Fascism and National Socialism

[Das Uberdog]

I think a definition of fascism is actually less context specific than some of frogwoman's and Groucho's claims... Ultimately, fascism is (ideologically) a rejection of rationalism, and a rejection of the fundamental idea that human beings can rise above the base level of 'animal'. The subsequent policies introduced by fascist governments are subcategories of (or sometimes perversions of) this basic concept.

Fascism as a historical phenomenon is a slightly different kettle of fish - arising mainly in situations where an established conservative elite are willing to pledge their support to fascist groups in the belief that their radical policies are the best protection of their social positions. A natural fascist response to their position in the hierarchy is a base respect for the self-fulfilling fact that they are already leading the hierarchy. It is the strongest who are in power. If other people were stronger, they would be in power. That they are not is a testament to their already evident weakness in not having attained power, and thus their obvious unsuitability for the role...

Almost all aspects of fascist philosophy and "culture" ultimately boil down to this fundamental adherance and respect of the rule of 'force'. In analysing the specific policies of fascist 'governments' its actually fascism as a historical phenomenon we are analysing, and not fascism as it is. The worry is that without getting to the root of what fascism is all about, fascistic arguments and ideas can become popularised within society without explicitly trumpeting their allegiance to "traditional" fascist shibboleths.

 

[gorski]

Just a few notes:

Echhhhh... Where does one start? I'd say we need to put it into a historical setting, not a hysterical moment of a country losing its grip...

It didn't only discriminate against those from the "same tribe" [who didn't come up to standard]. It actually eliminated such "elements", especially the ideological enemies [commies etc.] but generally speaking anti-Nazis, too!

Speaking of totalitarian orders: Stalin's/Bolshevik Soviet Union was one, also. But fundamentally different from either Mussolini's Fascism or Hitler's Nazism. Coming from a pre-modern context, against what the society needed, it established a top-down society where the sphere of political state was an absolute subject.

I wrote a few things here about some essential aspect of the phenomenon:

May I warmly recommend: "Liberalismus - Fascismus"

Formen burgerlicher Herrschaft / "Kuhnl, Reinhard"
(Reinbek bei Hamburg) : Rowohlt , 1971

Liberalism always had the leaning towards resolving its inner contradictions/problems via a Nazi route...

Very enlightening, I would have thought - to inform the debate on the issues, that is... Here's an offering of the outline on those issues:

Having toppled Feudalism and its innermost inequalities and unjust essential structures, where one couldn't better oneself via one's effort/work - the original, unbridled Capitalism had a "night-watchman political state" to accompany the sphere of bourgeois economy and NOT interfere. That is the original Liberal model we started with.

That notion collapsed under the weight of evidence from theory [Marx] and "practice" [cataclysmic cyclical crisis, like the Big Crash in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929]. Socialists and Communists in the US started gaining a lot of ground and the potential for a radical social upheaval meant that something radical needed to be done in order to prevent this from happening, as a lot of people had nothing to lose when such crisis hits.

The inherent difficulties of Liberalism, like:

1) rational production on the level of a factory and utterly irrational production on the level of a society or

2) communal/societal production and personal [or small group] appropriation,

3) proclamation of freedom and true absence of freedom for most

...and so on and so forth, meant that such a liberal model of Capitalism needed to resolve its inner contradictions somehow. One of the options was Fascism, the other Socialism.

The purposeful intervention into the economy came from Marx via a back door, as it were [Keynes: see bellow], when it was obvious that economy had to be managed.

Indeed, every law takes from some and gives to some others. Today we all know that there is no other option but to manage the economy and that the same principle goes right through both spheres, that of economy and the state [hence political economy, which once was "national economy" - and from here on the UN is necessary, of course... but that is the globalization debate...].

Democracy is nothing but a constant renegotiation of the "deal" between the various groups of society, as it were...

[Btw, it happened via Marx, who re-read Hegel, after acquainting himself with the English Political Economy - since he now understood much better what he wrote in his early works and what Hegel meant in his work on the subject.]

The New Deal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

J. M. Keynes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._M._Keynes

Planned Economy [USSR and alike], btw, is not to be misconstrued as the "same thing" here and mixed with the above outline that goes with the Modern Capitalist setting...

Even the Conservatives are adhering to the model, just quibble about how much should be given to the Capitalists... So much so that, for instance, the arch Conservative and a downright sociopath Kissinger said "We're fighting ideas with standard", infamously [if memory serves]...

The links to the book I mentioned above:

http://www.abebooks.de/search/sortby/3/an/K%FChnl+Reinhard

http://www.abebooks.de/servlet/Book...8&searchurl=sortby=3&an=K%FChnl+Reinhard&ph=2

Also, have a look here:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=142369&highlight=Liberalismus-Fascismus

http://pacific.econ.kyoto-u.ac.jp/review/10000386.pdf

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=230861 - another thread of mine for various such "authoritarian" tendencies in the present context...

 

[TremulousTetra]

The Daily Mail had "sympathies"; some Tory and even Liberal MPs had "sympathies"; elements of the Catholic church had "sympathies"...

but you can't really apply "Nazi" as some blanket insult to any group that ever expresses a degree of ideological sympathy - or its Hegel's "night in which all cows are black"...

EXCELLENT! EXCELLENT! Point.

SW rammed home to me that it is a tactical and analytical imperative to distinguish fascism. Margaret Thatcher was not a fascist, as many of the left argued. Blair and even Bush are not fascist. And even the term social fascist, is a massive tactical and theoretical STUPIDITY for the left.

The political ideological tactical advantage of blurring distinctions over fascism was not lost on Norman Tebbit. Tebbit has championed the argument there is no distinction between communism and fascism, to ideologically undermine Communism/anarchism, to argue with the mass majority of people that communism is equally heinous. And this argument has had a resonance, so much so, that the fascists are now arguing Blair is a fascist, so there is no difference in voting for all us.

We also need clarity to distinguish fascism from capitalism imo, because if we don't we end up doing what Durritto does, and making no distinction in the struggle. No distinction in how we should respond to it.

As far as Distinguishing between Nazi and Fascist, that is a very complicated discussion. For a start, which strand of German fascism in the Nazi movement, and at which point in time, are you going to claim represents Nazism. Which is the true Nazism, National Socialism or Hitlerism? And how much did big business distort Hitlerism? Of course we should end up by saying "Nazism" is one brand of many within the category of fascism, but for what purpose?

Of course there are various strands of fascism, but what unites them ideologically, nine times out of 10 when they get in power leads them to create a form of society that is far worse than what we have at present in the UK. In that sense, at the bottom line down to work practical discussion sense, there is no distinction.

The last thing. In my experience the antifascist movement has rebadged itself from the anti-Nazi league to unite against fascism. I think this reflects there is a more articulated and educated level of political discussion that take place today. But how often do you come across an argument on the street, in the pub, with somebody who is saying "well if you are to look at Germany in the 1930s, ........."? I think people are much more able to discern for themselves today that this is a poetic use of the term, rather than a literal. It captures the essence, rather than the definition.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'd say there is clear and important distinction.

Nazism was a particular regional variant of fascism.

All nazis are fascists, but not all fascists are nazis.

There are/were other forms of fascism.

To label all fascists as nazis is a) incorrect and b) dangerous

Dangerous because there are fascists who could quite credibly deny being nazis.

Whilst there are still groups that are clearly "nazi" in ideology most modern fash are not and it does not help us to pretend that they are.

credibly? I spoke to sympathisers, voters, members, and a English/South African who claim to be part of organising a 'security' wing of the BNP, who have passionately argued that the BNP is not racist. where do you stop challenging them, when they construct a on the surface credible argument?

just like nazi party early on, the BNP party is totally confused about what it stands for. it has completely contradictory elements, strands, within the party. I have absolutely no doubt that elements within the BNP consider they are Nazi, an evolution of Nazi, a pragmatic acceptance of the difference in this historical circumstances, but nevertheless Nazi, in pretty much the same way I consider myself a Bolshevik.

...and yes you can have "fascist tendencies" without being outright fascists the far right of the Conservatives, some nationalist groups etc are examples of this in practise.

I think this is a very very important point, as you can see from my previous post.

PS. how i couch my arguments, depends who im talking to. when I am talking to more Conservative people I tend to highlight economic discussion papers of the BNP, and the 2005 election pledge, which talk about nationalising everything with more than I think it was about 80 workers, has one of the thousands of similarities between the BNP and the Nazi party

 

[poster342002]

hmmm yep there are similarities there but i wouldn't call stalin's necessarily nazi or fascist although definately totalitarian ...

Although I think it's fair to say that Stalin's regime shared many of the charecteristics you descibe of fascism - esp; state-run trade unions, banning of strikes, total state control over most mundane of things (like hobby clubs), ultra-nationalism etc etc. I think Stalin's regime in many ways was a type of fascism - it even rose out of a period of economic crises following the Russian civil wars and so on.

 

[poster342002]

The biological racism which is explicit in Nazism, and implicit in Italian fascism and the conservative/petty bourgeois radical ideologies it grew out of, is absent in Stalinism.

Hence the differing internal dynamics and fates of the two regimes.

Not entirely. Stalin waged an enthnic deportation of the Chechnians and was about to start his own attack on the Jews just before he (fortunately for all) died. Stalin's regime was as close to fascism (if not nazism) as to make little difference.

 

[TremulousTetra]

**ahem**

Stalin.

this is the Norman Tebbit argument, I once had with the Conservative to which you respond.

well this is where people are wrong about fascism. Fascism is not just a totalitarian regime that closes down dissent.
What marks fascism out is that the road to power is based on a mass movement built on despair and hatred and rooted in the middle class and disposessed. On its way to power working class organisation is crushed with the utmost brutality. So in Spain the Civil War saw Franco take time to cross Spain risking military defeat because he was not waging a straight forward military war. Each area he gained he spent time massacering all possible opposition. Mass graves are still being found to this day. Once such a regime is in place it is not simply a military regime but fasciast organisation permeates all areas of life from youth groups, fascist 'unions', sport, media everything resting in part on a degree of popular - though minority - support, and mass organisations.
The key difference with Nazism is that Germany was a far more advanced industrial power with a much more advanced workers movement to destroy. The ultra-nationalism of Fascism will always lead to racism and will have a need for scapegoats.

to which the Conservatives responded, this academic point makes no difference to the victims. and we have to acknowledge that this is exactly true. on moral basis, and many other basis, Stalinism is equally heinous to Hitlerism. But if we don't understand the differences in how they came about, we can understand the different tactic needed to avoid them, destroy them.

 

[TremulousTetra]

whoops

 

[Poi E]

mussolini had so many people in his cabinet that could agree on vritually nothing. this leads to a huge insecurity on the part of the regime and a tendency to not tolerate dissent. ..

Very interesting point. I work for a damaged man, who has a very dictatorial personality, malevolent, bigoted and generally bad, but he cannot make decisions to save himself. Do you think that there is a case to be made for a personality predisposed to absolutist points of view, such that they are attracted to certain political philosophies?

 

[durruti02]

I have noticed neo-nazism seem to have extended the "aryan" concept to include slavics , i was under the impression that hitler wanted them displaced , he had kind of hierarchy wher Jews Gypsies and homosexual were consigned to the bottom of the order and above them was east slavic up till germans at the top.

I find it odd that their are neo-nazis in many eastern-european countries, I even saw on some neo-nazi site where they trying to justify it, kinda of weird.

was a big row on stormfront on this a few years ago .. morons

 

[durruti02]

We also need clarity to distinguish fascism from capitalism imo, because if we don't we end up doing what Durritto does, and making no distinction in the struggle. No distinction in how we should respond to it.

mate that is not true .. i have said that fascism is the far right of capital .. not that fascism and capitalism are indistinguishable .. correct me but surely this is the swp position theoretically though it does not suggest this in practice ..

but also it is very important to look at what is the threat in the world .. is it neo liberal capital or its fascist phase?? clearly the danger from rampant neo liberalism is the real danger .. and will in the absence of a left attract a false radical fascism in fake opposition

and it is very important to look at the damage down by both .. fascism holds the holocaust to its name .. but what about capitalism and imperialism .. the atomic attacks on japan and the cold war .. the deaths of millions exploited in industry .. environmental destruction at a rate that may destroy the world ecology that supports us .. the virtual genocide and wiping out of tribe after tribe from the patagonians and tasmanians to amazonians .. the destruction of human community with the creation of commuity as shoppers and consumers .. the division of peoples in classes etc etc etc

do not get me wrong but fascism while evil is just one evil that we have a choice to accept .. the left claimed a great victory in stopping the NF in 79 ( even though their vote drasmatically increased LOL !!) .. we have lived now under neo liberalism for nearly 30 years and the damage is obvious

 

[Groucho]

to which the Conservatives responded, this academic point makes no difference to the victims. and we have to acknowledge that this is exactly true. on moral basis, and many other basis, Stalinism is equally heinous to Hitlerism. But if we don't understand the differences in how they came about, we can understand the different tactic needed to avoid them, destroy them.

Stalin's was a vicious murderous regime backed by popular support and a party that permeated every workplace and that sought to control culture as well as economics and politics. So there were simularities. But...

Not if by that you think the CP worker militant shop steward whose political loyalty was to the USSR, but who played a pivotal role in organising strikes for better conditions and mobilising to stop the fascists at Cable Street is as bad as the BUF fascists who marched with Oswald Mosely, then no it isn't comparable.

Neither were the mass victims of Stalinism (and there were many) selected on the basis of 'race' or disability.

 

[lights.out.london]

The biological racism which is explicit in Nazism, and implicit in Italian fascism and the conservative/petty bourgeois radical ideologies it grew out of, is absent in Stalinism.

Hence the differing internal dynamics and fates of the two regimes.

I'm not sure Jews or Ukrainians would agree with you.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Stalin's was a vicious murderous regime backed by popular support and a party that permeated every workplace and that sought to control culture as well as economics and politics. So there were simularities. But...

Not if by that you think the CP worker militant shop steward whose political loyalty was to the USSR, but who played a pivotal role in organising strikes for better conditions and mobilising to stop the fascists at Cable Street is as bad as the BUF fascists who marched with Oswald Mosely, then no it isn't comparable.

Neither were the mass victims of Stalinism (and there were many) selected on the basis of 'race' or disability.

no problem with that.

 

[TremulousTetra]

mate that is not true .. i have said that fascism is the far right of capital .. not that fascism and capitalism are indistinguishable .. correct me but surely this is the swp position theoretically though it does not suggest this in practice ..

but also it is very important to look at what is the threat in the world .. is it neo liberal capital or its fascist phase?? clearly the danger from rampant neo liberalism is the real danger .. and will in the absence of a left attract a false radical fascism in fake opposition

and it is very important to look at the damage down by both .. fascism holds the holocaust to its name .. but what about capitalism and imperialism .. the atomic attacks on japan and the cold war .. the deaths of millions exploited in industry .. environmental destruction at a rate that may destroy the world ecology that supports us .. the virtual genocide and wiping out of tribe after tribe from the patagonians and tasmanians to amazonians .. the destruction of human community with the creation of commuity as shoppers and consumers .. the division of peoples in classes etc etc etc

do not get me wrong but fascism while evil is just one evil that we have a choice to accept .. the left claimed a great victory in stopping the NF in 79 ( even though their vote drasmatically increased LOL !!) .. we have lived now under neo liberalism for nearly 30 years and the damage is obvious

this discussion is taking place on too many threads to keep track of it. you've already said this "i have said that fascism is the far right of capital " somewhere, and mc5 was responding to you, and I p.m. him because I couldn't understand him agreeing with you on that. go back and see what he said after, I think he was talking about some specific 70s events, rather than just saying "i have said that fascism is the far right of capital ". that isn't true. fascism is a middle-class phenomena. it is independent from the bourgeoisie, will turned to by the bourgeoisie and capital in times of crisis. ie "chose to ride the back of the Tiger, and ended up inside her". don't believe that's exactly true either, but that's another discussion from my dissertation "how autonomous were the Nazis".

sorry, I'm too tired to do with this.

 

[articul8]

SW rammed home to me that it is a tactical and analytical imperative to distinguish fascism.

But are the tactics of UAF sensitive to the fact that - whilst there's no doubt that the BNP leadership is ideologically fascist - they are not able to openly operate and organise in the form of classical fascism today (the conditions aren't there for it), nor does labelling/exposing the BNP "fascist/Nazi" have any traction over the extent of the support that they can mobilise for what is essentially a far right populism? Doesn't seem that way to me.

Of course there are various strands of fascism, but what unites them ideologically, nine times out of 10 when they get in power leads them to create a form of society that is far worse than what we have at present in the UK. In that sense, at the bottom line down to work practical discussion sense, there is no distinction.

So for 10% of the time facsists could get into power and not create a society which is far worse I'm assuming you didn't mean this!

I don't think that understanding the nature of the beast in front of you is purely academic. For one thing these kind of distinctions help us from making sweeping generalisations, lke your "fascism is a middle class phenomenon". Leaving aside the obvious point about the role oF the Lumpen elements, there were also instances eg. under Austrofascist regime of Dollfuss, where the movement drew significant working class support in areas like Styria (for various historical reasons).

 

[butchersapron]

I have to say that this from the SWP's expert on these matters, doesn't really seem to make the necessary tactical or analytical difference between fascism and nazism absolutely clear:

The election of an open Nazi organisation as the official opposition in Barking is warning to all of us. Just as Hitler singled out minorities to blame for the economic crisis of the 1930s, the BNP want to scapegoat black and Asian people for existing housing and economic failure in Barking and Dagenham . We need now to bring about an enormous mobilisation of those that are against fascism into a unified opposition. We need black white to unite and fight against those who would usher the fascist politics of Hitler and Mussolini into this century. Our slogan is ‘Never Again’.

 

[frogwoman]

Very interesting point. I work for a damaged man, who has a very dictatorial personality, malevolent, bigoted and generally bad, but he cannot make decisions to save himself. Do you think that there is a case to be made for a personality predisposed to absolutist points of view, such that they are attracted to certain political philosophies?

umm, in some cases definately. i'd be v wary of ascribin all support to fascism to that tho, or sayin some peoples personalities are innately fascist without reard to circumstances etc.

 

[october_lost]

Not really in my opinion- there may be something to the argument that Nazis were a particular form of fascism but Nazi is a term known by almost everyone- as by far the most notorious type of fascist it is useful to expose that the politics of the BNP far from being pro working class are to organise a campaign of terror against the working class, including Black people and Muslims (their currently preferred hate figure) but also all forms of workers' democracy, trade unions, independent working class existence etc to rule for the bosses.

Of course the fact that the BNP disguises this (as did the early Nazis) confuses some people...

In a relatively atomised and apathetic time, its very difficult to argue the BNP are looking for a campaign of terror, it makes it look like your political analysis is stuck in the 30's. They have had to overcome an older model, which as meant compromising parts of their base in order to secure more political power. Once in power what limits their imposed to, and whether they can expect as an end result are highly debatable. But this is a million miles from rehtoric coming out of Socialist Worker.

 

[urbanrevolt]

X-ray specs and special Trotty insight reveal their true plans, eh? People without the special specs or the special Trot way of knowing are confused. Bless 'em. Thank God for the Party and its guidance!

this is bollox. All I'm saying is that not every voter who votes for the BNP is a fascist- though actually the confuses people was just a gentle dig at some on here (humour has its place). If you think otherwise then fine but my opinion is that a lot of people who vote for them aren't fascists and they don't even run on an open fascist platform more rights for whites and all that

there is no party let alone Party and certainly no Party that offered guidance from on high would ever get anywhere.

What we need to do is actually construct a left, a workers' movement based on workers' activity not following guidance or instructions but rather liberating ourselves through our own actions

The left and the working class need to sort ourselves out but part of it will be leaving behind any steretypoes of an all-knowing left.

There are issues we need to engage with right now with working class people fighting back against privatisation- for example the academy strikes in Bolton and Derby


http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2255#comment-68767

 

[TremulousTetra]

But are the tactics of UAF sensitive to the fact that - whilst there's no doubt that the BNP leadership is ideologically fascist - they are not able to openly operate and organise in the form of classical fascism today (the conditions aren't there for it), nor does labelling/exposing the BNP "fascist/Nazi" have any traction over the extent of the support that they can mobilise for what is essentially a far right populism? Doesn't seem that way to me.

if I am completely honest, I think you're right. history is repeating itself, but not in exactly the same way. this does require a shift in tactics, AT THE PRESENT, possibly. but I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater, as many seem to me to be doing.

So for 10% of the time facsists could get into power and not create a society which is far worse I'm assuming you didn't mean this!

I don't think that understanding the nature of the beast in front of you is purely academic. For one thing these kind of distinctions help us from making sweeping generalisations, lke your "fascism is a middle class phenomenon". Leaving aside the obvious point about the role oF the Lumpen elements, there were also instances eg. under Austrofascist regime of Dollfuss, where the movement drew significant working class support in areas like Styria (for various historical reasons).

yes, hold my hands up, that was a terrible post. shouldn't have written it, did say I was too tired.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm not sure Jews or Ukrainians would agree with you.

Different context of oppression though, to be fair.

Oh, and what about Ukrainian Jews?

 

[ViolentPanda]

In a relatively atomised and apathetic time, its very difficult to argue the BNP are looking for a campaign of terror, it makes it look like your political analysis is stuck in the 30's.

Agreed. The BNP's current organisational mode is far more about securing a legitimate electoral base than it ever was before. A "campaign of terror", or anything remotely resembling one, would frighten off the "respectable" votes the BNP are so desperate for, and what need for a "campaign of terror" when the major political parties have already done so much to restrict civil liberties in such a way that the BNP starts to look like a rational electoral choice for some people?

 

[chilango]

credibly? I spoke to sympathisers, voters, members, and a English/South African who claim to be part of organising a 'security' wing of the BNP, who have passionately argued that the BNP is not racist. where do you stop challenging them, when they construct a on the surface credible argument?

Yup. Credibility does equal correctness.

My point here is a simple, tactical one.

If you are dealing with a fascist movement that is able to clearly deny connections with Nazism (this is particularly relevent outside w/n europe) and antifascism relies upon "exposing" them as nazis, there is a danger that the rest of the antifascist argument is also lost. iyswim.

Just,as you rightly point out, it is foolish to fail to distinguish between conservatism and fascism. You need to be clear about the nature of your enemies.

 

[frogwoman]

Agreed. The BNP's current organisational mode is far more about securing a legitimate electoral base than it ever was before. A "campaign of terror", or anything remotely resembling one, would frighten off the "respectable" votes the BNP are so desperate for, and what need for a "campaign of terror" when the major political parties have already done so much to restrict civil liberties in such a way that the BNP starts to look like a rational electoral choice for some people?

yep!

 

[lights.out.london]

Different context of oppression though, to be fair.

Oh, and what about Ukrainian Jews?

I'm not sure that "context" is necessarily important here. Certainly not if you were on the wrong end of Stalin's "agripolitics"...

 

[gorski]

He moved "whole" people's... if they were perceived as "giving resistance"...

 

[frogwoman]

Yep. He deported the entire population of Chechnya at one point.

 

[audiotech]

Agreed. The BNP's current organisational mode is far more about securing a legitimate electoral base than it ever was before. A "campaign of terror", or anything remotely resembling one, would frighten off the "respectable" votes the BNP are so desperate for, and what need for a "campaign of terror" when the major political parties have already done so much to restrict civil liberties in such a way that the BNP starts to look like a rational electoral choice for some people?

Who are these "some people" then, liberals and libertarians?

The people who are more than likely to vote BNP are those who, when asked if they would give up civil liberties for the public good would say yes please and while your at it can you deport all the immigrants, by gunpoint if necessary.

 

[butchersapron]

We have to be clear the BNP is not a legitimate political party like any other. It is a Nazi organisation dedicated to the political tradition of Hitler and Mussolini.

This is the the necessary tactical or analytical difference between fascism and nazism that the swp hammered homw to their members?