to understand why did Facism succeed at the time. Comparing governing methods under Facism might be interesting, but it tells us very little of its ideology. Even if those governing systems and processes rose from their core ideology, their implementation was quite different in both Italy and Germany. I am not going to make an argument why it succeeded at the time albeit it would make another interesting topic. However, I am certainly going to start this by saying that Facism was not born in a vacuum. It exploited existing systems and their processes, and changed them to fit their view of what state should be like. The key difference against socialism is the unquestionable belief on all powerful state.

on the other hand, the key elements of socialism could be categorised as community, fratenity in a sense of humans, social equality that is often described as a form of egalitarianism, need based distribution of materialm, social class politics, and common ownership (some consider this actually to be the end of socialism, so simply a different form of it and away to depart from social class politics etc.). Even with these there were two camps of socialists quite different from each other; revolutionary socialist who were followers of Lenin and the Bolsheviks (communists) and reformist socilists, who practise a form of constitutional politics that later became called social democracy. Not only did they differ in the way they believed socialism could be achieved, but also most fundamentally what it was supposed to be.

Neither of these dominant socialists movement were Facist in their core ideology, nor was the core ideology of Facist movements based on Socialism.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Raskolnikov wrote: Quote: Right and left has no meaning what so ever, not since the onset of totalitarianism.

the onset of totalitarianism? so, since the beginning of human civilization?

No since the late 19th centuary.

Giovanni Gentile and to an extent people like Marx were the first totalitarian philosophers, Hobbes as an example of something you might thinking of was an authoritarian.

Yes there is a diffrence, and totalitarianism destroyed the left right scale.

Do your reading.

[cap'n queasy]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Raskolnikov wrote: Quote: It is pretty hard to argue that Fascism is not a merger of the state with the means of production, which is exactly the definition of Socialism.

but that's not the definition of socialism. at least not for socialists, and i'm pretty sure that's what matters.

Agreed. If that was the definition of socialism than libertarian socialism would be an oxymoron.

It is an oxymoron.

How so?

In a libertarian society what is going to stop people from enjoying unfettered capitalism and ownership of private property?

[cap'n queasy]

Raskolnikov wrote: cap'n wrote: Let's talk about these features of the Fascist manifesto, and leave the deconstruction of established terminology out of the conversation, as it is merely an attempt at distraction.

no. we're actually trying to establish what we're talking about, which is pretty important. i'm a little annoyed at your suggestion that i'm attempting to 'distract' away from the important issues. i'm not. i'm telling you, your 'established terminology' is wrong. you're not talking about socialism. you seem to think that 'command economy' means 'socialism', and that's simply not true. no socialist holds that view. so, shut up about it. you can try to show how socialism leads to a command economy, but you cannot say that 'socialism' is simply another word for 'command economy'. that is incorrect.

let me give you a socialist's definition of socialism to argue with:

Quote: a socialist state is one slowly decentralizing. it's a return to the slow moving but stable and socially rewarding 'cottage' industry. it's the bottom-up transformation of society where the lower classes take control of their lives from the powers that be. socialists are otherwise known as 'return to the land hippies', and are not dangerous or authoritarian.

okay? so, play nice, and don't use straw-men. they're annoying. The only one using straw men is you, my friend.
Sounds kind of like what Pol Pot was trying to do in Cambodia. Establish a pastoral, agrarian society. No, thanks. Of course it sounds nicer when the socialist is describing it, than it is in reality.

Let's use the definition found in a dictionary, instead of a imaginary ideal.
Quote:
Socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Socialism

[bob.appleyard]

cap'n queasy wrote: In a libertarian society what is going to stop people from enjoying unfettered capitalism and ownership of private property?

Freedom?

[FinnMacCool]

Anyone who says socialism is a type of fascism or vice versa doesn't know what either is and should stop typing about them. Its simply not true.

The reason nazis are called socialists is to slander socialists. There is nothing logical to back it up.

[MplsBison]

Nazis were fascists, then, correct?

What do you call the USSR? They called themselves socialists. But they were pretty heavily into command economy, right?


Maybe that's where Americans get their misconceptions of socialism from.

[BobbyO]

Quote: let me give you a socialist's definition of socialism to argue with:

Quote: a socialist state is one slowly decentralizing. it's a return to the slow moving but stable and socially rewarding 'cottage' industry. it's the bottom-up transformation of society where the lower classes take control of their lives from the powers that be. socialists are otherwise known as 'return to the land hippies', and are not dangerous or authoritarian.

This is often the claim of the socialists. However, in over a century of governments being run by socialists, the net result has been that the state is far more highly centralised, and far more powerful, than in Marx's day. Its not an issue of simply not quite getting there yet, its an issue that socialist governments have led in the exact opposite direction.
One cannot evaluate socialism simply based upon what the socialists say the end result will be. One has to look at the process, whether in fact they are correct in their beliefs, and whether what they say will actually come to pass.

[BobbyO]

Raskolnikov wrote: Quote: I'm suggesting fascism is a form of socialism.

what's the basis for this belief exactly?

From studying socialism and communism and National Socialism. Its histories, its claims of its objectives, who and what they they opposed, who backed them ect.

[FinnMacCool]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: Nazis were fascists, then, correct?
Nazism is a form of fascism.
Quote:
What do you call the USSR? They called themselves socialists. But they were pretty heavily into command economy, right?
The word socialism is extremely loose an can describe many different things. The USSR was never really socialist, except for the very beginning of the Russian Revolution. A lot of it was leninist, then stalinist, then something else. But it was mostly run bueractically and yes fascist like. But that doesn't mean socialism is fascism or a strain of fascism. If you read socialist lit and nazi lit side by side, there would be very little similarities. The only thing they share is a tendency to have big, corrupt governments.

[MplsBison]

So you're saying socialism advocates big government or that "socialist" states have often had big governments?

[BobbyO]

Quote: Facism in general is antithesis of liberal western democracies, as it is has characters that are very anticapitalistic, antiliberal, anti-individualistic and so on. It is equally against communism.

It is not equally against communism as the others listed. Hitler numerous times stated his preference to a "bolshevik" germany than a capitalist one, the nazis were bale to do business with the reds, and indeed the nazis would only Communist party members to enroll in the party after 11933.

Quote: Liberal values such as rationalism, progresss, freedom, equality which were dominating European landscape ever since the French Revolution were overturned in the name of stuggle, leadership, power, heroism and war.

All those characteristics listed can be considered values from the French Revolution (Hitler viewed The National Socialist triumph as the logical successor to the French Revolution). Nor were the nazis against "progress" (the basis of nazism was to improve the standards of life for the Germans), "equality" (all germans were to be equal both legally, sociallly and biologically), "freedom" ( the nazis said that the germans were constrained by the Jews and the french and the slavs to the east. The freedom of the germans could only be assured by the removal of this threat). Socialism in general preaches about the "struggle" of the proleteriat against the forces of capitalism or reaction, how the proleteriat will "lead" the way to a brave new world, providing they, the proleteriat, have "the power" to smash the institutions which hold back that advance, and if that advance has to be through 'war" then so be it (though on this point other socialists will dispute).

Quote: "The facist ideal is that of the 'new man", a hero, motivited by duty, honour and self-sacrifice, prepared to dedicate his life to the glory of his nation or race, and to give unquestioning obedience to a supreme leader". Individual in a sense is nothing under Facism, this is illustrated with the famous slogans such as "strenght through unity".

Correct. And the other socialist proposes to do the same in the name of "class."




Quote: The key difference against socialism is the unquestionable belief on all powerful state.

True. however, the socialists of other parties are forever debating the issue of how to get from here (capitalism) to there (socialism). The most logical and reasonable of them understand an all powerful state is neccessary, even though they employ verbal gymnastics to claim what they build is not a state. But they are wrong in that claim.

Quote: on the other hand, the key elements of socialism could be categorised as community, fratenity in a sense of humans, social equality that is often described as a form of egalitarianism, need based distribution of materialm,

The nazis definitely worked to build a german "community" which encompassesd all germans throughout Europe, and also worked to eradicate the divides with Germany (to end the Prusiisan, bavarian ect. first thinking which still existed at the time).

Quote: Even with these there were two camps of socialists quite different from each other; revolutionary socialist who were followers of Lenin and the Bolsheviks (communists) and reformist socilists, who practise a form of constitutional politics that later became called social democracy. Not only did they differ in the way they believed socialism could be achieved, but also most fundamentally what it was supposed to be.

Quite true for the most part. It should be pointed out though, that capitalism still exists, even though the social democracy folks won the debate. The question which roils socialism in europe today has been the accomodation which the social democracy folks have adopted over the years. However, there is no disagreement as to what socialism means. Just a dissagreement on how to get there.

[BobbyO]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: So you're saying socialism advocates big government or that "socialist" states have often had big governments?

I am saying that the claim made that socialism wishes to gradually decentralise the state, to have it "wither away" has never been realised, and in fact that socialist governments have led efforts in the OPPOSITE direction.