Talk:Fascism and Communism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
VfD vote - removed April 16, 2004 - no concensus to delete |
Gregor who?
James Gregor, Professor of Political Science at UC Berkeley, Office Phone: (510) 642-3770.
Should this page be here, or at Fascism and socialism? The whole barrage of pages on this subject is becoming confusing. john 05:55, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- What the hell is going on? Did Sam Spade clone himself many times over this week? 172 06:10, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I agree it would make sense to combine this page with Nazism and socialism. AndyL 06:24, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The whole thing is very irritating. Sorry about originally deleting Arendt - as the article was at the time, it seemed to imply that Arendt thought Italian Fascism was totalitarian. So far as I am aware, she did not make that claim, only discussing Germany and the Soviet Union (and indicating the Nazi Germany, for instance, only truly became totalitarian after 1938). john 08:07, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've broadened the perspective somewhat. For most historians "fascism and communism" refers to the competition between the two ideologies in the interwar period, not to a comparison of them, I think I've added to the article in order to reflect a more accurate representation of the issues at hand (I haven't actually removed anything). AndyL 18:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The point of wikipedia isn't to create proxy debates... if it is it'll never end, why not have The United States and Fascism, Conservatism and fascism, Christianity and fascism, The Republican Party and fascism etc. What we should be doing is having an exposition in a historical context not highlighting a minor and marginal debate. When there are academic discussions of fascism and communism or nazism and socialism these are not comparative discussion (on the one hand fascism is like communism because of this, but is unlike communism because of that) but explorations of the conflict between the two during the interwar period, the hows and whys, roots and how it played out. That's what the article should be about with only a minor reference to the small cluster of neo-con ideologues who argue for propaganda reasons that Nazism is a form of socialism for no other reason than to discredit the modern left... and not even discredit socialism but left-liberalism. It should be treated no more seriously than when a left wing speaker calls George Bush a fascist.
Many people call George Bush a fascist. Some of them have degrees. Should we now have an article called George Bush and fascism which discusses the similarity and differences between Bush and fascism? Why not have George Bush and Adolf Hitler for that matter?AndyL 19:28, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Andy, I basically agree with you, although I think there are certainly academic discussions of similarities between Communism and Fascism. Any theory of totalitarianism is implicitly based around such comparisons, for instance. john 20:37, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Some disputes:
However, the fact that both Germany and the USSR were police states does not mean that their commonality is a product of socialist thought since there is no correlation between socialism and police states nor is there any reason why a capitalist state can't also be a police state.
No correlation beteen socilaism and police states? Please give me one example of one party socialist rule and a non-police state.
TDC 20:05, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The Paris Commune wasn't a police state.
The Paris Commune lasted what, like 2 months? It was not a state or a nation, but limited to the city of paris. TDC 21:08, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Why did you remove the phrase "nor is there any reason why a capitalist state can't also be a police state." Are you unaware of capitalist police states such as Argentina under Pinochet, Portugal under Salazar, Spain under Franco, South Korea under Park, Taiwan under Chaing etc? AndyL 20:57, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I will be more than happy to leave that TDC 21:08, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You write "Critics like Von Misses (sic) argue that Mussolini did not completely rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, he simply narrowed the definition of class to nation and race. " Where does Von Mises say this? I doubt he would say something so completely stupid.
Von Misses wrote that on several occasions. TDC 21:08, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
they are completely different concepts. The nation or the race is not a subset of class. By "changing" the definition from class to race you are not reforming Marxism you are rejecting Marxism and importing nationalism (which existed before Marx).How is changing class to nation a "different" form of class struggle? It's not a "different" form it's the *complete opposite* AndyL 21:01, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, thats your opinion isn't it? Too bad you cant put it in the article. Ha Ha Ha Ha!! TDC 21:08, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The Paris Commune was hardly a state, Andy. But surely TDC has rather sharply narrowed "socialist" to "one party socialist rule", a very different thing. At any rate, I'd add that Mussolini's rhetoric about the nation had a distinctly Marxian tone, what with his talk about the have-not nations and the have nations, and so forth, so in that sense he was kind of importing some marxist ideas into nationalism. I'm not sure that this can be considered to actually have any practical effect, however. At any rate, TDC is still an ill-mannered boob who contributed nothing to the article. john 21:11, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I would like to see an actual citation from Von Mises. It's hard to believe anyone whose read a book about Marxism could say something so stupid. Sounds more like an interpolation by TDC than a paraphrase of Von Mises. AndyL 21:18, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Omnipotent Government, and Planned Chaos by Von Misses are good primers on the subject TDC 23:28, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I, too, am certain that he did not say what TDC says he said. But I do think you're going too far to call Mussolini's ideology the opposite of Marxism. it was informed by Marxism in various ways, although modified to serve an essentially right-wing nationalist agenda (I doubt Mussolini would have disagreed with such a characterization). The opposite of Marxism is surely the clerical reactionism of the Action Française and Salazar. john 21:22, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Why did you remove the reference to capitalist police states TDC? AndyL 21:19, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Last I checked, this article was about fascism and communism, not fascism and capitalism. TDC 23:29, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You implied that all police states are socialist. AndyL 23:51, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No, you infered that I implied all police states are socialist. I stated that all one party socialist states are police states. TDC 00:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
One party states are police states whether or not they are socialist. AndyL 00:41, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
How many socialist states have been anything other than one party. You could argue some scandaniavian states, but none of them were one party. All 'revolutionary' socialist states become one party police states.TDC 00:44, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, what I meant is that the concept of class collaboration which is what Mussolini was advocating is the complete opposite of the Marxist concept of class struggle. I did add something to the article about Mussolini being influenced by Marxist methods of organisation such as the mass party, appeal to the working class and use of propaganda. But to say changing class to nation is just a minor modification of Marx is absurd. It's a negation of Marx and a reversion to concepts of nationalism that existed before Marx. Hardly a "revision". AndyL 21:33, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sigh, TDC, what Andy is saying is that all one party states, socialist or not, are police states (you wouldn't argue that Franco was a socialist, would you?)
And what I am saying is that all 'revolutionary' socialist states are/were police states. And I am not implying that 'only' socialist states are police states. TDC 01:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You were implying The fact that all one party socialist states are police states is irrelevant - so are all one party non-socialist states that only socialist states could be police states. . john 00:54, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
That is exactly the point I am making in the article. Socialism as sooo much in common with fascism. Thanks for backing me up Johnny boy.TDC 01:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
And what about South Korea under Park, Taiwan under Chaing's KMT, Indonesia under Suharto or other capitalist one party police states? By your argument this means socialism has a lot in common with capitalismAndyL 03:02, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well Taiwan and South Korea both eventualy held democratic elections without much outside pressure as did Chile. Goes to show you Friedman's theory that economicly free societies will eventualy push for political freedom as well. That's what it tells me about capitalism. Thanks for helping me prove my point. So a big booo yahhh to you. TDC 03:24, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
A) They were still police states so what you say is completely beside the point b) they were "pushed" by popular movements - political revolutions in the case of Indonesia and the Philippines.
- South Korea and Taiwan pushed? Hardly! The democritazation of these two nations happened long after the politcal revolutions in Indonesia and the Phillipines. TDC 04:32, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
What Chile says is that capitalism and dictatorship were perfectly compatible for the close to twenty years of Pinochet's dictatorship.
- North Korea (a favorite of yours I am sure), Cuba, Vietnam, Burma, and China; all revolutionary socialists regimes, all longer lived than Pinochet's Chile, and all showing no signs of moving to politcal freedom. TDC 04:32, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The point remains you can and do have capitalist police states so your point about "socialist" police states does not stand. AndyL 03:53, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
And if you could take your fucking blinders off you would see that I never once said that there are not capitalist police states. Capitalist police states always turn democratic, just like Friedman says they do.
Read closely, becasue I am only going to make this point one more time :
all 'revolutionary' socialist states are/were police states.
So booh yahhh!! TDC 04:32, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No one has disagreed with you, TDC. I'd add that many communist/socialist police states have also become democracies - Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria all come to mind. john 04:41, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"And if you could take your fucking blinders off you would see that I never once said that there are not capitalist police states. " You just excised that statement from the article, that's all. AndyL 15:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"all 'revolutionary' socialist states are/were police states. " As I recall the Munich Soviet and the Hungarian Soviet (1918/1919) were not police states. - all the "socialist" states you are thinking of either emulated Stalinist Russia or were installed by the Stalinist Red Army. AndyL 15:38, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
the munich soviet and hungarian soviet?!?! don't make me fucking laugh!TDC 01:28, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Nicaragua wasn't a police state either, nor was it a one party state even though it was revolutionary. AndyL 01:43, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- well, by the simple fact that they had no plans on scheduling elections untill forced to by the US, yes they were a one party state. As far as the police state allegations, you do know tha within the first three years of Sandanistan rule that over 8,000 people were executed for counter-revolutionary crimes. the first thing the Sandinistas did set up neighborhood Sandinista Defense Committee's which did little more than spy on people and inform authorities when dissenters needed a cut in rations. TDC 02:13, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"As far as the police state allegations, you do know tha within the first three years of Sandanistan rule that over 8,000 people were executed for counter-revolutionary crimes. " Source?AndyL 02:38, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Nicaraguan Commission of Jurists TDC 17:04, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Anyway, you also deleted this "Initially, the Soviet Union tried to create an antifascist coalition against Italy and Nazi Germany as well as popular fronts in various countries against domestic fascism. This policy failed as mainstream liberal and conservative governments in Europe persued a policy of appeasement which resulted in the Munich Agreement." Does the fact that all of that is true bother you?AndyL 02:39, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sorry I have been deliquient, I have been engauged in other areas.
The Soviet Union tried to create an antifascist coalition against Italy and Nazi Germany while at the same time Molotov was in negotiations with Rippentrov? Sounds to me like they were hedging their bets with a little CYA, not fighting fascism.
- "The Soviet Union tried to create an antifascist coalition against Italy and Nazi Germany while at the same time Molotov was in negotiations with Rippentrov?" Wrong. Maxim Litvinov, the Soviet's People's Comissar of Foreign Affairs, tried to negotiate an anti-fascist coalition with Britain and France. When the Munich Pact was announced, it was evident that this attempt had failed. Litvinov was dismissed as foreign minister and replaced by Molotov who then negotiated the non agression pact with von Ribbentrop. It's quite clear that one followed the other rather than both being persued simultaneously. TDC, I suggest you actually get a basic familiarity with the facts before trying to contribute to this article or deigning to remove anything.Indeed, perhaps you should actually *read* the article before removing things you don't fully grasp. AndyL 18:52, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No, this is not true, Andy. Molotov was still negotiating with the western powers as late as August 1939 for an alliance against Hitler. The western powers were rather dilatory about it, but the basic issue was that a deal with Hitler seemed to make more sense for the Soviets. Why did they want to a fight a war for Poland and the western capitalists if they didn't have to? Better to let Hitler and the French batter at each other, and wait for the right moment to move. You also get a few hundred extra miles in Poland, which isn't too shabby. The allies were (rather fecklessly, certainly) offering only the possibility of a war where the Soviets would, by its nature, bear the brunt of the fighting. Oh, and the Poles wouldn't agree to any of it. But the basic point remains that TDC is mostly right here - the Soviets were negotiating with the west at the very time that they were also negotiating with Germany. I wouldn't describe it as an "anti-fascist coalition" though. john 18:59, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- The point is they were *not* negotiating with Hitler when Litvinov was foreign minister. Molotov was brought in after Munich specifically so he could negotiate with the Nazis (partly because Litvinov was Jewish and Molotov wasn't) so there was a change of policy even if they hadn't entirely given up on the hope of some sort of anti-Hitler alliance.AndyL 19:31, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Huh, you're the one who brought Litvinov into it. TDC was talking about Molotov. At any rate, while Stalin may have brought Molotov in in the hopes that this might allow negotiations with the Germans (although Molotov had a Jewish wife, didn't he?), there were no real signs at that time that the Germans were even interested in negotiating. The pact was due to a German policy change much more than a Soviet one. john 20:24, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The discussion was prompted by TDC's initial removal of this passage: "Initially, the Soviet Union tried to create an antifascist coalition against Italy and Nazi Germany as well as popular fronts in various countries against domestic fascism. This policy failed as mainstream liberal and conservative governments in Europe persued a policy of appeasement which resulted in the Munich Agreement" - Molotov became Foreign Minister after the Munich Agreement so the passage TDC removed dealt with Soviet foreign policy while Litvinov was foreign minister. Yes, Molotov had a Jewish wife but he's less likely to have been objectionable to Hitler - but the question of whether Litvinov being Jewish was relevent is more speculation, his removal had more to do with a policy change on the part of Stalin than ethnicity.AndyL 20:39, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Andy, the deleted passage makes it seem like the Soviets were doing everything they could to counter Fascism. On 16th April, 1939, the Soviet Union first proposed an alliance with Great Britain and France, this is true, but at the same time they were negotiating with Hitler. Litvinov was sacked (and probably spent the rest of his life pounding nails into the trans Siberian RR) as foreign minister during initial negotiations with the Germans specificly because Stalin wanted to cozy up to Hitler. Why he did this, who knows. Mabey to get a chunck of E. Europe? Mabey because he was a psycho, who knows. TDC 20:57, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- TDC, try to read, the Soviets did not start negotiating with Hitler until the Britain, France and Germany signed the Munich Agreement in 1938. Prior to that they were only negotiating with Britain and France to try to create an anti-fascist alliance. Why did they change their policy? Munich. They did not "first propose" an alliance with the UK and Frane in 1939, they first proposed it in 1937 and continued to propose it until Munich in 1938. It was only with the Munich deal that they started trying to negotiate with Germany, even so they still tried to make a deal with Britain and France. Read up on the Munich Pact. AndyL 21:17, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
" Litvinov was sacked (and probably spent the rest of his life pounding nails into the trans Siberian RR) ". The problem is you write based on your assumptions rather than based on facts. I'm not a Stalinist, in fact I hate Stalin and my family was persecuted by Stalinism but I don't let that get in the way of historical fact. In fact, Litvinov did not spend the rest of his life "pounding nails into the trans Siberian RR", he became Molotov's deputy and then Ambassador to the United States. AndyL 21:24, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. However, I think you're wrong on this one, Andy. While it can certainly be argued that Litvinov's sacking was due to a desire to negotiate with Hitler that hadn't been present earlier, isn't the real issue that the Germans wouldn't negotiate with them until the summer of 1939? Stalin's pursuit of the Popular Front and a western alliance was due to his feeling threatened by Nazi Germany and thinking that there could be no negotiating with a fascist regime. The Comintern kept up the Popular Front line, and the Soviets continued to try to attain a western alliance, and to talk about collective security and all that, until practically the moment the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed. The major change in policy was Hitler's, not Stalin's. Or, at least, it is arguable that this is the case. As such, I don't think we should be suggesting, as fact, that the Soviets only pursued a deal with the Germans because the western allies rejected them - especially since, you know, when they signed the deal with the Germans the French and British were not, in fact, appeasing Hitler, but were negotiating (in the French case, extremely seriously, in the British case, rather fecklessly) for a treaty with the Soviets to protect Poland. john 23:02, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- "isn't the real issue that the Germans wouldn't negotiate with them until the summer of 1939?" Don't think so. Everything I've read suggests a) the Soviets didn't consider negotiating with Hitler until the Munich Pact b) no feelers were made to Germany about a non-aggression pact until Molotov became foreign minister. If you have evidence to the contrary please cite it. AndyL 04:46, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hmm...well, I don't think they had any thought that there was any point in negotiating with the Germans. Clearly, both sides started to change their positions, to some extent, but the change was much more dramatic on the part of the Nazis, I think. But this is silly, I'm arguing on the talk page without looking at what the article says. john 05:06, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Well, this is becoming a bit chicken-egg. Obviously there was a change in Nazi policy as well. Which change was more dramatic, the Soviet's or the Nazi's, is a matter of opinion. I read the other day that Molotov and Ribbentropp initially met to negotiate a trade deal and then one of them suggested they also discuss a non-agression pact but I don't remember offhand who made the suggestion, the Russian side or the German side. In any case, the point remains that the Soviets would not have sought out or likely entertained a pact with the Germans had they not been rebuffed by the British and French and had the Munich Pact in particular not come about and that Soviet views only changed after Munich. Anyway, I've looked at your rewording and I'm fine with it. AndyL
Maybe I am just running out of patience for bizarre articles that seem intended to promote someone's political agenda. It seems to me that some of the content of this article belongs in articles on Soviet and German history. Otherwise, I think the article should be renameD either Corporatism or Totalitarianism, and instead of "communism" which is simply too broad and historically sloppy should have "Stalinism" or, at the very least, "Bolshevism" -- articles that really explore what political scientists and others are discussing concerning formal or functional similarities between Fascist and Stalinist regimes, for one thing. Can AndyL and John explain to me why these suggestions would not be better than the current article? Slrubenstein
- Ed Poor created this article. Personally, I think it should be merged with Nazism and socialism.AndyL 12:51, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The article was VFDed, and, as usual, lost. We could, without a VFD, change it to a redirect to totalitarianism, though. john 16:31, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Ed started the article in order to promote the views of A. James Gregor and seems to have abandoned it once I dug up a bit Gregor's background :)
This is his original piece: "Many writers have compared Fascism and Marxism. Some have emphasized their differences, others have emphasized their similarities.
Soviets, along with their allies and supporters, tend to emphasize the contrasts between Fascism and Marxism. For instance, Hitler did not exalt the working class over the Capitalist class as Marx prescribed. In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote 'the suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists... We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims. '
Some authors, seeing similarities between nations under Fascist and Marxist rule, condemn both as "totalitarian". For example, both Hitler and Stalin committed mass murder on millions of their country's civilians who did not fit in with their plans. According to Gregor, Mussolini's fascist doctrine had evolved in a series of logical steps from his earlier Marxist convictions. [1] "
- Well, Hannah Arendt compared Hitler and Stalin too -- I am not sure if she extended her comparison to something as broad and vague as "communism" or "marxism." I do think there is a place in Wikipedia to discuss various theorists of corporatism or totalitarianism as categories that subsume Fascism, Naziism, and Stalinism. And of course the historically specific material could go in other articles. If you have a firm grasp on these topics, perhaps you can suggest a good way to redistribute the content of this article. That is, the article can disappear but the content won't be deleted, just put into more appropriate articles. Slrubenstein
