Merger Of Nationalism And Socialism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14321465
It appears that fascists and National Socialists were all to some extent inspired by socialism. However they disliked the internationalist character of socialist movements. Was the merger of nationalism and socialism by the third position a development of the times or was it based on pre-liberal, pre-capitalist and autocratic continental European political traditions?
#14321502
Political Interest wrote:It appears that fascists and National Socialists were all to some extent inspired by socialism. However they disliked the internationalist character of socialist movements.

Fascism and National Socialism in the were not socialist in the strict Marxian sense, but instead were a form of corporatism and syndicalism which was colloquially called a type of socialism.

However, the situation influences the response, and the manifestation of nationalism as an idea is often secondary to the economic goal of integrating people into the nation and addressing concrete problems. In most scenarios, socialism itself (of both sorts) can set down a framework in which nationalism manifests, by creating the preconditions for its existence (industrialisation, centralisation, connecting infrastructure, revolution to assery control over that process by a new leadership, etc) and reflexively, the need for such a regime to maintain nationalism in order to maintain its legitimacy.

Political Interest wrote:Was the merger of nationalism and socialism by the third position a development of the times or was it based on pre-liberal, pre-capitalist and autocratic continental European political traditions?

I like to look at Vietnam for the answers to such questions, because to me, Vietnam is really a test case that help with understanding how these things work. I'd recommend completely reading this:
Vietnamese Political Studies and Debates on Vietnamese Nationalism. Journal of Vietnamese Studies 2: 2 (August 2007), pp. 175-230. wrote:This essay reviews the study of Vietnamese politics, specifically the debates about Vietnamese nationalism that have preoccupied scholars. The field has undergone two growth spurts—one in the mid 1960s and the other since the mid 1980s. These periods of growth were precipitated by Cold War politics and political developments in the United States and Vietnam, and the debates on Vietnamese nationalism evolved in a way that corresponded to trends in the field as a whole. When the field shifted, the tone of the debates and the major arguments advanced also shifted. Clearly, politics has had a deep impact not only on the development of the field but also on its scholarship.

It's 39 pages long, and it presents every possible perspective, so make sure you read it right through. I won't try to tell you what to think on this, since I don't want to control where this thread goes in a heavy-handed way. I want to see what will happen.
#14322716
fuser wrote:extent of state is not the measurement of political ideology.


Of course not. My point was that in actual practice, regimes which were theoretically far apart weren't all that different, and increased power of the State or Whole, is the common denominator, regardless of theory--which says something about the latter in cases like communism, where the state is held to be temporary, or fascism, which essentially took over industries despite its rhetoric.

Internationalist Fascism and nationalistic communism don't make sense to me.


But they still existed. As I've written before, the raison d'etre of a serious fascist system was to strengthen the State vis a vis others with a view toward hegemonization, just like in its original inspiration, Rome. And that inevitably means internationalism. Communist regimes relied on nationalism to gain more support for the State, to enable it to prevail over others and dominate them. In both cases, nationalism was just a tool. What mattered was the State.
#14322723
And yet a large state like Nazi Germany didn't nationalized industry like USSR (regardless of could have/would have).

Your own point is based on hypothetical fantasies and not "in practice" as you yourself are admitting, in practice two large states (Nazi Germany and USSR) were not similar going by your example only hence going by " in practice " extent of state is not the measurement of political ideology.
#14323116
fuser wrote:And yet a large state like Nazi Germany didn't nationalized industry like USSR


But they might as well have, given all the control they exercised. Communist regimes owned industries, fascist regimes controlled them. Not a heck of a lot of difference.
#14323183
Once again, indulging in Hypothetical. Might have? Really? It doesn't look very well for Someone talking about "in actual practice."

So, yeah going by actual practice, extent of state is not the measurement of political ideology.
#14325265
fuser wrote:Once again, indulging in Hypothetical. Might have? Really? It doesn't look very well for Someone talking about "in actual practice." :lol:

So, yeah going by actual practice, extent of state is not the measurement of political ideology.
For the Libertarian Lord of the Rings is truth. History is a lie. History is not as things should be according to the Libertarian mind, A libertarian has individual rights. the right for things to be as the Libertarian declares they ought to be. Really must never be allowed to get in the way of a Libertarian's rights. In Lord of the Rings the ultra small state Libertarian Hobbit's overcome the evil socialist Mordor. Every evil in the world is the fault of government, so even slavery was the fault of government not enterprising individualistic entrepreneurs going out to make their fortunes. in lord of the Rings we see even Otto's unhealthily large riches come not from his hard work and free enterprise but form his dealing with Sarauman the other really big government ruler.

So take Poland and Germany in 1939, what mattered was not how socialist they were, how high or low the taxation rate was, or the burden of planning regulations but whether you were Polish or German.
#14325335
Kita Ikki is known as the father of Japanese fascism and his book "An Outline Plan for the Reorganisation of Japan" (1919) served as the ideological backbone of Japanese fascists and the book is known as the Mein Kamph of the Showa ultranationalist movement. Kita believed that a coup d'état would be necessary to impose a totalitarian regime led by a powerful leader and his book influenced the Imperial Japanese Army officers who participated in the February 26 Incident in 1936 and Kita was arrested and executed for his role in the failed coup. Kita gained lower class support by advocating a fair distribution of wealth and he proposed to limit personal properties that could be owned by the upper class and most Japanese military officers at the time came from poor rural communities and sympathised with his National Socialist ideas. Third Positionists were among the members of the National Front such as Nick Griffin, who tried to soften his neo-fascist image to gain greater public acceptance, and they advocated the establishment of homogeneous communities where a fair distribution of wealth could be achieved among the members of a particular ethnic group.
#14325417
Political Interest wrote:It appears that fascists and National Socialists were all to some extent inspired by socialism.


"The basic ideas of the Nationalsocialist movement are volkisch and the volkisch ideas are Nationalsocialist." - Hitler

The volkisch movement, to the naive onlooker, looks like socialism, but it was actually the largest group in the Conservative Revolutionary movement in Germany. It was based on a unified Germany where all Germans lived in harmony, with no outside influences that would only subvert the pure blooded German.

The Thule Society was a good example of this Volkisch ideology. Notice the swastika and the date - 1919.

Image

If the Italian Fascists and the Nationalsocialist had one thing in common it was the desire to recreate the Roman and the German Empire. They both looked to the past for inspiration...the Socialists wanted to destroy the Empires of the past, which were conservative, rightwing and hierarchical.
#14325655
The Italian fascists were directly inspired by the syndicalist movement, and the yellow socialist movement (which would split into social democracy and fascism). I have no earthly idea why anybody would attempt to deny the influence of individuals like Proudhon or Sorel on fascist thought.

In France and Italy, fascism was the result of the meeting of left-wing intellectuals with nationalist leaders. Bertrand de Jouvenel was such a leftist who worked with Pierre Drieu La Rochelle to create the ideological underpinnings of the PFF and would go on to found the PRS with Georges Valois following the dissipation of the Faisceau.

In 1925, Georges Valois himself stated, in clear terms, that socialism + nationalism = fascism.

In 1935, Sir Oswald Mosley: "If you love our country you are nationals and if you love our people you are socialist."

Fascism is not Marxist, this should be clear - but be wary of Marxist-Leninists who claim a monopoly over the socialist movement and would deny revolutionary syndicalism its equal place. Prior to the 20th century, it was far less clear, and Proudhonian socialist movements developed, in many cases, into fascist movements with the inclusion of futurists, militarists, and , most importantly, nationalists. In fact, the creation of fascism itself can be said to be its own "red-brown" alliance - fueled by a mutual disgust in Italy and France for the failure of liberalism, nationalists and socialists merged together to create the fascist ideology. Read Sorel's review, L'Indipendance to see the manifestation of that alliance. Look at the founding members of the Cercle Proudhon - Marraus, grandfather of fascism; Sorel, father of revolutionary syndicalism; Valois, French Resistance fighter, and founder of France's fascist party; and Édouard Berth, a well established Marxist/syndicalist synthesist. We find Mussolini himself in the mid 1910s as editor of a socialist newspaper - it was exposure to this new form of national syndicalism which converted him, and cause him to eventually lead the charge of political fascism. Jacques Doriot went from leading the French Communist Party (and cast out because of his attempts to lead a red/brown alliance to founding the PPF. Henri de Man, noted in history as being a leading Marxist theoretician, and one of the most prominent Nazi collaborators in Belgium.

To argue that there is no influence of socialism in fascism is absurd, and a political statement utterly removed from fact, as is the belief that an alliance between the two is impossible.

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]