[Social_Critic]

Econlib.org has the following comment about fascism:

. Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.

As socio/communists realize their system isn't viable, they start moving towards corporativism. The oligarchs who rule as communist party members become (or their relatives do in some cases) the new capitalists. The process is untidy, never the same, and each particular country practices a slightly different version. But they are all pointing in the same direction:

1. Strongly nationalistic and expansive (sometimes virulent),
2. Repressive
3. Elitist and oligarchic
4. Corporatist
5. Highly centralized power structure
6. Some sort of apologia to Marx as they bury Marxism

I think china and Vietnam are good examples of ex commies on their way to fascism. Cuba just started, and Venezuela never did go fully communist, now that Chavez is going to die, Maduro his designated heir will be heavily controlled by the Cuban oligarchs in Havana, I expect they'll try to merge the two, one moving from communism towards fascism, the other moving from today's chaos towards a parallel form of fascism. Call it the Cubazuelan People's Republic if you wish, but it'll be a fascist mini empire with weak tentacles in Nicaragua, Bolivia and other peanut nations. Eventually it will fail.

[Rei Murasame]

1. Strongly nationalistic and expansive (sometimes virulent),

What does 'virulent' mean?

2. Repressive

Oh, repressive! Of who, and why? You realise that all political systems repress something, right?

3. Elitist and oligarchic

As opposed to...?

4. Corporatist

Where?

5. Highly centralized power structure

As opposed to...?

6. Some sort of apologia to Marx as they bury Marxism

This is the only substantive item on your list, and it is a feature of the Deformed Workers' State, and a feature of Bureaucratic Collectivism.

Which are both fail-modes which Marxist revolutions can end up in.

But they cannot 'become fascist'.

[Social_Critic]

. Oh, repressive! Of who, and why? You realise that all political systems repress something, right?

Repressive as in ill smash your teeth if you complain about our great leader, I'll ruin your career if you don't act, write and speak the right slogans.

You know I lived inside. I also realize all societies draw lines, but these coomofascistoids are truly evil. Right now I'm in bed using my iPad, feeling cool, and I can honestly say I don't have any problem whatsoever pushing a button to send a bunch of them to a penal colony on Deimos.

[Sandokan]

“No political event can be judged outside of the period and circumstances in which it took place....The anthem’s unforgettable notes to which millions of men and women defied death, and crushed the invaders in their attempt to impose a thousand years of Nazism and holocaust on all of humanity.” Fidel Castro reflection, “The 67th anniversary of the victory over Nazi fascism”, Granma, May 12, 2012

Fidel Castro's regime has many similarities to that of Hitler. In his youth, Castro admired Hitler and read Mein Kampf as a student at the university, where he carried around a copy as one of his favorite books.

Hitler failed attempted to obtain power in 1923 by the Beer Hall Putsch. Castro failed attempted to gain power in 1953 by the attack of the Moncada barracks. Both were arrested and used the trials to spread their ideas. Hitler was sentenced to 5 years in prison for treason, but service only eight months in very comfortable conditions. This gave him exposure to national attention. Castro was sentenced to 15 years in prison, but serving only 22 months in very easy conditions as the result of an amnesty granted by Batista. This gave him too exposure to national attention.

Castro statement at the Moncada trial in 1953, “Condemn me. It does not matter. History will absolve me”, imitated Hitler statement at the Beer Hall Putsch trial in 1924, “History will smile and tear up the motions of the state's attorney and the judgment of this court: for she finds us not guilty.” Another Castroit copy from the Nazi propaganda was the term “gusano” (worm) used against its opponents, as the term “würmer” was used against the Jews.

[Sandokan]

Others similarities are found in the repressive state apparatus. Castro’s G2 secret police built up by Gestapo ex Nazis working for the STASI. The Rapid Response Brigades, similar to the Nazi Einsatzgruppen (Special Task Force). The Castroit regime Military Intelligence Agency (SIM), equivalent to the Abwehr German Military Intelligence Service. Castro’s CDRs (Committees for the Defense of the Revolution), was copied from Hitler’s blockwarts (block wardens). According to Castro it is “a collective system of revolutionary vigilance”, which controls the neighborhood blocks, reporting on them regularly, checking up on the behavior of their residents.

[Sandokan]

Hitler Youth and Castro’s Union of Pioneers believe in the need to indoctrinate their ideology in young people starting early at age six, and received military training at an early age. Almost all children have to belong to these organizations. Like Hitler SS special security force absolutely loyal to the Fuhrer, according to a report by the Soviet newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda, Castro, the Caribbean Fuhrer, has 9,700 loyal guards responsible for his personal security.

[Smilin' Dave]

Really this nonsense has to stop.

The Rapid Response Brigades, similar to the Nazi Einsatzgruppen (Special Task Force).

Except the Brigades are internal, the Einsatzgruppen were used externally. And the former could just as easily have based on the paramilitary forces available to the NKVD/KGB.

The Castroit regime Military Intelligence Agency (SIM), equivalent to the Abwehr German Military Intelligence Service.

Or you know the Soviet GRU military intelligence?

Castro’s CDRs (Committees for the Defense of the Revolution), was copied from Hitler’s blockwarts (block wardens). According to Castro it is “a collective system of revolutionary vigilance”, which controls the neighborhood blocks, reporting on them regularly, checking up on the behavior of their residents.

It shouldn't come as any surprise to you that similar organisations, usually based on party cells, existed in the Soviet Union, again predating any Nazi equivilent.

Hitler Youth and Castro’s Union of Pioneers

Oh for fucks sake. Did it occur to you that Castro's Pioneers were based not on the Hitler Youth but oh I don't know.... the Soviet Pioneers group, which predated the Hitler Youth? The fact they are both called Pioneers should have been a pretty good clue.

has 9,700 loyal guards responsible for his personal security.

Mmmm... and Roman emperors had the Praetorian Guard. And feudal kings/dukes etc. had their loyal retainers. US Presidents have the Secret Service and will of course roll out the police and military as needed. Not forgetting the heavy security Soviet leaders had with layers of MVD, military and KGB troops as required. Perhaps they were all Nazis too.

Stop talking rot, and stop dragging up this thread.

[Sithsaber]

Cuba always said it couldn't survive if surrounded by capitalism. The country is just reforming to a more sustainable socialism lite to conform to ALBA's structure.

[Social_Critic]

Heck, they are reforming because Castro's Stalinist communism doesn't work. What's really sad is the reforms don't work, I looked at their terms and there's no way anybody in their right mind will put money in there. And evidently they are dirt poor.

We Cubans are smart, just look at the way we took over South Florida and are now almost in control of Venezuela. But the ones in Havana only know how to make a clusterfuck when it comes to the internal economy.

[Sithsaber]

Yes Cuban communism doesn't work for a variety of reasons including how communism in one state can't survive and due to how badly the embargo strangled Cuba. A state in stasis will always decay although it would seem that according to leaked documents from Wikileaks, Fidel made attempts to reassert his moralistic system of government and society. Not to stereotype but based on my connections and knowledge it would seem that much of the Cuban bloc in Miami that stems from the pre Mariel boatlift were upperclass oligarchs who had more connections to the Mafia and old style latin American rascist elitism than with democratic hold outs (they may also have organized the occasional terrorist strike against civies). And finally, Cuba is more of a client state to Venezuela than it is leader of all communism.

PS: The US hired a shit load of Nazis for a variety of things, as did the Soviets so i don't find this shocking at all if it is even true.

[Sandokan]

Both got rid of the democratic system with the objective of satisfying their desire for absolute power, eliminating freedom of speech, the press, the media, establishing despotic regimes. Both intervened abroad, Hitler in Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland etc, and Castro in Congo, Angola, Ethiopia, Somalia, Nicaragua, Colombia, Bolivia, etc. They eliminated rivals and opposition who did not agree with their ideas, forcing them to leave the country, sending them to prison or executing them.

[Smilin' Dave]

Sandokan rails about his pet topics irrespective of any correction or within the basics of human discourse, much like a dictator giving a speech. So did Hitler. Want to see how absurd we can make your logic Sandokan?

[Social_Critic]

I find the current Cuban regime, which is gradually transforming itself as it drops its Stalinist model and takes up a copy of Chinese savage socialism, to resemble a Mussolini inspired fascism. They do share quite a few attributes. As the Cuban regime moves forward into this brave new world of theirs, it will become a brand for 21st century fascism. I realize this is controversial and many fascists and communists rebel at the thought, but to those like me who are not the product of social science academia the two seem to be the same thing in the end.. .

[Rei Murasame]

Everything 'shares a few attributes', what's your point? All these conversations about Cuba are a waste of time because none of you even attempt to make any sense.

[Social_Critic]

A waste of time? I enjoy writing. Rei, some people are like sea turtles, they can't change their route and have to land on the same beach every time. Some are like drift wood, they move with the current. If you don't let the current take you, then you can't change where you go, your thoughts will always be frozen...

Sometimes it's better to drift, to accept that the current is taking you to places you never wanted to go. When you arrive, there you are .

[Rei Murasame]

If the current is carrying people into making these ridiculous comparisons, then why would I want to drift there? All you are doing is a classically ridiculous strategy where there is liberal-capitalism on one side, and an array of completely identical opponents on the other side who are some kind of demons or whatever.

It doesn't matter because because you liberal-capitalists are fighting on the side of oppression and exploitation anyway, and one day you will all be brought low.

[Social_Critic]

All you are doing is a classically ridiculous strategy where there is liberal-capitalism on one side, and an array of completely identical opponents on the other side who are some kind of demons or whatever.

Rei, I haven't said anything about liberal capitalism or that other regimes are identical. My point is that communism doesn't work. It doesn't work because it ignores human nature. Marx thought our nature was learned or impressed, it isn't. A lot of what we do is driven by our DNA.

Thus when communists see their system, in its variants, is a failure, they look around and they find fascism is something they can copy. They are not identical, but they are close enough these failed bitter communists decide to move over. And what's the first thing they do? Start creating joint ventures with foreign multinationals. Then they privatize haphazardly. But they never release their hold on power. They become the grand central planners in the emerging fascist state.

I think it's possible you prefer not to do nuances when it comes to fascism. I think human societies are very complex and they can drift this or that way, without ever reaching the full set of attributes a particular ism may have. You won't find a clear definition of communism. Some of them have the quaint idea that communes and a workers dictatorship are valid concepts, and some are personality worship drones. Same with self designated fascists.

So, I stick to my point. It's simple, elegant, and true.

[Rei Murasame]

I think it's possible you prefer not to do nuances when it comes to fascism.

There is nuance and then there is wrong. All conversation with you on this are pointless, because you want to speak some language that is only spoken in Glenn Beckistan.

[KlassWar]

Rei, there are similarities, because both rely on "patriotic nationalism" to rally the people around a dictatorship or autocracy of some sort. Both disenfranchise independent unions, create youth organizations, centralize power, silence independent media, and abuse human rights. It's common for both to use torture and to have irrational laws.

It's easy to make people rally around their country when liberal capitalists are threatening with intervention, since people typically dislike being governed by foreign diktat. Considering the hostility of the international order to markets and peoples and territories they don't control, it's pretty easy for any populist government to wrap itself in the flag 24-7: Easy, smart, honest propaganda, As capitalist powers very much did want to destroy socialist countries.

As for a dictatorship or autocracy, the openness of a particular regime pretty much depends on the degree of existential threat it believes it faces. Formally democratic regimes are quite capable of proclaiming states of emergency and brutal crackdowns against democratic movements pushing for radical, structural change if they believe there is a threat to their rule. Should the Hard Left actually win an outright majority in a general election, they'll probably be under threat of coup by right-wing security forces, all sorts of economic blackmail and outright military intervention, foreign and domestic, if they fail to stick to the bourgeoisie's script.

Liberal democracies coopt unions. They regulate the right to strike into meaninglessness. They limit the ability of unions to support striking workers. They ban solidarity strikes and political strikes. They chain and muzzle and try to neuter the labor movement, often with the criminal acquiescence or cooperation of the social democrats themselves.

It's not neccessarily that democracy itself is a bad idea (in fact, most modern communists propose a form of of direct democracy by worker's councils), but certainly liberal-democracy is a criminal sham. Democratic regimes ban and persecute movements pursuing radical change the very same instant those movements pose a threat to the regime. How many democracies ban communist parties? Elections are often rigged. Radical options receive a consistent media blackout and suffer political surveillance. Sure, liberal democracies thaw culturally and politically when they don't face an existential threat or need to make that concession not to fall to revolution... But so happened to socialist regimes.

Communist parties have ruled as one-party regimes because often every single political party 'cept for them sided against proletarian revolution. When this hasn't been the case, like in China or Vietnam, communists took power as part of a coalition of socialist parties. Those other socialist parties exist to this day... They're not particularly relevant because the official commies have a better propaganda system and greater pull over the institutions of the State (so they typically have and keep a majority), but they exist, have a voice, have it heard and are often part of a coalition in their national assembly. In practice their most useful role is to propose amendments to laws and such. One or two Eastern Bloc countries also had a bunch of socialist parties in government for a long while.

The Bolsheviks themselves initially rulled with the Leftist-SRs and were amenable to a compromise with the anarchists and the council commies. They only really started cracking down on those factions when they joined the opposition during the Russian Civil War.

Sometimes it is necessary to establish a dictatorship to prevent capital-backed or foreign-backed reactionaries from taking power. The Venezuelans might well have to crush the capitalist opposition with at some point in the future if they act up again. There's sectors in the Venezuelan Right that plan a rehash of 2002 now that they believe PSUV weakened and vulnerable as a result of Chavez's illness.

And what is really remarkable about these communist regimes is that either they end up in dire poverty and a dynastic, rotten system (see North Korea), and/or evolve into a fascist regime in which the communist party leadership gets rich as they privatize and develop what one could call savage socialism (see China, what the Cubans are trying to do, Venezuela today, etc).

Historic socialist countries regimes were dependent on the COMECON trade block and fraternal aid between socialist countries, just as capitalist countries are dependent on the capitalist world market. Comecon pretty much folded in slow motion between the late seventies and 1991, when it collapsed for real. So pretty much every socialist economy went in a deep recession during the '80s. The economic isolation of the Eastern bloc was also caused by Western embargoes and sanctions. Westerners then blamed such isolation to socialist mismanagement.

When Gorvachev's reckless, misguided, and often just plain poorly thought out transition towards some sort wishy-washy of Scandinavian-style social democracy fell to the madman Yeltsin's savage capitalism and reactionary class war, the whole house of cards went down.

The degeneracy of the few socialist regimes that managed to survive is a direct result of this economic and political collapse. China pretty much had to implement market reforms after Mao strained relations with the USSR and his collectivization programme ended up not working. China couldn't secure enough Soviet investment to industrialize, so they had to attract foreign technology and investment. The economic fundamentals were sound, so it worked (consistent economic growth and development). Unfortunately, the Chinese did not switch back to socialism after industrialization, because the Party's right-wing used this time to consolidate its own power.

Vietnam was in pretty much the same situation: Fortunately, the Vietnamese commies do plan to get back to socialism in the near future.

[Smilin' Dave]

I find the current Cuban regime, which is gradually transforming itself as it drops its Stalinist model and takes up a copy of Chinese savage socialism, to resemble a Mussolini inspired fascism. They do share quite a few attributes.

Social_Critic is/was an engineer. Leonid Brezhnev was an engineer. They share quite a few attributes in common. Therefore S_C is Brezhnev.

Maybe it's time we all had a sit down and discussed syllogist reasoning?