Jump to content

What is Communism or Marxism or ... ?


Rick

Recommended Posts

Generally Fascism has seemed to emerge mainly from the rich, who backroll some right wing pleb they think they can control, and fail dismally, which usually at last means their factories stay open.

But yes, there is no real reason why Fascism cant blur the line with Socialism, with many of their chaotic economic policies. Some of the Nazi's early policies undoubtedly were Socialist, before Hitler stamped on most of them to keep Krupps and co contented. In the end, all that was left was a Socialist vineer. But it could have gone deeper. Goebbels was distinctly left leaning IIRC before Hitler talked him around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And by 1943 it became purely socialist, as the state dictated who produced what, in which quantities and for which price the state bought the product. As a "owner" you could go along or resists and (only) have your company confiscated, if you are lucky.

The idea to support a fascist to avoid a socialist rule has shown to be stupid over and over again. The fascist will have no problem in stealing your business once in power. And at that stage it does not matter if the means of production are put under government control to improve national strength and unity or to hand it over to the "workers".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I dont think the Nazi state was ever Socialist, because Hitler obviously was not, and in the end, his command was the only one that really mattered. By that definition, if Nazi Germany was really Socialist, every Monarchy is a Socialist state too, which obviously doesnt make much sense.

And yes, you only have to look at South America to see the damage such thinking has done. 

It was quite interesting to read David Irvings book on Erhard Milch, and the methodology used to acquire Junkers from the distinctly pacifist owner. Where they found opposition, they removed the ownership. Where the ownership was compliant making weaponry, they threw them a huge contract. Whether it would have worked that way postwar is difficult to determine. I do know Goering liked hoovering up industries to add to his personal portfolio. Probably would have been a mix of private ownership and Kleptocracy, a bit like Russia is today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Generally Fascism has seemed to emerge mainly from the rich, who backroll some right wing pleb they think they can control, and fail dismally, which usually at last means their factories stay open.

But yes, there is no real reason why Fascism cant blur the line with Socialism, with many of their chaotic economic policies. Some of the Nazi's early policies undoubtedly were Socialist, before Hitler stamped on most of them to keep Krupps and co contented. In the end, all that was left was a Socialist vineer. But it could have gone deeper. Goebbels was distinctly left leaning IIRC before Hitler talked him around.

Fascism was a social movement that was born from Socialism and Marxism. It was a popular movement that by rejecting class struggle and favouring corporatism got support from burgoise, rich as the lesser of evils.

In 1936 Italians Communists tried to push for an alliance with Fascists. Title of manifesto : AI FRATELLI IN CAMICIA NERA 

Title "To the brothers in black shirt."  Does that looks like something that Communists would say to a rich people  emerging movement?

Quote

I comunisti fanno proprio il programma fascista del 1919, che è un programma di pace, di libertà, di difesa degli interessi dei lavoratori […]Lottiamo uniti per la realizzazione di questo programma…FASCISTI DELLA VECCHIA GUARDIA! GIOVANI FASCISTI!Noi proclamiamo che siamo disposti a combattere assieme a voi LAVORATORE FASCISTA, noi ti diamo la mano perchè con te volgiamo costruire l’Italia del lavoro e della pace, e ti diamo la mano perchè noi siamo, come te, figli del popolo, siamo tuoi fratelli, abbiamogli stessi interessi e gli stessi nemici, ti diamo la mano perchè l’ora che viviamo è grave, e se non ci uniamo subito saremotrascinati tutti nella rovina

Quote

We Communists make the 1919 fascist programme our own, which is a programme of peace, of freedom, of defence of workers' interests [...] Let us fight united for the realisation of this programme... FASCISTS OF THE OLD GUARD! YOUNG FASCISTS! We proclaim that we are prepared to fight together with you FASCIST WORKERS, we shake your hand because with you we want to build the Italy of work and peace, and we shake your hand because we are, like you, sons of the people, we are your brothers, we have the same interests and the same enemies, we shake your hand because the hour we live in is serious, and if we do not unite immediately we will all be dragged into ruin

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manifesto of the Italian Combatant Fascists

Published in Il Popolo d'Italia (Newspaper created by Mussolini)
The Manifesto of the Italian Combatant Federations, in whose drafting Alceste De Ambris had actively collaborated,[22] was officially published in Il Popolo d'Italia on 6 June 1919. In the manifesto, numerous proposals for political and social reform were put forward to 'stand against two dangers: the egoist one from the right and the destructive one from the left', representing the third way between the two opposing poles and developing within the framework of modernist theories on the new man. Only part of these were realised during the period of the fascist regime (1922-1943). Although they were later taken up during the Italian Social Republic, such as the socialisation of enterprises and means of production, they remained largely unimplemented due to the events of the war.

Most of the participants of the first hour were interventionist veterans of the First World War. Many of them had previously militated in left-wing formations (anarchists, republicans, revolutionary syndicalists and socialists).

The official organ of the Fasci Italiani di combattimento was the weekly Il Fascio, which began to be published as soon as the means were available. Close to the positions of the Fasci was then, of course, Il Popolo d'Italia, which, however, never became its official organ, keeping itself separate from the movement.

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasci_italiani_di_combattimento

 

FASCI ITALIANI DI COMBATTIMENTO - Comitato Centrale

Italians!

Here is the national program of a healthy Italian movement.
Revolutionary, because anti-dogmatic and anti-demagogic; strongly innovative because it is anti-prejudicial.
We place the valorization of the revolutionary war above everything and everyone.
The other problems: bureaucracy, administrative, legal, scholastic, colonial, etc. we will trace them when we have created the ruling class.


This is why WE WANT:

For the political problem
a) — Universal suffrage by regional list ballot, with proportional representation, voting and eligibility for women.

b) — The minimum age for voters lowered to 18 years; that for Deputies lowered to 25 years.

c) — The abolition of the Senate.

d) — The convocation of a National Assembly for the duration of three years, whose first task is to establish the form of constitution of the State.

e) — The formation of National Technical Councils for labour, industry, transport, social hygiene, communications, etc. elected by professional or trade communities, with legislative powers, and with the right to elect a General Commissioner with the powers of a Minister.


For the social problem:
WE WANT:
a) — The prompt promulgation of a State Law that establishes the legal eight-hour working day for all workers.

b) — Minimum wages.

c) — The participation of workers' representatives in the technical functioning of the industry.

d) — The entrusting of the management of industries or public services to the same proletarian organizations (that are morally and technically worthy).

e) — The rapid and complete settlement of the railway workers and of all transport industries.

f) — A necessary modification of the disability and old age insurance bill, lowering the age limit, currently proposed at 65 years, to 55 years.


For the military problem:
WE WANT:
a) — The establishment of a national militia with short instructional services and exclusively defensive tasks.

b) — The nationalization of all weapons and explosives factories.

c) — A national foreign policy aimed at enhancing the Italian nation in the world in the peaceful competitions of civilization.


For the financial problem:
WE WANT:
a) — A strong extraordinary tax on capital of a progressive nature, which has the form of a true PARTIAL EXPROPRIATION of all wealth.

b) — The seizure of all the assets of the religious Congregations and the abolition of all the Episcopal canteens, which constitute an enormous liability for the Nation, and a privilege of a few.

c) — The revision of all war supply contracts, and the seizure of 85% of war profits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

Fascism was a social movement that was born from Socialism and Marxism. It was a popular movement that by rejecting class struggle and favouring corporatism got support from burgoise, rich as the lesser of evils.

In 1936 Italians Communists tried to push for an alliance with Fascists. Title of manifesto : AI FRATELLI IN CAMICIA NERA 

Title "To the brothers in black shirt."  Does that looks like something that Communists would say to a rich people  emerging movement?

 

Yes, Id go along with that.

All I think seahawk is saying is that just because they are fascist, it doesnt necessarily follow they have more efficient economic policies. Particularly those that are towards the Socialist end of the spectrum, which yes, certain can happen.

Its quite interesting to note in one of George Orwells works, I cant remember if its the one on the misuse of the English language, or a foreword to 1984, but he said that he was concerned that fascism could emerge from the Labour party. Which shows how hardline some of them were in the late 1940's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, Id go along with that.

All I think seahawk is saying is that just because they are fascist, it doesnt necessarily follow they have more efficient economic policies. Particularly those that are towards the Socialist end of the spectrum, which yes, certain can happen.

The basic point people have to understand that both ideologies are willing to sacrifice individual rights for what they see as the greater good. Sure socialists put a greater emphasis on the economic model so the deviation from a market economy is guaranteed, but fascism has no problem to do exactly the same. The basic difference is that socialism is likely to go after all owners of the means of production, while fascism will first go only after those opposed to fascism.

But in the end both will control the market and the means of production.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, seahawk said:

The basic point people have to understand that both ideologies are willing to sacrifice individual rights for what they see as the greater good. Sure socialists put a greater emphasis on the economic model so the deviation from a market economy is guaranteed, but fascism has no problem to do exactly the same. The basic difference is that socialism is likely to go after all owners of the means of production, while fascism will first go only after those opposed to fascism.

But in the end both will control the market and the means of production.

 

Well, its a spectrum isnt it? Not all Communist states wholly control the means of producton. Even the USSR at various times, took its foot off the neck of private markets to feed the country, both immediately after the evolution, and in the run up to the USSR's dissolution. Yugoslavia to my mind, also looks a lot freer than other Eastern Bloc Communist states. Im not sure that translated into private enterprise or not, but it wouldnt greatly surprise me. And of course we have China, which although busily trying to backpedal in various areas, still predominantly has left its hands off the means of production.

Also, remember how Spain was sustained for so long with private enterprise and the Costa Del Sol, where they were happy to bring in any amount of foreign investment, legal or illegal.

Broadly though, as a rule of thumb, I dont disagree with any of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well even Spain had "socialist" tendencies under Generalissimo Franco.

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

And you are right, socialism is also not uniform, some variants allowed more of a market economy than others.

Imho the end is that any form of government that does not guarantee individual freedoms and rights, will most likely move away from a market economy sooner or later.

And many of those, that do, will still do it for certain segments of the market. Which in the end makes a lot of sense for public services and similar things.

Edited by seahawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, seahawk said:

What matters is actions not believe. And by 1943 Germany had as much of a market economy as the Soviet Union.

Yes, but so did Britain and probably America too. It was the nature of the war that was driving that, less their actual natures as states. Ok, so Britain and America effectively demobilised and the USSR did not. One could that is their natural state. But would the USSR have gone all in with War Communism if they hadnt received such a strategic shock? Perhaps not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, but so did Britain and probably America too. It was the nature of the war that was driving that, less their actual natures as states. Ok, so Britain and America effectively demobilised and the USSR did not. One could that is their natural state. But would the USSR have gone all in with War Communism if they had not received such a strategic shock? Perhaps not.

And therefore the differentiation should be between democratic forms of government with protected individual freedoms and totalitarian regimes. It does not matter if the totalitarian regime claims to be socialist, fascist or absolute monarchist. In the end it will do what it wants and will control and shape the economy as it wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Strannik said:

This is gibberish.  Find yourself a worthy of it partner to discuss.

xhumpty-dumpty.gif.pagespeed.ic.o--wJs5G

Just because you refuse the real meaning of words doesn't mean they're not the real meanings. Stop channeling the French Postmodernist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, seahawk said:

The idea to support a fascist to avoid a socialist rule has shown to be stupid over and over again. The fascist will have no problem in stealing your business once in power. And at that stage it does not matter if the means of production are put under government control to improve national strength and unity or to hand it over to the "workers".

It's a natural reaction to try to survive some how in an authoritarian situation. If you can collectively gain some control to avoid being eaten it's not unreasonable. It's just a difficult situation. The best is to try to move to a government that doesn't actually have that power. But once the power is in the hands of government it's hard to take it back short of putting a bunch of the mindless jerks against a wall when the counter revolution comes. 

In general, that's where both are antithetical to the US system of government controlled by the US Constitution because both transgress the limits by way of their authoritarian mode. 

That something is done as some folks might note as justification doesn't boot strap it to constitutionality. The takings clause of the fifth amendment asserts, among other things with the Commerce Clause being a general limit as well. Making commerce regular isn't the same as choking the crap out of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, seahawk said:

Who says there has to be an economic difference between fascism and socialism?

Well it is in the functional differences between the two. Who says there has to be a taxonomic difference between a wolf and a cougar? They're both predators and carnivores, why does it matter? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

It's a natural reaction to try to survive some how in an authoritarian situation. If you can collectively gain some control to avoid being eaten it's not unreasonable. It's just a difficult situation. The best is to try to move to a government that doesn't actually have that power. But once the power is in the hands of government it's hard to take it back short of putting a bunch of the mindless jerks against a wall when the counter revolution comes. 

In general, that's where both are antithetical to the US system of government controlled by the US Constitution because both transgress the limits by way of their authoritarian mode. 

That something is done as some folks might note as justification doesn't boot strap it to constitutionality. The takings clause of the fifth amendment asserts, among other things with the Commerce Clause being a general limit as well. Making commerce regular isn't the same as choking the crap out of it. 

Outside the US the usual solution is to implement policies that people do not vote for socialists or fascists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expand please?

Do you mean that people don't vote for socialist policies but get them anyway or don't vote for socialist or fascist politicians but get them anyway? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I mean implement policies so that people do not vote for socialists or fascists. This pragmatical approach worked decently well for 70 years, but now it seems like ideologies are sadly becoming more important again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Expand please?

Do you mean that people don't vote for socialist policies but get them anyway or don't vote for socialist or fascist politicians but get them anyway? 

That's how you got Biden, likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...