Capitalism in Decay

1247 readers

6 users here now

Fascism is capitalism in decay. As with anticommunism in general, the ruling class has oversimplified this phenomenon to the point of absurdity and teaches but a small fraction of its history. This is the spot for getting a serious understanding of it (from a more proletarian perspective) and collecting the facts that contemporary anticommunists are unlikely to discuss.

Posts should be relevant to either fascism or neofascism, otherwise they belong in [email protected]. If you are unsure if the subject matter is related to either, share it there instead. Off‐topic posts shall be removed.

No capitalist apologia or other anticommunism. No bigotry, including racism, misogyny, ableism, heterosexism, or xenophobia. Be respectful. This is a safe space where all comrades should feel welcome.

For our purposes, we consider early Shōwa Japan to be capitalism in decay.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

From the perspective of someone in the early 1920s, what warning signs were there of Classical Fascism's horrors? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

[Classical] Fascism was interesting for a few reasons, some of them being its relationship to the labour movement:

ᴉuᴉlossnW was a prominent socialist until their expulsion from the PSI for their nationalist views, and if we take them at their word in their last testament while captured by communists, they considered themself a socialist
Fascism managed to bring other former Marxist communists into their ranks, notably Nicola Bombacci, a founding member of the Communist Party of Italy in 1921 until their expulsion for fascist views in 1927
Fascism was economically a class-collaborationist ideology (specifically corporativism, from the Latin corpus, body)

Now, of course, we have the benefit of hindsight and can see what a disaster Italian fascism and its friends were and the name of 'fascism' is forever tainted. But theoretically a modern equivalent could similarly appeal to both nationalists and the socialist-leaning today in a similar way. Fascism doesn't logically imply racism, nor does it necessarily exclude certain types of progressivism: see BUF gaining large support from women by being pro-suffrage, see environmentalism of eco-fascists, and consider some modern neofash parties adopting social democrat policy points.

With all this in mind, what were the early warning signs that Fascism was not going to be pro-worker, despite its rhetoric? How well do you believe socialists will be able to spot them?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Umberto Eco's criteria are a good guide to spotting early fascist movements: https://www.faena.com/aleph/umberto-eco-a-practical-list-for-identifying-fascists

Fascism doesn't logically imply racism

I disagree. All the fascist movements I'm aware of used nationalism to trick the working class into collaborating with the bourgeoisie, and bigotry towards minorities and foreigners to stoke anger and resentment. Maybe in theory fascists could create that in-group/out-group distinction without race or ethnicity being the dividing line, but I think that there will always be some kind of bigotry involved.

see environmentalism of eco-fascists

I don't think that counts as progressivism when their plan to reduce environmental impact involves killing "undesirables" to reduce the population.

some modern neofash parties adopting social democrat policy points

I'm pretty sure those are just talking points meant to lure in rubes, or are meant to apply only to the in-group when they take power.

Maybe it's possible for fascism to exist without explicit bigotry, but at that point I think it would just be regular authoritarian liberal capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Maybe in theory fascists could create that in-group/out-group distinction without race or ethnicity being the dividing line, but I think that there will always be some kind of bigotry involved.

I believe that fascists could effectively use state nationalism in place of race and racism. They debatably did in Italy. I say debatably because they flip-flipped a lot – even just skimming the Wikipedia page on Italian fascism and racism will get you stark contradictions like Talks with Mussolini (1932), "Race? It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today" while talking of "our Aryan and Mediterranian race" in speeches ten years before and enacting the Racial Laws in 1938. So I believe it was used as a tool at times, but it wasn't essential in its rise or necessary at any time. We can look at Amercia, despite its infamous racism, and see the real chavanistic, bigoted power its patriotic unity as the USA has.

I agree that there will always be some kind of bigotry, I just think racism is convenient but arbitrary, and we should be alert to other forms of bigotry even if racism is absent. As for anti-foreigner bigotry (whether racial or nationality), I suspect that's intrinsic, it can't be replaced.

I’m pretty sure those are just talking points meant to lure in rubes, or are meant to apply only to the in-group when they take power.

This is entirely possible. Even in hindsight, it can be hard to tell sometimes between what is sincere and what is propaganda.

re: ecofascism

Agreed, bad example from me.

Umberto Eco

Added to my reading list, thanks :)