Fascism and National Socialism

[ViolentPanda]

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

Well, my extended family got it in the neck from Stalin during the famine, from Hitler during the war, and then from Stalin again after, plus all the usual Judaeophobic bullshit that went on during the Soviet era, so context tends to be important to me.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

As far as I've been able to determine, they're people from just about every strata of every social class, going by the demography of the local elections.
Something I think may become a problem is that the BNP may take on the appeal of an "everyman" party if they feel their message is getting populist legs.

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.

I think that's to a degree accurate (if pretty much a caricature), but that it would be foolish to assume that the totality of any following would conform to that caricature.

 

[lights.out.london]

Well, my extended family got it in the neck from Stalin during the famine, from Hitler during the war, and then from Stalin again after, plus all the usual Judaeophobic bullshit that went on during the Soviet era, so context tends to be important to me.

What I'm driving at regarding context is that Stalin is as culpable as Hitler:

....... if it sounds like a fascist, behaves like a fascist and hates like a fascist...it probably is a fascist. Everything else is semantics and word games.

I'm more interested in framing the actions and deeds than allowing Stalin apologists off the hook by accepting his actions were somehow less evil because he perported to be "communist".

Fascists. Communists. They're all as nausiating as one another and deserve to be stopped on the streets and by any means necessary. Both ideaologies truly are the enemies of the people: don't want them and don't need them. We'll get the "Right" first, and then we'll start on the "Left". SWP baiting, anyone?

 

[poster342002]

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

As I said earlier, he deported the entire population of Chechnia - hence the onging grievances there today (although it's a lot more complicated than that, obviously). Stalin was also plotting to round up the jews in the final months of his life - he became paranoid about a "doctors' plot" supposedly organised by jews.

Stalin's regime was as close to fascism in many ways as to make no odds.

 

[lights.out.london]

As I said earlier, he deprted the entire population iof Chechnia - hence the onging grievances there today. Stalin was also plotting to round up the jews in the final months of his life - he became paranoid about a "doctors' plot" supposedly organised by jews.

Stalin's regime was as close to fascism in many ways as to make no odds.

 

[The Black Hand]

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.

Well said.

 

[audiotech]

Both ideaologies truly are the enemies of the people: don't want them and don't need them. We'll get the "Right" first, and then we'll start on the "Left".

You sound like Hitler and Stalin rolled into one demagogue.

 

[Blagsta]

You sound like Hitler and Stalin rolled into one demagogue.

He's a "free" market libertarian bod iirc.

 

[lights.out.london]

^ close. But not quite.

I don't need 'strong' government to tell me how to live my life. Neither do I need liberals or fascist scum to inform me on the subject of class politics.

Neither Left nor Right (East nor West).

Government? Don't want it, don't need it.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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

R U pissed again Napoleon. read that quote again fool.

 

[lights.out.london]

^

 

[Blagsta]

^ close. But not quite.

I don't need 'strong' government to tell me how to live my life. Neither do I need liberals or fascist scum to inform me on the subject of class politics.

Neither Left nor Right (East nor West).

Government? Don't want it, don't need it.

You believe in a capitalist free market though.

 

[lights.out.london]

I'm not sure how you arrive at that?

 

[Blagsta]

I'm not sure how you arrive at that?

From your previous comments. Unless I've got you mixed up with someone else.

 

[JimPage]

The terms "fascist" and "Nazi" get thrown about with willfull abandon by some of the leading groups of anti-BNP protesters, more or less interchangeably.
Is this just academic hair-splitting, or does is the distinction important?

Is Nazi just a purely historical description of the specific features of the NSDAP? Or might the essence of that conjuncture re-emerge in a new form today? Has it, in your view, in the shape of the BNP?
QUOTE]

I could write a book to answer you, but you can get fascists of all races, creeds and coulors- look at the various sub-sections of Stormfront to see that. The only place I have been in the world which i could reasonably call as "fascist" is Singapore, with its in effect one party rule and authoritarian way of doing things.

Nazi to me means disciples of Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP, people who see how they did things and want to emulate their genocide- and this clearly describes the BNP. That's why it is absolutly correct to describe the BNP as Nazi party, who follow a modern, Euronationalist strategy, which is about electoral politics, not controlling the streets

 

[TremulousTetra]

I could write a book to answer you, but you can get fascists of all races, creeds and coulors- look at the various sub-sections of Stormfront to see that. The only place I have been in the world which i could reasonably call as "fascist" is Singapore, with its in effect one party rule and authoritarian way of doing things.

Nazi to me means disciples of Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP, people who see how they did things and want to emulate their genocide- and this clearly describes the BNP. That's why it is absolutly correct to describe the BNP as Nazi party, who follow a modern, Euronationalist strategy, which is about electoral politics, not controlling the streets

spot-on! collette made it quite clear he was a follower of Hitler, as has Griffin on many occasions. they now deny it in public, just like they deny they are racist. yeah right.

 

[geoff64]

spot-on! collette made it quite clear he was a follower of Hitler, as has Griffin on many occasions. they now deny it in public, just like they deny they are racist. yeah right.

So if we accept that the BNP are hiding their true feelings, do we continue to attack them on what they are no longer saying publicly; or do we address the issue that people are supporting the BNP for what they ARE saying publicly?
If the former, then let's keep calling them NAZI's and hope that it sinks in and they go away or, if the latter, let's broaden our opposition to the BNP and address the issues that attract people to support the BNP (and, by now, we should all know what these issues are).

If the former is all that the Left can do, then it has to admit to itself that it no longer represents broader working class interests. I don't think that is necessarily so, but it means that fighting the BNP has to be couched in terms of addressing issues of crime, housing, immigration, health and multi-culturalism from a pro-working class perspective. And let's be honest the Left is hesitant about entering some of these arenas ...

 

[TremulousTetra]

So if we accept that the BNP are hiding their true feelings, do we continue to attack them on what they are no longer saying publicly; or do we address the issue that people are supporting the BNP for what they ARE saying publicly?
If the former, then let's keep calling them NAZI's and hope that it sinks in and they go away or, if the latter, let's broaden our opposition to the BNP and address the issues that attract people to support the BNP (and, by now, we should all know what these issues are).

If the former is all that the Left can do, then it has to admit to itself that it no longer represents broader working class interests. I don't think that is necessarily so, but it means that fighting the BNP has to be couched in terms of addressing issues of crime, housing, immigration, health and multi-culturalism from a pro-working class perspective. And let's be honest the Left is hesitant about entering some of these arenas ...

Firstly, there is no debating, go on their website, or youtube etc and you will see them denying that they are racist. Like Goebbels said, if you're going to tell a lie make it a big lie.

Secondly, I'm not telling Napoleon a.k.a. butchersapron, Durrito, etc how they should oppose fascism, they are telling the antifascist what to do ie "stop opposing fascism". I am just defending how I see fit to oppose fascism.

Now, I don't accept your logic. The Labour party, Socialist workers party, the woman next door, the vicar down the street, all disagree how they would address crime, housing, immigration, health and multiculturalism. Socialist worker cannot unite all those people who are opposed to fascism, into opposing capitalism. But they are indeed concerned about fascism, and want to do something about it. Being concerned about fascism is a progressive concern. In my opinion it is a Socialist duty to take up the progressive concerns of the working class in the here and now, is that not true?

Taking up that concern, in a single issue campaign anti-fascism, does nothing at all to stop the Labour party, Socialist workers party, the woman next door, the vicar down the street, all addressing crime, housing, immigration, health and multiculturalism in other campaigns from their own political perspectives, does it?

 

[lights.out.london]

From your previous comments. Unless I've got you mixed up with someone else.

On this thread?

 

[durruti02]

Firstly, there is no debating, go on their website, or youtube etc and you will see them denying that they are racist. Like Goebbels said, if you're going to tell a lie make it a big lie.

Secondly, I'm not telling Napoleon a.k.a. butchersapron, Durrito, etc how they should oppose fascism, they are telling the antifascist what to do ie "stop opposing fascism". I am just defending how I see fit to oppose fascism.

Now, I don't accept your logic. The Labour party, Socialist workers party, the woman next door, the vicar down the street, all disagree how they would address crime, housing, immigration, health and multiculturalism. Socialist worker cannot unite all those people who are opposed to fascism, into opposing capitalism. But they are indeed concerned about fascism, and want to do something about it. Being concerned about fascism is a progressive concern. In my opinion it is a Socialist duty to take up the progressive concerns of the working class in the here and now, is that not true?

Taking up that concern, in a single issue campaign anti-fascism, does nothing at all to stop the Labour party, Socialist workers party, the woman next door, the vicar down the street, all addressing crime, housing, immigration, health and multiculturalism in other campaigns from their own political perspectives, does it?

but why take up a progressive concern which does not deal with the causes when you could take up progressive concerns that WOULD start dealing with the causes of fascism? .. that is the key to what is being said mate


tbh it think it is a recruiting tool ..

 

[TremulousTetra]

but why take up a progressive concern which does not deal with the causes when you could take up progressive concerns that WOULD start dealing with the causes of fascism? .. that is the key to what is being said mate


tbh it think it is a recruiting tool ..

well if it is a recruiting tool, it is not a very good one is it?

now you and Napoleon are getting me wrong, I am not saying some discussion is not necessary about how antifascist oppose fascism, I'm just not prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater as you and Napoleon seem to want to.

 

[durruti02]

well if it is a recruiting tool, it is not a very good one is it?

er no .. but it was in '78 and i guess they think it will do again!

 

[audiotech]

er no .. but it was in '78 and i guess they think it will do again!

I was at the SWP Skegness Rally of that year and the place was empty, so that fucks up your theory.