Talk:Fascism/archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I have four comments concerning all the above discussion. 1) some people seem to post unserious comments. This ought to stop as it is distracting from what ought to be a serious discussion. I can't make anyone stop, but I think people who respond to unserious comments with more unserious comments are only making matters worse.

2) I think 172's idea of a series of articles is a good one; I don't know whether we are ready to start several linked articles, but the point is to organize some of the different elements.

3) concerning TDC's question, what is wrong with this:

It can be argued that the development of fascist and National Socialist ideology has its origins in the socialist and Marxist tradition. Mussolini was a prominent socialist intellectual and publicist for most of his early political and professional career. His conversion to fascism was more an alteration of his political beliefs rather than an outright rejection of them. Mussolini saw solidarity with a nation rather than a class as the key to the destruction of "liberal capitalism". This case is made in The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek .

Well, there are several things wrong with this. First, "It can be" is crappy style and has no place in an encyclopedia. Usually it is just a sloppy rhetorical device for saying "This is my opinion but I don't want to take responsibility for it." If a major scholar or politican has said this, fine -- let's quote that person and contextualize the quote. But never say "it can be argued." It can be argued that the moon is made of swiss cheese, but just because one can argue this doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Second, if anyone has argued that fascism has its origin in "marxist tradition" I would ask, What is this "tradition?" Marx himself cites as important sources for his own thinking Aristotle, Adam Smith, and Hegel. Wny not just say that Fascism has its origins in "Western thought?" Obviously that is too broad, and "Marxist" has the virtue of being more specific, but if you define Marxist very precisely then the claim is simply false. Of course many early fascists had flirted with socialism -- that is just the nature of early twentieth century European politics. That Moussilini was once a socialist does not mean that Fascist thought has its origins in socialist thought any more than saying that "Republican" thought has its origins in "Democrat" thought because Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat. Ideas relate to one another in very complex ways and "origins" is just misleading. It is true that Fascism privileges solidarity with the nation over solidarity with class (and there is no problem quoting Hayek). But this fact, far from supporting the previous three claims, refutes them. The choice to privilege nation over class is a profound difference between fascism and marxism.

4) the debate comparing the USSR with Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy is silly because it lacks a notion of context and history. OBVIOUSLY there are similarities between the USSR and Nazi Germany, as there are similarities between both countries and the United States. Just as obviously, there are differences too. Just listing similarities and differences is meaningless unless one understands (and explains) the relationship between these similarities and differences. I propose two important terms and perhaps ought to be stressed more in this discussion: first, Hegel. One could say that the bitter conflict between communism and fascism was a conflict between left-wing Hegelianism and right-wing Hegelianism. Any ideological similarities between Marxism and Fascism owe to the domineering influence of Hegel, who really set the agenda for philosophy for a hundred and fifty years. Second, corporatism. Moussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, and Peron, and many others, all had to grapple with massive changes in the world economy following the Great Depression. Corporatism was a political response to these problems. But "Corporatism" took and continues to take many forms. However similar Stalin's, Roosevelt's, and Hitler's forms of coproratism were, the differences were just as important -- and these differences owe to ideology, domestic political forces, and different local histories. "corporatism" is an ideal type, a heuristic device we use to identify certain formal similarities. These formal similarities may tell us somthing about that time in history. But they certainly don't mean that fascism and communism are the same thing! Slrubenstein

You and John are my heroes for having the patience to give select users this much-needed private tutoring through WP. It often takes more time to respond to nonsense on WP than it does to write halfway decent articles. This gets tiresome after a while. 172 08:14, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My contributions on the idea that fascism is an extension of Marxism is not something I have pulled out of thin air. Many serious and well respected academics have made this point, Hayek was not the only one to do so.

The quote that you provided by Hayek -- as I made clear in my response to your comment above does not support your contention. You either need to provide another quote from Hayaek, or you are misconstruing Hayek's analysis.

David Ramsay Steele, Edward Feser, Joshua Muravchik, and Ayn Rand have all made the case for this as well.

Ayn Rand and Steele are not really scholars (I think Steele has a degree but I don't think he is in an academic department or has published in peer-reviewed journals; I know of one book which is basically a vanity publication), but you could include their views as non-scholarly views. Muravchik is a scholar, and again, his view should be represented. BUT the main point is not to present their views as objective truth but as one POV among many, and contextualize that POV (i.e., their reading of Fascism is motivated by their ideological opposition to the USSR) Slrubenstein

I am not simply saying that the sole reason for fascism being an outgrowth of Marxism is because Mussolini and Hitler began their careers as socialists.

The problem is not your reasons, but your use of the word "outgrowth" which, as I explained to you in my previous response to your comment, above, is misleading. Slrubenstein

There is quite a bit more to it than that, and I will make this case in my addition to this article. I am not saying that fascism and communism are the same thing, what I am saying is that fascims, communism, socialism are were given birth to Marx. What is sounds like to me is since you [Slrubenstein, 172] do not believe, (or do not want to admit it) that Marxist thought was the bedrock for fascist theory, any mention of this in the article has no place.

No, you are not understanding what I have written in response to your commentsSlrubenstein

This is a point that is going to be made at some length in the article. Like it or lump it.TDC 16:49, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So, have we come to the agreement that you will not object to and remove a well reaonsed and sourced addition on the Marxist roots of Fascism? TDC 18:07, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Fascism was anti-Marxist But was also leftist and collectivist.
Fascism was a form of socialism as Mussolini says. "Fascsism preserves private property as implements of Bureaucracy".
Fascism has the element of Nationalism. This is what defines it away from Marxism. (A rightist can be Nationalistic; A socialist can be nationalistic; A Marxist is never nationalistic; yet Russia started out that way but moved to Nationalistism{WWII strengthened it}-it would soon move to un-nationalistic in evolution."WHEELER 16:37, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER you are correct that Fascism was anti-marxist but collectivist. But to call it "leftist" is either anachronistic or inaccurate. My sense is that fascism simply does not fit into contemporary categories of "left" and "right." As for your final part, you seem to disregard my comment to you at the top, on how to interpret history. Slrubenstein


See my comments above on structure of article.
Thesis; Capitalism (Under attack).
Antithesis; Communism (Proposed system or philosopy to replace Capitalism)
Synthesis; Fascism. (Are socialists that reject parts of Marxism.)
Thesis; Communism is international. Karl Marx's "All the workers of the world Unite".
Antithesis;Fascism is national.
Communism is discredited. Never worked in Athens where Aristotle comments on it. The Mayflower experiment failed. Russian failed. America's Fascism is successful so the new Synthesis; International Fascism. Socialism is in constant flux of evolution. It is in the Hegelian Dialectic of trial and error.WHEELER 16:50, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, what historians or political scientists have made this argument? Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a place for original research or personal essays. I do not know of any contemporary philosopher who uses terms like "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" this way and have never read this in any book or article on Fascism. What is your scholarly source (in other words, you cannot support this claim with quotes from Mussolini or Marx) for this particular way of relating communism and fascism? Personally, what you write above makes no sense to me, is illogical and disregards important evidence. But like I said this is not the place for personal essays and just as your opinion doesn't matter, neither does mine. But what historian or political scientist has made this argument? Slrubenstein

Fascism's roots in Marxism

This paragraph is biased and one-sided and needs to be balanced with the contrary view by writers such as Trotsky (for one) of why fascism is not descended from Marxism/fascism's links with capitalism or removed entirely.

Fine by me, I will have something with a day or two. TDC 18:35, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For a Marxist view on fascism see Fascism: What it is and how to fight it by Leon Trotsky Given the Marxism is internationalist and fascism is nationalist it's bizarre to argue that fascism "comes out of the Marxist tradition"

I have uploaded an image onto the website it is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:National_scocialist_diagram.jpg

Can someone put links to this on the Nazism and Fascism page. And work a good edits on this. Thanks. Diagrams are useful.WHEELER 18:53, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, this paragraph is just absurd: "His conversion to fascism was more an alteration of his political beliefs rather than an outright rejection of them. Mussolini saw solidarity with a nation rather than a class as the key to the destruction of liberal capitalism. This case is made in The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek. "

Class conflict is at the centre of Marxism! Replacing nation with class is not just an "alteration" of political belief "rather than an outright rejection", it's the complete rejection of the core of Marxist thought (class struggle, power to the working class) in favour of an entirely different ideology (nationalism). Mussolini was opposed to liberalism but not to capitalism and capitalism functioned quite well under Mussolini. Mussolini's state never expropriated or nationalised any industries or interfered with profits. "Corporatism" is not socialism, it's a system of class collaboration (getting workers and capitalists to work together for the interests of society) rather than class conflict and again completely antithetical to Marxism.

Hey, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Richard Pearle and Paul Wolfowitz were all Marxists in their youth too you know. Yet one would never say that their conversion to conservatism "was more an alteration of (their) political beliefs rather than an outright rejection of them." Often times the most adamant opponents of an ideology are ex-believers and indeed, if you look at the Cold War in the US many of the most adamant anti-Communists and most stringent defenders of conservatism and capitalism were ex-Communists.

All early Fascist thinkers were Marxists, there is no way around that. While it is true that Kirkpatrick, Pearle, Wolfowitz, and Muravchik were all Marxists of one variety or another when young, they completly rejected it. All early Fascist thinkers made it very clear that they were simply taking up where they saw Fascism as either not working or unfinished. So take your neatly constructed strawman and light it on fire please.
I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and penpushers have timidly begun...I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with the democratic order.
Adolph Hitler

You are kidding, aren't you? This quote in no way suggests that Hitler was ever a Marxist. What id does prove is that he claims to have learned from "marxism" and appealed to Marxism to legitimate his ideas. One might infer from this that he was responding to critics who were Marxists, or trying to recruit Marxists. neither means he ever was a Marxist. Can't you read? This quote doesn't prove that Naziism is what Marxism might have been etc., it only proves that Hitler claimed this to be the case. But why did he claim this? To whom? At least ask the basic historical questions. Do you know anything about the methods of historians? Slrubenstein

Private property" as conceived under liberalistic economic order was a reversal of the true concept of property. This "private property" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard to the general interests...German socialism had to overcome this "private", that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of property. All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.
Ernst Huber, Nazi party spokesman

Again, this does not in any way suggest that Naziism has its roots in Marxism. What it does prove is that Naziis appealed to critiques of private property, including socialist critiques. But one need not be a Marxist or even a socialist to reject private property. Moreover, one can agree with an element of socialism without being a socialist. Again, you provide no context -- to whom was Huber speaking (surely, he was not answering your direct question, "Were you a Marxist?" So why do you use it to answer that question?) Slrubenstein

While it is alos true that Fascism did not abolish private property, it most certainly stripped privtate property holders of all independent control of it. This is extremely anti-capitalist, and more akin to socialism belief that productive entities should serve the "people".
Fascism kept far more traits of Marxism than it rejected.

Marxism is certainly not just a list of traits one can quantify. I don't think Fascism is either. This is not how historians or political theorists study political ideologies or systems. Slrubenstein

Now, I have a few pages to write about this subject for inclusion into the articleTDC 19:58, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Our movement is "guided by the ideals of democracy, nationalism and social justice ... of Jeffersonian democracy". -- Fidel Castro (1956)

""I am not a communist and neither is the revolutionary movement." -- Fidel Castro (1959)

People say lots of things and a lot of what people say are lies. You can only judge them by their actions. At the core of Marxism is power for the working class over the capitalist class and the expropriation of capital. Fascism didn't embody any of that, it didn't give the workers power over capital, didn't exprorpriate the commanding heights of the economy (indeed, Fascist Italy didn't nationalise anything) didn't redistribute income from the rich to the poor, didn't introduce a welfare state. Rather it worked with capital and enhanced capital's power by smashing unions, the workers movements, socialist parties etc. Yes, they may have uttered empty phrases about workers etc but they didn't deliver anything nor did they try to. Heck, despite claims to the contrary it seems that the trains didn't even run on time under Mussolini!Formeruser-83 20:57, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

":Fascism kept far more traits of Marxism than it rejected." Nonsense. Fascism jettisoned the concepts that are at the core of Marxism, class struggle, workers ownership of the means of production and the eradiation of capitalism. When you get rid of that, which fascismd did, what of Marxism do you have left? Formeruser-83 20:57, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


It's popular among the US right to confuse statism and socialism and act as if all and any state intervention is socialist and the more centralised a state is and the more control a state has the more socialist it is. This is a false assumption. Socialism is about the working class and giving the working class control (or, in bureacratised versions of socialism giving the working class material benefits). What those who conflate socialism and statism ignore is the nature of the state. If the state serves the interests of the capitalist class, enhances its profits, suppresses the workers then it's a captialist state, if it serves the interests of the workers than it's a workers state. Just because the Stalinist model was statist doesn't mean that all forms of statism are socialism or all forms of socialism are statist. Look at the police states of Taiwan under Chaing Kai Shek, South Korea under Park Chung Hee, Chile under Pinochet, Argentina under the Junta, various central American dictatorship set up to protect the state from socialism and suppress the working class yet these highly regimented police states were all capitalist. Indeed, Chile was seen as a model by Maggie Thatcher. Conversely, you can have socialist societies that have highly decentralised and nebulous states. The question is not how much control does the state have, it's what is the nature of the state and in whose class interest does the state serve. If it's the workers then its a socialist state, if its capitalists it's a capitalist state. Fascism clearly served the interests of capitlalism and the capitalist class and suppressed the working class so clearly fascism was not "socialist" in execution despite occasional lip service to the workers. Formeruser-83 21:08, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Listen carefully, because this is the last time I am going to state this in black and white. I am not saying that Marxism=Fascism in every way shape and form. I am syaing, along with Hayek, James Gregor (the faces of Janus), Steele, Feser, Muravchik, and Rand is that Fascism was only born from Marxism, but is the inevitable conclusion to Marxism. I don't care who here agrees or disagrees with this conclusion, but it is one that will be made in this entry. I know 172, err .... I mean some people here would love to pull a Stalin and airbrush away anything that they deem counter-revolutionary or uncomfortable, but that is too bad.
I have a point. It has been well researched by academics and lay people alike and it will be a part of this discussion. TDC 21:34, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Assertion is not evidence. It's not that Marxism does not equal fascism "in every way shape and form" it's that Marxism and fascism are completely different and opposing ideologies.

That is your view, and you are entitled to it, but many others have looked into the question at some length and have come to different and well researched conclusions. TDC 22:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As for fascism only being born from Marxism, fascism is a REACTION to Marxism so yes, that's correct but it's a reaction in that it is a response by capitalists in an attempt to suppress and destroy a rising Marxist movement.

A response by capitalists? That must be why all early fascists were hard core Marxists.... Yeah capitalists, makes sense to me. TDC 22:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fascism is, by its own admission, counter-revolutionary and is promoted by capitalists in times of crisis as a way of setting up a bulwark against Marxism. Hitler raged against "Judeo-Bolshevism" as the enemy and promised to stop Germany from going Bolshevik. Mussolini left out the Judeo part but promised the same thing. That's why the Italian monarchy and the Italian capitalist class supported the fascists, because they were afraid of the Marxists.

Once again, That must be why all early fascists were hard core Marxists. TDC 22:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Look TDC, I can wrangle up a lot of quotes and articles (including the one you cite) that state that George W. Bush is a fascist or Ronald Reagan was a fascist or Thatcher is fascist but that doesn't mean any of them are.

If that would make you feel better, then do it. TDC 22:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

People like to smear their opponents by associating them with something unpleasant. That's what most of your sources try to do when they call socialism or the USSR "fascist" just like it's what parts of the left does when they call Bush, Reagan or LBJ fascist but that doesn't mean their use of the term is accurate or their comparisons are convincing. Ironically, the article you cite is one example of left liberals calling right wing conservatives fascist (rather irresponsibly)Formeruser-83 21:48, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Look, anyone can see what is going on here. Some people are turning this article into their own personal sandbox, and clearly don’t want others to come in and play with them. After looking at the article history for a while I saw that for quite a while there was a section on Fascism’s roots in Marxist thought. Then someone came in and won an editing war to remove it by wearing the other person out. I will not let that happen.
No one person can monopolize this forum, no matter how dedicated and stubborn they are. I am not saying that I am going to replace the entire article with a Fascism=Communism=anything TDC dont like. I am going to add a section and it will stay there. If someone wants to make a couter point to it, so be it. But if someone wants to eliminate it because they personally don’t believe it, then TDC say TFB.
I am done on this discussion page for now, In a day or two I will have my addition up.
End of story. TDC 22:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
TDC you seem unaware that the fascists *like* Ayn Rand so much that at the same time fascist Italy was banning Charlie Chaplin films they made a screen version of Rand's book "We the Living":) Perhaps we should mention *that* in the article? Formeruser-83 21:56, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey man, if thats your thing then do it........TDC 22:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"We the Living (1942) During World War II, an unauthorized version of Ayn Rand’s novel was filmed in fascist Italy. It turned out to be a brilliant job, however, and starred screen legends Alida Valli and Rossano Brazzi. The film was later discovered by Ayn Rand’s attorneys, and reissued to great critical acclaim."

Perhaps you can explain, TDC, why the works of Marx were banned in fascist Italy but at the same time they liked Ayn Rand so much they made a film out of one of her books. Does this mean there was an overlap between fascist ideology and the ideas of Ayn Rand? Formeruser-83 21:58, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And in 1943 Hollywood shot Mission to Moscow, a unabsgedly pro soviet film, does that mean that hollywood was full of commies ... oh wait it was, never mind.TDC 22:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

yes, there were communists in Hollywood. Glad you agree though that fascist Italy saw a lot of value in the works of Ayn Rand. So why do you think they banned Marx while filming Ayn Rand?Formeruser-83 22:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The diagram is pretty useless. You can conclude from it that Nazism is descended from democracy! (look where the arrow for democracy and French revolution points to) :)130.15.162.59 19:04, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fascism and Communism

I just read Lawrence Britt's article on fascism [1], one of the external links mentioned at the end of the (protected) article. Seems that most of his bullet points apply equally well to Nazi Germany as to the Soviet Union. This bolsters my personal opinion that Fascism and Communism are totalitarian twins. "Communism in 20th century Europe was as guilty of crimes against humanity as fascism." [2]

Dictatorships have a dismal track record of improving the lot of the common people. It seems that economic prosperity goes hand in hand with political freedom.

Proponents of Communism claim that it liberates the masses from the oppression of dictatorship (such as Hitler inflicted), capitalism (cf. excesses of the early industrial revolution) and religion (opiate of the masses, evils of the Crusades, "mind control").

Ironically, proponents of fascism also claim to liberate the people (at any rate, the "master race") from tyranny and poverty. But it sounds to me like two evil giants fighting over which is to be the biggest tyrant of them all. And both sides persecuted religion terribly.

--Uncle Ed 19:18, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)