“The Big Society”?

I wasn’t, specifically, but it’s an interesting thought… It does fit the “nationalistic” / traditional / inward facing theology outlined above for facism…

I guess “Big Society” makes it sound more warm and cuddly

My thoughts were more along the lines of the previous “elected dictatorship”, as the coined phrase used to be

mcboo – Member
Nazism had a very very strong strain of anti-capitalism in it from it’s earliest days. Read up on Gregor Strasser..

+1 for Strasser, and although you are correct, it went on to be more defined by its anti-communism. In fact negative policies of anti-anything were prevalent.
“Getting Worked up” won’t help, but a better awareness of 20th century history would certainly benefit most people.
Most extremist movements have grown out of times of economic depression, usually through populist movements with some democratic backing (excepting violent regime change/revolution such as Spain, USSR). Conditions included general dissatisfaction with mainstream political parties, and split votes with minorities taking greater importance as power brokers. Hitler and Mussolini both were elected, in coalition governments, before changing laws to really establish their power.
We won’t see the same labels used “Fascism, Communism, Nazism”, they were a product of their time and will not garner any popular support. But, we should all be aware enough to look out for the rise and recurence of similar underlying extremist policies, under new labels for this century.

konabunny – Member
An explanation which has an odd blind spot for the class origins of the revolutionary vanguard.

True. And the resultant reality of life in a totalitarian state with “political elite” ruling must be very similar no matter what the original “philosophy”.
However, it’s impossible to go into all the similarities and differences on a forum, but a major difference is the route to power and the class groups that were targeted for support, and enabled it.

In fact negative policies of anti-anything were prevalent

Dailymailism?

Today’s BH Suck-Pool bought to you by:

so what you are saying is that even between those who own stuff/ have deprived others of things it is not even evenly spread FAIRLY between them [ corner shop v big business…still sounding unfair to me

Never said it was entirely fair, but then I don’t think the alternative I pointed out is either. Small scale kibbutzim where membership is 100% voluntary could well be socialist and free, but I can’t imagine a pure socialist state that could be considered “freedom loving”, even in theory. Whether it would be better than a more capitalist system is another matter altogether.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk30a0qsVIk[/video]

although you are correct, it went on to be more defined by its anti-communism.

Well, I agree that the Nazi regime was highly negatively-defined, but it was always anti-capitalist in the sense that market forces were highly regulated and both the state and labour took major decisions in determining production and prices instead of the market.

(Arguably, of course, there was no distinction between labour and the state due to the lack of TUs independent from the state. But either way, I don’t think one can argue an ideology which advocates state control of the economy is capitalist).

We’ve never had true socialism in a country before

I’ve never understood why some people struggle so much in defining socialism, believing to be some sort of vague arrangement where people are rather nice and sociable towards one another.

Socialism is an economic model whereby the means of production, distribution, and exchange, are socially owned, including in the context of the state.

It has nothing to do with whether it meets with your own personal approval or not.

I personally believe that socialism is a vital and indispensable stage which human society must progress through as it evolves, in much the same way as capitalism is, so I can fairly be called a “socialist”. And yet despite being a socialist I don’t automatically support all socialists, but neither do I deny they are socialist simply because I don’t like them. As an example take Mao Zedong, I consider him to have been a particularly nasty piece of work with a callous disregard for human life and human rights, but there is no doubt that China under Mao Zedong was socialist. Maybe not the sort of socialism which Lenin would have approved of, and more the sort of socialism which Stalin would have, but still socialism.

Fascism on the other hand is a little harder to pin down and define. And the reason for that is quite simple – because it shares startling similarities not with socialism, but with capitalism. At what stage does capitalism cease to capitalism and become fascism ? The boundaries are often very blurred. A lack of elections is often cited, but counties like Saudi Arabia are never called fascist, and besides, all capitalists countries throughout most of their history have not had universal suffrage, those periods are never described as fascist periods. So it’s more than just that.

Another qualifying characteristic which is often cited is the militarisation of society – the leading role of the military, and the subjection of civilians to military law and court marshall. That is pretty universal to fascism, although not necessarily unique.

And so you can go on to a certain degree with other less qualifying characteristics. But there is one indisputable qualifying characteristic of all fascist movements which unites them all, and that is opposition to marxism. Indeed it is often offered as their entire ‘raison d’etre’.

General Franco of Spain called himself a fascist, he abolished elections, civilians could be court marshalled, and above all he was anti-marxist. No one would suggest for a moment that he was a bit like a socialist. He was indeed a fascist. But was he also a capitalist ? It would be hard to argue that he wasn’t.

Many argue that fascism is simply capitalism “in crises” ….. when the shit hits the fan the army moves in and all pretense in involving the people goes out the window, as those with real power do what is necessary to defend capitalism.

For those who struggle to see a difference between fascism and socialism take a cue from US governments. Historically US governments have never had the slightest problem distinguishing fascists from socialists. One they will, if necessary, strongly support – militarily, economically, and diplomatically, and the other one they will always strongly oppose.

The US has always seen fascism for what it is – an unfortunate but sometimes necessary requirement to preserve capitalism in crises and to fight the advance of socialism. The US has never had any problem supporting fascism in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, or anywhere else in the world (other than those bad boys in Germany and Italy who wanted world domination of course) whilst opposing socialism everywhere.

If Cuba was just like any other fascist state then today it would be enjoying “most favoured nation” status with the US, and would certainly not have just celebrated half a century US economic embargo. And had General Pinochet been rather simular to a socialist, then the US would most definitely have not organised the coup which overthrew the elected government and installed him to power.

For those who might be baffled as to why the nazis called themselves national “socialists” it has to be remembered that this was in the context of the 1920s, when socialism was hugely popular and European fascists in liberal democracies recognised the indispensable need of support from ordinary people to achieve power. There was nothing very socialist about the nazis, yes they carried out major infrastructure projects, but state monopoly capitalism had been around a long time and the Victorians, for example, were never considered to be socialist, the complete opposite in fact – very effective capitalists. Capitalists did rather well under the nazis, specially as the result of demand created by the nazi state. Even in huge government projects such as the extermination camps, the capitalists and private enterprise did very well.

Ernie – well put. May i borrow that please? (of course will tag it with your STW identity).

Why would you borrow something so obviously flawed, Muddy?

Because i find it interesting – ‘edukate’ me as to why it is flawed please?

General Franco of Spain called himself a fascist, he abolished elections, civilians could be court marshalled, and above all he was anti-marxist. No one would suggest for a moment that he was a bit like a socialist. He was indeed a fascist. But was he also a capitalist ? It would be hard to argue that he wasn’t.

I would certainly suggest that economically he was quite a lot like a socialist – his post war autarkic policies are very socialist in nature. It was only at the end of the 50s that he found himself forced to move to a more capitalist economy.

It is the idea (fact?) that extremist rightist ideologies are insular and inward looking that interests me. In times of economic and social difficulties people retreat into familiarity and attempt to defend what they have and what they know. Contrast this with the socialist ‘internationalism’ belief where only when the workers of the world come together can progress be made..

Does this mean that rightist extremism is ultimately doomed to fail as it tries to regress societies against the flow of social history?

Does this mean that rightist extremism is ultimately doomed to fail as it tries to regress societies against the flow of social history?

Rightist? I’d argue that leftist ideologies are historically insular and protectionist, rightist free trade policies are internationalist.

Hmm, are leftist protectionist? It could be argued that leftist policies are anti-profit in that they are geared towards the protection of workers in an internationalist context. Cetainly, rightist free-trade policies are insular and protectionist in that they are purely designed to insulate the ‘job creators’ (TM US Republican Party) from competition and protect their ability to make unfettered profits from a suppressed and controlled (through various elements) working class.

It could be argued that leftist policies are anti-profit in that they are geared towards the protection of workers in an internationalist context.

Their is certainly a long and honourable history of the left fighting in international wars to support their ideals, but often they were fighting against equally committed internationalist right wingers.

Ernie tries to convince us that fascism is some kind of extreme capitalism, Muddy, and fails. Because STWers know how Google works and will type “fascism wiki” into the search. after reading only a few lines they will find fascism is some kind of dictatorial nationalism that has little in common with capitalism.

Ernie evokes Nationalsozialismus claiming that apart from a few autobahn projects it was capitalist. He forgets that it was very much a command economy with the government controlling how the means of production were used – the markets (supply in response to public demand) had little or no say in what they produced; hardly capitalist but very socialist. Many capitalists had no real power at all, their companies being run by Nazis.

Good point, but how many right wingers from foriegn Nations went to support the Nationalists in Spain compared to the International Brigades who volunteered from around the world i wonder?

I suspect that because the extremist right is Nationalist in design then whilst they may be fellow travellers who offer information and sometimes finance, the majority of the grassroots people simply think ” their problem, let them sort it out” Whilst the extremist left see trouble abroad as part of the international struggle?

Looking at the various European Defence Leagues that have sprung up i can’t really see how the shaven-headed soccer thugs of the EDL have any fellow feeling towards the Danes/Norwegians/Poles etc.

EDIT: This to Mogrim

Good point, but how many right wingers from foriegn Nations went to support the Nationalists in Spain compared to the International Brigades who volunteered from around the world i wonder?

Quite a lot, actually. The Division Azul, the Waffen SS had a fair amount of international divisions…

Edit: this was WWII, during the Spanish Civil War the Spanish fascists were helped by the Germans and the Italians.

But Edukator – the capitalists were very often members of the Nazi party anyway! Now, whether they were Nazi because they were committed to the cause and willing to offer their profits towards the aim or because they were businessmen who saw an opportunity to crush trades unions and leftist parties who stood in the way of profit is another question.
It is a historical fact that the Nazi Party in Germany was heavily supported by the middle classes – the very people who were the wealth creators in the New Germany.

Mogrim – the Kondor Legion were Hitler’s practice run for the Lebensraum program though wasn’t it?
More a selfish ‘dry run’ philosophy than a genuine ideological commitment to an international Fascist ’cause’ i suspect.

More a selfish ‘dry run’ philosophy than a genuine ideological commitment to an international Fascist ’cause’ i suspect.

Given Hitler’s pathological hatred of communism I doubt it was a mere “dry run”.

Anyway, dog walking time. Bye.

Have fun, nice night for a walk 🙂

The Nazis got into power by making the communist party illegal. Without that they wouldn’t have “won” in 33. There were definitely many notions of socialism though. The ideas that no-one would go hungry and that a roof would be provided for all aren’t capitalist unless go for Clinton’s caring capitalism. “Sozialismus” was in the party name and the social elements in Nazi policy won them a lot of votes, and not just among the middle classes. The middle calsses weren’t anywhere as numerous in 1930s Germany and the Nazis knew they needed the workers’ votes to win.

Modern socialists efforts to distance themselves from what the Nazis did in the 1930s are understandable given what the Nazis did later but there was plenty of Sozialismus in Nazi policy before the Nationalismus came to dominate.

That was why Hitler had to purge the Strasserite ‘left’ of the Party though wasn’t it?
It does seem as though what you are saying is veering close to Ernie’s proposition – that the Nazi Party overtly courted socialist elements in order to gain power, not by being socialist through policy though.

It’s Ernie putting capitalism and fascism in the same box I’m contesting. The Nazi party was equally intollerant of capitalists (unless they did exactly as ordered) and socialists (unless their socialism conformed to the Nazi party’s idea of socialism).

Have a look at the history of some of the major industrial companies through the Nazi period in both Germany and the occupied countries. The industrialists became Nazi puppets living a life of luxury but with no control over the businesses they owned (if they hadn’t been dispossed and/or gassed for having the wrong name or daring to say “no”).

Lenin (communism) – Freedom ranked 17th, Equality ranked 1st
Really?
Isn’t it a bit Animal farmish? We are all equal but I am more equal than you?
To be honest whilst the specific details may differ they are very similar in principle, ie do as you are told. Without showing a bias socialism is less honest as it doesn’t practice what it preaches.
Nazism says do as we say or suffer. Socialism says do as we say or you suffer buut hides it in saying its for your own good.
Nowt much good in any of them.

I can’t imagine a pure socialist state that could be considered “freedom loving”, even in theory.

that is because you consider freedom to mean owning stuff. The other side of the coin is that owning something meands to deny others [ the overwhelming majority] their rights over the thing

I’d argue that leftist ideologies are historically insular and protectionist, rightist free trade policies are internationalist.

you mean they want to trade to make money Yes they do but there has never really been free trade but I agree they will go anywhwere to exploit anyone to make money- they have no morals there

Educator ernie mentioned germany in passing , mentioned other countries and agreed it was hard to pin it down

The ideas that no-one would go hungry and that a roof would be provided for all aren’t capitalist

They are not necessarily socialist in that if someone tell you they believe that I don’t think you have enough information to say whether they are a socialist or a capitalist.
I am pretty sure dave would he is trying to achieve that here and gideon , and blair and thatcher even though they may have all used different methods to achieve it. I don’t recall anyone standing on a platform of **** the poor let them starve but I assume that doe snot mean every govt has been socialist
Re hitler being a socialist it is at best tenous

Since the outbreak of the French Revolution, the world has been moving with ever increasing speed toward a new conflict, the most extreme solution of which is called Bolshevism, whose essence and aim, however, are solely the elimination of those strata of mankind which have hitherto provided the leadership and their replacement by worldwide Jewry. No state will be able to withdraw or even remain at a distance from this historical conflict…It is not the aim of this memorandum to prophesy the time when the untenable situation in Europe will become an open crisis. I only want, in these lines, to set down my conviction that this crisis cannot and will not fail to arrive and that it is Germany’s duty to secure her own existence by every means in face of this catastrophe, and to protect herself against it, and that from this compulsion there arises a series of conclusions relating to the most important tasks that our people have ever been set. For a victory of Bolshevism over Germany would not lead to a Versailles treaty, but to the final destruction, indeed the annihilation of the German people…I consider it necessary for the Reichstag to pass the following two laws: 1) A law providing the death penalty for economic sabotage and 2) A law making the whole of Jewry liable for all damage inflicted by individual specimens of this community of criminals upon the German economy, and thus upon the German people.[31]

Those are his words

Have a look at the history of some of the major industrial companies through the Nazi period in both Germany and the occupied countries. The industrialists became Nazi puppets living a life of luxury but with no control over the businesses they owned (if they hadn’t been dispossed and/or gassed for having the wrong name or daring to say “no”)

Well there was a war on and that changed things but your overall acoount that Hitler was a socialist who nationlaised everything [ he had a war economy for sure] is tenous to put it mildly
As is your claim that he was a socialist to start with- yes he wanted to raise the living standardsfor the poor but he did not do it by collectively owning the means of production which is clearly what a scoialist would do. He did in partnership with business…at least initially till the war took centre stage

Itis clear he is no fan of socialsim

him again

we are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system”,[8] but he was clear to point out that his interpretation of socialism “has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism,” saying that “Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.”[9] At a later time, Hitler said: “Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether… What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism.”[10] In private, Hitler also said that “I absolutely insist on protecting private property… we must encourage private initiative”.[11] On yet another occasion he qualified that statement by saying that the government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation.[1

he was also very cosy with big business until this plan and

Documents such as the Four Year Plan Memo [ the one cited above mentioning bolshies]have often used by right historians such as Henry Ashby Turner and Karl Dietrich Bracher who argue for a “primacy of politics” approach (that Hitler was not subordinate to German business, but rather the contrary was the case) against the “primacy of economics” approach championed by Marxist historians (that Hitler was a “agent” of and subordinate to German business)

What’s the difference between socialism and fascism?

Different side of the same coin … 🙄

Ernie evokes Nationalsozialismus claiming that apart from a few autobahn projects it was capitalist.

I have done no such thing, I haven’t even mentioned the “autobahn projects”. There was nothing “socialist” about autobahn projects, why would I claim that apart from that, Nazi Germany was capitalist? There was massive government intervention and government projects under the Nazis, I made a point of mentioning it. But government intervention and a planned economy isn’t socialism. Nor is state monopoly capitalism. I’ve already given the clear definition of socialism : the economic model whereby the means of production, distribution, and exchange, are socially owned. Overwhelmingly the means of production in Germany and Spain were privately owned.

As examples, Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Chile, under fascism, were all capitalists. Which is without doubt the reason why the US supported them so strongly. To suggest that they were a bit socialist is absurd. In fact it is precisely because of the threat from socialism that these countries became fascist, and why the US supported them – whilst completely disregarding all the high ideals which the US purportedly supports.

You might not agree with my definition of what constitutes a socialist or capitalist country, but successive US governments certainly do.

Muddydwarf you can use any bit of any post of mine if you want to, without any need to attribute it.

Ta muchly ernie.

“major infrastructure projects, ” such as autobahns eh, Ernie (often forced labour rather than capitalism BTW).

Your country examples of capitalist fascism are poor, Ernie, as they lack important elements of capitalism. A better example might be modern day China which calls itself communist. A vital word you’ll find in any definition of capitalism is lacking even there though: “free”.

The application of 18C socio-political theories to modern societies might amuse academics but people that want to live in peace and prosperity would do well to avoid them. The 20C showed the misery that fundamentalist application of any of the “isms” produced. Society is too complex for simplistic dogma to provide a framework, whether religious or political.

socialism… not being able to guarantee the continued private ownership of property doesn’t sound “free” to me

It’s is about personal freedoms, like freedom-of-speech and being able to cycle on footpaths without being locked up 😉 I don’t think socialism objects to personal property. But it is concerned with public ownership of resources such as land, materials, factories etc, so that they serve the interest and wealth of society over the private individual. All well-and-good in principle…

I have a tendency to call anyone who tries to stops me enjoying my liberty as a “fascist” 😀

The application of 18C socio-political theories to modern societies might amuse academics but people that want to live in peace and prosperity would do well to avoid them. The 20C showed the misery that fundamentalist application of any of the “isms” produced. Society is too complex for simplistic dogma to provide a framework, whether religious or political.

Spot on (IMO)

Surely there are many forms of fascism and socialism. Someone said earlier that fascists were nationalist whilst socialists were internationalist. But that’s not strictly true. Socialist and communist movements have not necessarily been internationalist in the past and have been vehemently nationalist and xenophobic in outlook. Leftist movements have used patriotism to save the nation just as much as they have used classism. Patriotism and Nationalism is just as much a component of leftist politics as it is of rightist politics. Also, whilst fascist movements have the defence of the nation to be concerned about, they have also been explicitly internationalist seeking to unite with others to defeat perceived enemies, internally and externally.

German and Italian troops fighting for Franco in the Spanish Civil War is a prime example and more recent examples can be found in the Balkan War of the 90s. Western European fascists and nazis (from UK, Italy, Germany etc) fighting for the Croats against the Slavic Serbian aggressors and the Muslim problem. On the other side you had Russian and Eastern European fascists and nazis fighting for the Serbians in defence of Pan Slavic Nationalism, Chetnik fetishisation and the perceived Christian resistance to the historical enemy, Islam.

“major infrastructure projects, ” such as autobahns eh, Ernie

And ? So ? Where’s the bit that where I say nazi Germany wasn’t socialist apart from “major infrastructure projects” ? I deliberately pointed out that the Victorians invested heavily in capital projects but yet no one refers to them as socialists, indeed the opposite is true – they are offered as examples of very successful capitalists. Read my posts properly and don’t make stuff up.

And don’t give me all that deary old bollocks : “A vital word you’ll find in any definition of capitalism is lacking even there though: “free”” either, it makes you sound like a divvy ill-informed Tea Party ranter. Capitalism can operate extremely effectively in the complete absence of any perceived freedoms. Again if you pay attention and read my carefully worded post you’ll notice that I cunningly include the following : “all capitalists countries throughout most of their history have not had universal suffrage”

Once more you can look at the British Victorians as an example of the most successful capitalists in the world, in their time, and then read some Dickens to see how “free” people were. Less than a hundred years ago in Britain the majority of people didn’t even have a vote, and yet capitalism was doing really rather well.

.

Your country examples of capitalist fascism are poor, Ernie, as they lack important elements of capitalism.

My examples of Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Chile, are excellent. Few people would doubt that they have experienced fascism, apart from you that is of course, but then we have already seen that according to you capitalism didn’t arrive to Britain until the British people were “free”. And few people would also deny that they were capitalist during their fascist period, but instead rather more socialist ….. ffs, seriously mate “ffs”.

Plus of course that example represents countries in which capitalism was in a serious crises, not just economically, but also from the threat posed by socialism. Which adds to my claim that I share a very simular perspective with successive US government on fascism : an unfortunate but sometimes necessary requirement to preserve capitalism in crises and to fight the advance of socialism

Friggin Heck Ernie! Am I right in reading that last paragraph? You are condoning all those US government supported and funded rightist death squad activities of the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s due to a US paranoia of the domino effect and ‘not in my backyard’ baloney that basically sanctioned mass murder of people worldwide?

I also have to agree with ratswithwings here ( 2 posts up), reguarding the international aspect of the debate. The International distinction between the two is becoming less relevant in modern globalised times.

Weapons and military experise are some of the biggest sectors of industry in modern western capitalism. Its no surprise they are continuously “opening up new markets” and “creating new export opportunities”. Its capitalism in action.

Then there’s also the requirement for testing and development of these weapons, and practical demonstration of the goods to be exported, but this would not be practical without international application. Proven capabilities sell better.

Friggin Heck Ernie! Am I right in reading that last paragraph? You are condoning ……

Not condoning but agreeing, ie, agreeing that when in crises capitalism often can’t deal with the unsustainable pressures it faces and the threat from socialism, so the mythical liberal bourgeois freedoms which modern day capitalist purport to believe in, go out of the window in the name of preserving capitalism. And also agreeing with successive US governments throughout modern history, that fascism is nothing like socialism but in fact very simular indeed to bog standard capitalism – just without all the fancy talk of “freedom and democracy”. Yes, I share a very simular perspective with successive US governments. And I suspect that me and them are right, whilst Edukator is wrong. US capitalists know which side their bread is buttered, I also know which side their bread is buttered.

I think you’re being naive or overly simplifying things, ernie, by arguing there’s clear blue water between fascism and socialism: economically at least there were clear points where they overlapped – not entirely, certainly there’s a private capital element in fascism that’s not present in “pure” socialism, but you’d be hard pushed to find a fascist regime that didn’t support centrally planned strategic industries, public railways and the like.