Fascism for beginners - the ultimate guide

Ok, there seem to be white a lot of people confused as to what fascism is, They think that National Socialism means it must be a kind of socialism. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Here then, is your ultimate guide to fascism. I'm gonna keep it simple so I wont offer loads of support in the OP, this detail can be filled in later.

1. Fascism is right wing, reactionary, a branch of conservative politics. It's historical role is like a battering ram against socialism and the organisations of the working class.

2. Fascism you could say was invented by Mussolini who repeatedly stated that fascism opposed socialism.

3. Hitler was a fan and copied Mussolini, but he used the oxymoron 'National Socialism' which still confuses some people. Later he said he regretted the name. He wrote to industrialists telling them that he supported capitalism in fact.

4. Hitler was helped into power by leading capitalists.

5. Once in power, in fact on his way to power, he attacked the left. Just before the 1933 elections he rounded up the workers leaders and stopped the left parties campaigning. After his election 'victory' he rounded up all socialists and sent them to concentration camps. He then closed down the trade unions.

6. During the 1930s while other countries were nationalising to combat the Depression, the Nazis in fact were privatising.

7. American companies increased their investment by 50% during the period approx 1933-41. They made big profits off the Nazis. They built Hitler's war machine for him. Dozens of big American firms helped him, even after the war started.

8. Hitler gave Henry Ford and the boss of General Motors his highest awards. He kept a photo of Ford and mentioned him in Mein Kampf.

9. Hitler believed that communism was a Jewish plot.

10. By definition, socialism is democratic and internationalist. Of course it is anti-racist, anti-sexist as well. Fascism is the exact opposite. Socialism is anti-capitalist of course. Hitler made a few anti-capitalist noises early on but later said that was just talk, to try to win some workers over to his middle class party. The two main workers parties in Germany were both nominally Marxist, and he was trying to win some of them over. His political career started when he was joined the equally misnamed German Workers Party. More on that later.



Hitler and Mussolini. Mussolini wrote the Doctrine of Fascism.

 

First sentence should read 'whole' not 'white', a strangely coincidental typo!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

This sounds far too much like so many of the right wingers on this board.

Purging ideas and people and systems not in line with their thinking. In short to end democracy, where contradicting views are embraced and the democratic process takes care of the dominent desire of the people.

Sounds familiar to anyone here, those OWS people really "deserve" that beat down, right?

OMG!

It just continues in its parallels to the US right.

 

Several things here. For starters, while many things you say are true, it seems more as if you're going for guilt by association than information. For instance, while it might be true that Hitler got help from capitalists, most capitalists will have nothing to do with Nazism. It's a bit like linking communists to today's liberals. Again, while the facts might be true, the rhetoric will not appeal to people who don't already share your view.

Secondly, Fascism is considered radical more than reactionary. You might see it as reactionary because the views that were radical then are old now.

The fascists were not very limited economically, they can span a great spectrum between capitalistic and socialistic (not really reaching either, though). The thing that defines them is their stance towards national identity. This stance is in generally found in the right wing, at least nowadays, but can be found in people from all across the spectrum.

In general, fascists are known for opposing almost every single existing ideology. Specific fascists might oppose other ideologies than others, but if you are a fascist in Germany were communism is winning ground in the rest of Europe, you'd be opposed to communism, if you are a fascist in Germany when you feel that British nobility and upper class keeps Germany down, you'd be against aristocracy.

It's really a whiners club, where someone charismatic manages to bad mouth every single alternative (bad mouthing is easier than praise).

 

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

- Adolf Hitler


"It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of the nation, that the position of the individual is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole."

- Adolf Hitler


"Society’s needs come before the individual’s needs."

- Adolf Hitler


"Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper."

- Adolf Hitler

 

Everything in your post is the exact opposite of the truth.

The original fascists were on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism.

The Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term "National Socialism"). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities--where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewy and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a "friendlier," more liberal form. The modern heirs of this "friendly fascist" tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential liberal fascist isn't an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade-school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

 

This from the guy who likes David Duke.

 

Lol, what a bizarre nonsensical post.

 

Lol. What a bizarre nonsensical post.

 

??? What don't you agree? Or better said, you don't agree because don't fit in your beliefs. But that is fascism. The definition is correct.

In Spain we had a fascist government and it has anything of socialist. Chile also had a fascist government, the same with Argentina. Do you see any relation to what the right wing is falsely repeating?

 

Fascism is not related to conservatism. I stopped reading when I saw that garbage.

 

Mussolini conceived of fascism because he was looking for a "third way" economic system that was neither capitalist nor socialist. I've seen defenders of each use examples from fascism of the opposite system in order to prove that other system is closer to fascism.

The fact is it had elements of each in an attempt to be neither.

Fascist governments had many activities that were progressive and some that were not. For instance eugenics programs that Hitler was famous for were also enacted by progressives in the US. Likewise the nationalism that he preached resembles the nationalism pushed by conservatives in many countries.

The reason that people can tie fascism to their opponents is because it has elements of both sides. It is neither conservative nor liberal, neither capitalist nor socialist, but an attempt to create something else entirely.

 

those guys sure were snappy dressers

 

You keep trying to "educate" people... which is obnoxiously presumptuous. You refuse to accept facts when trying to wrongly correct people. What I said, and showed you, is that the National Socialism Movement IS in fact and DEMANDS socialism. 1/3 of their 25 point demands are completely socialist demands. As you may, or may not, know... there are actually several kinds of socialism movements.

Hitler.

As I said before, Hitler moved away from true socialism, but that is where he came from, and how he got to power. Gobbels and Drexler were big fans.

The Nazis hated Marxists. Hated communists. So did the National Fascist Party. They hated classical liberalism. However, they hated commerse and free market too. They were very anti-capitalism... that was how they got popular as the DAP (German Workers Party). That was why the holocaust happened. A socialist, centralized government party formed... with anti-capitalism as a theme, aimed at the 1%. The Jewish bankers and businessmen.

That might sound a little familiar.

“Socialism is the science dealing with the common wealth. Communism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.” - Adolf Hitler

While you don't like that they are indeed socialist anti-capitalists... they are.

And they are, the 99%.

 

He didn't say that. He just said what is defending fascism. It was you who saw the relation....

And yes, fascism and conservatism are similar. I say that. Even many times I am not able to see differences. And even many times an European fascist militant in some fascist party would look too moderate.

 

Socialism = anti-capitalist

Nazi = Creation of strong privatized industry, subsided and controlled in some way by the state. But private.

That is what they did. And that is not socialist, is fascist. And that is the way that capitalists use to get more power. And here we can see some relation of what do our today governments, that are close to fascism.

 

Government controlled isn't private.

If you buy a car, but I take the keys, drive it whenever I want and never let you lose it, do you really own the car? Legally you own the car, but effectively it is mine.

When government controls industry, it is no longer private, even if in name a private individual "owns" that industry. It is still effectively the property of the government.

 

When I as a white person think of the term faschism, I immediately think propaganda: because they keep using the same thing to describe Islamofaschism, and to label "enemies" of Israel. and I relate Israel somewhat to Jews back in the "faschism" days... but in one word.... propaganda term.

 

It is pretty well established that the NAZI's were socialists. Anyone who would deny this probably would deny the holocaust as well.

Today's socialist try to distance themselves by saying it was a right wing movement because of it's racial superiority and nationalistic aspects of the Nazi's. However, this does not in anyway reflect upon right wing republicanism of American politics. Afterall, Republicans lead the fight to free the slaves, for Reconstruction, for the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and on and on. (See: http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/28342-gops-record-race.html) Anyone who would attempt to relate Nazi's to republicans would deny the Democrats horrible record on race, the end of Reconstruction, Jim Crow Laws, segragation, the KKK, fighting equal rights in the 60's and on and on.

 

Republicans were Liberals in that moment(where the left). Today are far right conservative, more close to the fascism.

 

That's a rather fantastic claim. Can you back that up with examples or facts? I think not. You should click the link I provided on my last post. You can't try and say that republicans are now democrats and democrats are now republicans. That is just a baseless stupid argument.

 

Speaking of cars...

Anyone know what Volkswagen means? A product of the Nazi Trade Union.

 

Well not all capitalists backed the Nazis. In 1930 Trotsky wrote "The big German bourgeoisie is vacillating at present; it is split up. Its disagreements are confined to the question: Which of the two methods of cure for the social crisis shall be applied at present? The Social Democratic therapy repels one part of the big bourgeoisie by the uncertainty of its results, and by the danger of too large levies (taxes, social legislation, wages). The surgical intervention of fascism seems to the other part to be uncalled for by the situation and too risky."

However as I say, American companies increased their investment by 50% in Nazi Germany so I think it's fair to say they backed them. There is more on my list but I dont wanna repeat myself.

I disagree with this, fascism is and was always reactionary.
wiki:

"Benito Mussolini said that "fascism is reaction" and that "fascism, which did not fear to call itself reactionary"

Read the Doctrine of Fascism by Mussolini and say that.

"Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism"
Mussolini

There is no nationalism in Marxism, except for national liberation struggles ie kicking out colonists.

You last sentence is pretty good. Hitler could be described like this. But to get to power he needed big business, and sections of big business thought he was worth the risk.

Trotsky described him brilliantly:

"Naive minds think that the office of kingship lodges in the king himself, in his ermine cloak and his crown, in his flesh and bones. As a matter of fact, the office of kingship is an interrelation between people. The king is king only because the interests and prejudices of millions of people are refracted through his person. When the flood of development sweeps away these interrelations, then the king appears to be only a washed-out man with a flabby lower lip. He who was once called Alfonso XIII could discourse upon this from fresh impressions. [1]

The leader by will of the people differs from the leader by will of God in that the former is compelled to clear the road for himself or, at any rate, to assist the conjuncture of events in discovering him. Nevertheless, the leader is always a relation between people, the individual supply to meet the collective demand. The controversy over Hitler’s personality becomes the sharper the more the secret of his success is sought in himself. In the meantime, another political figure would be difficult to find that is in the same measure the focus of anonymous historic forces. Not every exasperated petty bourgeois could have become Hitler, but a particle of Hitler is lodged in every exasperated petty bourgeois.

The rapid growth of German capitalism prior to the First World War by no means signified a simple destruction of the middle classes. Although it ruined some layers of the petty bourgeoisie it created others anew: around the factories, artisans and shopkeepers; within the factories, technicians and executives. But while preserving themselves and even growing numerically – the old and the new petty bourgeoisie compose a little less than one-half of the German nation – the middle classes have lost the last shadow of independence. They live on the periphery of large-scale industry and the banking system, and they live off the crumbs from the table of the monopolies and cartels, and off the spiritual alms of their theorists and professional politicians.

The defeat in 1918 raised a wall in the path of German imperialism. External dynamics changed to internal. The war passed over into revolution. Social Democracy, which aided the Hohenzollerns in bringing the war to its tragic conclusion, did not permit the proletariat to bring the revolution to its conclusion. The Weimar democracy spent fourteen years finding interminable excuses for its own existence. The Communist Party called the workers to a new revolution but proved incapable of leading it. The German proletariat passed through the rise and collapse of war, revolution, parliamentarism, and pseudo-Bolshevism. At the time when the old parties of the bourgeoisie had drained themselves to the dregs, the dynamic power of the working class also found itself sapped.

The postwar chaos hit the artisans, the peddlers, and the civil employees no less cruelly than the workers. The economic crisis in agriculture was ruining the peasantry. The decay of the middle strata did not mean that they were made into proletarians, inasmuch as the proletariat itself was casting out a gigantic army of chronically unemployed. The pauperization of the petty bourgeoisie, barely covered by ties and socks of artificial silk, eroded all official creeds and first of all the doctrine of democratic parliamentarism.

The multiplicity of parties, the icy fever of elections, the interminable changes of ministries aggravated the social crisis by creating a kaleidoscope of barren political combinations. In the atmosphere brought to white heat by war, defeat, reparations, inflation, occupation of the Ruhr, crisis, need, and despair, the petty bourgeoisie rose up against all the old parties that had bamboozled i.e. The sharp grievances of small proprietors never out of bankruptcy, of their university sons without posts and clients, of their daughters without dowries and suitors, demanded order and an iron hand.

The banner of National Socialism was raised by upstarts from the lower and middle commanding ranks of the old army. Decorated with medals for distinguished service, commissioned and noncommissioned officers could not believe that their heroism and sufferings for the Fatherland had not only come to naught, but also gave them no special claims to gratitude. Hence their hatred of the revolution and the proletariat. At the same time, they did not want to reconcile themselves to being sent by the bankers, industrialists, and ministers back to the modest posts of bookkeepers, engineers, postal clerks, and schoolteachers. Hence their “socialism.” At the Yser and under Verdun they had learned to risk themselves and others, and to speak the language of command, which powerfully overawed the petty bourgeois behind the lines. [2] Thus these people became leaders.

At the start of his political career, Hitler stood out only because of his big temperament a voice much louder than others, and an intellectual mediocrity much more self-assured. He did not bring into the movement any ready-made program, if one disregards the insulted soldier’s thirst for vengeance. Hitler began with grievances and complaints about the Versailles terms, the high cost of living, the lack of respect for a meritorious non-commissioned officer, and the plots of bankers and journalists of the Mosaic persuasion. There were in the country plenty of ruined and drowning people with scars and fresh bruises. They all wanted to thump with their fists on the table. This Hitler could do better than others. True, he knew not how to cure the evil. But his harangues resounded, now like commands and now like prayers addressed to inexorable fate. Doomed classes, like those fatally ill, never tire of making variations on their plaints nor of listening to consolations. Hitler’s speeches were all attuned to this pitch. Sentimental formlessness, absence of disciplined thought ignorance along with gaudy erudition – all these minuses turned into pluses. They supplied him with the possibility of uniting all types of dissatisfaction in the beggar’s bowl of National Socialism, and of leading the mass in the direction in which it pushed him. In the mind of the agitator was preserved, from among his early improvisations, whatever had met with approbation. His political thoughts were the fruits of oratorical acoustics. That is how the selection of slogans went on. That is how the program was consolidated. That is how the “leader” took shape out of the raw material."

Leon Trotsky
What Is National Socialism?
(June 1933)

Written in exile in Turkey, June 10, 1933.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330610.htm

 

You need to supply sources, dates, links. I strongly suspect that these were said early on, when Hitler was trying to win over some workers.

As I say in the OP, he then wrote to German industrialists explaining that it was all talk and he didn't mean it. And of course what he did in practice was the exact opposite of what socialists would do.

I hope you are gonna try to support this ludicrous statement as I'm not gonna waste time otherwise.

Now you're just getting silly. Sillier I mean.

Sorry, I'm just gonna ignore anything to do with fascism in America. This is a serious thread.

Now, instead of a bit of waffle, if you wanna go through my OP point by point and debunk it with proof feel free. You have zero chance. Every word is correct and I can support.

Lets just take your claim 'they loathed the free market'.

If they did, how come big American companies increased their investment by 50% in Nazi Germany?

Here is some support for that:

"US corporate investment in Germany accelerated rapidly after Hitler came to power. Investment increased 48.5% between 1929 and 1940, while declining in the rest of continental Europe. American bombers deliberately avoided hitting these US factories, and they received compensation from the American taxpayer for any damage after the war. US oil companies sold oil to the Nazis and oil on credit to the fascists in Spain."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Capitalism_Fascism_WW2.html

"it is important to consider the size of American investments in Nazi Germany at the time of Pearl Harbor. These amounted to an estimated total of $475 million. Standard Oil of New Jersey had $120 million invested there; General Motors had $35 million; 111 had $30 million; and Ford had $17.5 million. "
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Trading_Enemy_excerpts.html

"American investment in Germany thus continued to expand under Hitler, and amounted to about 475 million dollars by the time of Pearl Harbor."
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/51/pauwels.html

"Expanding its German workforce from 17,000 in 1934 to 27,000 in 1938 also made GM one of Germany’s leading employers. Unquestionably, GM’s Opel became an integral facet of Hitler’s Reich."
http://www.speroforum.com/a/15515/How-GM-got-the-Third-Reich-rolling-part-two



Henry Ford, receiving the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the Third Reich's top award. Hitler was a big fan and Ford is the only American mentioned in Mein Kampf.

 

"Conservatism

Conservatives and fascists in Europe have held mutual positions on issues, including anti-communism and support of national pride.[70] Conservatives and fascists both reject the liberal and Marxist emphasis on linear progressive evolution in history.[71] Fascism's emphasis on order, discipline, hierarchy, martial virtues, and preservation of private property appealed to conservatives.<refBlamires, Cyprian, World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1 (Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc, 2006) p. 147.</ref> Fascists' promotion of "healthy", "uncontaminated" elements of national tradition such as chivalric culture and glorifying a nation's historical golden age have similarities with conservative aims.[72] Fascists also made pragmatic tactical alliances with traditional conservative forces in order to achieve and maintain power.[72]

Unlike conservatism, fascism specifically presents itself as a modern ideology that is willing to break free from moral and political constraints of traditional society.[73] The conservative authoritarian right is distinguished from fascism in that such conservatives utilized traditional religion as the basis for their views while fascists focused based their views on more complex issues such as vitalism, nonrationalism, or secular neo-idealism.[74]

Many of fascism's recruits were disaffected right-wing conservatives who were dissatisfied with the traditional right's inability to achieve national unity and its inability to respond to socialism, feminism, economic crisis, and international difficulties.[75] With traditional conservative parties in Europe severely weakened in the aftermath of World War I, there was a political vacuum on the right which fascism filled.[76]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#Conservatism