[omegaword]

I am of the opinion that fascism is in many ways a radical endpoint of capitalism. Recent revelations in the usa of almost Orwellian proportions have in my opinion put us quite close to the line between capitalism and fascism, if not a little over. Not like nazi Germany, but like all systems, there are varying levels of fascism. So a quick comparison:
fascism is in its most basic definition, rule by fear. Fear mongering and populism have been hallmarks of the US for centuries, all the way back to arguments against abolition. Check.

A signature characteristic of facism is a large semi-to-overtly repressive state, especially for minorities. As any inner city black man, lower class Latino, or distinctly Arab/Muslim person will tell you, this exists. And as mentioned above, the system is getting steadily more repressive. Check.

One last point, in fascism, the corporation becomes almost inseparable from the government, the government helps the business, business leaders support the government and direct it to some extent. This happened in Germany and Italy, and it is certainly happening in the US. Check.

There are more simularities, but these are the biggest. So the reason this is on this forum, is that having established a moderate fascist state in the us, what should the left do?

[quetzalcoatl]

What is meant by the word fascism in the liberal west isn't what is meant fascists on this forum, at least so far as I understand it. But I'm sure they can speak for themselves. My view of fascism was quite similar to omegaword's prior to my PoFo experience. Now I would tend to agree with them on a number of counts, including the critique of liberal capitalism. This doesn't mean I endorse fascism, but I do have a lot of respect for the intellectual coherence of their worldview...much more so than the soi disant conservatives of the GOP and the dupes of Tea Party movement.

[Dagoth Ur]

Fascism is no endgame but a stabilizing force employed to put down a significant challenge.

[omegaword]

Well that's true to an extent, in that the fascists like to say they're working towards something, but I think you'd find no matter how much "progress" you might make under fascism, there's always a new challenge or thing to fear because the head fascists want to retain power.

[Dagoth Ur]

The challenge is not some made up thing. It is a looming extistensial crisis that they [the liberal bourgeoisie] cannot solve and must hire out to the armies of reaction. Once this crisis really is solved the fascists are put back into cages and marginalized by their liberal masters.

It's fascism's intrinsic duty to be class collaborators that sounds their own eventual death knell.

[Rilzik]

Well that's true to an extent, in that the fascists like to say they're working towards something, but I think you'd find no matter how much "progress" you might make under fascism, there's always a new challenge or thing to fear because the head fascists want to retain power.

The problem I have with this mentality is that none of us really know how a modern European/western fascism would evolve outside of the massive pressures and influences of the interwar period and the threats to nations involved. The challenge of a head of state retaining power isn't a fascist problem it is a authoritarian problem. You only have to look as far as the Chinese PRC to see a example of peaceful transition of power within a authoritarian state that reasonably looks out for it's citizens interests. You seem to forget that fascism is bigger then war-time Nazi Germany.

[KurtFF8]

fascism is in its most basic definition, rule by fear. Fear mongering and populism have been hallmarks of the US for centuries, all the way back to arguments against abolition. Check.

And where do you get this definition from exactly? All political systems are to some extent ruled with fear of state repression in mind. I don't see how this makes fascism distinct from say liberal democracy.

A signature characteristic of facism is a large semi-to-overtly repressive state, especially for minorities. As any inner city black man, lower class Latino, or distinctly Arab/Muslim person will tell you, this exists. And as mentioned above, the system is getting steadily more repressive. Check.

Again, none of these things are unique to fascism, and many similar practices have gone on since long before fascism was ever concieved.

One last point, in fascism, the corporation becomes almost inseparable from the government, the government helps the business, business leaders support the government and direct it to some extent. This happened in Germany and Italy, and it is certainly happening in the US. Check.

There are more simularities, but these are the biggest. So the reason this is on this forum, is that having established a moderate fascist state in the us, what should the left do?

None of what you have described actually gets to the definition of fascism. This is my issue with many on the Left: the overuse of this term. They tend to equate fascism with repression which is nonsense because repression is a function of any state

[The Immortal Goon]

This thread is about fascism.

Topic moved.

-TIG

[Eran]

I am of the opinion that fascism is in many ways a radical endpoint of capitalism.

At the risk of getting into a semantic debate, I will strongly disagree.

In fact, fascism is closer to communism than it is to capitalism.

Setting aside economics, it is clear that the political repression aspects of historic fascist and communist regimes have much in common. Neither has much in common with classic capitalist regimes such as those of 19th century Britain or US.

As for economics, both communism and fascism are characterised by virtually total government control over the economy. The modality of how that control is exerted is different (direct ownership under communism, titular private ownership and government control by decree under fascism), but that difference is mainly optical.

While historic capitalist regimes were never saw the economy completely free from government intervention, the level of control was much lower.

In an ideal communist or fascist regime, government control over the economy would be complete. In an ideal capitalist regime, it would be non-existent.

[Rei Murasame]

There are more simularities, but these are the biggest.

All you've done is point out that all states have a repressive state apparatus. Althusser has a whole thing on this:

In order to advance the theory of the State it is indispensable to take into account not only the distinction between state power and state apparatus, but also another reality which is clearly on the side of the (repressive) state apparatus, but must not be confused with it. I shall call this reality by its concept: the Ideological State Apparatuses.

What are the Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs)?

They must not be confused with the (repressive) State apparatus. Remember that in Marxist theory, the State Apparatus (SA) contains: the Government, the Administration, the Army, the Police, the Courts, the Prisons, etc., which constitute what I shall in future call the Repressive State Apparatus. Repressive suggests that the State Apparatus in question ‘functions by violence’ – at least ultimately (since repression, e.g. administrative repression, may take non-physical forms).

I shall call Ideological State Apparatuses a certain number of realities which present themselves to the immediate observer in the form of distinct and specialized institutions. I propose an empirical list of these which will obviously have to be examined in detail, tested, corrected and re-organized. With all the reservations implied by this requirement, we can for the moment regard the following institutions as Ideological State Apparatuses (the order in which I have listed them has no particular significance):

• the religious ISA (the system of the different churches),
• the educational ISA (the system of the different public and private ‘schools’),
• the family ISA,
• the legal ISA,
• the political ISA (the political system, including the different parties),
• the trade-union ISA,
• the communications ISA (press, radio and television, etc.),
• the cultural ISA (literature, the arts, sports, etc.).

I have said that the ISAs must not be confused with the (Repressive) State Apparatus. What constitutes the difference?

As a first moment, it is clear that while there is one (Repressive) State Apparatus, there is a plurality of Ideological State Apparatuses. Even presupposing that it exists, the unity that constitutes this plurality of ISAs as a body is not immediately visible.

As a second moment, it is clear that whereas the unified – (Repressive) State Apparatus belongs entirely to the public domain, much the larger part of the Ideological State Apparatuses (in their apparent dispersion) are part, on the contrary, of the private domain. Churches, Parties, Trade Unions, families, some schools, most newspapers, cultural ventures, etc., etc., are private.

We can ignore the first observation for the moment. But someone is bound to question the second, asking me by what right I regard as Ideological State Apparatuses, institutions which for the most part do not possess public status, but are quite simply private institutions. As a conscious Marxist, Gramsci already forestalled this objection in one sentence. The distinction between the public and the private is a distinction internal to bourgeois law, and valid in the (subordinate) domains in which bourgeois law exercises its ‘authority’. The domain of the State escapes it because the latter is ‘above the law’: the State, which is the State of the ruling class, is neither public nor private; on the contrary, it is the precondition for any distinction between public and private. The same thing can be said from the starting-point of our State Ideological Apparatuses. It is unimportant whether the institutions in which they are realized are ‘public’ or ‘private’. What matters is how they function. Private institutions can perfectly well ‘function’ as Ideological State Apparatuses. A reasonably thorough analysis of any one of the ISAs proves it.

But now for what is essential. What distinguishes the ISAs from the (Repressive) State Apparatus is the following basic difference: the Repressive State Apparatus functions ‘by violence’, whereas the Ideological State Apparatuses function ‘by ideology’.

I can clarify matters by correcting this distinction. I shall say rather that every State Apparatus, whether Repressive or Ideological, ‘functions’ both by violence and by ideology, but with one very important distinction which makes it imperative not to confuse the Ideological State Apparatuses with the (Repressive) State Apparatus.

This is the fact that the (Repressive) State Apparatus functions massively and predominantly by repression (including physical repression), while functioning secondarily by ideology. (There is no such thing as a purely repressive apparatus.) For example, the Army and the Police also function by ideology both to ensure their own cohesion and reproduction, and in the ‘values’ they propound externally.

In the same way, but inversely, it is essential to say that for their part the Ideological State Apparatuses function massively and predominantly by ideology, but they also function secondarily by repression, even if ultimately, but only ultimately, this is very attenuated and concealed, even symbolic. (There is no such thing as a purely ideological apparatus.) Thus Schools and Churches use suitable methods of punishment, expulsion, selection, etc., to ‘discipline’ not only their shepherds, but also their flocks. The same is true of the Family.... The same is true of the cultural [Ideological State] Apparatus (censorship, among other things), etc.

Is it necessary to add that this determination of the double ‘functioning’ (predominantly, secondarily) by repression and by ideology, according to whether it is a matter of the (Repressive) State Apparatus or the Ideological State Apparatuses, makes it clear that very subtle explicit or tacit combinations may be woven from the interplay of the (Repressive) State Apparatus and the Ideological State Apparatuses? Everyday life provides us with innumerable examples of this, but they must be studied in detail if we are to go further than this mere observation.

Nevertheless, this remark leads us towards an understanding of what constitutes the unity of the apparently disparate body of the ISAs. If the ISAs ‘function’ massively and predominantly by ideology, what unifies their diversity is precisely this functioning, insofar as the ideology by which they function is always in fact unified, despite its diversity and its contradictions, beneath the ruling ideology, which is the ideology of ‘the ruling class’. Given the fact that the ‘ruling class’ in principle holds State power (openly or more often by means of alliances between classes or class fractions), and therefore has at its disposal the (Repressive) State Apparatus, we can accept the fact that this same ruling class is active in the Ideological State Apparatuses insofar as it is ultimately the ruling ideology which is realized in the Ideological State Apparatuses, precisely in its contradictions. Of course, it is a quite different thing to act by laws and decrees in the (Repressive) State Apparatus and to ‘act’ through the intermediary of the ruling ideology in the Ideological State Apparatuses. We must go into the details of this difference – but it cannot mask the reality of a profound identity. To my knowledge, no class can hold State power over a long period without at the same time exercising its hegemony over and in the State Ideological Apparatuses.

[Fasces]

This thread is about how the left should react to "fascism". Thread moved.

[Rei Murasame]

Oh, goodness me, this thread can't decide what part of the forum it's going to be in.

As for economics, both communism and fascism are characterised by virtually total government control over the economy. The modality of how that control is exerted is different (direct ownership under communism, titular private ownership and government control by decree under fascism), but that difference is mainly optical.

While historic capitalist regimes were never saw the economy completely free from government intervention, the level of control was much lower.

What you mean is actually that capitalist regimes tend to be less centralised. That is not the same thing as not having a government. It's just that the state apparatus becomes a myriad of private institutions which are privatised for the purpose of efficiency or for creating a market-effect so that prices can exist.

But that doesn't mean that there is no government.

[Eran]

Where did I say otherwise?

While historic capitalist regimes were never saw the economy completely free from government intervention, the level of control was much lower.

So, capitalism = less, not no government (intervention in the economy).

[Rei Murasame]

Yes, but I mean it may sound like a semantic difference but it's important to say that the government is not a separate thing which 'intervenes'. It's a matter of will they centralise or will they not centralise it.

For example, let's say there was one company called "Food company", which somehow controlled all food. One would expect that some very strange things would start to happen, namely that a rational market for food would almost seem to cease existing, since I'm not sure how food would be priced under those circumstances.

[Conscript]

So, liberalism = less, not no government (intervention in the economy).

Fixed. There's nothing about capitalism that limits it to less 'government intervention' nor is it somehow 'lessened' and more alike to socialism.

By your definitions the German Empire was socialist/fascist, and are thus they worthless and only serve to distort.

[Eran]

Under a capitalist regime which, by definition, allows (tolerably) free competition, such scenario is unlikely in the extreme.

Because capitalist economies are decentralised, there are no definites, but there are certain trends. Monopolization of broad industries tends to be (1) rare, (2) temporary, and (3) beneficial.

it's important to say that the government is not a separate thing which 'intervenes'. It's a matter of will they centralise or will they not centralise it.

And I disagree with your characterisation. Compare government's role in a capitalist economy with its role in the "market" for religious institutions. In the US, you could, semantically, claim that government in the US is not separate from the religious scene. After all, it is government policy to stay out of the "market" for religion, and that is an explicit policy that could be changed. Further, government protects churches from physical attack.

You could argue that the US simply has a government policy for decentralised religious institutions, as contrasted with, say, Iran.

But I believe a much clearer and genuine statement would be to suggest that the US government doesn't intervene in the domestic religious market, in sharp contrast with, say, the Iranian government.


In an idealised (not necessarily anarchic) capitalist regime, government plays a similar role in the economy as the US government currently plays in the religious scene.

[Poelmo]

Yes, but I mean it may sound like a semantic difference but it's important to say that the government is not a separate thing which 'intervenes'. It's a matter of will they centralise or will they not centralise it.

Yes, that's a nice way of putting it.

For example, let's say there was one company called "Food company", which somehow controlled all food. One would expect that some very strange things would start to happen, namely that a rational market for food would almost seem to cease existing, since I'm not sure how food would be priced under those circumstances.

Investors with enough capital to take on the colossal "Food Company" would magically fall from the sky, unite and then the two sides would start slugging it out for years, continuously trying to undercut each other's prices (all the while the magical investors would be foregoing potential profits by not just investing in some other sector), until finally "Food Company" is defeated, then the investors, angels that they are, decide to not become a monopolist themselves but give the market back to the people and guard against future attempts at monopolization. So it has been prophesized in the grand gospel of anarcho-capitalism.

See, what the anarcho-capitalists do not understand is that even if it's impossible to maintain a monopoly for a long time, such a monopoly can only be overthrown by a party that's in a position to become the next monopolist and it may still be profitable to maintain a monopoly for a limited amount of time, or human nature may, again and again, compel the leaders of near-monopolists to become overconfident, if at least one of these options is true we could see a world where sectors spend 60% of the time in a state of monopoly, so life would still be very sh*tty even though no individual monopoly lasts indefinitely, a bit like some sh*thole country that cycles through revolutions and counter-revolutions every 10 years: no individual tyrannical regimes lasts indefinitely but people still live under tyranny half the time and all the upheavel causes a lot of economic damage.

[Rei Murasame]

Well to respond to both of you at once, I find both the positions of being:

• Always having the state acting against monopolies, or
• Never having a state that does anything at all,

to be really restricting, since there are circumstances under which either one of those choices might be the one to go with.

Also, to speak to the religious comparison, I would say that the United States' decision to not influence the religious sphere is only because it is not in their interest to do so directly when things look more or less like how they want it to be anyway. But if someone challenged the main culture of the United States by trying to set up some kind of radical and aggressive new religion, then the United States would definitely repress that.

Japan is also directly comparable to this, since over the course of Japanese history, the Japanese state oscillated between non-activist state religion, activist state religion, violently repressive state religion, and 'private' state ideological religion. It's only in the gaps between those stages that it becomes possible to see what was being socially engineered.

[Oakwood]

A signature characteristic of facism is a large semi-to-overtly repressive state, especially for minorities. As any inner city black man, lower class Latino, or distinctly Arab/Muslim person will tell you, this exists. And as mentioned above, the system is getting steadily more repressive. Check

Well I guess if they say they're oppressed then they basically are. Interesting the way you left out "white" and "Asian" from the list of people to ask in these inner cities. Judging by the fact that you only mentioned blacks, Latinos and Arab/Muslims it would seem to mean you have been fooled into thinking these are the main causes that matter and it somehow extends less to whites and Asians. Why is it that in a lot of states an Asian and a white person need to get much higher scores on their University entrance exams than black people to get into decent Universities? Why is there such a controversy over the case of Trayvon Martin? For me, discrimination does exist on an institutional level, and in many cases, they don't even try to hide the fact that its against whites.

One last point, in fascism, the corporation becomes almost inseparable from the government, the government helps the business, business leaders support the government and direct it to some extent. This happened in Germany and Italy, and it is certainly happening in the US. Check.

There are more simularities, but these are the biggest. So the reason this is on this forum, is that having established a moderate fascist state in the us, what should the left do?

Do you not think America has been like that for a while? Also, aren't the left generally known to advocate big state involvement in business?

Well that's true to an extent, in that the fascists like to say they're working towards something, but I think you'd find no matter how much "progress" you might make under fascism, there's always a new challenge or thing to fear because the head fascists want to retain power.

In line with what KurtFF8 said, that's just the standard in nearly every country. Having something to fear for, whether it be your children's education, protection from job loss or health provision in old age- you need to make people feel as though they depend on you to provide it and that without you, life wouldn't be so secure. This is especially necessary for politicians in a democracy where the public are presented with an alternative who you have to (for your own survival) associate with the coming about of those problems.

[omegaword]

Yes I'm sorry I left out other groups that might seem insensitive. But fact is that If a racist white cop saw a lower class white guy, Asian guy and black guy he would be most likely to harass the black one. Similarly if in Arizona he had to pick between a Latino and white he'd probably go for the Latino to check his papers. Just what I've seen, and it is of course a generalization.