Vs. Fascism

Celtiberian wrote:The Communist Party of Germany was gaining traction among the electorate. Had the NSDAP not been reactionary, they could have allied with the KPD and that union would have likely brought socialism to Germany. If the Bavarian Soviet Republic hadn't been suppressed, that too could have led to the ascent of socialism in Germany.

Terrible idea. Antisemitism is an important part of German National Socialism. Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg were Jewish internationalists, not German Nationalists. I think the NSDAP were in some ways flawed in their antisemitism. I do not think Jewish is a race. A Jew could be a German Nationalist if he was not connected with Judaism at all. Theodor Herzl(the founder of Zionism) was originally an Austrian Nationalist that could even be called an "antisemite". Many Jews even look just like Europeans. In some countries they have different racial groups that share a language and culture. Luxemburgism is a load of liberal internationalist rubbish. After she died the party slowly became more Leninist and Stalinist. If they were Stalinist from the start I can see the communists and National Socialists not being such big enemies. It was a better idea to ally themselves with some of the bourgeois.

What specific aspects of Arab socialism do you find agreeable, aside from its advocacy of authoritarianism?

It is an Arab form of National Socialism, nuff said. However it is inferior in some ways. I see no evidence that they ever implemented eugenics programs. Saddam Hussein is one of the greatest men who has ever lived.

Socialism doesn't require the establishment of dictatorships in order to be constructed. The nomenklatura were responsible for the demise of socialism in Europe, and yet you think that bestowing power onto another class of unaccountable bureaucrats is a sensible course of action?

It does not require a dictatorship, but a dictatorship will be the most ideal for implementing socialism. It can and has been done properly. I am an intergralist and I want a totalitarian state. I do not want a libertarian socialist state, that state would not be as effective and strong.

Celtiberian wrote:There is no "New World Order"—which suggests there's some sort of secret cabal advancing a sinister agenda. What we're experiencing is nothing more than the natural consequences of capitalism's laws of motion.

Red Aegis wrote:You assert that there is a NWO attempting to take power. Would you prove it?

There is also an international group of oligarchs that have a stranglehold on the world. They run the biggest banks and have infiltrated the governments of the USA and most if not all western nations. This elite group wants globalism so they spread cosmopolitan and socially liberal(or should I say libertine) propaganda all over the world using the USA's media. They are responsible for eroding the patriotism of different nations all over the world. They focus on attacking European/white western countries but they have greatly damaged the patriotism of nations all of the world, the only exception I can think of is North Korea.

Check out this link:
http://www.masterjules.net/globalelite.htm

Celtiberian wrote:In what sense is Ahmadinejad anti-capitalist?

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:Terrible idea.

On the contrary, it would have been a practical idea, had the NSDAP been genuinely concerned with achieving socialism.

Antisemitism is an important part of German National Socialism.

Hence why I refer to the NSDAP as having been reactionary nationalist party.

Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg were Jewish internationalists, not German Nationalists.

Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were both executed in 1919, one year before the NSDAP was even established and thirteen years before the election in which the NSDAP and the KDP could have hypothetically united in order to establish a socialist state in Germany. By 1932, the KPD had already taken several nationalist positions on various political issues, so it's not as though they would have been averse to uniting with a popular socialist nationalist party, had one existed.

If they were Stalinist from the start I can see the communists and National Socialists not being such big enemies.

Then you're incredibly naïve. Adolf Hitler rejected communism in its entirety, from the socialization of the means of production to economic planning. (As I stated in my previous post, he simply disliked joint-stock companies and laissez faire markets.) Furthermore, the KDP would have been viewed by him as a potential hindrance to the execution of his lebensraum policy, and therefore unsuitable to work with.

It was a better idea to ally themselves with some of the bourgeois.

From the perspective of a reactionary nationalist, imperialist, drigiste capitalist party (like the NSDAP), certainly.

Saddam Hussein is one of the greatest men who has ever lived.

It would take far too long to fully articulate the many ways in which that statement is absurd.

It does not require a dictatorship, but a dictatorship will be the most ideal for implementing socialism.

"Ideal" in the opinion of an advocate of authoritarianism.

It can and has been done properly.

When and where was it ever "done properly"?

I am an intergralist and I want a totalitarian state.

That much is abundantly clear. However, as an integralist, how can you possibly support socialism? It was my understanding that integralists view all existing social classes as necessary for society to function.

I do not want a libertarian socialist state, that state would not be as effective and strong.

"Effective" is a subjective concept. In the opinion of we socialists who espouse radical democracy, decisions which are made and implemented on a participatory basis are effective. As for strength, a population truly committed to socialism and national self-determination will be more than capable of defending itself.

There is also an international group of oligarchs that have a stranglehold on the world. They run the biggest banks and have infiltrated the governments of the USA and most if not all western nations. This elite group wants globalism so they spread cosmopolitan and socially liberal(or should I say libertine) propaganda all over the world using the USA's media. They are responsible for eroding the patriotism of different nations all over the world. They focus on attacking European/white western countries but they have greatly damaged the patriotism of nations all of the world, the only exception I can think of is North Korea.

Capitalism is what enables there to be private ownership of multinational corporations and banks. An elite will inevitably emerge in successful companies, for obvious reasons. This elite invariably supports whichever policies assist in their further accumulation of capital—which, after all, is the source of their elite status—but their interests are hardly homogenous. Capital-intensive industries are far more interested in the global movement of capital than are labor-intensive industries, which are more interested in the free movement of labor.

And what is this "socially liberal" propaganda you're referring to? As for patriotism, that sentiment still exists to a considerable extent.

Despite Ahmadinejad's criticism of consumerism, he represents a capitalist nation. The Islamic Republic of Iran is ultimately controlled by ayatollahs, who have been committed to the privatization of the nation's economy since the 1980s. However, it was Mohammad Khatami who really increased efforts to liberalize Iran's economy, and Ali Khamenei has continued in this objective. Consequently, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's opinion on economic matters is irrelevant.

Celtiberian wrote:I think the evidence is quite clear: there is a significant degree of plasticity in gender roles. I don't believe the state should establish legislation encouraging a certain conception of gender, though equal opportunities for both sexes should obviously always be provided to the citizenry.

I fully agree, but it is then possible, according to this logic, to question the validity of other social constructs such as the nation, ethnicity, and the nuclear family, to name but a few pertinent examples. Obviously, the cosmopolitan left has adopted such logic and now verges upon a slippery slope. Furthermore, postgenderism is becoming a viable social reality and will likely become feasible in the decades to come via advanced technological manipulation. I would argue, however, that "sameness" cannot and should not be conflated with genuine social equality. Maximizing the opportunities available to the individual and enhancing the welfare of society as a whole is the cornerstone of progress, not the eradication of any and all differences.

Diversity, in and of itself, is desirable. What is important is not whether we distinguish ourselves but whether or not such distinctions result in repression, oppression, exploitation, and other social maladies. However, it is impossible to extract notions of human variation and analyze their ramifications outside and apart from their complex environmental context, to which they contribute substance.

I have some input:

I used to be one of those fascists who insisted on fascism being non-racist, looking to Italy up to the late 1930s, and also to the Integralists in Brazil, the falange in Spain, and so on (A photo-book I have about the history of the Falange even have photos of the youth-wing of the party posing together with some sort of african sister organization, or maybe it was just some socializing with the locals)

While it is possible to make a coherent argument about this type of fascism (Franco allowed jewish refugees from Germany to settle in spain, among other things) it becomes clearer and clearer that this is all history now. There are simply no non-racist fascist groups or parties around that do stuff in the real world, perhaps not even online forums.

And even if it can be dug up something, it is a very small minority-voice within the contemporary far-right.

This type of fascism (An Italian I chatted with once called it "children's fascism") would have the following characteristics:

- Authoritarianism
- Corporatism/ class-collaboration
- Welfare-state/mixed economy (Inspired by catholic social teachings)
- Conservativism

Keeping "children's fascism" alive is perhaps a pointless activity when faced with stuff like this:

GRROOOAAAAR!!

Notice how it looks like they have jizzed all over that poor old BUF-symbol at the top

The fascists seem to do a good job of keeping people away from their cause. Benjamin Noyles and the rest of the Iron March lot are a godsend.

Bold wrote:The fascists seem to do a good job of keeping people away from their cause. Benjamin Noyles and the rest of the Iron March lot are a godsend.

There are certainly a few restrictive fascist cliques online and elsewhere who dogmatically emphasize the conservative Kulturkampf element of a few schools of fascist thought (e.g., the Legion of the Archangel Michael). Consequently, anyone who leads an alternative lifestyle of virtually any sort is immediately shunned. These sort of fringe fascist groups are indeed beneficial, as they are too puritanical to ever amass a sizable following in the 21st century. The more inclusive, crypto-fascist organizations like the BNP in the United Kingdom or the Front National in France have the potential to be far more threatening.

Celtiberian wrote: Margaret Sanger, Eden and Cedar Paul, J. B. S. Haldane, Peter Kropotkin, H. J. Muller, Emma Goldman, Leon Trotsky, etc.

Interesting chain: KKK-Margaret Sanger-Emma Goldman-Antifa

Rofra wrote:Interesting chain: KKK-Margaret Sanger-Emma Goldman-Antifa

Apparently, she only gave a speech to a woman's auxiliary to the KKK once, and she seems to be at least a little dissatisfied with the experience. It was about birth control. To be honest, you can criticize her more for her connection to eugenics than anything else. She's not really a fascist, and the Ku Klux Klan isn't even fascist either. In fact, she even had a birth control clinic administrated by African Americans in Harlem.

It's weird that Celtiberian made a reference to someone whose only defined position is birth control and equality between genders, though.

Uberak wrote:It's weird that Celtiberian made a reference to someone whose only defined position is birth control and equality between genders, though.

Margaret Sanger was a famous proponent of eugenics, as were many individuals across the political spectrum. Celtiberian pointed to notable examples on the Left.

Rev Scare wrote:Margaret Sanger was a famous proponent of eugenics, as were many individuals across the political spectrum. Celtiberian pointed to notable examples on the Left.

Oh, I didn't notice that the topic was on eugenics.

Forgive me for only reading Rofra's recent post.

ITT: Actual Fascism isn't discussed.

National Socialism, a mutation of Fascism, with it's "Aryanism", Eugenics, etc., isn't orthodox Fascism.

Feel free to debate here: http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateFascism