>fascism is capitalism in decay
>looks at italy
>italy only recently unified
>italy was mainly a agricultural economy
>italy industry was in some ways worse than imperial japa
>nazism, the capitalism in decay one, came way after italian fascism rose to power.
How was italian fascism capitalism in decay? If anything, it feels closer to the process meiji japan went through.
Figure I'd post ᴉuᴉlossnW writing about Capitalism in Decline.
>After the World War, and because of it, capitalistic enterprise became inflated. Enterprises grew in size from millions to billions. Seen from a distance, this vertical sweep of things appeared as something monstrous, babel-like. Once, the spirit had dominated the material; now it was the material which bent and joined the spirit. Whatever had been physiological was now pathological; all became abnormal.
>At this stage, super-capitalism draws its inspiration and its justification from this Utopian theory: the theory of unlimited consumers. The ideal of super-capitalism would be the standardization of the human race from the cradle to the coffin. Super-capitalism would have all men born of the same length, so that all cradles could be standardized; it would have babies divert themselves with the same playthings, men clothed according to the same pattern, all reading the same book and having the same taste for the movies — in other words, it would have everybody desiring a single utilitarian machine. This is in the logic of things, because only in this way can super-capitalism do what it wishes.
>When does capitalistic enterprise cease to be an economic factor? When its size compels it to be a social factor. And that, precisely, is the moment when capitalistic enterprise, finding itself in difficulty, throws itself into the very arms of the State; It is the moment when the intervention of the State begins, rendering itself ever more necessary.
>We are at this point: that, if in all the nations of Europe the State were to go to sleep for twenty-four hours, such an interval would be sufficient to cause a disaster. Now, there is no economic field in which the State is not called upon to intervene. Were we to surrender — just as a matter of hypothesis — to this capitalism of the eleventh hour, we should arrive at State capitalism, which is nothing but State socialism inverted.
He goes on to talk about corporatism and shit but it's the super-capitalism stuff that's kind of interesting. ᴉuᴉlossnW basically imagined future forms of Capitalism increasingly intruding on the human being themself; I think in "Talks With ᴉuᴉlossnW" he kind of harkens back to that idea, like he claims that eventually there's gonna be a single world language, but it'd destroy the cultural treasures (poems and novels and the like) of other languages. The way he tries to present himself is almost like a single individual manipulating one massive machine to keep some "human" element in it.
Posting this mostly 'cause it's an interesting historical piece; just seeing how the figures living through that time talked about it.
>>2417576I.. uhh… I don't think there is one.
>>2417674The "organic" society / corporatism was also tied up in medieval nostalgia. They recognized that social classes existed but thought they could solve politics and have all the different classes work together. The nostalgia for the middle ages (the retvrn stuff) was big with the non-fascist right at the time as well.
There were a bunch of traditional conservative authoritarians who also existed in Europe like Franco in Spain, and Mannerheim in Finland. Socialists and communists would call them fascists as well (and they were on the same side at times) and they shared some of the same ideas, but there are some differences. The fascists went further than them because they wanted to replace the traditional conservative elites with a new elite born from soldiers. This was not egalitarian, they very much believed the soldiers were better / superior to other people and had earned the right to rule over others. It's a bit like Starship Troopers or something. The fascists also tapped into a broader social base than the church. Hobsbawm wrote that the fascists belonged to the age of mass politics.
I think the selective co-opting of socialist symbols and rhetoric makes more sense in that context. Like, in contrast to the "old right" of the time, which cared not for mass politics, the fascists sought to get people moving – albeit for counter-revolutionary goals – and it just happened that the language of mass politics up to that point had been the language of the left.
>>2417685You can see hostility here to any notion of economic planning. Or the use of rationality in managing an economy. You see this today on the right a lot with the "they're going to make us live in pods and eat the bugs."
>>2417688I think another way of looking at it is deregulating the economy but intensifying state intervention in every other domain. They wanted bosses to have more power in the firm, not less. At the same time, the state would intervene to discipline people.
Then you add crackpot ideas about breeding a super-race and you get the Nazis.
I'd add another way communists can be misleading about this is to say that fascism is a reaction to communism specifically. That's an oversimplification and a bit egocentric on the part of the communists. What the fascists didn't like is
everything they perceived as threatening the social order which included communism but was broader than that. That also (especially) included increasing workers' militancy but it was that which gave communists *and* socialists a political base, not the other way around. The communists were not the biggest tendency on the Italian left when the fascists came to power, and among the first victims of ᴉuᴉlossnW's repressions were socialists. Although on the other hand, there was less of a sharp distinction between socialists and communists then as would develop over time.
I think part of the reason communists say that is because they want to position themselves as the exclusive anti-fascist force. They're trying to say, the fascists really just hate communists, and they want people who don't like the fascists to become communists. But as a matter of record, the communists ended up joining in with alliances and coalitions with non-communist forces to eventually defeat the fascists.
>>2417777>I've always held that fascism can only come about after a warrior class of men is created materially through a major war and then losing that warYeah I agree that it's an important factor. The
frontsoldat (front-line soldier) was a big mythic hero in Nazi propaganda. A majority of the Italian fascists early on were ex-soldiers. World War I took the shine off war for a lot of people, but it also created a lot of Rambos who got something out of it. People can be attracted to uniforms and the notions of masculine discipline and sacrifice, and others also underestimate radical right-wing movements that tap into the brutality of war because it looks so crazy.
It wasn't most people after World War I, but it was definitely a lot of people. A violent, well-organized minority that is willing to use brutality was a powerful asset when deployed by fascist parties in ultra-nationalist strongarm squads. They're people who like to bust heads and can organize a perimeter during a march.
>>2417806Good point it's clear these guys are all authoritarian anti communist conservatives defending capitalism and land owners yet they're all not lumped in with fascists or Nazis who arguably did all that far less.
Must be due to retarded academia secretly just defining fascism as racism only after America stopped slavery.
>>2417832Midwit take.
>>2417830Yeah it's become clear no one wants fascism to be intentionally muddy to define more than liberals themselves.
>>2417862all? some certainly did but a far greater of them started in the military or other sections of society and grew into a force capable of wielding power
>>2417860alright "fascism is an organization of the state, based in nationalism, anti-communism, and a form of reactionary populism, typically highly militaristic, in opposition to the current bourgeois order" now you might not like that last part but it is often true, the greatest opposition towards fascism comes from the left-wing of capital (ie social democrats and the like)
>>2417981>If liberals, socialists, etc. were also threatened by fascist movementsThey were though. Fascists did not like liberal societies and their values. They were triumphantly anti-liberal and did not like liberal civilization as such. It just took awhile for the liberals to wake up to that. Everyone here knows how the libs do.
Lefcoms are dumb.
>>2419258I mean I’d say that’s a bit of residual Marxist analysis coming through, or at least not incompatible with it. Capital accumulates and standardizes shit.
>>2417774>You can see hostility here to any notion of economic planning. Or the use of rationality in managing an economy. You see this today on the right a lot with the "they're going to make us live in pods and eat the bugs."It’s something I can’t entirely fault them over. Like the idea of losing ourselves to a system entirely outside of our control, being “standardized” by an outside force, it’s scary. It’s why invasion of the body snatchers resonates so much—or to use a more modern example, it’s also why the western remake of Ghost In The Shell apparently rewrote the ending to be the opposite of the anime movie; the major goes from giving herself up to be something more to saying she’s never gonna give up her individuality in the live action movie.
>>2420407>>2420394I don't know enough about Italy or Polish or Hungarian fascism, but I know enough about the German type to state that
>privitizing public services and imposing austerity by lowering wages and cutting benefitsGerman privatization is not privatization as we think of here in modern western nations, lowered wages were done under price controls although by my calculations they were still underpaid
although better than Britain's but they actually got more benefits than before.
If you define "fascism" as the economic policy where the state forces everything to be shit at the behest of the bourgeoisie you'll find it's very difficult and like other definitions of fascism are susceptible to being attached to non fascist regimes like China.
So with that said it's why I have to disparage the 1935 Internationals definition of it as wrong for missing that crucial element.
Yes it's failed imperialism but it can't be any kind of failed imperialism, it has to be one that leaves a unsatisfied material class of warriors.
Without it fascism cannot manifest.
>>2420431>it has to be one that leaves a unsatisfied material class of warriors.>Without it fascism cannot manifest.id say that is like the way without the threat of workers revolution the dictatorship doesn't manifest. the material source is still the falling rate of profit. saying it is directly unsatisfied warriors is really close to saying it is driven by the petit bourgeois. even if the movements or parties are led by the petit bourgeois or warriors its still funded by monopoly capital and driven by profit
>it's very difficult and like other definitions of fascism are susceptible to being attached to non fascist regimes like China. i think the distinction that it is imperialist is exactly why its not applicable. china doesn't "forces everything to be shit at the behest of the bourgeoisie" nor is its economic policy determined by the falling rate of profit under monopoly conditions
>>2420545>china doesn't "forces everything to be shit at the behest of the bourgeoisie"You'd be surprised how many people could twist it that way.
>nor is its economic policy determined by the falling rate of profit under monopoly conditionsNoted but I don't think that falling rate of profit under monopoly is what caused that, failed expansion under imperialism does, which usually does lead to the necessary failed warrior class like in WW1.
I'd also go as far as to say that any rate of profit failure in a non expanding entity if not accompanied by attempted expansion will lack the militarist aspect to want to establish such a society to begin with.
>>2420545Also
>saying it is directly unsatisfied warriors is really close to saying it is driven by the petit bourgeois. even if the movements or parties are led by the petit bourgeois or warriors its still funded by monopoly capital and driven by profitWell yes. Even Trotsky said that.
>funded by bourgeoisieI mean so was everything from the Bolsheviks to ISIS.
I think looking at the post power grab treatments of the bourgeoisie and ownership of land are a bit more important. Closer looks at meetings between "industrialists" in the 30s and such show far more of a hesitant relationship than a direct conspiracy against the proletarian revolution.
>>2420594idr if he cites lenin for that but i just see it as a logical working out of what lenin said applied to new conditions. the same way lenins concept of imperialism is just working out what marx already said about consolidation under competition. lenin wouldn't have had a definition of fascism because fascism didn't exist until imperialist expansion created international conflict after the division of the whole world, lenin already predicts in his arguments against kautsky and ultraimperialism that competing monopolies would come into conflict but he died before one of them could lose and turn inwards, just like marx couldn't have a definition of imperialism but could predict what the dynamics of profit seeking would lead to. we also might have been able to predict the neoliberal turn to austerity as an alternative but couldn't name it until it happened and it couldn't happen until the ussr began to collapse.
i dont think it really matters if he got a citation wrong because the whole chain of analysis naturally falls out of marx's original work on the ltv its just a dialectical transformation of the same dynamics into new conditions
>>2420604I'm going to read through the 1933 Plenum of the International, because it's got some interesting shit talking between theorists which seemingly gives fascism more credit than they know, but I don't think anyone here is denying that Marxist outlooks to explain fascism must be done.
I do however think the problem is you're defining a wider group of ideologies under a singular economic clause and motivations.
I didn't mention it before but "austerity" if you mean that in the governmental sense cannot apply to Nazi Germany, in fact it was an over bloat of state bureaucracy and waste of resources.
>ultraimperialism that competing monopolies would come into conflictHitler did not want this, the UK chose to do it, even with Eisner Hitler was working with a non USSR backed group, the problem is that the UK did this, not Hitler, if Hitler had the option he would suck off every single British man before going to war to compete with them.
If you however mean ww1, the problem is that this is still interlinked with creating a military class.
Again these are initially good points but the more you look into them the more unstable foundations they have.
This is why I have to put military class coming into existence as a requirement, because we haven't really seen fascism come about ever since, nor really beforehand.
It's why I'm not scared of "fascism eating America" or anything, we would need to lose a major war before that, even economic collapse without a war would not lead to it.
It's I think integral to whatever you'd like to call fascist ideologies that no matter how many of them spring up to socialist involvement in capitalist crisis, there needs to be a material class willing to answer the bourgeoisie call to stop it to begin with. It needs to be created before any amount of anti communist or pro bourgeoisie action can be taken.
>>2419527>It’s something I can’t entirely fault them over. Like the idea of losing ourselves to a system entirely outside of our control, being “standardized” by an outside force, it’s scary. It’s why invasion of the body snatchers resonates so muchAn analogy contempotary to the 1920s might be to We by Zamyatin. It depicts a dystopia in which everything is run according to mathematical logic and has totally standardized everybody so they're just numbers, and everybody eats their protein cubes at the exact time on the dot. It's like rational planning going waaaay overboard so people are just cogs. The society is the "single utilitarian machine" that ᴉuᴉlossnW is warning about, and some of the few things that individualize people (like hair) has not been completely wiped out yet, but it's an aspirational goal (they have eliminated most body hair).
Zamyatin was a Bolshevik who had a meltdown and turned against it, don't think he became a fascist though. But there was a whole craze about the machine going on in the 1920s. The plot twist is that fascists loved the machine when they found it useful for them.
(Kind of interesting the Russian Ministry of Culture sponsored a film adaptation of this novel four years ago.)
>>2420614>a wider group of ideologiesright because ideologies have a material base. different capitalists justify their system in different ways it doesn't make them not capitalist
>I didn't mention it before but "austerity" if you mean that in the governmental sense cannot apply to Nazi Germanyyeah i think austerity is an alternative to fascism when the working class is too weak to fight back. germany did this before fascism but it wasn't enough to save them from the falling profit rate. even successful imperialism is only a temporary bandaid
>the problem is that the UK did thisyeah but thats still competing imperialism and fascism coming from the loser.
>military class coming into existence as a requirementbut why does a military class come into existence? how is it socially and materially reproduced? what are the modes of social production that give rise to this military class?
>It's why I'm not scared of "fascism eating America" idk it perfectly fits for me, america is full of decaying monopolies and downwardly mobile petty bourgeois shitting their pants about losing their privileged while getting subsumed into these monopolies and the problems scapegoated onto immigrants. they also lost the wars in iraq and afganistan and are losing in ukraine and all those wars are driven by monopoly concerns for expanding extraterritorially. ukraine is particularly obvious as they started that war right after the profits from investing in new fracking technology were exhausted domestically and shell/exxon got contracts in the black sea. its textbook imperialism. the same thing is happening wrt venezuela. when they lose in ukraine they will tighten the screws domestically and cut wages and benefits, which they are already getting a headstart on by cutting medicare and food stamps.
i do agree that there wont be fascism because the working class is not organized or strong enough to credibly threaten the bourgeoisie, so they wont need to become openly terroristic to push through the reforms. if something like dsa started an insurrection and failed then you might get it.
>>2420662>but why does a military class come into existence? Major imperialist clashes of ww1, capitalism lays its foundations. It is capitalist imperialism firat and foremost mobilizing a war force against its own competitors rather than inner struggle.
>how is it socially and materially reproduced? Total war sentiment. Fascisms militatism and continued clash is what leads to it. The continued need for war that Hitler spoke of be it between communism or between asia and the west and the need to conscript.
It is by no means healthy and almost all predicted simulations of such a state end with it having to change by entering its own fascism in decay crisis.
>what are the modes of social production that give rise to this military class?The state taken there after by the newly appointed class would ensure a temporary reproduction of it.
It's funny you mention Ukraine. I am 100% it and Russia are more likely to fall into fascism for the reasons stated above. If Ukraine holds out they even have Azov being funded. They're 100% more prone to fascism than the USA is.
>idk it perfectly fits for me, america is full of decaying monopolies and downwardly mobile petty bourgeois shitting their pants about losing their privileged while getting subsumed into these monopolies and the problems American consolidation was higher than ever before prior to Trump entering office. It did not need fascism to do that.
>when they lose in ukraine they will tighten the screws domestically and cut wages and benefits, which they are already getting a headstart on by cutting medicare and food stamps. Like they did under Biden? Yeah probably.
>i do agree that there wont be fascism because the working class is not organized or strong enough to credibly threaten the bourgeoisie, so they wont need to become openly terroristic to push through the reforms. if something like dsa started an insurrection and failed then you might get it.There isn't enough war experience or will power even in the face of desperate times in either side to do anything.
That is a lot of what fascism coming about comes down to. The training and dehumanization to make things possible built up from imperialism creating a new monster that is only capable of such violence because it was born in war not immediate decline or bourgeoisie funding per se.
Like I said I'm not scared. We might be looking at a slow decline but America will require losing a major war before anything else.
I would be more afraid of say, Bernie Sanders losing a war against Russia than I would if Trump openly declared martial law for whatever reason because I know historically we have more proof that hypothetical Sanders just opened the doors to fascism more than hypothetical Trump did.
>>2420744>sentiment…The continued need for war that Hitler spoke of be it between communism or between asia and the west and the need to conscript.which is driven by the falling rate of profit under monopoly stagnation, not words or sentiment
>That is a lot of what fascism coming about comes down to. The training and dehumanization to make things possible built up from imperialism creating a new monster that is only capable of such violencei dont really see a material difference between fascism and imperialism. the distinguishing factor is whether the victims are citizens or foreigners
>If Ukraine holds out they wont. they cant. its not really russia v ukraine its russia v the us and the us cant produce war material because its not profitable because of the monopoly cartel that runs the defense industry. they make high price high tech items that dont work because the profit rate on patents is higher and the nearly negative rate for producing things that actually would win the war. the margins on shells are so low they would have to be subsidized and they wont invest in the factories if they cant guarantee perpetual demand. by the time they break ground on the factories the war would be over.
and thats why i said the war is textbook imperialism, because it was started by the us on behalf of the petroleum monopolies having saturated the domestic market for fracking. the rate of profit is high when you can invest in new productive forces to bring products to market, but when all available territory is at the highest level of development you have to expand externally. thats why they want to develop the black sea.
i didn't say if they lose, i said when they lose. thats why inflation and tariffs and all this insane lashing out at the world. its all balanced on propping up the petrodollar and its literally impossible for them not to do it. the solution is what russia does, nationalize defense for national security and run it for purpose instead of profit. but they wont do that because it would look bad on next quarters earnings.
all of these things are inherent to the internal contradictions of capitalism and how a society that is structured around the private ownership of the means of production for profit leads to consolidation into monopolies and stagnation as technology innovation saturates and the rate of profit falls as the organic composition of capital increase leading to a crisis of overproduction. thats what i mean by "socially and materially reproduced" not ideas or sentiment or one mans word
>>2420824Driven by the need to expand not falling rate of profit. Hitler could have seized the private economy fully after losing his shit in 1944 after being backstabbed and he wouldn't stop even after that. The brain worms would be too deep and he would use the MIC in Germany to propogate a warrior class.
>i dont really see a material difference between fascism and imperialism…
>Ukraine Russia stuffI also won't go into this it is imperialism but fascism is a fallout of imperialism. That is the material difference but I don't think I can change your mind on that.
>all of these things are inherent to the internal contradictions of capitalism and how a society that is structured around the private ownership of the means of production for profit leads to consolidation into monopolies and stagnation as technology innovation saturates and the rate of profit falls as the organic composition of capital increase leading to a crisis of overproduction. thats what i mean by "socially and materially reproduced" not ideas or sentiment or one mans wordYou know I see what you mean.
But the thing is all modes of production on some level are still subject to men and their ideas.
Slave economies existed because of this prior to the organization of feudalism.
Despite this if you need a purely economical standpoint fascism reproduces not just by the restructuring of industry to military but also by creating a new order wherein the need to exand is rekindled if only temporarily. It is a even more violent imperialism. Even if you remove the private ownership for profit in such a society the machine itself would be organized to a material imperialist war machine.
I think this part in specific is keeping you from gettinf what I mean the disbelief that outside of capitalisms impurities there would still be such a civilization.
>>2420863>it is imperialism but fascism is a fallout of imperialismwell i agree with that and that it is a material difference i just think from the perspective of an internationalist there the difference between it happening to citizens or foreigners isn't particularly important. unless you think fascisms violence is on another level from colonialism and imperialism. both are state terrorism
>Driven by the need to expand not falling rate of profit.but the need to expand is because of profit. like even on the basis of agricultural lebensraum its to produce surplus food to support the population. expansion creates a temporary absolute surplus by virtue of bigger numbers but it doesn't reverse the overall rate. even if its rising in certain sectors the rate of the total economy doesn't go up because finance capital is a merger of bank and industry. from the perspective of finance imperial exploitation is just a profitable investment not a fundamental reversal.
>It is a even more violent imperialism.i dont really see how work-to-death camps under the nazis is particularly more violent then chopping of workers arms for missing their rubber quota or herding families into strategic hamlets and then dropping napalm on them. ultimately the logic is the same and that is to turn human life into profit because they ran out of other avenues for investment. it just highlights and underlines how labor is the source of value in bold. the real exceptionalism of the nazis was that they did it to white europeans. i guess i agree that its on another level, like how imperialism repeats capitalism at a higher stage, but with a difference of organized systemization, not violence itself. its a difference of scale and quantity not really quality. its still capitalism. i would say imperialism is something like industrialized colonialism, and fascism is when you run out of frontiers and bring that home.
i think the reason this analysis is important is because it suggests the solution. if fascism is the logical conclusion of capitalism then it proves capitalism is a death cult and the only solution is restructuring society towards communism. like if we want to say its just having a warrior class then how to we stop it? how come banning germany from having a military didn't stop the international cartels controlling germany's foreign policy from propping up azov on behalf of exxon even at the detriment of their own citizenry? ok germany isn't fascist again, yet, but is the problem fascism itself or capitalist imperialism?
>>2420886Slave economies is a complex term because it was placed as the only precursor to feudalism. It was kept even when civilizations kept on with trade and became more advanced.
In that same way fascism is like a pit. It can start one way but not end in another even if it changes.
>>2417774>You can see hostility here to any notion of economic planning. Or the use of rationality in managing an economy. You see this today on the right a lot with the "they're going to make us live in pods and eat the bugs." What's crazy is this is the expression of their desire to somehow RETVRN to "TRVE" capitalism:
Rajani Palme Dutt,
Fascism and Social Revolution, Chapter 3, Section 1:
<"the endeavour by combination to limit stocks, restrict production, and maintain or raise prices is inherent, not merely in capitalism, but in commodity economy from the beginning. As Adam Smith wrote in his Wealth of Nations: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices." But such a policy appeared to Adam Smith, the original voice of classic capitalism, as an offence against the principles of capitalist production, as "a conspiracy against the public." It has remained for our day that all the capitalist governments of the world should meet together in the World Economic Conference to proclaim, with the combined voice of all the most enlightened, progressive statesmen and all economists, the supreme aim to restrict production and to raise prices. This is a measure of the extreme stage of decay of capitalism."https://www.marxists.org/archive/dutt/1935/fascism-social-revolution-3.pdf >>2420894>unless you think fascisms violence is on another level from colonialism and imperialism. both are state terrorismMost people generally agree the systemic killing of whatever number of jews or gypsy under Hitler was pretty derranged even by imperialist standards.
>and fascism is when you run out of frontiers and bring that home. Hitlers ultimate goal was quite literally war with the USSR.
ᴉuᴉlossnWs was war with the previous Roman territories.
Even Austrias was war and defense against Hitler.
I think defining it as inner or outward is misunderstanding the need to kill anything or else it has no purpose mindset fascism has.
>but the need to expand is because of profit. like even on the basis of agricultural lebensraum its to produce surplus food to support the population. expansion creates a temporary absolute surplus by virtue of bigger numbers but it doesn't reverse the overall rate. even if its rising in certain sectors the rate of the total economy doesn't go up because finance capital is a merger of bank and industry. from the perspective of finance imperial exploitation is just a profitable investment not a fundamental reversal. Even if no profit was to be derived Hitler would still have felt a need for dominance out of feeling threatened by a counter existing influential sphere. I guess you could call it the material need for gain and not exactly the need for expansion of profits and stability, although material stability ensues when you have an armed force needing targets.
But then the capital accumulation would be driven by psychological necessity now rather than direct want for more profit margins.
>if fascism is the logical conclusion of capitalism then it proves capitalism is a death cult and the only solution is restructuring society towards communism. like if we want to say its just having a warrior class then how to we stop it? how come banning germany from having a military didn't stop the international cartels controlling germany's foreign policy from propping up azov on behalf of exxon even at the detriment of their own citizenry? ok germany isn't fascist again, yet, but is the problem fascism itself or capitalist imperialism?Basically. Capitalism creates fascism and it's sort of a point of no return without killing it.
I think the problem more so is that normalfags can't exactly imagine a non capitalist world so trying to wean them off before mind breaking themselves fascist is hard to do.
>>2420910>Hitlers ultimate goal was quite literally war with the USSR.i know thats why i think it was ultimately a project financed by american and british imperialists that backfired. thats why america joined the war so late and their first landing wasn't at normandy but in africa to assist the british in securing the suez and trying to carve baku off from the soviets because oil is the backbone of industry and thats much more important to them than their own people or allies. id have to go through the timeline but even if that was his goal from the beginning the actions didn't start out that way. they turned to fascism after ww1 and getting kicked out of africa. the expansion came later after reconsolidation of domestic industry and disciplining labor to enable for that capability.
>But then the capital accumulation would be driven by psychological necessity now rather than direct want for more profit margins.even if i want to agree my point is that you change psychology by changing the economic base
<It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness
<Where do correct ideas come from? Do they drop from the skies? No. Are they innate in the mind? No. They come from social practice, and from it alone; they come from three kinds of social practice, the struggle for production, the class struggle and scientific experiment. It is man’s social being that determines his thinking. Once the correct ideas characteristic of the advanced class are grasped by the masses, these ideas turn into a material force which changes society and changes the world. >>2420921Hitler could have had all material needs met differently and still would have been in enough autistic rage to invade the USSR.
>project funded by the USA and UK that backfiredToo conspiracy oriented.
If we go by your own thoughts the conditioning for fascists is more of a natural material outcome from becoming a rabid pro capitalist soldier rather than it would be a direct organized anti communist plan.
No offense but it's weird that you reject your own rule for this one idea.
>>2417443Capitalism isn't constrained by such fake stuff as national borders.
Send in the next reactoid
>>2421047I didn't watch the video last night because the audio sucked but yeah holy shit.
>PMC>Using Ford as an exampleNot the best place to learn from.
>>24217531. Professional managerial class isn't exactly a real thing, to even begin to name drop it is like saying "Middle class." Not exactly a thing.
2. Henry Ford is not a robber baron who hired the Pinkertons it seems like he let this name slip because of antisemitism rather than because he was a shining example of industrialists paying to keep workers under control.
He strikes me as highly radlib in his tendencies, not everyone who puts an idea through dialectical materialism is going to be immediately trustworthy, fucking ᴉuᴉlossnW did.
>But what about his main point, his points are stupid fine, but his main idea is still founded in Marx!I mean I guess but he isn't saying anything we didn't already discuss above he's just repeating the 1933 idea.
Ultimately I just don't like how he's supporting his arguments.
This is an interesting essay. Emphasis mine:
>The German industrialists were faced with almost certain slow strangulation, especially those that relied upon sale in large quantities and had little possibility of sustaining themselves on the weak German market alone, such as coal and steel producers. This meant that they had to act quickly against the tide if they wanted to survive. The same was also the viewpoint of the Prussian militarist clique, which increasingly took the reins of government under ever more rightist regimes. The terms of the Versailles treaty and subsequent disarmament talks held Germany permanently in a relatively weak military strength compared to the British and the French forces, and the loss of Alsace-Lorraine as well as the overseas territories smarted, as did the French occupation of the Ruhr. The militarists were almost all from the Prussian landowner class in the eastern Prussia, so to speak the Polish parts of Germany, and as a result were inclined to protect their landholdings against foreign competition as well as their nation. Strong agricultural tarriffs had protected the position of German large and middle-sized farmers, if not their highly exploited agricultural labor, since the days of Bismarck and the large farmer lobby was very strong on the German right.(16) Things turned quickly rightward: after some major NSDAP victories, Von Schleicher intervened in 1932 on behalf of the military clique to rule essentially in a military dictatorship, be it one with elections. He introduced some work programs and liaised with Hugenberg, representative of the industrial capitalists, and the NSDAP share of the vote dropped. It was however the inability of the different class groupings to unite effectively that made pursuing this course impossible: neither the industrialists, nor the Prussian militarists nor the landowners were willing to cede any power to the other. This led to a cabinet, devised by an intervention from the diplomat Von Papen, in which they all shared power over their respective domains as Ministers, and had the forceful and charismatic Hitler as Chancellor. In this manner, National-Socialism, like any fascist movement, was the result of the bourgeoisie and upper class’ inability to unify and solve their problems by the usual means – precisely their weakness led to the need for a dictatorship to pursue their policy interests on their behalf, and often against the demands of their individual units.[…]
>– Fifth, there was the central issue of Lebensraum. The excess labor in agriculture and its low standard of production, especially with a dual system of great landowners and lagging middle-sized family farms, gave the impression of great overpopulation in rural areas. This, in turn, was translated by Nazi policy into a need for more land. This was nothing new of itself: the mass emigration of some 40 million Europeans to settler colonies outside Europe in the preceding century was the product both of low wages and of land hunger. In 1933, some 29% of the entire workforce was engaged in agriculture(20); compare this to a country like the Netherlands today, which produces, albeit with significant subsidies, vast excesses for export with an agricultural workforce of a mere 2-3%. Moreover, most of these were agricultural laborers who were quite poor, as well as hard-pressed family farmers, whose infinitely divisible inherited plots became smaller and less profitable as time went on. The end of WWI had seen widespread famine and disease, which killed hundreds of thousands. The population density of Germany was high, especially now that it lacked any overseas colonies, and very unfavorable compared with France or America (or the USSR), meaning it would lag more and more behind and become ever more dependent on imported food. For Hitler c.s., this was a recipe for ‘race death’.(21) The only option was expansion and settlement elsewhere.
>– Sixth, there is the question of race. National-Socialism on the one hand expressed the unified desire for expansion and settlement on the part of both certain sections of heavy industry, in particular the ‘quantitative’ ones like mining and steel, as well as that of the middle and large farmers; on the other, it expressed the logic of colonialism in its most aggressive form, where all was ranked according to a hierarchy of peoples eternally fighting over their living space and exploitable resources, endlessly warring over their settlements, in a race to the death to have one ‘blood’ win over another. This crude medley of social Darwinism, racial ‘science’ and imperialist apologetics was a poisonous concoction brewed out of the ingredients of Victorian thought, and could not have existed without the prior popularity of each of these elements among the bourgeoisie and intelligentsia of the Victorian-era great powers. This includes, of course, anti-semitism and support for ideas of ‘racial purity’. Truly Nazism went further than any other in this regard, but this was more a matter of boldly boiling down the fluffy mass of Victorian imperial justification to its toxic core than a matter of innovation. In his main work Mein Kampf, Hitler immediately connected this entire ideological framework with the concrete and medium term needs of those larger farmers and heavy industry, as well as the revanchism among military circles, in a maneouvre as brilliant as it was diabolical. This meant of course implacable hatred toward those weakening the race on the one hand, such as ‘impure’ groups, and those opposed to the aforementioned classes on the other hand, such as socialists. In fact, the commentators seem to disagree on whether Hitler hated Jews more than Communists, and whether he hated Jews for being Communists or Communists for being Jews; be that as it may, these aspects followed immediately from these ideological elements. Fitting the combination of Lebensraum policy with support for the Nazis’ particular racial ideology, the agricultural areas of the north and east of Germany were the only parts to ever give the NSDAP a full majority in an election.(23)http://mccaine.org/2010/03/12/what-was-nazi-germany/>>2419044>Fascists did not like liberal societies and their values. They were triumphantly anti-liberal and did not like liberal civilization as suchAnd for those skeptical of this statement one need only consider Engel's definition of "Reactionary Socialists" from his 1847
Principles of Communism which predates the beginnings of the actual Fascist movements by nearly 70 years.
This fits fascism very well. Fascism, especially the National Socialist variety framed itself as an anti-Marxist mass movement, and also a class-collaborative unification on the basis of the nation state. National Socialists accused Marxism of being the "Guardian Angel of Capitalism" but were also anti-liberal because liberalism is the essence of capitalism: its secularism, its separation of church and state, its individualism, its human rights, its trial by jury, its presumption of innocence, its opposition to feudalism, its opposition to patriarchal and agrarian society. Fascists wanted to
turn back the clock of liberal capitalist and scientific enlightenment degeneracy, of which they viewed Marxism as a symptom. Hence even to this day you see both Marxists and Fascists accusing each other of being liberal as they try to disown the label. Marxists see Fascists as capitalist reactionaries when really they want to turn back the social clock to before capitalism, a thing which is impossible and suicidal. Fascists see Marxists as essentially a product of and continuation of the liberal enlightenment. Both try to disown the liberals but both are products of a liberal society and can't rid themselves entirely of the stench. Because whatever replaces capitalism will bear the "marks of capital" and you don't have to read Marx's Capital to know that instinctively.
>>2421765>Henry Ford is not a robber baron who hired the Pinkertonswhat? yes he was and yes he did
>he let this name slip because of antisemitismFord wasn't Jewish and was famous for antisemitism. He paid to have the Protocols of the Elders of Zion published in English.
>>2421767>influenced by Foucault.he studied in France
>he strikes me as being a post modernist non Orthodox Marxist His entire project is exposing post-modernism and upholding Marxism-Leninism.
sounds like you dont know what the fuck your talking about at all
>>2421834<Common misconception: "Nazism is rooted in early reactionary socialism."In reality Hitler expunged any notions of feudal inspired socialists seeking to return to those times during the night of long knives.
Guerin explains it best when he says that it's "Fiehteism."
Yes that Fichte. Who wrote of state control. Hitler also said he always saw socdems as being too weak.
I think in a way he did actually do more than they did, because he directly through executive orders put in a labor system, and made sure the state stuck itself into every facet of labor and industry but he did so just enough to not cause a stir with the acts he did pass initially but people did catch on.
>>2423005Ford might have been anti union but he notoriously was not paying people to unionbust, nor was he even the worst industrialist of his time. I said he was name dropped because he was an antisemite, not because he was the worst capitalist of the 1930s, Rockefeller and Morgan both employed more union busting and made more directly explotation based capital than he did.
>>2424022I'm not going to move the goal post, you're right, I was wrong.
It still seems to me like he named Ford for the social connections rather than the objective ones, Overpass seems like one of the least horrible things the Pinkertons were involved in, I mean they killed people more recently than they did during that time.
>>2425234I think he just named him because he was the biggest and most well known American financier of fascism. You could dig deeper and name someone like Krupp, or the Bush family, but almost everyone has seen a Ford car and his links to fascism are well established without getting into conspiracies. Its like, even this symbol of American freedom and ingenuity is linked to fascism, and the talk is about the material connection between fascism and liberalism, opposed to the idea that fascism and communism are linked by "totalitarian" ideology.
>the social connections rather than the objective oneslike Fords friends or how he shapes social reproduction with the fordist model? He had fascist newspapers and stuff too. His point is that you dont have fascism without funding from finance capital.
Unique IPs: 61