Do you think the Far Right will ever come to power in Europe again?

Original post by Struggle

The argument that Capitalism is legitimate because people volunteer to work, is about as legitimate as saying child labour is legitimate merely because the child 'vounteered their labour'. It is not an argument.

If you truly care about this subject, watch; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNlRoaFTHuE
Noam Chomsky rebukes the argument quite completely.

Eh, I think you're picking a fight when there isn't one. I said that taxation was voluntary, not that working was. I get your point that if you don't work you starve so it isn't really a choice. I suppose it comes down do whether you believe in a welfare state or not.

Reply 62

Original post by Struggle

Before I respond, I am a Marxist.

I do not need a history lesson from you on Fascism.

Marxists oppose Fascism for many reasons. But first of all, the all too often paraphrased view that 'Communism is about equality' is very simplistic and misleading. Furthermore, Communism is only ever described as such by people who have not studied Marxism, or Dialectal and Historical Materialism.
Communism in short, is about the emancipation of the working class, and thus the abolition of class based society. It is about putting the economy into the hands of the people and and democratic planning of society, rather than seeking privatisation and therefore the control by people who have more money.

It takes months of study to understand Marxism. Anybody who thinks they understand Marxism because they read the 'Communist Manifesto' is lieing to you.

Ethnicity is only one part of Fascism. Fascism has absolutely no interest in liberating the working class. This is the fundamental difference between Communism and Fascism. The same goes for Communism and Capitalism.

Fascism is ultimately Capitalism in decay, as Lenin correctly described. This is why 'Fascism' has only come about when Capitalism was in severe crisis. Fascism helped to prevent a workers revolution, which is why the ruling class supported it. Ethnicity in Marxian terms is absolutely irrelevant. Marxists consider all workers to be utimately the same. Thus the quote; 'Workers of all countries unite'.

If you truly want to understand the difference between Marxism and Capitalism, which is what Fascism is but just at a higher stage. Then study Marxism, but take it more seriously than what most people do when they paraphrase; 'Communism is good in theory, but it doesn't work in practise', or 'Communism won't work because human nature won't allow it to work!'.

If you hear people summarize Communism\Marxism\Socialism as this; You can be sure they have not studied Marxism and do not know what they are talking about.

Uh hi.

I happen to have read Das Kapital [And in the process of reading Mein Kampf actually, but another story for another day] and am well aware of all it entails, cheers very much, also having read about the more abstract concepts in various books published by leading universities, relevant to my course.

ANYWAY.

Fascism is heavy authoritarianism, it is not right wing in the slightest, because, as you must know, Fascism coerced powerful individuals into serving the governments whim. As opposed to capitalism being a government of the market and of corporations, Fascism is the government of the state [if that makes any sense], with Fascism using the state to manipulate and pry into almost every aspect of life. In every sense, in Fascism you 'belong' to the state.

Now lets take an impression of Communism, or, in a broader term, the progress towards a stateless society. If an uprising were to take place and a Socialist economy instated, you would have to force the Capitalists to give up their wealth, thus automatically forming an Authoritarian aspect. You would then have to suppress any counter-uprising by them and their supporters, again, another aspect of authoritarianism. Another component of Soviet Russia's iteration of Communism was that it proved to be heavilly complicated, and that managing it from a centralized bureaucracy in order to maintain such an economy become inefficient and slow. In order to compensate, Stalin used heavy nationalist ideas to detract from these misgivings and create a sense of national unity [it seems 'workers solidarity' meant little when everybody was the same], and so the state became militarized.
Another aspect of authoritarianism on the left in general is that in order to function properly, it requires that all individuals openly and willingly participate [or be excluded from living]. This phenomenon is present in almost every communist regime the world over, in which the state has not deteriorated but expanded, and political expression is heavily limited.

To look at it in more of an abstract light, if in Fascism is where you as an individual belong to the state, then in the progressive stage of Socialism/Communism, you as an individual have the state belong to you [By the people, for the people]. But that presents an interesting conundrum, because if the state is by the people, then surely by definition the state 'is the people', which means that 'you' own the people. Naturally, if you turn that concept on its head, you end up with the exact same outcome with fascism, where 'The people' own you. [Tyranny of the majority, blah blah blah].

EDIT : Also, kindly refrain from using Ad hominems in future, it does just signify a lack of respect for the person you are debating with.

EDIT EDIT : And i am also aware i used a simplified example in my original post, mainly because explaining the combination of Hegel and Marx's Dialectic on how humanity will progress into 'the peoples utopia' would take considerably more effort, whereas this example as a placeholder serves my argument just fine, as it is broadly speaking, the goal of Marxism.

EDIT EDIT EDIT : Hell, the quote by Mao in your signature is case in point of authoritarianism through left-wing ideology. Do not for one moment imply that the Left is devoid of authoritarianism.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 63

Original post by arabcnesbit

Indeed. This was why I tried to separate the debate into an economic and a social one.

You can't say the nazi's were far right if you mean that to be economic liberalism and in this case you are correct in saying they would be centrist.

But when we describe the social policies, far left and far right are exactly the same, so the meaning is confused. Hitler and Stalin would have been great buddies as long as they didn't talk economics.

Ah, the U-shape political compass. Precisely what i am talking about with 'Struggle'

Both Extreme ideologies lead to authoritarian ideologies which are broadly similar. :biggrin:

Reply 64

Original post by arabcnesbit

Interesting. Do you think the problem with marxism is that it is too complicated? The greatest ideas of humanity have always been the simplest. Whether it be a mathematical formula or a political ideology.

The attitude of many marxists that if you criticise it, it is merely because you don't understand it, becomes very tiresome.

Why not simplify it, thus making your ideology far more powerful?

But in reality, Capitalism is no more simple. I don't believe for one moment that the vast majority of people know what Capitalism is fundamentally. The reason, I believe, people accept it, is because they have been socialised to accept it by people who control the sources of socialisation - The media, the education system, religion. The values have been passed down over generations.

However, with that said, people will have more of an understanding of Capitalism than of Communism, because they live under Capitalism.

There will always be the problem of educating the people about a better system, regardless of whether it be Communism. This is why education and knowledge is so important.

Reply 65

Original post by Ocassus

I happen to have read Das Kapital and am well aware of all it entails, cheers very much, also having read about the more abstract concepts in various books published by leading universities, relevant to my course.

There is no Das Kapital. There is volume one, two, three and four. Those of which, in Britain are titled 'Capital'. For somebody who claims to have read 3000 pages on a Marxist critiue of Capitalist political economy, you used the most paraphrased quote; 'Communism in theory'. You did not strike me as somebody who has studied all four of these books, mostly due to the fact you used the argument what everybody who has not understood Marxism claims, without talking about why you believe this to be true.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 66

humanrights

total government is far left.

no government is far right.

if left and right are to mean anything then the polar opposites have to be defned.

the communists and the nazis were both far left ideologies.

all his nonsense about divideing left and right by race is silly.

Reply 67

arabcnesbit

Original post by Struggle

But in reality, Capitalism is no more simple. I don't believe for one moment that the vast majority of people know what Capitalism is fundamentally. The reason, I believe, people accept it, is because they have been socialised to accept it by people who control the sources of socialisation - The media, the education system, religion. The values have been passed down over generations.

However, with that said, people will have more of an understanding of Capitalism than of Communism, because they live under Capitalism.

There will always be the problem of educating the people about a better system, regardless of whether it be Communism. This is why education and knowledge is so important.

This is where we differ. I believe capitalism is simple. Far simpler than communism or marxism.

I also believe that the state has conditioned us to believe that corparitism is in fact capitalism.

I don't think the state wants people to know what capitalism is just as vigorously as it repels communism.

The reason why our education system has been in constant decline since the war is that the state doesn't want us to be able to think for ourselves.

Ideas are far more powerful than any police force or army.

Reply 68

Original post by arabcnesbit

This is where we differ. I believe capitalism is simple. Far simpler than communism or marxism.

Ideas are far more powerful than any police force or army.

Well said

Reply 69

Original post by Struggle

There is no Das Kapital. There is volume one, two, three and four. Those of which, in Britain are titled 'Capital'. For somebody who claims to have read 3000 pages on a Marxist critiue of Capitalist political economy, you used the most paraphrased quote; 'Communism in theory'. You did not strike me as somebody who has studied all four of these books, mostly due to the fact you used the argument what everybody who has not understood Marxism claims, without talking about why you believe this to be true.

Saying I have read 'Das Kapital' [Which i do know means 'Capital'] Means I have more or less read the series of books, at no point did I ever imply that it was a standalone book.

The reason I use 'Communism in theory' is because its application has never once mirrored how Marx or Engels believed it would.

Reply 70

Original post by humanrights

total government is far left.

no government is far right.

if left and right are to mean anything then the polar opposites have to be defned.

the communists and the nazis were both far left ideologies.

all his nonsense about divideing left and right by race is silly.

On what basis do you argued that Nazism a leftist ideology?

Reply 71

Original post by Ocassus

"EDIT EDIT EDIT : Hell, the quote by Mao in your signature is case in point of authoritarianism through left-wing ideology. Do not for one moment imply that the Left is devoid of authoritarianism."

You are correct, I am authoritarian. I am equally as authoritarian as absolutely anybody who advocates any kind of authority. Whether that be the police, a teacher, a government or even the responsibility of a parent. You have obviously been mislead into believing that the society we live in is a 'democracy'.

However, this response just clarifies that you have not actually studied Capital.
Mao Tse Tung advocated leadership (That authoritarianism you refer to) because Leninists do not believe Communism can truly come about without an educated and conscious leadership leading the way to Socialism. Communism is the abolishment of authoritarianism, but to achieve that, advocates of Vanguardism believe leadership is first necessary.

China, the Soviet Union or Cuba were not/are not Communist. Nor did they ever claim to be.

Reply 72

Aj12

18

Original post by Struggle

To answer the question, Fascism will only come about when the interests of the ruling class are at risk, or when they will gain from a Fascist state occuring. Like I said above, Fascism has only come about when the material interests of the ruling class were at risk. Ultimately, if 'Liberal Democracy' can still safely continue, the Ruling Class would probably always choose 'Liberal Democracy', as the Ruling Class would lose out more by forming an alliance with the Fascist Government.

Really? Because Hitler managed to build up a consensus in almost all groups of society. He was one of the first politicians in German politics at the time who managed to move beyond class ect.

Reply 73

Original post by Ocassus

Saying I have read 'Das Kapital' [Which i do know means 'Capital'] Means I have more or less read the series of books, at no point did I ever imply that it was a standalone book.

The reason I use 'Communism in theory' is because its application has never once mirrored how Marx or Engels believed it would.

Trotsky's area of rule can be argued to be true communism in action, Leninism and Stalinism is not communism, rather the b*stard child of communism.

Reply 74

Original post by Struggle

You are correct, I am authoritarian. I am equally as authoritarian as absolutely anybody who advocates any kind of authority. Whether that be the police, a teacher, a government or even the responsibility of a parent. You have obviously been mislead into believing that the society we live in is a 'democracy'.

However, this response just clarifies that you have not actually studied Capital.
Mao Tse Tung advocated leadership (That authoritarianism you refer to) because Leninists do not believe Communism can truly come about without an educated and conscious leadership leading the way to Socialism. Communism is the abolishment of authoritarianism, but to achieve that, advocates of Vanguardism believe leadership is first necessary.

China, the Soviet Union or Cuba were/are Communist. Nor did they ever claim to be.

The bolded statement makes no sense.

Hardly, you are implying that complete political dominance and one-ness of an ideology which you [subjectively] perceive to be right is equal to the authority of the current iteration of government? [Who will adjust according to the electorate].
Mislead? I am fairly sure our current system, despite being the imperfect FPTP system, conveys the electorates wishes in electing a government party. There are other factors, but ultimately it all comes down to choice. Sure, Marx might argue that class consciousness and other factors come into play here and prevent a true democracy from existing, but to me that all seems to be smoke and mirrors when you apply it in real situations.

That hardly means I haven't read Das Kapital, it just means i take a different standpoint to you. I am well aware that Maoism is different to Marxism, but it is inspired by leninism which is in turn derived from Marxism. They are closely interlinked in terms of principle, although some advocate only temporary authoritarianism whilst other advocate a more permanent state.

Reply 75

Original post by Struggle

You are correct, I am authoritarian. I am equally as authoritarian as absolutely anybody who advocates any kind of authority. Whether that be the police, a teacher, a government or even the responsibility of a parent. You have obviously been mislead into believing that the society we live in is a 'democracy'.

However, this response just clarifies that you have not actually studied Capital.
Mao Tse Tung advocated leadership (That authoritarianism you refer to) because Leninists do not believe Communism can truly come about without an educated and conscious leadership leading the way to Socialism. Communism is the abolishment of authoritarianism, but to achieve that, advocates of Vanguardism believe leadership is first necessary.

China, the Soviet Union or Cuba were not/are not Communist. Nor did they ever claim to be.

Good argument

Reply 76

Original post by Millz

Trotsky's area of rule can be argued to be true communism in action, Leninism and Stalinism is not communism, rather the b*stard child of communism.

Trotsky was a Leninist. It was Stalin and Trotsky's followers who used the term 'Trotskyism'.

Trotsky argued the revolution was on the right path up until Stalin took control. He absolutely supported Lenin. Although I am not a 'Trotskyist', I just wanted to clarify this.

And neither Lenin nor Stalin ever claimed the Soviet Union to be a Communist society. The Soviet Union was a society in which these two individuals claimed to be one developing Socialism, which is the pre-stage to Communism.

Reply 77

Original post by Millz

Trotsky's area of rule can be argued to be true communism in action, Leninism and Stalinism is not communism, rather the b*stard child of communism.

Which in turn implies that they might be perfect systems, but do not take into account imperfect elements and so cannot succeed without warping into something else.

EDIT : That is my last post for now, I will reply in the morning.

Reply 78

Original post by Ocassus

The bolded statement makes no sense.

Hardly, you are implying that complete political dominance and one-ness of an ideology which you [subjectively] perceive to be right is equal to the authority of the current iteration of government? [Who will adjust according to the electorate].
Mislead? I am fairly sure our current system, despite being the imperfect FPTP system, conveys the electorates wishes in electing a government party. There are other factors, but ultimately it all comes down to choice. Sure, Marx might argue that class consciousness and other factors come into play here and prevent a true democracy from existing, but to me that all seems to be smoke and mirrors when you apply it in real situations.

That hardly means I haven't read Das Kapital, it just means i take a different standpoint to you. I am well aware that Maoism is different to Marxism, but it is inspired by leninism which is in turn derived from Marxism. They are closely interlinked in terms of principle, although some advocate only temporary authoritarianism whilst other advocate a more permanent state.

There is no real choice when the hegemonic ideology is the same across board. What we have is not the system of democracy we claim it to be. A protective democracy, with all its perks, can never be as effective, or as beneficial for the populace as a developmental democracy. There is a huge disconnect with the electorate now, and it stems from the imperfect system, which allows and maintains elitism.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 79

Fusilero