Speaking of fascism, whats with this crap about the American-right being anti-fascist?
Did I miss something here? Last time I checked, fascism if the logical outcome of right-wing politics. Especially with fascism itself being the furthest to the right possible.
What were the fascists about?
Defending capitalism. Opposing communists. Opposing worker’s groups like unions. Promoting all forms of bigotry with an emphasis on racism. Opposing women’s liberation. Opposing LGBT liberation. Promoting the use of street violence against the targets of fascism. Mobilizing the middle class, while getting funding from the ruling class, while pretending to oppose the larger capitalists. A fierce dedication to nationalism and patriotism, including the promotion of war.
Now, folks like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (not to mention the “tea partiers” as a whole) really like to compare Obama and the Left as a bunch of Nazis… But don’t these policies sound a lot more similar to their own political stances?
Isn’t Palin the person who encourages her supporters to “target” her opponents and to remember to “reload” during the struggle? Isn’t Glenn Beck the ass who constantly whips up fears about Arabs and Muslims? Isn’t the entire right-wing hell-bent on banning abortion rights, blocking equal marriage, cementing the border, destroying unions, and using the term “socialist” as if it were a slur?
Let’s not also forget their dedication to waging a permanent war of terror around the world.
The fact is that while fascism is the logical outcome of right-wing politics, socialism is the logical outcome of left-wing politics. Socialism and Fascism are polar opposites and mortal enemies. Socialism is also the only way of ever preventing the return of fascism as fascism, as a movement, is historically capitalism’s last line of defense in the face of revolution or barbarism.
But more on that topic another time. For more info on the US right, please see the talk at wearemany.org titled “Is the US becoming a Tea Party Nation?“
Try studying history. It will help you look a little less like a total fool. Really!
Fascism is an offshoot of Socialism and is inherently Leftist within an economic context. Admittedly though, it lacks the hatred of nations et al that normally accompanies Socialism.
Fascism is also always been predicated upon Labor Unions. The rise of the unions to political power is what has, in the course of history so far, been what led to Fascism. Admittedly, those Fascist regimes such as the National Socialist Party of Germany did later turn on those unions – sort of.
As I said, try studying history. Or don’t. It and you don’t really matter to humanity.
Actually, fascism was born as a middle class response against the revolutionary tide going on in Europe after the Russian Revolution. As Trotsky note, it was the flip side of working class revolutionary hope. It was the middle classes’ counter-revolutionary despair. Fascism was born in Italy during the 1920s with the leadership of Mussolini as an explicit and deliberate attempt to crush the Italian socialists and other worker’s groups.
The same can be said of fascists such as Hitler who identified the socialist movement as being integral to the end of WWI, and therefore the defeat of German imperialism. It was his crusade against socialists that shaped him into the future leader of the nazis.
Moreover, the similar economic models that you refer to are actually the similar economic systems of fascism and STALINISM, which is different from what any real socialist wants. Real socialism is about political and economic democracy, not totalitarianism. Which is why Trotsky, and other true Bolsheviks of the time, organized against Stalin and his policies. Which is also why Stalin had Trotsky killed, as well as the majority of the original Bolsheviks.
Either way, I’d like to think that we all matter to humanity. You should try reading Trotsky’s “Fascism: What it is and how to fight it.” Also, Pierre Broue’s book on the failed German Revolution.
Can I express that this is idiocracy at its finest? Your supposed “logical conclusion” is not logical at all. Why do you think that governments and people still fight over what form of political ideology to follow? If it was so logical, then wouldn’t all left-leaning governments be socialist/communist, and all right-leaning governments be fascist? Where are these governments? For that matter, Europe is learning that the large welfare-state is unsustainable. France, for example the largest pusher of welfare and socialism, is HAVING to cut down on the welfare-state in order to pay the bills. The socialist system is a great theory, but however it does not sponsor creativity or initiative. You also make the claim that socialism is the last line of defense against fascism (and for that matter capitalism, since you link the two together), where is this evidence? What about democracy or idealism? Also, the “tea-parters” are not fascists. They are better described as either conservatives or far-extreme libertarians. Please save the world, and do some fact checking before you post. Thanks you.
Actually, I think that what is unsustainable is capitalism. All over the world the policies of neo-liberalism, which have been the dominant policies of the last 30-40 years, have created today’s international economic crisis. And everyone knows this. Whether it is in the US, or Europe, or anywhere else the masses are rebelling.
Also, I would not label any country today as being “socialist” or having “socialist policies.” Socialism is about the self-emancipation of the working class, by the working class, as a class. But all over the world there are capitalists and workers. So nowhere have the workers emancipated themselves and established a government rooted in work-place democracy.
The failures of the world economy are part of capitalism’s natural tendency towards three crisis: war, over-production, and lessening value through the mechanization of labor. As long as capitalism exists, these recessions and depressions will continue to happen. The only things helping people get by are the grassroots struggles, the unions, and the welfare programs that the right insist on slashing.
Also, I never called the tea partiers fascists. They are not yet fascists. Though they could go that road somewhere down the line.
You missed the point of what was illogical. *shakes head* You stated that “The fact is that while fascism is the logical outcome of right-wing politics, socialism is the logical outcome of left-wing politics.” This statement is completely wrong by exactly what you replied with. No state is socialist or fascist, therefore, your original post is erroneous.
As for your reply, the events do not state the unsustainable of capitalism. it expresses the unsustainability of the welfare-state, which America is trying to establish, is doomed to fail before it started. Also, stating the “masses” are in rebellion? Sure, yes Europe but over what and who? The welfare-state and the price of universities. Does that sound socialist in nature? Are these the working class? No, these are the middle class. In the US its the working class, but over the creation of a welfare state.
Eh, I disagree with your argument that tea-partiers could go fascists. They are a grassroots movement, however, they are for conservative US values not so much raving nationalism or militarism.
While there are currently no fascist or socialist governments, there are certainly groups and movements within various countries that represent these political trends. But the periods when the various political trends hit their logical outcomes occurs during periods of revolutionary upheaval. So during “normal” times the majority of people are spread out through the vast spectrum of politics.
But in revolutionary moments in history, when the question of “What do we do now? Should the capitalists continue ruling or should the workers rule?” When capitalist crisis hits these moments that is when the total polarization occurs and people are pushed into going further and further into the Left or the Right.
As for the tea partiers, they call themselves grassroots, but plenty of articles have shown that they are actually heavily funded by the rich. They are like a smokescreen to take the attention of the bankers and big capitalists. The real grassroots movement is in Madison, WI where people are fighting to defend their public university and the right to unionize.
I would also add that the great depression, and the depressions before it, all occurred before the existence of the modern welfare state. Moreover, to the extent that a welfare state does exist in the US, it still pales in comparison to what any welfare state should be. Today’s economic crisis occurred because of over-speculation and over-production in the housing market, which was a product of the US capitalists who launched the housing bubble in the first place.
Of course it was due to over-production. However, your statement about the previous depressions was before the welfare state, but the US (because of capitalism, not FDR) were able to mitigate the impact. The US “Great Depression” pales in comparison to that of Europe, why because of industry not welfare reform. Welfare reform, as established by FDR with the New Deal, created vast amount of modern day issues such as no funding for Social Security as the population vastly is aging. The current issues of over-production yes is a product of capitalistic society, but thats how the market works boom and bust (then you learn). The current social problems and issues stem absolutely 100% from issues of paying for programs that could be better serviced in the free market.
As for your statement on Madison, WI, there fighting for their right of BIG unions. Unions that, as a socialist you should be appalled at and not defending, because they do nothing for the lower and middle classes.
Also, your statement on “logical outcomes” again. Its illogical, plan and simple. Read Fukishima’s “End of History” or for that matter understand that socialism as a system of actual government as been nullified for some time. Even if you want to consider the PRC a socialist government or even Leninist Russia. What happened to their systems of government? They were diluted. Why? Because they couldn’t socially work. The PRC for instance had to establish free-market principals to survive and maintain control. its their social contract with the Chinese people, either we have economic growth or your gone. The opposite was true for Russia, market economies were not introduced and the poor suffered.
As much as you wouldn’t like to admit, the market (uncontrolled) does bred those at the top and those at the bottom. However, a regulated market (the one most governments have) breeds social mobility and equality. Sure yes there are a number of poor in America, however, you have to realize that America is going through a industry change. We are no longer a society of factory workers, we are a service and high tech society. This is a shift socialism doesn’t account for, the “proletariat” is disappearing. Their kids are becoming part of the middle class of the ‘new’ American society. Sure, yes there will be lower income portions. But they aren’t factory workers or tradition ‘proletariats’. This is the world today, and I know your going to spout about imperialism etc. However, the outsourcing to the PRC is there own desire. They want those jobs to be there. They pay American companies to go to their ‘special economic zones’. However, the PRC’s communist government fears the day their bubble will burst that will lead to another form of government. In all, believe what you want but the world realizes that ‘socialism’ as a mass system doesn’t work.
Hey, I have to catch up to this comment and the other one you posted elsewhere!
I am familiar with Fukishima’s “end of history,” but I am also aware of the fact that no proletarian revolution hasnsucceeded anywhere. Even Lenin’s Russia could not last, and didn’t, because as a socialist I recognize that any real socialismncan onlynbe created through international revolution. As Russia was left isolated when the revolutionarynwave in Europe was crushed, the Russian revolution was left to starve and transform into a bureaucratic state capitalist country. I would qualify the PRC the same way, except that they never even had a workers revolution, they had more of a coup, if I remember correctly.
FDR shied away from an important concept that is still worth fighting for today: progressive tax on the rich and their corporations,. But the only axon he did anything in the first place was because the US workers got organized and fought fornthe right to unionize and for gains such as social security. These are wins that are being taken away from us. And yes, while todays unions are absolutely corrupt and hierarchical, any union is still better than no union because the rank-and-file members alwaysnhave the potential to take it back from the bureaucrats. Which is what we are starting to see in WI since the labor bureaucrats are trying to stop the struggle, while the workers themselves try to push it forward, led by the working class teachers.
As to your comment about the disappearing proletariat, I think that is a mistake. The proletariat are not simply the folks working in factories. A persons class is their social relation to the means of production. So a hamburger flipper at McDonalds is still a worker, as is a non-managerial office worker, or even a hospital doctor that does not own their own practice. Anyone that works at a business, but does not own that business, and does not have a managerial position is a worker. That was Marx’s conception of what class is. Just like a factory worker, if the hamburger flippers or doctors and nurses unite and refuse to work, their bosses are left powerless (besides the use of strike breaking violence, of course).