In a recent effortpost I analyzed the socialist nature of German national socialism, Italian Fascism, and Marxism. In today's language we could consider them to be respectively racial socialism, national socialism (the term national that the Germans used refers to an ethnostate while today we consider a nation something more like a land and it's government) or state socialism to avoid confusion with German national socialism, and class socialism.
Both Mussolini and Hitler cite Marx in their ideology. Mussolini was a member of the socialist party prior to his creation of the Fascist party, and is named after 3 different socialists. Hitler may have opposed Marxism and Bolshevism, but many of his writings and speeches credit Marx explicitly in the creation of National Socialism. His intention to exterminate the Jews was borne of the same ideological framework that had the Soviets exterminating the Kulaks. Engels published an article advocating for the genocide of Hungarians as not appropriate for inclusion into the dictatorship of the proletariat which also helped justify the German genocide of Jews. Although Hitler rejected class socialism, he often described how his ideology was socialism perfected, without the flaws of Marx. Later, Ludwig von Mises pointed out that German national socialism implemented 8 of the 10 points of socialism laid out by Marx and Engels.
Fascism makes sense as state socialism, a left wing continuation of the enlightenment project intended to be the next step after feudalism and capitalism. This can be understood easily because neither racial fascism nor state fascism intend to restore the monarchy or the nobility, and instead to collectivize the nation under the racial folk or the nation-state respectively.
This all continues to make sense in the framework I've laid out, of "racial socialism, state socialism, and class socialism". They all implement socialism, but in different ways that aren't compatible with one another. As a result, they will all ultimately clash with each other (and even fascists and german national socialists clashed over their ideologies despite being allies)
Some people think fascism and national socialism are right wing because they're authoritarian, nationalist, racist, and seek to preserve existing hierarchies, which all can be quickly refuted.
You can also see the whispers of angry Marxist in saying "it's authoritarian so it's right wing" well does that mean every communist state ever is right wing? It doesn't seem a legitimate analysis to assume something is right wing solely because it is authoritarian. Rospierre's reign of terror was undoubtedly authoritarian but by the standards of the day extremely left wing.
Nationalism also seems like something you can't really peg on the right wing specifically. Were there no Soviet patriots? Considering Stalin's one nation policy that seems unlikely.
Racism is a non-starter. Marx himself was highly documented as deeply anti-Semitic despite being an ethnic Jew himself, and shockingly racist even for his time In Marx's time, there was little distinction between the capitalist and the Jew, and in his essay "On the Jewish Question", he writes "What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money". Many socialist regimes implemented state racism such as the Russians cracking down on Jews or the CCP participating in the Uigur genocide.
As for maintaining or restoring old hierarchies, that's also obviously wrong. Both Germany and Italy had an existing hierarchy of nobility prior to the takeover by fascism or German national socialism, and those ideologies sought to reconstruct society in its own novel image, a hallmark of socialism in the 20th century. One might consider it right wing that there were any hierarchies at all, but by that measure marxist and boshevik socialists were also right wing since they all ended up building new hierarchies in place of the old.
This understanding of what marxism, fascism, and german national socialism is important because today everything is claimed to be nazi or fascist if the speaker doesn't like it, but we need a real framework for what is and is not fascist. Simply saying "I don't like that" does not make something fascist or national socialist, it needs to fit within the frameworks of racial socialism or state socialism. We can define violence against fascism as violence against state socialism.
So back to the topic at hand, would I agree that violence is justified to fight such a thing? Well, that's tough to say. It's easy to say about Italian fascism since my grandfather did fight them and justly so. On the other hand, Spanish fascism existed well into the 1970s and only ended because the dictator died and his heir just happened to give up power to create a liberal democracy. And in yet another point of view, the left has created the postmodern bureaucratic state and largely staffed it, creating the current situation where 120 years ago the government made up 10% of GDP but today makes up 50%, and the so-called free market that remains is overwhelmingly regulated so much that it's ultimately the state in control. Outside the context of world war 2, I don't think I'd be willing to use violence regardless of how much I disagree with it. The government won't stop doing this simply because I physically attack it. In fact, it's likely to make things worse. We have countless examples of such, including situations like the Reichstag fire which justified state crackdowns.
Political violence by be cathartic, but often it's ineffective, or even horrific. The French Revolution may have killed off many from the aristocracy, but the reign of terror turned into a crime against humanity, a purge of anyone remotely dissenting until the crowd finally turned and ended the reign of terror by purging those tasked with purges. Violent revolutions in the Soviet Union and China resulted in mass death and further tragedy. By contrast, a lot of good things have come from people winning the argument relatively peacefully Europe's relative democracy didn't come about through revolution, but by convincing the royal families to give up power over time. The world slave trade ended not because of a particular act of violent revolution, but because anti-slavery won the moral argument.
With respect to current movements that widely use violence allegedly in pursuit of attacking fascism, I don't see "antifa" burning down FDA offices or central bank buildings or department of education buildings or welfare offices. So why don't they attack these elements of state socialism if they oppose fascism? In my opinion it's because they're lying. Opposition to fascism is a facade being used for good old fashioned thuggery.
Who do we attack? Anyone we don't like! If you think killing a baby in the womb is an unjustifiable violation of that baby's human rights and that shouldn't be allowed, then we don't like you and we'll attack! If you think local law enforcement should arrest people who have committed actual crimes that violated other people's rights, then we don't like you and we'll attack! If you want to vote for someone who wants to reduce state interference in the economy, we hate you and we'll attack!
Other than the fact that nobody wants to piss off violent terrorists, nobody believes that the violence is remotely in the name of opposing fascism. Often those antifa folks seem to be fighting in pursuit of more state socialism rather than less. They aren't fighting for liberty or smaller government, they're supporting and supported by the state, and part of the state that wants to encompass everything in our lives.
Both Mussolini and Hitler cite Marx in their ideology. Mussolini was a member of the socialist party prior to his creation of the Fascist party, and is named after 3 different socialists. Hitler may have opposed Marxism and Bolshevism, but many of his writings and speeches credit Marx explicitly in the creation of National Socialism. His intention to exterminate the Jews was borne of the same ideological framework that had the Soviets exterminating the Kulaks. Engels published an article advocating for the genocide of Hungarians as not appropriate for inclusion into the dictatorship of the proletariat which also helped justify the German genocide of Jews. Although Hitler rejected class socialism, he often described how his ideology was socialism perfected, without the flaws of Marx. Later, Ludwig von Mises pointed out that German national socialism implemented 8 of the 10 points of socialism laid out by Marx and Engels.
Fascism makes sense as state socialism, a left wing continuation of the enlightenment project intended to be the next step after feudalism and capitalism. This can be understood easily because neither racial fascism nor state fascism intend to restore the monarchy or the nobility, and instead to collectivize the nation under the racial folk or the nation-state respectively.
This all continues to make sense in the framework I've laid out, of "racial socialism, state socialism, and class socialism". They all implement socialism, but in different ways that aren't compatible with one another. As a result, they will all ultimately clash with each other (and even fascists and german national socialists clashed over their ideologies despite being allies)
Some people think fascism and national socialism are right wing because they're authoritarian, nationalist, racist, and seek to preserve existing hierarchies, which all can be quickly refuted.
You can also see the whispers of angry Marxist in saying "it's authoritarian so it's right wing" well does that mean every communist state ever is right wing? It doesn't seem a legitimate analysis to assume something is right wing solely because it is authoritarian. Rospierre's reign of terror was undoubtedly authoritarian but by the standards of the day extremely left wing.
Nationalism also seems like something you can't really peg on the right wing specifically. Were there no Soviet patriots? Considering Stalin's one nation policy that seems unlikely.
Racism is a non-starter. Marx himself was highly documented as deeply anti-Semitic despite being an ethnic Jew himself, and shockingly racist even for his time In Marx's time, there was little distinction between the capitalist and the Jew, and in his essay "On the Jewish Question", he writes "What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money". Many socialist regimes implemented state racism such as the Russians cracking down on Jews or the CCP participating in the Uigur genocide.
As for maintaining or restoring old hierarchies, that's also obviously wrong. Both Germany and Italy had an existing hierarchy of nobility prior to the takeover by fascism or German national socialism, and those ideologies sought to reconstruct society in its own novel image, a hallmark of socialism in the 20th century. One might consider it right wing that there were any hierarchies at all, but by that measure marxist and boshevik socialists were also right wing since they all ended up building new hierarchies in place of the old.
This understanding of what marxism, fascism, and german national socialism is important because today everything is claimed to be nazi or fascist if the speaker doesn't like it, but we need a real framework for what is and is not fascist. Simply saying "I don't like that" does not make something fascist or national socialist, it needs to fit within the frameworks of racial socialism or state socialism. We can define violence against fascism as violence against state socialism.
So back to the topic at hand, would I agree that violence is justified to fight such a thing? Well, that's tough to say. It's easy to say about Italian fascism since my grandfather did fight them and justly so. On the other hand, Spanish fascism existed well into the 1970s and only ended because the dictator died and his heir just happened to give up power to create a liberal democracy. And in yet another point of view, the left has created the postmodern bureaucratic state and largely staffed it, creating the current situation where 120 years ago the government made up 10% of GDP but today makes up 50%, and the so-called free market that remains is overwhelmingly regulated so much that it's ultimately the state in control. Outside the context of world war 2, I don't think I'd be willing to use violence regardless of how much I disagree with it. The government won't stop doing this simply because I physically attack it. In fact, it's likely to make things worse. We have countless examples of such, including situations like the Reichstag fire which justified state crackdowns.
Political violence by be cathartic, but often it's ineffective, or even horrific. The French Revolution may have killed off many from the aristocracy, but the reign of terror turned into a crime against humanity, a purge of anyone remotely dissenting until the crowd finally turned and ended the reign of terror by purging those tasked with purges. Violent revolutions in the Soviet Union and China resulted in mass death and further tragedy. By contrast, a lot of good things have come from people winning the argument relatively peacefully Europe's relative democracy didn't come about through revolution, but by convincing the royal families to give up power over time. The world slave trade ended not because of a particular act of violent revolution, but because anti-slavery won the moral argument.
With respect to current movements that widely use violence allegedly in pursuit of attacking fascism, I don't see "antifa" burning down FDA offices or central bank buildings or department of education buildings or welfare offices. So why don't they attack these elements of state socialism if they oppose fascism? In my opinion it's because they're lying. Opposition to fascism is a facade being used for good old fashioned thuggery.
Who do we attack? Anyone we don't like! If you think killing a baby in the womb is an unjustifiable violation of that baby's human rights and that shouldn't be allowed, then we don't like you and we'll attack! If you think local law enforcement should arrest people who have committed actual crimes that violated other people's rights, then we don't like you and we'll attack! If you want to vote for someone who wants to reduce state interference in the economy, we hate you and we'll attack!
Other than the fact that nobody wants to piss off violent terrorists, nobody believes that the violence is remotely in the name of opposing fascism. Often those antifa folks seem to be fighting in pursuit of more state socialism rather than less. They aren't fighting for liberty or smaller government, they're supporting and supported by the state, and part of the state that wants to encompass everything in our lives.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 3
- likes
- 2