Guardian: Marxism on the Rise!

antrobus

zagubov wrote: »

...I am including military authoritarian governments with fascism...

Yes, that's the source of your confusion. Military authoritarian governments, of the kind often seen in South America, frequently take power as a result of coups launched in response to some real or perceived national emergency and, just as frequently relinquish power when said emergency is considered to be past, resestablish the constitution and hand over to an elected government.

Fascism on the other hand is a specific political ideology, it organises itself into parties, it uses the democratic process to gain a toe hold on power, and once in power it has no intention whatsoever of relinquishing it - it was supposed to be the Thousand Year Reich remember.

antrobus

Dexters_Indignation wrote: »

How to stop Nazi's

"If I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists"

Mr._Pricklepants

Dexters_Indignation wrote: »

You have nothing to fear from Marxists

This is why?

Hans, Hans, Hans! We've been frew this a dozen times. I don't have any weapons of mass destwuction, OK Hans?


:rotfl:

zagubov

antrobus wrote: »

Yes, that's the source of your confusion. Military authoritarian governments, of the kind often seen in South America, frequently take power as a result of coups launched in response to some real or perceived national emergency and, just as frequently relinquish power when said emergency is considered to be past, resestablish the constitution and hand over to an elected government.

Fascism on the other hand is a specific political ideology, it organises itself into parties, it uses the democratic process to gain a toe hold on power, and once in power it has no intention whatsoever of relinquishing it - it was supposed to be the Thousand Year Reich remember.

Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany were part of a spectrum of right-wing reactionary governments which filled much of the last century (and still go on in, e.g Burma). Some were based on a party ideology, others were less thought-out imitations e.g much of South and Central America. They still shared an ideology of anti-communism and suppression of worker's rights, and, as the early 80s taught us, a love of foreign military adventures. They and the communists world were on two different planets. Stroessner's Paraguy's had no diplomatic relations with any communist country apart from Yugoslavia. On the other hand, only Causescu's Romania dared have relations with Pinochet's Chile.

But, anyway, I never knew that fascism was a cohesive movement, and it had plenty of room galore for opportunists like Franco, Pinochet etc.

Before we get hung up on totalitarianism common to both fascism and communism, the whole point of Orwell's1984 was a warning that any power-structure with an ideology, no matter how benign, could succumb to totalitarian tendencies; the government of Winston Smith's world was based on English Socialism, or if you like the Labour Party turned into a dictatorship.

Dexters_Indignation

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Hans, Hans, Hans! We've been frew this a dozen times. I don't have any weapons of mass destwuction, OK Hans?


:rotfl:

I'm So Ronery
So ronery
So ronery and sadry arone

There's no one
Just me onry
Sitting on my rittle throne
I work rearry hard and make up great prans
But nobody ristens, no one understands
Seems like no one takes me serirousry

And so I'm ronery
A rittle ronery
Poor rittle me

There's nobody
I can rerate to
Feel rike a bird in a cage
It's kinda sihry
But not rearry
Because it's fihring my body with rage

I'm the smartest most crever most physicarry fit
But nobody else seems to rearize it
When I change the world maybe they'll notice me
But until then I'rr just be ronery
Rittle ronery, poor rittle me

I'm so ronery

antrobus

zagubov wrote: »

Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany were part of a spectrum of right-wing reactionary governments which filled much of the last century....

You could equally well claim that they were part of a spectrum of anything you liked depending on the criteria you selected. For example;

- the 'suppression of workers rights' would be something they had in common with communist states (the first thing any communist government does is crush independent trades unions)

- a 'love of foreign military adventures' would again be a common thread (Comintern, Cuba, Angola, Afghanistan, Tibet etc etc)

(And that hardly points to them being on different planets from communist governments does it?)

zagubov wrote: »

...But, anyway, I never knew that fascism was a cohesive movement, .

Italian fascism was a cohesive movement. Nazism was a cohesive movement. I guess you learn something new every day.

zagubov wrote: »

....and it had plenty of room galore for opportunists like Franco, Pinochet etc

It's debatable whether Franco was a Fascist, (it's the kind of thing academics argue about) Pinochet certainly wasn't.

sabretoothtigger

Rotor wrote: »

I knew you were of the Austrian persuasion. It was when you talked about how the banks should have gone bust ( taking depositors savings with them) that gave it away.:D

The main reason for that policy is to take away money from failed ideas and put straight away towards growth. Either way the company failed and the wealth was lost, who pays the backers or society
Less time and trouble wasted on cunning plans unjustified except on hopes is the best thing for society. Those who wish risk must first save not jump knowing they will be caught

It does involve swallowing pride and admitting we screwed up - this doesnt happen in politics and thats why we bail not bust


Regardless of politics or beliefs the best system will always be the most divided equally between people. Because any concentration of power corrupts those it touches.
So thats an equal vote per person and equal currency per person which we do not have, we have a government controlled currency not people hence the problems are endless.
They need to make a law for no deficit spending as it corrupts democracy in favour of whoever spends most

vivatifosi wrote: »

I think an increased interest in Marxism is to be expected at any time there's a crisis in capitalism. To be fair, one of the few benefits of Marxism is that it does offer a way of critiquing the capitalist system. I wouldn't want to live under it, but it does help highlight some of the shortcomings of the system we do live under.

Marxism is a fallacy. Crisis in capitalism is a fallacy also. A free market doesnt eliminate failure, it acknowledges, accepts and incorporates it into everyday workings.
After all these years its still not widely accepted how much trouble an uncapitalist subsidy causes to markets, that you try to provide a boost and instead it causes unbalance

zagubov

antrobus wrote: »

You could equally well claim that they were part of a spectrum of anything you liked depending on the criteria you selected. For example;

- the 'suppression of workers rights' would be something they had in common with communist states (the first thing any communist government does is crush independent trades unions) This is typical authoritarian/totalitarian suppression of liberties and would occur in most dictatorships, except maybe Peron's Argentina. The communist countries would have other organisations (councils or soviets or whatever that the workers could join) to justify this.


- a 'love of foreign military adventures' would again be a common thread (Comintern, Cuba, Angola, Afghanistan, Tibet etc etc) These were consolidating or re-establishing pre-existing regimes rather than conquering and colonising new ones.


(And that hardly points to them being on different planets from communist governments does it?). I claimed that links between communist countries and military dictatorships were exceptional, and hence they were on two separate worlds. they studiously innored each others existence. For example Panama recognised (and still recognises) Taiwan not PRChina




Italian fascism was a cohesive movement. Nazism was a cohesive movement. I guess you learn something new every day.
These were exceptional examples of militaristic dictatorships and usually had a highly theoretical ideology. Or rather I gather the Italian one did. The German one was quite irrational /airheaded and would make hippies look like geniuses.

I mean internationally cohesive in the sense that communist governments share more attributes and have more features in common than fascist ones do.

It's debatable whether Franco was a Fascist, (it's the kind of thing academics argue about) Pinochet certainly wasn't.

It sounds like you're defining Fascism so tightly that hardly any society or government fits the description. Pinochet certainly acted like one in his attacks on pretty much anything he could find that was to the left of Attila the Hun.

There may be more to learn if you trot over to the USSR online and start a thread there to find out if they can help define the difference. Or check this one.

vivatifosi

Unusually we studied a lot of politics while I was still at school. My then politics teacher had an explanation which was that traditionally people learn that there is a line that is drawn in which left (as communism/socialism) and right (as fascism) are drawn as polar opposites. However if you draw this line into a circle, there's a point at which both breach fundamental rights to such an extent that they meet again. Incidentally, he was a communist, but believed that every country-wide system that had ever existed was socialist, not communist. This was in the days before there were so many studies into Kerala, so I don't know what he would make of that, other than the fact it is a state government not a country one.

ruggedtoast

Re, the neo-liberalism discussion, it should also be pointed out that neo-liberalism is not the same as capitalism. Capitalism, regulated by democratic transparent governments is a good thing.

Neo-liberalism on the other hand is an ideology, exactly as communism is an ideology. And rather like communism, neo-liberalisms practical application is benefitting the few not the many, and putting disproportionate amounts of power in a small elite who threaten ruin on humanity if they aren't in charge forever.

Its an ideology that is neither democratic, nor accountable. It's unfortunate that some of the loudest cheerleaders for neo-liberalism don't have the first clue as to what any of it's tenets are, or quite how little they benefit from them as individuals.