|QUOTE (truthypants @ Sunday, Feb 19 2012, 11:06)|
|The primary defining characteristic of Marxist-Communist ideologies is that they are stateless. Yes, a period of socialism is required to safeguard the revolution, consisting of a centralised authority (Marx's dictatorship of the Proletariat). So to the extent that a period of authoritarianism is required, it is a part of Communism; but it is only a part - the ultimate goal of the ideology of Communism is a classless, stateless society: a utopian ideal that would constitute both the end of society as we know it and of dialectical history.|
The idea that Marxism's end result is a stateless society is and always has been a sick joke as far as I'm concerned. Even if it were possible to get past the supposedly transitional dictatorship part, you're still left with a system in which the collective has essentially unlimited authority to initiate force against the individual in order to allocate property/resources/etc.. While the traditional, visible apparatus of state may theoretically cease to exist in a Marxist "utopia," it is not because the underlying authority has evaporated, but rather because it has become so large and pervasive that there is simply nothing and nobody outside of its sphere of influence to serve as contrast.
Using a farm for a metaphorical example, it would be as if one tore down the barn where the dairy cows live, moved the fence beyond the horizon, then told the cows they're free as long as they continue to share their milk. Sure, the recognizably institutional aspect of the farm is no more, and the cows can wander around a bit without ever seeing a fence, but ultimately they are still contained and being milked. Whether the authority doing the milking is the kulak farmer, some revolutionary vanguard cows, or some post-revolutionary cow community is pretty much beside the point if their only "choice" is to become hamburger if they don't share the fruits of their labor.
As such, to say that one system in which the collective has the inherent authority to initiate force against recalcitrant individuals in order to serve some abstract "greater good" is somehow the opposite of another system which aims to do the exact same thing
While Fascists do tend to aim for somewhat smaller collectives than Marxists (e.g., race or nation, as opposed to all the workers of the world or whatever), they both stand in opposition to the individual. If anything, that the Fascists see a strong national government as an end goal while the Marxists view it as a transient stage away from individualistic hedonism should put Fascists towards in the middle
of an objective political spectrum with the least collectivist ideologies (such as anarcho-capitalism or even tribalism) on the far "right." Other than the size and scope of the collective, most of the differences between the various flavors of Communism and Fascism are methodical, and have far more to do with local cultural differences and sheer pragmatism than any high ideals or values.
And even these functional differences tend to be quite minor and poorly understood, as evidenced by the OP. Especially this post on page 2:
|QUOTE (TheShogunOfHarlem @ Sunday, Feb 19 2012, 01:27)|
|Because it [Socialism in National Socialism] is a disingenuous part of their name. |
Both Hitler and Mussolini gave huge subsidies to big businesses within their respective countries. They both were anti-union and rabidly anti-communist.
From the end and working backwards, yes, they were anti-communist. But just as a Blood can be anti-Crip without being anti-gang, this does not make Fascists into Capitalists. The primary reason Hitler was able to rally the Germans against the Jews is by playing off the stereotype that they were the greedy, rich one-percenters of the day..
Second, err, no, they weren't anti-union.
|QUOTE (Adolph Hitler @ Mein Kamph, Chaper 12)|
|(1) Are trade unions necessary?|
I think that I have already answered the first question adequately. In the present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation. Not only are they important in the sphere of social policy but also, and even more so, in the national political sphere. For when the great masses of a nation see their vital needs satisfied through a just trade unionist movement the stamina of the whole nation in its struggle for existence will be enormously reinforced thereby.
Before everything else, the trades unions are necessary as building stones for the future economic parliament, which will be made up of chambers representing the various professions and occupations.
To the extent the Fascists did weaken unions was largely a result of the growing belief by the non-union workers that the powerful trade unions were becoming the new bourgeoisie class, as it were.
And finally, yes, they did subsidize big business.. and seized them or started their own national business to crush them if they didn't play along (see also: Volkswagen). What most people fail to realize is that the "corporate" in Corporatism does not pertain solely to businesses, big or otherwise. The basic idea of Corporatism is that groups of people with common interests would group together as one "body" (corp being the Latin root meaning same) and form a sort of partnership with the state. While this does, obviously, legitimize the power of big business (as opposed to them bribing pols under the table as they do otherwise), the concept of corporative public-private partnerships also applies to unions (like in those chambers of economic parliament Hitler mentioned) , scientific groups, or whatever. The theory here is that people with actual experience their respective fields would be better suited to help develop policy than random bureaucrats or elected officals who have never even been to the place being regulated.
And if you get right down to it, this is hardly much different than the Russian soviet model of setting up small councils at local and factory levels to ostensibly manage things they were familiar with.
Now, as for "family-values" "republican" moralists, well, while they are quite nasty creatures at times, this in itself does not make them the opposite of the Communist "left" or top or whatever direction you wish to chart it in. Though they would be loathe to admit it, all the crap about being "Christian nation" or whatever really puts them on an identity-politics boat next to the Marxist class warriors they claim to be against. They may not agree on which way to steer the boat, but either way the wind is blowing it away from the concept of individualism.