Is fascism inherently dormant in the state?
Feb 14 2006 19:11
Is fascism essentially dormant in the capitalist social order? It seems that in most, if not all examples historically fascist dictatorships seem to be exercised in response to mass working class iniative, Italy 1920s, Spain 1930s, Chile 1970s, to a lesser degree Nicaragua 1980s. As if its jut a more brutal and disciplined offensive in support of an existing elite.
If fascist tactics, if not dictatorships, are a product of working class struggle does it follow that to transcend capitalism we're gonna have to defeat fascism?
When does a 'democratic' state become a fascist one? For example 'democratic' states have used baton charges, scab labour, sackings, blacklisting, imprisonments and propaganda to defeat militant workers, at what point would this repression become of a fascist nature? Does a system have to ruled over by an indiviidual dictator for it to be fascist?
Feb 14 2006 19:46
#2
One thing the left has failed to do is come up with a comprehensive definition of fascism. I tend to define it by non-economic criteria, such as the state's heavy usage of the myth of former national glory in order to inspire patriotism, rhetoric about recent social decay and scapegoating of unpopular groups for said decay.
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking - surely it's a well established fact that the state will act ruthlessly in order to crush any workers movement that threatens it. Ditto to John, surely it's a well established fact that the state will employ workers to crush it, which would entail a certain degree of ideological conditioning.
Feb 14 2006 19:47
#3
Hi
I'm not sure what the essential content of fascism is, how can I spot when it’s asleep inside something? Let alone something as ill defined as a state.
The state is somewhat right wing thing, and even a little bit of right wingedness always contains some measure of fascism I suppose. Whether or not it’s dormant is tricky, it’s not like a horse or something. Better not make to much noise, we might wake it up.
Love
LR
Feb 14 2006 20:12
#4
Quote:
Hmmm well historically hasn't fascism worked by building a working class base - often sweeping aside bits of the democratic state rather than coming from within it?
It needs some sort of working class base to have any power, but ultimately it only utilises elements of the class in order to get hold of the state apparatus and tame/crush the recalcitrant and organised elements of the working class thus reasserting the power of the property owners.
Quote:
One thing the left has failed to do is come up with a comprehensive definition of fascism. I tend to define it by non-economic criteria, such as the state's heavy usage of the myth of former national glory in order to inspire patriotism, rhetoric about recent social decay and scapegoating of unpopular groups for said decay.
this happens in everyday politics and is little more than an attempt to sure up the cracks in a bankrupt political system. Theres always got to be a scapegoat or something/someone that is making things go wrong, of course nationalists will play on this more than your average politician.
I think what defines a state as fascist is the way in which it responds to dissent and problems that arise. A democratic state will use scab labour, propaganda and sympathetic union bosses to break strikes whereas a fascist state will tend to use the army. A democratic state may criminalise, demonise and blacklist disruptive workers whereas a fascist state will imprison/torture or even kill them. in a fascist state the veneer of repressentation disappears and the state represents the interests of capital and reaction openly and unashamedly.
If we take it that the democratic state represents the propetry owners, basically does their dirty work through the implementation of legislation and pretends to be an objective mediator. Then can we take it then when this group of people a) isnt able to keep the facade going and people see through it for what it is, the social structure starts to break down, people start taking control of their own lives etc or b) in an attempt to hold onto power makes reforms that fetter the ability of the bourgeoisie to make profits; then the landowners, businessowners etc will lead a brutal reassertion of the power of an ellite in the form of a fascist response, eg utilising the army to break strikes, imprissoning ring leaders, enforcing curfews, banning workers meetings, trade unions etc. This is of course only as a last resort when all attempts at recuperation and placating the mob have failed.
Feb 14 2006 20:12
#5
maybe this hinges upon the definition of the state. If we see the State as the political expression of the bourgeois, that is, the methods of control it uses to maintain capitalism, then how do we distinguish between fascism and liberal democracy? maybe we do this by looking at the qualities of control, as in fascism is more intensive, less pretensions to democracy, more violence, compensated with a sort of national/ethnic myth (Debord talked about the concentrated spectacle).
how would older and wiser heads define the State?
Feb 14 2006 20:44
#6
Hi
No matter how bottom up the organisation is, leftists will always point and say "See! There's a state if ever I saw one!".
Speaking personally, anti-statism means that policy is proposed by real people and is pushed up the social agenda using ballots. Not a monopoly of planners offering options, top-down.
Love
LR
Feb 14 2006 20:50
#7
Nationalism is one of the methods used by capitalist states to exert pressure upon the working class. Fascism usually follows from nationalism but is often out of control and unsustainable. I suppose it depends upon the definition of fascism but fascism does to collapse when it breaks the bounds of capitalistic reasoning.
Feb 14 2006 21:10
#8
fascist states tend to collapse having done their job of beating down the working class, leaving behind them a dejected and tired working class, that is until they start getting all uppity again (which granted they tend to do with rather more enthusiasm!)
Feb 14 2006 23:29
#9
Quote:
Is fascism essentially dormant in the capitalist social order?
Yes. If Socialism is ever a major threat, capitalists will throw their weight behind fascism as the lesser of two evils (for them).
Quote:
It seems that in most, if not all examples historically fascist dictatorships seem to be exercised in response to mass working class iniative, Italy 1920s, Spain 1930s, Chile 1970s, to a lesser degree Nicaragua 1980s. As if its jut a more brutal and disciplined offensive in support of an existing elite.
Right. Although the Falange and Franco were uneasy allies and Chile and Nicaragua were I think barely Fascist.
Quote:
If fascist tactics, if not dictatorships, are a product of working class struggle does it follow that to transcend capitalism we're gonna have to defeat fascism?
Yes.
Quote:
When does a 'democratic' state become a fascist one? For example 'democratic' states have used baton charges, scab labour, sackings, blacklisting, imprisonments and propaganda to defeat militant workers, at what point would this repression become of a fascist nature? Does a system have to ruled over by an individual dictator for it to be fascist?
The word 'fascist' is worthless if it is just another term of abuse. 'Fascism' should I think be reserved for ideologies similar to the self described Fascist ideology of the 20s and 30s, characterised by Corporatism in the economic sphere. Better I think to use more neutral phrases like 'totalitarian', 'dictatorship', 'human rights violator' for the general state using those tactics - which is pretty much every state, albeit some are much worse than others.
Feb 14 2006 23:33
#10
afraser wrote:
Yes. If Socialism is ever a major threat, capitalists will throw their weight behind fascism as the lesser of two evils (for them).
But they don't like to let it out of the box. Fascism got out of control in Germany and ended up destroying the economy, if it had been reined in (about 35 probably) it would have worked and Hitler would be regarded as a flawed but effective leader. The problem, from the point of view of capitalism, is that they are unleashing a beast that they cannot control.
Feb 15 2006 14:30
#11
Vaneigemappreciationclub wrote:
I think what defines a state as fascist is the way in which it responds to dissent and problems that arise. A democratic state will use scab labour, propaganda and sympathetic union bosses to break strikes whereas a fascist state will tend to use the army. A democratic state may criminalise, demonise and blacklist disruptive workers whereas a fascist state will imprison/torture or even kill them. in a fascist state the veneer of repressentation disappears and the state represents the interests of capital and reaction openly and unashamedly.
So the British state is fascist cos of its actions in Northern Ireland??
Feb 15 2006 17:10
#12
Alan_is_Fucking_Dead wrote:
Vaneigemappreciationclub wrote:
I think what defines a state as fascist is the way in which it responds to dissent and problems that arise. A democratic state will use scab labour, propaganda and sympathetic union bosses to break strikes whereas a fascist state will tend to use the army. A democratic state may criminalise, demonise and blacklist disruptive workers whereas a fascist state will imprison/torture or even kill them. in a fascist state the veneer of repressentation disappears and the state represents the interests of capital and reaction openly and unashamedly.So the British state is fascist cos of its actions in Northern Ireland??
Alan the whole British State strategy in Northern Ireland was about criminilisation of the situation. And the British states response was to an armed guerilla campaign not to workers on strike. Infact the Provo's miscalculated that they could push the Brits into a military strategy and hence polarise the north completely. The British state having a bit more sense engaged in some very low level counter insurgency, localisation, criminalisation and the very odd targetted assasination when it served to send the right message.
Actually do you have a clue about Northern Ireland?
Feb 15 2006 18:23
#13
Quote:
Vaneigemappreciationclub wrote:I think what defines a state as fascist is the way in which it responds to dissent and problems that arise. A democratic state will use scab labour, propaganda and sympathetic union bosses to break strikes whereas a fascist state will tend to use the army. A democratic state may criminalise, demonise and blacklist disruptive workers whereas a fascist state will imprison/torture or even kill them. in a fascist state the veneer of repressentation disappears and the state represents the interests of capital and reaction openly and unashamedly.
So the British state is fascist cos of its actions in Northern Ireland??
nah mate, i was writing with regard working class action/action that takes the iniative away from capital and towards the workers, i dont know much about N Ireland but i dont think the british state was repsonding to a revolutionary working class iniative.
Feb 16 2006 18:31
#14
Vaneigem - ah OK that clicks now. Your version sounds roughly accurate, although I think you're talking in incredibly general terms. I mean, weren't the army called in to scab during the FBU strikes??
Feb 16 2006 18:37
#15
Alan_is_Fucking_Dead wrote:
Vaneigem - ah OK that clicks now. Your version sounds roughly accurate, although I think you're talking in incredibly general terms. I mean, weren't the army called in to scab during the FBU strikes??
Labour LOVE calling in the troops against strikers.
Feb 16 2006 19:41
#16
Quote:
Vaneigem - ah OK that clicks now. Your version sounds roughly accurate, although I think you're talking in incredibly general terms. I mean, weren't the army called in to scab during the FBU strikes??
yeah but like you say, for the purpose of scabbing, not to mow down the strikers with machine guns or to arrest and torture ringleaders.
Feb 16 2006 22:46
#17
Vaneigemappreciationclub wrote:
Quote:
Vaneigem - ah OK that clicks now. Your version sounds roughly accurate, although I think you're talking in incredibly general terms. I mean, weren't the army called in to scab during the FBU strikes??yeah but like you say, for the purpose of scabbing, not to mow down the strikers with machine guns or to arrest and torture ringleaders.
Yeah. I still think your definition's poor though - by that definition almost every 3rd world country would be "fascist". Like Afraser said they're just dictatorships.
Feb 16 2006 23:07
#18
can somebody please an offer a quick word on what constitutes fascism?
are we situating fascism as specifically a response to working class struggle, and centred about a nationalism of some degree?
Feb 22 2006 20:20
#19
Fascism is corperatism- a merger or corperations and state. Or so the original modern fash Mussolini said.
Nazism is something different. If I could use a somewhat silly comparison it would be (old) Labour (Fash) to the Communist Party (Nazis).
Nazism is in its latter stages is both anti-capitalist (although not in the smashing buildings and protesting way) and anti-communist. It is built on the ideology of a 'one state one leader' cultish mix, like Stalinism and Maoism and to an extent Bolshevism. While i'm not an experienced historian of Nazi Germany, I feel the Nazis would of still retained industry (German of course) for technology, armants, heavy industry and since Germany itself produced alot of synthetic natural materials such as oil if they had of won the war I feel these synthetic industries would of been heavily downgraded. The SS were the first modern goverment linked group to promote 'healthy living' such as brown bread, wheat and organic veg.
Hitler used big business to get himself into power, he was an extreme oppotunist and a good one at it. The main German media boss gave the Nazis a massive boost in the mid 1920s through advertising, support and money. The elites who put him into power (since he was never elected), I truely feel didnt want the Nazis to end up like they did. This isn't excusing their cuddling with the Nazis, but when Hitler gained full dictatoral powers of Germany by late 1933 many were probably thinking 'what the f*ck have we done?'. Years of Weimar failures- both politically, socially and economically speeded up by the Depression on 1929 helped to push even the more luke warm elite supporters of the Nazis towards them.
So Nazism is an extreme form of fascism. Fascists like Mussolini, Franco and Pincoet wern't Nazis. The Nazis were anti-communist/capitalist whereas the Fash were pro-capitalism and anti-communism.
Feb 23 2006 12:26
#20
the facists also used anti-capitalist language and tried to show themselves as neither right or left wing. The idea of corperatism was basically just the idea of increasing the states role in the economy which was gowing on in all countries at the time as a response to the depression. Facism's main characteristic is that of being a war economy. facism was usaully used by the bourgeoisie to finish off working class movements once they had been defeated by the left wing and democratic bourgeoisie first, such as in germany, Italy and i would add Reussia as well.
Feb 23 2006 13:22
#21
But the Nazis did have a number of support among the working classes.
Feb 23 2006 14:29
#22
Every form of bourgeois party has drawn support from among the working class - that's because the dominant ideas are the ideas of the dominant class. The essential thing is that fascism is a form of capitalism, whatever it's anti-capitalist rhethoric may be; the same goes for Stalinism.
Jaycee is right to show the historical specificity of fascism as a form of state rule. It arose essentially in two countries which shared particular characteristics Italy and Germany had both been the major losers from the first world war, thus pushing the bourgeoisie towards an ideology and a practice of 'revenge', open military aggression, and open preparation for a new world war; and both had experienced major revolutionary upheavals, requiring an especially brutal counter-revolution which mercilessly crushed all opposition (although again jaycee is right to say that it was the democratic parties which started the job of smashing the revolution, and then handed over to the fascists to finish the job).
The key issue here is whether fascism - again as a form of state rule - is a realistic option for the bourgeoisie today. Since the working class has not suffered a historical defeat comparable to what it went through in the 20s and 30s, since world war is not on the agenda, and since fascist ideology has been widely discredited, the answer is no. This doesn't mean that fascist gangs won't be used where necessary against the working class, but the 'democratic' option remains by far the most effective one for preserving bourgeois rule.
Feb 23 2006 19:51
#23
The Nazis did have a large appeal among the working classes.
''About 40 per cent of the party were working-class and one worker in every four voted Nazi in July 1932. No less than 55 per cent of Nazi SA stormtroopers came from working-class backgrounds'' (http://www.historystudystop.co.uk/php/displayarticle.php?article=66&topic=meu).
The working classes were key to the Nazis gaining power, and the predomently working class SA (and arguebly the more 'left' based section of the Nazis) were crushed in July 1934 and working class Nazis were used to crush to strong Communist influences among the working classes.
Nazism is not fascism!! Fascism is a different form of rule, even when Mussolini 'ruled' Italy the King could have him removed, and he did in 1945 when he was strung upside down when the King removed him. Franco in Spain had the support of Monarchists although he was never really that comfortable with the King, Hitler didn't need this, he was a totalitarian dictator- like Stalin. After Hindenburg died in August 1934 Hitler was basically laughing as he was THE top man in Germany.
Also no fascist ideology contains a mass extermination of a specific race (or proposed race as Jews arn't a specific race) like Nazism does. Nazism is also based on a cultish/religious ideology- again like Stalinism, of which fascism never really fits into. Fascism is indeed pro-capitalist but Nazism isn't.
As I said before Hitler used big business to get into power, sure he did, but Nazism essence is not in supporting a mass form of capitalism or market capitalism. Just as Hitler and the other top Nazis cuddled with the Church leaders while Hitler himself said he wanted 'the infernal lie [religion] destroyed. National Socialism will rule' he knew he needed elite Christian support to stay in power. Same with capitalist leaders. One key view Nazis took on large scale business was it was a 'Jewish' business, capitalism was 'run by the Jews'. ''To undercut the widespread support for the communists, socialists and anarchists the Nazis used anti-capitalist rhetoric against Jews, portraying them as money-grubbing capitalists, when in fact the vast majority of Jews were working class. '' from Libcom's section in Thought on Fascism.
Granted the Nazis initial used anticapitalist words and slogans to gain populance- as evident in their first ever manifesto 'the '25 points'- http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/25Points.html . I do not know a great deal on Nazism and its links to wider capitalist economics, or what could of happened after the war, but I feel that the beliefs of Hitler did not explictly support capitalist growth, rather a form of business based on small scale industry and enviromental workage.
Feb 24 2006 10:34
#24
Does this mean that Germany ceased to be capitalist between 1933 and 1945? That the working class ceased producing suprlus value? That the German state's efforts at imperialist expansion were no longer dictated by the needs of capital?
It seems from your definition that it's a lot easier to get rid of capitalism than some of us think. Just spice up an already fascist ideology with some occultist gibberish, give a few concessions to small businesses, and capitalist relations of production have been overthrown. Although as a matter of fact, Nazism, despite all its appeals to the German petty bourgeoisie and the promise that they would benefit from the expropriation of Jewish businesses, pulverised small capital and was completely linked to the gigantic Koncernen like Thyssen and Krupp.
What are the consquences of your distinctions between fascism, Nazism and capitalism? One of the central pillars of present-day bourgeois ideology is the idea that Nazism was a unique and inexplicable Evil and that you had no choice but to line up with some Lesser Evil (usually Stalinism and democracy) in order to fight against it. Where do you stand on the debates on other threads about the intervention of revolutionaries during the second world war?
Feb 24 2006 12:07
#25
The differences between Fascism and Nazism are about as significant as the difference between French and British "democracy".
No-one claims they are carbon copies - they've arisen from the historical specifics of each country. But they clearly share important common characteristics which allows us to group them together to some extent.
The claim that Nazism's connections with the big bourgeoisie are insignificant simply ignores reality. Goring, in particular, moved in very high circles and canvassed support from all sections of the ruling class. But what is most significant was the state support that Nazism received before it was put in power (via a manouvre concocted by various power brokers within the Nazi state I might add). Even when the Nazi party directly challenged the Weimar Republic in the Beer Hall Putsch, they were treated very leniently in the aftermath. Although Hitler was arrested and imprisoned, he was allowed to turn his trial into a propaganda platform and was treated very favourably in prison. Nor should we forget that Hitler began his political career by spying on the various nationalist movement on behalf of the Army.
That's not to say that the ruling class was completely homogenous in its support for Nazism - this suggests a level of unity beyond bourgeois capacities! Many a bourgeois was particularly concerned with the 'radical' wing around Strasser and Rohm - which is precisely the reason why Hitler systematically purged these elements from the Party.
Nonetheless, once the Nazis were in power, the vast majority of the ruling class lined up behind them. The big bourgeoisie benefitted enormously from the brutal labour discipline and virtual serfdom of labour, not to mention rearmanent. Hjalmar Schacht's pioneering economics policy was overtly capitalist, funnelling state funds into the big industrial and financial concerns. Business may have complained about the red tape but it is telling that there was very little resistance to Nazism.
And in case you think the ruling class were incapable of resistance when they want to get rid of a ruling team, contrast this to the coup that overthrew the Kaiser, organised by an unholy alliance of Junkers, the Army and the SPD...
Feb 24 2006 13:24
#26
The differences in Fascism and Nazism are much wider than the differences between the democracy of Britain and France.
Hitler did indeed take note of what Mussolini did in his rise to power and his state, especially his actions in Ethopia in 35/36 when he stuck two fingers up at the Leage of Nations.
The main differences between fascism and Nazism are-
1) a TOTAL dictatorship in Nazism (i.e. no one above Hitler in terms of power)
2) a program of mass extermination of a specific race/religion
3) Nazism has less links with big business then fascism does.
4) the Nazis for most of their life were bulit on a war economy, which not all fascist states were. However as Nazi Germany was fighting in a world war as long as it wasen't, no one quite knows if this was going to be the main economy of Nazism, although signs say it wasen't.
5) The Nazi idea of politics was metapolitics- mixing party and goverment to achieve a perfect system for a chosen people, fascism on the other hand is statism.
6) Mussolini didn't have a program of social engineering, whereas Hitler did.
I will reply later on to the anti-capitalist views in Nazism.
Feb 24 2006 16:01
#27
Quote:
1) a TOTAL dictatorship in Nazism (i.e. no one above Hitler in terms of power)
This is simply a constitutional or juridicial matter. While it might be of interest to historians, it doesn't really have much impact on how the state related to the other classes in society.
Quote:
2) a program of mass extermination of a specific race/religion
Germany didn't start with a programme of mass extermination either. Although many Jews were rounded up and put in concentration camps, the extermination camps didn't begin until the War and it wasn't until the middle of the War that the camps began wholesale industrial extermination. It's true that Mussolini hesitated before implementing Nazi-style repression against the Jews to begin with, this hesitation faded rapidly as Italy fell more and more into the German orbit.
Quote:
3) Nazism has less links with big business then fascism does.
This is simply not true. The Nazis counted many top industrialists in their ranks and had many more as sympathisers. As Alf rightly pointed out, small business was utterly decimated in the Nazi regime. In fact, not long after achieving power Hitler issued a decree formally disbanding all businesses below a certain threshold of turnover, forcing them to join up with larger concerns. This was done to drive forward the centralisation of capital in order to make the national economy more efficient. You're confusing Nazi propaganda with Nazi practice here.
Quote:
4) the Nazis for most of their life were bulit on a war economy, which not all fascist states were. However as Nazi Germany was fighting in a world war as long as it wasen't, no one quite knows if this was going to be the main economy of Nazism, although signs say it wasen't.
The Nazi war economy was simply much better organised than the Italian, but the Italian bourgeoisie had always been historically weaker organisationally than the German bourgeoisie. Secondly, right from the start Hitler made it clear that he was prepared to fight a major war if it became necessary and rearmament was always geared towards this aim, not simply to revitalise the economy. The appointment of Goring as head of the Four Year Plan in 1936 which put Schacht increasingly in the shade was indicatative of the regime's view of economics as being in service of the state's war aims, rather than the other way round.
Quote:
5) The Nazi idea of politics was metapolitics- mixing party and goverment to achieve a perfect system for a chosen people, fascism on the other hand is statism.
In fact, Hitler largely abandoned the Party once he was in power. Its popularity lagged far behind Hitler's and those who had positions within the Party rather than the State (e.g. Hess) saw their power eroded more and more. It wasn't until the dying days of the War and Martin Borrman's increasing influence with Hitler that the Party began to enjoy a resurgence.
Quote:
6) Mussolini didn't have a program of social engineering, whereas Hitler did.
It depends really on how you define social engineering. It's true that Nazism was far more irrational than Fascism with its bizarre Volkisch dreams and occult preoccupations. But both regimes sought to exalt the power of the state over all other strata in society but most especially over the working class and pretended to offer a critique of capitalism while maintaining a virulent anti-communism.
Hmmm well historically hasn't fascism worked by building a working class base - often sweeping aside bits of the democratic state rather than coming from within it?