|
Epicurius posted:Didn't Communists blame everything on the forces of finance capital oppressing the working class, though? I don't know that it's a particularly helpful definition, and it doesn't tend to fit well with the actual rhetoric or actions of fascist movements. That definition accurately gets at the core of fascism - it is the reason for its being. The basis of the fascist critique of "degenerate" liberals was that the latter had, out of misplaced compassion and weakness, over time conceded political rights to the masses, who now had real power and were dangerously close to taking control of the state and enacting socialism. Hitler and Mussolini both believed in the supremacy of the strongest individual, and the inherent value of ruthless - capitalist - competition, which they saw as the manifestation of natural selection. They saw the facilitation of the process of competition and domination, unfettered by any moral considerations, as the ultimate goal of a People. They despised the communists, who wanted to do away with such competition and ensure a decent life for everyone regardless of natural fitness or whatever. Fascism was fundamentally a reaction against the danger of socialism. The interests of financial capital were also well served by fascist economic policy, which resulted in dramatically worsening living standards for the average person even before the war: longer working hours, less pay, less rights, etc. Not to mention every kind of legal and illegal (but condoned) repression and harassment of the workers. All while the business and political elite plundered the property of their enemies (the Jews and the leftists) and hoarded the national wealth. The power base of fascism were, unsurprisingly, the capitalist elite and the middle classes. The higher you went on the social ladder, the more support there was for the Nazis. Opposing the ascension of the fascist Overman were the political organizations of the working class. The destruction of these organizations, through violence and political suppression, was the immediate primary goal of the fascist movements, and in this they succeeded all too well, so I don't know what you mean when you say the definition doesn't fit with their actions. As for rhetoric, I really wouldn't put too much stock in what fascists claim to stand for publicly, in propaganda directed at the masses. In any case, that rhetoric was proved entirely false by the actual policies enacted by the fascist regimes. ^ I would agree that Dimitrov's definition is incomplete. It doesn't really get into the ideological motivation of fascism as much as the material reality of it. It seems to me that the racial aspect of fascism is inseparably integrated with its class aspect. The oppression of the "lower races" was justified by the same principle as the oppression of the worker; someone lower on the class hierarchy, or racial hierarchy, deserved to be abused by their superiors, as was natural. Race was indicative of a constitutional weakness in the same way that the poverty of a worker was. It's telling that the Western eugenics movement, which was embraced by the elites of liberal nations as well, conflated class and race in a similar way.
|
#
¿
May 9, 2021 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
Sanguinia posted:But doesn't a focus on a conflation between lower races and lower classes in turn ignore that fascism often went after Elites and Middle Class members as well? The original definition you shared limits this to Revolutionary elements of the higher classes, but history doesn't really bear that out. One of the Nazi Germany's biggest problems, economically, was that they continually privileged ideological purity over efficiency and effectiveness. They would deliberately destroy companies and individuals that failed to institute racial purity and anti-Jewish policy and conversely reward those that did, regardless of which ones were actually better or more successful means to their ends. Its arguable that some forms of fascism were so fixated on esoteric ideological goals that they abandoned Capitalism in their pursuit. It's true that fascist persecution was not exclusively limited to revolutionaries, of course. But that doesn't negate the classist and elitist nature of fascism, or disprove the fact that the goal of fascism was to do away with class struggle by utterly subjugating the lower classes. The "terrorist vengeance" was chiefly directed against the socialists and communists, and the Jews, who Hitler saw as communists (as you mentioned). So, I see the description as being not wrong or misleading at all, just not comprehensive. I don't think that messing with individual companies or implementing a war economy counts as abandoning capitalism, really. It just means that absolute laissez-faire in all things was not the economic or social policy of the Nazis. That fascist authoritarianism included the bourgeoisie under its control in certain social matters, like the racial policies you mention, certainly earned them the critique of liberal elites, but that does not mean that fascism is anti-elite by any means. The fascists promised the bourgeoisie freedom from the political power of the masses. The only principles they had to give up in return were humanist ones. Hitler and the Nazis were not exactly rational actors, as exemplified by the missing winter clothes. I think it was primarily Hitler who forbade winter clothing, for propaganda reasons and probably ideological reasons as well. That they failed to prosecute the war against the Soviets in an efficient manner doesn't really say anything about the nature of class conflict in Germany. Besides maybe that many of the ruling class probably failed to appreciate just how nuts Hitler was and how far he intended to go. And that's maybe the principle weakness of fascism; your ubermensch leaders are not guaranteed to act in a way that brings long-term prosperity to the Volk or the ruling elite, good capitalists or not. Interestingly, "capitalism cannot fail, it can only be failed" is actually something that Hitler did believe. That's why he ordered the destruction of Germany's infrastructure - the German people had failed him, had failed in the struggle for supremacy, and deserved to perish. State power has been an integral component of capitalism since its beginning; early liberals were explicit about the role of government in suppressing the working class through violence - that was its entire purpose. Capitalism has always been about guaranteeing the "freedom" of a small group of elites to exploit and control the vast majority of "lower" humans. In this way, fascism is the culmination of capitalism.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2021 12:24
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:They also certainly see themselves as enemies of western liberalism at the same time, but I see it as like the other side of the same coin, and they both believe in supremacy of the west and so forth, although on a different basis which puts them in a contradiction with each other. I recently read an interesting book, The Apprentice's Sorcerer: Liberal Tradition and Fascism by Ishay Landa (highly recommend this book), who proposes a conceptual split of liberalism into political liberalism and economic liberalism to explain this contradiction. Fascists despise parliamentarism and the political apparatus which grants political rights in a shockingly egalitarian manner, but seek to prop up and accelerate the capitalist (liberal) economic system surrounding that apparatus. Both sides wish to enable Western imperialism, but liberals would like to do so within certain "democratic" constraints that will help them sleep at night. In this framework fascism is a reaction to, and the negation of, specifically the political aspect of liberalism, which by the 1920s had evolved to permit the operation of powerful trade unions and working class parties, thus realizing the possibility of a socialist takeover and the end of capitalism. Of course, when forced to ditch either political liberalism or capitalism, we know which way the liberals went. Looking at modern politics in the West, we can see them making the same choices over and over again, which is pretty alarming I gotta say.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
duck monster posted:One thing I realised a long time ago is trying to systemize Fascism is an invitation to mental pain. I think you're right that there is a mythical element in fascism, and that it is a central one, but only as presented to the masses, the rank and file followers. I think it's important to understand the difference between how fascism presents itself and its myths, and the true ideology of its leaders, who I believe are mostly cynical elitists and opportunists interested in personal power. For example, the vast masses of the working men and women of Germany certainly didn't belong in Hitler's magic circle: quote:The mass of the working class want nothing but bread and games. They can never understand the meaning of an ideal and we cannot hope to win them over to one. What we have to do is to select from a new master class, men who will not allow themselves to be guided, like you, by the morality of pity. Those who rule must know they have the right to rule because they belong to a superior race. Of course, he could never say anything like this publicly (that is from a conversation with Otto Strasser). The workers are an integral part of the official fascist myth of national glory, but note how Hitler's personal "superior race" does not include them. For Hitler, the crucial divide is not between the white man and the jew; it is the gulf between the "mass man", who is only interested in material trifles, and the Nietzschean Ubermensch, who is ready to rid himself of morality and ruthlessly dominate lesser men.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 01:49
|
|