For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
So what?! By becoming a fascist he ceased to be a socialist. You cannot consistently be a fascist socialist or a socialist fascist.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:22 amThese aren't undisputed cases. They called themselves "Socialist." As for Mussolini, the History Channel reports,
"Mussolini was a socialist before becoming a fascist.…"
Of course, if "fascist" simply means "antidemocratic, antiliberal, authoritarian, dictatorial, or violent", then there are fascist socialists; but otherwise it makes no sense to speak of "red fascism" (or "brown communism"). We find antidemocratic/antiliberal/authoritarian/dictatorial attitudes both on the far-left side and the far-right side of the political spectrum; but this doesn't mean that socialism/communism = fascism/nazism."The term "red fascism" was also used in America during and leading up to the Cold War as an anti-communist slogan. In a September 18, 1939 editorial, The New York Times reacted to the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact by declaring that "Hitlerism is brown communism, Stalinism is red fascism". The editorial further opined:
The world will now understand that the only real 'ideological' issue is one between democracy, liberty and peace on the one hand and despotism, terror and war on the other."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism
The terms "collectivism" and "socialism"/"communism" aren't synonyms, so fascist/nazist collectivism isn't the same as socialist/communist collectivism.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 2:58 pm Collectivism is the hallmark of the Left...Socialism, Communism, and so on absolutely require it.
A "fascist" IS a Socialist. It doesn't change when you move from "international" to "national": the ideology is the same, and only the scope is different.
It means a person whose ambitions are national in scope, but Socialist in ideology.I don't deny that they are tyrants. What makes them "right wing"?promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:33 am "We were looking for "right wing" tyrants, were we not?"
Oh I don't know.... every emporer and king that has ever existed since the dawn of civilization?
You are plainly wrong! Have you ever read an introduction to (the spectrum of) political ideologies?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 2:23 amA "fascist" IS a Socialist. It doesn't change when you move from "international" to "national": the ideology is the same, and only the scope is different.
No, as is explained in the pertaining quotes and linked texts I've already posted, the name "national socialism" is misleading precisely because national socialism isn't really (but only nominally) a form of socialism. (There is an insect called antlion, but antlions are neither ants nor lions. Names can mislead!)Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 2:23 amWhat do you think "national socialist" means?
If "national socialism" is read as "national collectivism", then we may say that there is a certain collectivist intersection of socialism and national socialism without having to say that the latter is subsumable under the former. For within the spectrum of political ideologies their relationship is not like the one between subset and set, or between species and genus. To say that socialism and national socialism are both species of the genus collectivism is not to say that national socialism is a species of the genus socialism."collectivism, any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class. Collectivism may be contrasted with individualism, in which the rights and interests of the individual are emphasized.
…
Collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism. The least collectivist of these is social democracy, which seeks to reduce the inequities of unrestrained capitalism by government regulation, redistribution of income, and varying degrees of planning and public ownership. In communist systems collectivism is carried to its furthest extreme, with a minimum of private ownership and a maximum of planned economy."
Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/collectivism
——————
"Collectivism has been one of the key components of socialist ideology. …However, collectivism is by no means linked exclusively to socialism, and forms of collectivism can be identified in, for example, nationalism, racialism and feminism."
(Heywood, Andrew. Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations. 2nd ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. p. 27)
Do you know any textbook on political ideologies in which national socialism (or fascism) is described and discussed in the chapter on socialism (or communism) as a kind of socialism (communism)? – I don't. There are always separate chapters for them, and there is a reason for that.
You're wasting your time. He has no interest in whether or not something is true. It suits his agenda to 'believe' bs. He knows perfectly well it's bs.Consul wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:36 amDo you know any textbook on political ideologies in which national socialism (or fascism) is described and discussed in the chapter on socialism (or communism) as a kind of socialism (communism)? – I don't. There are always separate chapters for them, and there is a reason for that.
And yet...Consul wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 2:33 am
"Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934."
Source: https://www.britannica.com/story/were-t ... socialists
I don't think so. Let's see:Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 2:23 amA "fascist" IS a Socialist. It doesn't change when you move from "international" to "national": the ideology is the same, and only the scope is different.
I. "PERSPECTIVES ON . . . HISTORY
SOCIALISTS are committed to a progressive view of history, which places heavy emphasis on the scope for social and personal development. Marxists believe that class conflict is the motor of history and that a classless, communist society is history’s determinant end-point.
FASCISTS generally view history as a process of degeneration and decay, a decline from a past ‘golden age’. They nevertheless subscribe to a cyclical theory of history that holds out the possibility of national rebirth and regeneration, usually through violent struggle and war." (p. 17)
II. "PERSPECTIVES ON . . . FREEDOM
SOCIALISTS have generally understood freedom in positive terms to refer to self-fulfilment achieved through either free creative labour or cooperative social interaction. Social democrats have drawn close to modern liberalism in treating freedom as the realization of individual potential.
FASCISTS reject any form of individual liberty as a nonsense. ‘True’ freedom, in contrast, means unquestioning submission to the will of the leader and the absorption of the individual into the national community." (p. 25)
III. "PERSPECTIVES ON . . . DEMOCRACY
SOCIALISTS traditionally endorsed a form of radical democracy based on popular participation and the desire to bring economic life under public control, dismissing liberal democracy as simply capitalist democracy. Nevertheless, modern social democrats are now firmly committed to liberal-democratic structures.
FASCISTS embrace the ideas of totalitarian democracy, holding that a genuine democracy is an absolute dictatorship, as the leader monopolizes ideological wisdom and is alone able to articulate the ‘true’ interests of the people. Party and electoral competition are thus corrupt and degenerate." (p. 45)
IV. "PERSPECTIVES ON . . . HUMAN NATURE
SOCIALISTS regard humans as essentially social creatures, their capacities and behaviour being shaped more by nurture than by nature, and particularly by creative labour. Their propensity for cooperation, sociability and rationality means that the prospects for personal growth and social development are considerable.
FASCISTS believe that humans are ruled by the will and other non-rational drives, most particularly by a deep sense of social belonging focused on the nation or race. Although the masses are fitted only to serve and obey, elite members of the national community are capable of personal regeneration as ‘new men’ through dedication to the national or racial cause." (p. 56)
V. "PERSPECTIVES ON . . . SOCIETY
SOCIALISTS have traditionally understood society in terms of unequal class power, economic and property divisions being deeper and more genuine than any broader social bonds. Marxists believe that society is characterized by class struggle, and argue that the only stable and cohesive society is a classless one.
FASCISTS regard society as a unified organic whole, implying that individual existence is meaningless unless it is dedicated to the common good rather than the private good. Nevertheless, membership of society is restricted on national or racial grounds." (p. 59)
VI. "PERSPECTIVES ON . . . EQUALITY
SOCIALISTS regard equality as a fundamental value and, in particular, endorse social equality. Despite shifts within social democracy towards a liberal belief in equality of opportunity, social equality, whether in its relative (social democratic) or absolute (communist) sense, has been seen as essential to ensuring social cohesion and fraternity, establishing justice or equity, and enlarging freedom in a positive sense.
FASCISTS believe that humankind is marked by radical inequality, both between leaders and followers and between the various nations or races of the world. Nevertheless, the emphasis on the nation or race implies that all members are equal, at least in terms of their core social identity." (p. 82)
VII. "PERSPECTIVES ON . . . STATE
SOCIALISTS have adopted contrasting views of the state. Marxists have stressed the link between the state and the class system, seeing it as either an instrument of class rule or as a means of ameliorating class tensions. Other socialists, however, regard the state as an embodiment of the common good, and thus approve of interventionism in either its socialdemocratic or state-collectivist form.
FASCISTS particularly in the Italian tradition, see the state as a supreme ethical ideal, reflecting the undifferentiated interests of the national community, hence their belief in totalitarianism. The Nazis, however, saw the state more as a vessel that contains, or tool that serves, the race or nation." (pp. 107-8)
VIII. "PERSPECTIVES ON... NATION
SOCIALISTS tend to view the nation as an artificial division of humankind whose purpose is to disguise social injustice and prop up the established order. Political movements and allegiances should therefore have an international, not a national, character.
FASCISTS view the nation as an organically unified social whole, often defined by race, which gives purpose and meaning to individual existence. However, nations are pitted against one another in a struggle for survival in which some are fitted to succeed and others to go to the wall." (p. 131)
IX. "PERSPECTIVES ON . . . AUTHORITY
SOCIALISTS, typically, are suspicious of authority, which is regarded as implicitly oppressive and generally linked to the interests of the powerful and privileged. Socialist societies have nevertheless endorsed the authority of the collective body, however expressed, as a means of checking individualism and greed.
FASCISTS regard authority as a manifestation of personal leadership or charisma, a quality possessed by unusually gifted (if not unique) individuals. Such charismatic authority is, and should be, absolute and unquestionable, and is thus implicitly, and possibly explicitly, totalitarian in character." (p. 155)
X. "PERSPECTIVES ON . . . THE PEOPLE
SOCIALISTS define the people in terms of social class, meaning that they share a similar socio-economic position. The people are identified as the working class, implying either that they are manual, or ‘blue collar’, workers, or, in the Marxist view, that they live off the sale of their labour power (the proletariat).
FASCISTS view the people as an organically unified whole, forged out of an intense and militant sense of national identity. In its Nazi version, Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community) places a strong emphasis on the racial unity of the German people, seen as the ‘master race’." (p. 173)
XI. "PERSPECTIVES ON . . . GENDER
SOCIALISTS, like liberals, have rarely treated gender as a politically significant category. When gender divisions are significant it is usually because they reflect and are sustained by deeper economic and class inequalities.
FASCISTS view gender as a fundamental division within humankind. Men naturally monopolize leadership and decision-making, while women are suited to an entirely domestic, supportive and subordinate role." (p. 191)
XII. "PERSPECTIVES ON . . . NATURE
SOCIALISTS, like liberals, have viewed and treated nature as merely a resource. However, a romantic or pastoral tradition within socialism has also extolled the beauty, harmony and richness of nature, and looks to human fulfilment through a closeness to nature.
FASCISTS have often adopted a dark and mystical view of nature that stresses the power of instinct and primal life forces, nature being able to purge humans of their decadent intellectualism. Nature is characterized by brutal struggle and cyclical regeneration." (p. 210)
XIII. "PERSPECTIVES ON . . . CULTURE
SOCIALISTS, and particularly Marxists, have viewed culture as part of the ideological and political ‘superstructure’ that is conditioned by the economic ‘base’. In this view, culture is a reflection of the interests of the ruling class, its role being primarily ideological. Culture thus helps to reconcile subordinate classes to their oppression within the capitalist class system.
FASCISTS draw a sharp distinction between rationalist culture, which is a product of the Enlightenment and is shaped by the intellect alone, and organic culture, which embodies the spirit or essence of a people, often grounded in blood. In the latter sense, culture is of profound
importance in preserving a distinctive national or racial identity and in generating a unifying political will. Fascists believe in strict and untrammelled monoculturalism." (p. 232)
XIV. "PERSPECTIVES ON . . . RELIGION
SOCIALISTS have usually portrayed religion in negative terms, as at best a diversion from the political struggle and at worst a form of ruling-class ideology (leading in some cases to the adoption of state atheism). In emphasizing love and compassion, religion may nevertheless provide socialism with an ethical basis.
FASCISTS have sometimes rejected religion on the grounds that it serves as a rival source of allegiance or belief, and that it preaches ‘decadent’ values such as compassion and human sympathy. Fascism nevertheless seeks to function as a ‘political religion’, embracing its terminology and internal structure – devotion, sacrifice, spirit, redemption and so on." (p. 250)
(Heywood, Andrew. Political Ideologies: An Introduction. 7th ed. London: Red Globe/Macmillan, 2021.)
Heywood's lying. And you can see it in his descriptions. But lying is what Socialists do, because they hate it when the obvious flaws of their ideology are exposed. In fact, it's been possible to establish a dictionary to decode all the lying the Wokies and Socialist types do, using their own sources!Consul wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 2:43 amI don't think so. Let's see:Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 2:23 amA "fascist" IS a Socialist. It doesn't change when you move from "international" to "national": the ideology is the same, and only the scope is different.
https://newdiscourses.com/translations-from-the-wokish/. Note that the authors use "Woke" literature and Neo-Marxist texts in order to unpack the definitions in question.So do Socialists, if you don't share their view that "freedom" is only the freedom of the collective. As for "unquestioning submission to the will of the leader," Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Mugabe...and on, and on, and on, show that that is not at all unique to Fascism, but is even more a characteristic of Socialism. Whereas the Fascists, as he rightly says, "absorb the individual into the national community," Socialists simply insist that no legitimate individuality can ever exist outside the Marxist "community": and in fact, that all such are merely sub-humans who have not realized their "humanization" through being absorbed into the Marxist state.FASCISTS reject any form of individual liberty as a nonsense. ‘True’ freedom, in contrast, means unquestioning submission to the will of the leader and the absorption of the individual into the national community." (p. 25)
John Smith at Jamestown. A government under siege or famine often goes socialist. I'm not saying its inhumane to do so, but the consequences of not doing so is much worst. Gotta protect the food stores and distribute as rationally as possible under such stress.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 6:56 pmHeywood's lying. And you can see it in his descriptions. But lying is what Socialists do, because they hate it when the obvious flaws of their ideology are exposed. In fact, it's been possible to establish a dictionary to decode all the lying the Wokies and Socialist types do, using their own sources!Consul wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 2:43 amI don't think so. Let's see:Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 2:23 amA "fascist" IS a Socialist. It doesn't change when you move from "international" to "national": the ideology is the same, and only the scope is different.
Heywood's simply using the old Marxist trick of using particular words he's chosen that he knows people like, but which he's giving a dishonest, Marxist meaning of his own, so as to excuse what Socialism actually is.
For example: he claims Socialism is "democratic." It's the will of "the people." But what he's not going to tell you is that by "democratic" he means Marxist, because that's what the 'demos,' the people, want," and by "the people," he does not mean what you and I would mean. In Marxistspeak, "the people" are only the Marxists. Nobody else has been "humanized" by receiving "critical consciousness" and becoming "woke." They are zombies, or sub-humans, or counter-revolutionaries, or Fascist-racist-sexist-homophobe-etc. types, who can be rounded up and robbed, beaten, deported, deprived of their children, forcibly 're-educated,' tortured, locked up or shot in the back of the head into a ditch. And why? Because they're not "the people."
So if you go down Heywood's list, you've find that all he does is use Marxistspeak with regard to Socialism, and use exactly the same concepts -- but truthfully, this time -- in regard to Fascism.
Let's just take one example of this.
Socialists, he says, "have generally understood freedom in positive terms to refer to self-fulfilment achieved through either free creative labour or cooperative social interaction." Indeed so, this merely repeats, in covert language a basic tenet of Marxism: namely that "self-actualization comes only through praxis," or work, and that all human beings are essentially socially constructed by their environments. But as he puts this, it sounds benign and sweet. He even adds, "Social democrats have drawn close to modern liberalism in treating freedom as the realization of individual potential." They've "drawn close," (close being defined by Heywood), but admittedly have not got there. And for them, "the realization of individual potential" can only ever happen through the collective anyway.
Heywood continues:So do Socialists, if you don't share their view that "freedom" is only the freedom of the collective. As for "unquestioning submission to the will of the leader," Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Mugabe...and on, and on, and on, show that that is not at all unique to Fascism, but is even more a characteristic of Socialism. Whereas the Fascists, as he rightly says, "absorb the individual into the national community," Socialists simply insist that no legitimate individuality can ever exist outside the Marxist "community": and in fact, that all such are merely sub-humans who have not realized their "humanization" through being absorbed into the Marxist state.FASCISTS reject any form of individual liberty as a nonsense. ‘True’ freedom, in contrast, means unquestioning submission to the will of the leader and the absorption of the individual into the national community." (p. 25)
So there would be no actual difference between living in a Socialist state of a Fascist one. The only differences would be trival ones, such as which flag you're forced to salute, or which minorities you're trained to think are subhuman. And, in fact, that is exactly what we have found to be the case in every Socialist state in the history of the world...human rights abuses, exclusionary politics, bullying, theft, incarceration, starvation, broken families, re-education camps, gulags, killing fields...And ultimately, national collapse under the sheer stupidity and ideological bondage of Socialism.
If you think otherwise, point to the state where this has not happened. And if you can't, then explain why no such state has ever existed, though it's been tried, and tried, and tried...what made the people in North Korea, or China, or Russia, or Zimbabwe, or Cuba...all of them, so stupid that they can't make a Socialist state work?
And what makes you think anybody can?