Its been much debate here lately about if fascisme and nazism is marxist or close to marxist.
I have argued that this is not case and that fascisme/nazism from and ideahistorical perspective is an mix of different ideologys. From an materialistic-historian perspective I would say that fascism/nazism where born out of the first world war and it served as an reaction to both the established system and as a reaction to the opposition to the established system. the establishment would say capitalism, parliamentarianism and theire supporters the liberals and conservatives. the opposition would say the labour unions and the marxian-socialist partys. With this complex oultlook on society the fascist where able to gain support from the upper, middle and working class. This is offcourse my personal outlook on this inhuman movement. but I will provid a link from "encyclopedia britannica" and maybe it will provid a more objective perspectiv on this subject.
I think they are extremely close in how they work. Both find an internal scapegoat and build their ideology around hatred towards that "enemy". Once in power they conduct aggressive foreign policy and severely oppress any internal opposition. Both systems tend to be highly militarized, both maintain social myths of the greatness of their leaders, both produce similar totalitarian-style architecture, music etc. Economically both systems promote a government-run planned economy.
Just because those systems don't "like" each other doesn't mean they are very different.
you know there is a difference between the totalitarian regimes in sovjet, china etc and democratic-socialism. Most people who call themself marxist are aiming for a workersdemocracy, not the dictaturship of the party on behalf of the workers. If you are talking about sovjet etc I agree its alot of similaritys. This is very obvious, because both the socialist regimes and the fascist/nazist where totalitarian, but this is a poor argument for that marxist ideology and fascist ideology are close. Its the same as saying that capitalist ideology is close to fascism because pinochet where and totalitarian free-market capitalist.
most people on this board are american conservatives or libertarians.
both will have a very broad definition of socialism. for them "big state = socialism".
so nazism = socialism fascism = socialism
and you will have an hard time to remind them that socialism doesn't necessarily advocate a big state, let alone a totalitarian state.
that being said, marxism DID advocate a big state, and systematically led to a totalitarian one in practice. and rathet than wasting your energy arguing semantics, you should ask you "why".
i suppose you won't accept the explanations our local conservatives will give you. so i suggest you to read Proudhon and Bakunin. both of them were socialists, and both of them predicted it, well before 1917.
point taken kamui. but I see this fascisme = socialism, as dangerous propaganda from conservative media. Its only purpose is to prevent workers to create a political movement that gain power. they function as lakeis for the upperclass. As far as I know, the teaparty is sponsored by BIG CAPITAL interrests. Thats why I make such a big deal out of this.
yes, I have read about bakunin and proudhon in Guerins book "anarchism". and I know bakunin said something like: "put the redest revolutionary on the throne of the tzar and he will become worse than the tzar himself" In others words, mister bakunin where talking about that power corrupts. I agree in some sense with mister bakunin and that radical socialists should be aware ogf to autoritarian organisation structures etc.
ps. marx himself where not that far from the anarhist, theire ultimate goal where the same: a stateless and a classless and a egalitarian society. the difference was that marx ment it where necesarry to have a transition phase from capitalism to communism, the so-called socialist phase. And I agree with marx on this point, but I think that we should learn from the anarchist, especially anarchosyndicalists have alot to offer about organisation of the workplae and society in a ultra-democratic way.
Don't forget that the "Specification" - marxist ideology in this case, is judged by the "Implementation" which would be USSR, Maoist China, North Korea, etc etc. That's the "propaganda" you're talking about?
Sorry, the only difference between "marxism" "communism" "fascism" "nazism" is who is in power. Do the business owners get screwed or do the workers? Is it more of vote our rapist or is it king of the hill is the rapist?
"1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.
We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.
We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.
Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen Hence no Jew can be a countryman.
Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.
The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen.
We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.
We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.
Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.
All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.
The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.
Therefore we demand:
That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
Breaking the Bondage of Interest
Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. **
We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.
We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.
In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.
The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.
We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.
We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:
(a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens. (b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language. (c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the nonGermans from the Reich.
Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.
We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race. The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the principle: COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD
In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.
The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.
The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives. "
maybe. but you can not fight propaganda with phraseology.
this book is a good start.
i'm sorry but i have to disagree. marxists and anarchists both wanted to achieve a stateless and a classless society. but it doesn't mean their ultimate goals were the same.
Marxism is an industrialist utopia. Marx ultimate goal was to achieve a purely rational society. His goal was the ultimate elimination of all internal contradictions in society by the mean of technological developement and economical abundancy. industrial progress would lead to the end of scarcity. and the end of scarcity would lead to the "end of the war of classes". end of history.
Marx didn't see liberty and equality as intrinsic goals nor intrinsic values. they were just some kind of emergent properties of this progressive (dialectic) history.
to summarize : marxism is not even political in nature. it was meant to be a technical answer to economical problems.
and that's exactly why it resulted in totalitarism.
not only because "power corrupts", but because the "dialectic end of history" is a dangerous chimera, derived from primitive pseudoscientific modellings.
problem is that you can't impose these kind of chimera without destroying society itself.
(the same would apply to another chimera : the "invisible hand of the market", but it's another story)
Anarchism on the other hand is really a politcal and societal movement. Anarchists wanted equality and liberty here and now. They seen a divorce and a gap between society and the State. and they sided with society. they wanted to make society strong enough to make the state useless, and therefore unneeded.
it's not the same "ethos". while marxism is heroic and promethean, anarchism is tragic. Anarchists always knew they will most certainly fail. but they wanted to die trying. they were often extremely naive. dangerously naive, but at least they had some kind of integrity.
Marxists on the other hand were infected by schemas and formulas, slogans and dogmas. corrupted not only by power but by words.
Some of your answers already show the first symptoms of this verbal disease. you already see "workers" where there is men and women.
you won't like it, especially since it didn't come from some right-winger, but from another "leftist", but i urge you to step back. now.
there is only three possible scenarii.
you may try to make reality fit into your schematic view of the world, and succeed "in your head". you will end up extremely dogmatic. and you will be lost. (see Orion for example).
you may try to make reality fit into your schematic view of the world, and fail. you will end up extremely bitter, devored by ressentment. burning what you worshipped. you could even become an extreme conservative. and an annoying one at that. (see Zeb, for example).
you can try to free yourself of your schemas. it will be hard. you will end up more and more perplex. because you won't understand the world anymore. but you will become more and more wise in the process. you will grow some joyful sense of humor, and attract more and more girlz. (see Kamui, for example).
I agree that any dogmatic ideology is dangerous, even dogmatic marxism. But I see dogmatic marxist as people who doesnt get marx. For my part marxism is an analysis of capitalism and a dialectic-materialist perspectiv on history and society. Friedrich Engels( marx`s friend and proffesional partner ) wrote that they saw that other impulses than class where important in the history of man, but at the time they wrote the manifesto, they only focused on class antagonism to get the point across. I study history and offcourse there are more than classwar that shapes history, but I still see that class have been an important one.
When it comes to the classless society and the end of history, I`m a bit ambivalent. For my part I do believe that there will always be some form of antagonism in society and that society will evolve forever. Therefor I wiew the classless society as an normativ ideal that I judge society from. If this meen that I am not a true marxist, then so bee it. But I belive that its possible to reach a society without a proletariat and a capitalist class, but offcourse there is going to be other antagonistic relationships in society. And last: nobody can see what will happen in the future, not even marx. So when he claimed the end of history, he was either full of shit or he wrote it for polemic purposes.
maybe I add something later, but this is it for know.
You're very welcome. I don't know your customs, or where you are from, but around here if we have something to say we usually say it directly to the person. The next time you decide to mention my name in one of your senseless rambling posts have the temerity to state your comments directly to me.