Fascist ideology - what's it really about?

(notice to mods: I hope this is allowed, as I've also posted similar thread in private section)?

I'd like to discuss the non-populist version of Fascist ideology, so hope to hear some views from various posters


So, here's my first question: 'If the Fascist dream is to make everyone middle class, then isn't that the same as Marxism?'

or 'Isn't the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the same as dictatorship of the proletariat?'

Bearing in mind, if we were all middle class, then we'd all end up the same, economically at least, over time.

So any ideas?

 

I will be happy to entertain you, as one of the only intellectuals on the forum, besides some (*)(*)(*)(*)ing eighteen year old kid. I know everything.

Ask the Ukrainians. If they make everyone middle-class, maybe we can start thinking of Fascism differently.

The bourgeoisie don't seem to think so.

 

Fascism and communism are pretty close together. That is why the commies and the fascists were good friends before they fought each other. Fascism is nationalistic socialism, communism is imperialistic socialism. That is the only difference and it is slight. You would love hitler economically, he is right up your alley.
Both are born from Marx and are based on the idea of sacrificing individuals for the common good and ruler worship, and consolidation of power and neo feudalism basically. But since calling it that is unpopular with thinking people, they appeal to emotion and say everyone will be a king and all that.

 

Define "good friends." The USSR made a treaty with Germany to try and avoid war. That may not have been necessary if the allies had been willing to make an alliance with the USSR, but they weren't.

Germany has been collectivist for a very long time.

 

Fascism allows for private ownership, such as Krupp Steel.
Communism does not favor private ownership.
Both are Authoritarian and their failings is their "planned economies" just do not stand up against time although those "public works projects" are successful at getting their economies purring again, for a short time.
Besides a planned economy their other similarity is authoritarianism.


Moi

No ​

 

Planned economies are useful for specific tasks. Germany used a planned economy during world war one, to make it's war effort last. The United States used a planned economy during world war two.

 

Yes !
The problem is at some point the economy has to be cut "free" or is just smolders, like the Sovietsky's.


Moi
Public Works a National Water Management network of reservoirs and aqueducts. ref. planned economy

No ​

 

It has to be cut free for some tasks. The Soviet economy did fine with heavy industry - and even made forays into space rivaling the United States, such as the space station.

 

I wonder what the neo-nazis would make of that - that Hitler is born of Marx;

And who would be the mother - Ayn Rand perhaps?

 

OK, so how about the idea of a 'nation of middle class people' - sounds a little like Victorian England with its 'nation of shopkeepers' - hardly socialist, because there must be some people doing the dirty work, a kind of lower class rump.

Or can that be avoided?

 

No, only idiots buy that nonsense. Nazis were explicitly anti-marxist.

Here are some quotes by Hitler himself.

And the great nazi prison camps started by locking up leftists.

Nazis were openly opposed to liberal capitalism as well. This is what seems to confuse the simpletons. At the end of the day, Nazism was about racial politics. That is what it was at its core. The promotion of the German Nation over all other peoples. The means to that end were not ideologically set in stone. Nazi economic policy was not ideological, but instead pragmatic. They had a hybrid economic system in which free enterprise, state mandated but privately owned, and state enterprises existed in unison. Again, it wasn't something central to Nazism. However, outside the realm of economics, Nazis were right wing in every way possible.


They were militaristic, believed fiercely in competition and the justifiable nature of inequality, were nationalists, etc.

That is where Hitler's opposition to liberal capitalism came from as well, mostly racial politics. Hitler believed Jews controlled capitalism, just not as thoroughly or as malevolently as they did Marxism. So Hitler was intent on setting up a system in opposition to both. Which is why it was often described as a "third way," in opposition to both liberal capitalism AND Marxism.

Funnily enough, Hitler abhorred Marx as I demonstrated, but he loved the same thinker that Ayn Rand was obsessed with. Both Nazis and Ayn Rand were heavily influenced by, and badly abused Nietzsche. He was the most significant intellectual influence on both.

 

You think ruler worship is born of Marx? Good lord what nonsense!! The whole idea of European Monarchism was that the Monarch was directly appointed by God, and that the state was embodied by the monarch. So essentially any crime against the body politic, was considered a crime against the monarch himself. Marxism existed in direct opposition to this reality. Though in reality the cult of personality which surrounded many Marxist leaders was substantial, they never embodied the state themselves, in the way a monarch had previously. So, in other words, bull (*)(*)(*)(*).

Also, Nazis couldn't care less about the "common good." They cared only about the well being of the Nazi people, and believed that the state was the vehicle by which the most extraordinary members of society could be empowered.

PS. The difference you mangled into "nationalistic socialism and imperialistic socialism" is more commonly known as internationalism vs nationalism. A difference which very commonly, though not exclusively, is one of the key dividers of left vs right. The left tend to be internationalists and the right nationalists. Of course that is reductive, but then again so is the very notion of right vs left, so it will do for the current discussion.

 

ok, great posts, interesting, thanks

How do you think the Nazis would feel about the lower rungs of their own society, ie: the Nazi working class or lumpenproles?

 

Agreed there, and pretty sure Nietzsche would have been appalled by Hitler's regime, and I've heard it said that, politically, Nietz was a leftist of sorts.

 

The Nazi regime promoted an ideology of "classlessness" with the lower classes, backing it up with paid cruises or vacations in other countries and a scheme to buy them cars that never came to fruition because the funds went to tanks.

 

Fascism is from the very beginning the idea of inequality. Depending on the race, nation, language or some other traits a man is supposed to be worse than those who belong to an initially better race, nation etc. So fascism doesn't have any middle class. Better people should rule and worse people should obey and serve.

The ideology of marxism is an ideology of total equality. That is an absolute equality which is only possible as an equality of lower class. If you have more talents, knowledge and other advantages you should either refuse of it or use it without the hope to get more from a society than they guy who doesn't have it. An ideal communism is an option of workers that are busy with hand labour and farmers without heavy tractors and modern implements who are ruled by a low-to-middle class way of living managers that are motivated by ideology more than the money... That's a pity that such a living was organised not in every country of the world, but it is no wonder that this way of living was given up with the... advanced means of production (don't know the exact english for one of the marxist terms so not sure that the irony would be felt). Communism is not able to support a middle class level of living. There is never motivation enough. And probably there is no resources to maintain it for all the people.

Capitalism is pretty much a game, gambling rather than well-organised structure of society. Middle class here is dominant as poor people want to develop to middle class and elite looks (in an ideal situation) to the likes and dislikes of middle class. Even an ideal capitalism always needs a winner and a loser. Without a loser this system cannot exist. This is making it resembling a fascistic system, which oppreses a human because of his traits. Lack of money instead of a belonging to some race or nation. But this is also a stability point for the capitalism. While people are busy gambling they don't want to get involved with anything else. This system will crush (if it will) once poor people no longer want to be a 'middle class' and\or elite stops to look at the middle class to make changes in the society and\or middle class reps fails to make it into elite.

 

If anyone denies that fascism borrows certain principals of socialism, they're either a idiot or liar.

 

Fascism occurs when the state decides to try and create prosperity, public health, and inspire positive consequences generally. Hitler's biggest victory for Fascism was convincing people it's obviously evil. Fascism brings to mind images of Darth Vader, door to door Jew hunts, and mass executions. In reality Fascism takes a much more subtle form. It has been present in most Western governments in varying degrees since the early 20th Century. The government's monopoly over the legal use of force creates incentives to collude with business. The state requires economic backing, and support from the people. Business can provide assurance of power. Government can provide privileges and use their thugs to suppress dissent. It's an easy trade.

People forget that Hitler wasn't anywhere near as autocratic as he's made out to be. He enjoyed strong popularity in both the general public and the business community. Using the state to force prosperity he was able to almost single-handedly conquer the Western world. The problem with Fascism isn't its efficiency or its ability to provide the people with a decent standard of living. The problem with Fascism is that it comes at a massive cost - the individual hands his power over to the collective.

Is that cost worth it? Fascists say yes, I say no. We have different values. Meh. May the better man win.

 

It's mostly about insecurity.

 

Yes, and Hitler's hatred of anything remotely socialist is legendary. How Communism and Fascism can be conflated is beyond me.

 

Which principles might they be?

 

Both fascism and socialism are anti-capitalist.

Both need the collective, socialism focuses on the worker worldwide, while fascism focuses the worker of a certain nationalities.

Both need conflict.

Both are statist and authoritarian in nature.

 

Only in ideology, to get votes.

 

I think there needs to be better definitions of the labels.. something like this cannot be intelligently debated when the terms are nebulous & have variable meanings..

 

There's not much nebulous about fascism. We experienced its 'priciples' at first hand during WW2. Classical Communism is pretty easy to define too.