Number of people killed by Stalin: thirty two million Number of people killed by fascism in the 20 - 21st century:six million Number of people killed by Communism in the 20 - 21st century: one hundred million.
Question: Isn't attacking fascists based on their political ideology in itself a form of fascism?
Let's say you and your Communist buddies came to power, what would you do with these 'fascists'. Indeed, how would you judge who was a fascist? The problem with fascism is that it is essentially apolitical, it has no meat, it simply solves all problems with the truncheon. Power for the sake of power, no diplomacy, no compromise, utter lunacy.
But many Communists seem more than happy to do the same. The targets change, but the methods stay the same.
I believe Utopianism and Fascism are linked fairly strongly. All men with the will to forge Heaven on Earth do so at the barrel of a gun, using brutal coercion to force others to see the world through their eyes. Fascists and Communists both want a paradise and it bugs me because the true beauty of humanity is to be found in our imperfections, our follies, our tragedies.
Trying to force a man to be 'equal' to his inferiors is just as unnatural as stripping a man of his right to hold those in power accountable for their actions.
Fascism isn't really apolitical at all. It's characterized as a strong centralized (usually totalitarian) state that is merged with corporate power. In Nazi Germany, for an example, many prominent Nazi Party Politicians where board members of large corporations such as Volkswagen and BMW (was actually a plane manufacturer at the time). In Franco's Spain, most of the landowners and captains of industry joined in the fascist revolt against the second republic (part of the reason the resulting anarchist/communist revolution came about, almost out of necessity to keep industry running without the old bosses).
Fascism is a capitalist reaction against socialism/communism/anarchism. During Spain for an example, the many of elected officials of the second republic where dominantly democratic socialists, social democrats, communists, and other mild left-wingers, took a more left wing approach, strengthening the working class by means of such reforms as giving unions like U.G.T. and C.N.T. more power. The capitalist class rejected this and acted in reaction. In the Spanish revolutionary song "A las barracadas", the lyrics goes "En pie el pueblo obrero a la batalla, hay que derrocar a la reacción" or "Working people march onwards to the battle, We have to smash the reaction" noting on the fascist revolt being a reaction against working class power. During the rise of the Nazi Party, the Labor movement in Germany was actually the largest in the world, supported by communists/socialists/anarchists, until it was eventually crushed, trade unions abolished and the DAF (Deutsche Arbeitsfront, or German Labor Front) effectively squashed any attempts to reorganize. Many of the socialists that where in Germany, actually ended up in Spain fighting the fascists later on. In Jack London's book, The Iron Heel (published in 1908), it describes a plutocratic power coming around in reaction to working class power, which has since been described as Fascism (the book was a favorite actually, of both Vladimir Lenin, and Leon Trotsky). In an essay by Orwell, he acknowledged that London predicted Fascism in the book, and described it as a story about capitalist reaction against working class power.
Fascism is something directly opposed to us anarchists/socialists/communists. It is a political ideology that is a direct reaction against us.
But if Fascism is, as you say, centered around money and corporatism - doesn't that mean that it IS apolitical? Politics encompasses a large array of things and so any belief based on money will always sacrifice ideology for profit. And anyone without an ideology is pretty much what I would define as apolitical. The shameless grab for power and profit is not what I would call an ideology - more a submission to baser instincts.
It's a radical right position, not apolitical. It's the belief in the existing privilege and power, and an extension on it, justified usually by something absurd like social Darwinism or a "divine right." It's position taken when the labor movement gains to much ground and threatens that privilege and power that fascist believe they have some right to it. Basically, it's an ideology trying to justify that shameless profit and power motive.
Ah, but patriotism goes far beyond your average, run-of-the-mill fascist. I'm very patriotic but class myself as a liberal. I see it as something which is beyond politics, similar to how fascism is beneath politics.
Plus, you mentioned totalitarianism. Isn't that the ultimate form of apolitical thought? Politics is the exchange of ideas, it is the grand melting pot upon which society functions. How can an idea based around eliminating ideas and opposition be truly political?
i'm beginning to wonder if we're even discussing the same things. what the other guys and i are talking about is fascism as a political system - i.e. national-syndicalism - and not as a colloquial pejorative (e.g. "fascist pigs"). granted, the neo-nazis that most people are familiar with through popular media bear little resemblance to fascist Italy, Spain, or Germany of the previous century. but there are groups here in the US that are basically large local militias that would undoubtedly like to revive that form of government.
also, granted, many of those people are incredibly ignorant, if not dimwitted, but they still manage to bring in new recruits (in addition to indoctrinating their own children). that makes them dangerous (if the weapons stockpiles didn't already).
another problem area that i've noticed is so-called crypto-fascists (basically your online nazis). often they are quite intelligent and adept at subversion. this is a problem on a site like this, for example, where you have a lot of impressionable young kids.
Your dangerously underestimate fascists, yes they love to us the trucheon, but their are also smart and know hown to twist people round to supporting them, how to centre a whole nation around one person.
A revolution is pointless unless it can defend itself from reactionaries In the words of Felix Dzerzhinsky "It is no good lamenting that the Whites employ unlawful methods against the lawful government. We must defend ourselves"
Communism is not a utopian ideology, the whole point of it was to move away from the old utopian socialist ideas of the eary 19th century.
Who are you to say how is an inferior and who is a superior, we are all human and we deserve love respect and care and treatment equally.
Smart fascists? Come now, what exactly is so smart about them? Not a single one of those fools respects the people, all they do is use fear and intimidation to keep them under control. They're a bunch of slobbering dimwits who use flashy iconography to make up for their lack of any political backbone.
Really, it's not smart, it's perhaps the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Centering a regime around one man only focuses the dissent against a single figurehead. The mechanics of government are eventually eroded because of the leaders blossoming megalomania and eventually the citizens have neither peace nor security - because neither of those things can exist without liberty.
Honestly, if the fascists and Nazis thought about it for one bloody second they would realise how vastly superior democracy is.
Oh, and humans don't deserve to be treated equally. Some humans are simply more intelligent than others. Communism elevates mediocrity and rewards a lack of ambition. It is the ideology of the pauper who creates excuses as to why he isn't a King. It levels the playing field at the expense of human endeavour. It's more logically sound than fascism but is ultimately just as perverted, sick and wrong.
Most modern fascists are idiots, but back in the day they were anything but, you think Mussolini, Hitler and Franco held on to power for as long as they did with just fear and intimidation, no they mastered brainwashing and propaganda to keep people in line you need brains to do that.
Still it takes lot to centre a whole nation around the will of one person
They don't believe in democracy they think it's detrimental to society.
Just because some people are smarter then other doesn't mean we should treat people differently when it comes to their rights as a person. You know how most kings became kings? it's because their mother or father was ruler before them, none of them worked for what they ended up with, that is wrong no matter how you look at it. yeah communism doesn't care about humanendeavour that why the soviet union became a world super power in 20 years, wiped out illiteracy and put a man in space years before an capitalist nation.
My friend, Hitler and Mussolini were perverted buffoons who reaped the benefits of power without doing much work. Mussolini gave himself numerous government positions but was so delusional he could not see that his policies were a complete failiure. Hitler designated the day-to-day running of the Third Reich to his underlings whilst he watched movies and sexually abused his niece.
I'll grant you, Goebbels was a master propagandist, and men like Gabrielle D'Annunzio knew how to capture the public imagination, but the leaders themselves were often arrogant douchebags who lost their dynamism and mystique as soon as they took power.
Oh, and the USSR DID care about human endeavour. But mostly thanks to Comarade Stalin and the great society he built. But most non-Stalinist Communists were mindless drones who wanted to stifle free expression in the name of 'equality'.
Stalinist support of the arts and even elements of his personality cult turned the grey drudgery of Lenin into a thriving society with its own identity.
It's far to easy to write off people like Hitler and Mussolini as buffoons or crazy, no doubt that they were terrible people who did terrible things but doesn't mean they were smart, Mussolini was able to call up his own private army and persuade the government to ally with him. Not sure about Hitler leaving the day to day running to his underlings, he wasn't the type.
No sure what history you read by Uncle Joe wasn't a fan of free expression, under lenin's government there was the rise of constructivist art, something that was suppressed along many achievements of the eary soviet state.
Stalin routinely saved poets and artists from purges. When their names came up on his endless pile of death warrants, he often refused to sign them. He was also generous, donating money to such people. Indeed, he personally enjoyed authoring stories and poems and publishing them anonymously once in power. Have you read 'Court of the Red Tsar'? It's an amazing book which shows Stalin as a flawed but brilliant man.
But apparently it's true about Hitler. He slept during the day and would watch movies at night. He gave many tasks to his inner circle and pitted them against each other. His military victories were the work of better men than himself and when he took more control it became an absolute disaster. He was hopped up on cocaine and was utterly incapable of genuine emotion. Honestly, if the economy of Weimar Germany was better that clown would never have taken power.