Theory Nerds!

[Mary]

Communism and fascism are in many ways antithetical. That's not to say that certain authoritarian regimes of the right and left weren't basically indistinguishable - but that's because to some extent in these cases the "ideology" was just propagandistic window-dressing for some tyrant's egomaniacal authoritarian control of the country. Theoretically, however, and sometimes in practice as well, there are striking differences between communisim and fascism - just a few:

-- communisim is explicitly rooted in the premise of the moral equality of all human beings - it's an extension of the egalitarianism of 19th century democratic theory (which is how both marx and engels got their start). fascism is explicitly a reaction against this egalitarianism, insisting on superiority and inferiority as basic principles of humanity, and viewing democracy as mediocrity.

-- fascism is a nationalist ideology, and communism is explicitly anti-nationalist, indeed globalist. (marx famously wrote that the proletarian had no country)

-- fascism is anti-pacifist. it doesn't just view violence and war as means to an end, it views them as ends in and of themselves - it holds that it is through war that the strongest men realize their inner strength. communism strives for a state of perpetual peace - and there are differences of opinion between different schools of communisim whether or not this peace can itself be achieved nonviolently. but even those communists who advocate violence view it as a means to an end, not an end in itself.

-- fascism is based on an idealist conception of man and marxism is based on a materialist conception of man. these result in totally opposing views of historical change, progress, and man's purpose and destiny.

-- fascism's ultimate ideal is the state - individuality is totally subordinate to the state, and it is only in and through the state that man can do anything glorious. communism's ultimate ideal entails the withering away of the state, precisely for the purpose of allowing individuals to realize themselves. there is no individuality in fascism, all individuality must be absorbed and cancelled out by the state.


...just a few of the differences. yes, mussolini was once inspired by marx - but he understand his fascism explicitly as a repudiation of his foolish, youthful flirtation with marxism:


"Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society...."


just to be clear once more - i'm not saying communism ever achieved its ideals in practice. obviously the state never "withered away" in any major communist nation (although smaller-scale experiments with communal living, such as kibbutzism in israel and autonomist squats in italy, have indeed provided examples of truly collective, communal, egalitarian living), and various strands of nationalist-communism have inspired revolutions in a number of countries (especially post-colonial countries). but it's simply not the case that the ideologies are basically the same - the fascists HATED communism and vice versa - indeed german communists were among the bravest resisters of nazism after many other segments of german society fell quietly into line to be safe, and the fascists vs. the communists was a central division in the spanish civil war (not to mention the anarchists - and there's a whole other 19th century outgrowth of democratic theory!) fascists viewed communisim as weak, mediocre, decadent (fascists loved to accuse all sorts of things of being decadent), anti-heroic, levelling, etc etc. communisim simply never had the same cult of power that fascism had.

fascist ideology strikes me as highly morally objectionable on its face - communism does not. one can argue, of course, that in practice communism necessarily devolves into something morally objectionable (though i remain unconvinced - but it's probably besides the point anyway, since i hardly think the revolution is right around the corner!)

phew. sorry. if i was on mars now, i'd soooooo be getting spanked with moon rocks. whatever that means.

Cheers,
M

[Mary]

oops shit. i wasn't trying to talk to you like a 3 year old, skvor, i really wasn't - the minute i read tuatha's post, i just had to respond, and i hadn't even read your response yet! you were every bit as eloquent as me, only more concise.... as everyone here has noticed, i have a bit of a problem with brevity

[skvorisdeadsorta]

No way, you rock!

[chrisfan]

Mary, your very well written contrasting of Communism and Facism has sparked a thought in my mind. I'd be curious to hear your take on it.

First off, I'd have to ask how strongly you personally identify with Communism? And by this I mean true Communism in the theoretical sense, recognizing that what we see as communism in several governments today is not in fact true communism. I know this may sound like a silly question to ask a true lefty who is not just an American liberal, but I want to make sure I'm not working off of false assumptions.

That said, from my very non-left perspective, it seems to me that a lot of leftist thought loses touch with the aspect of the moral equality of all human beings. Not in the ways of their being equal in being deserving of the same opportunities, riches, etc. But in the equality of having something to offer. As an example of my not very well worded thought process here, I'd give the discussion you and I had not too long ago about public vs private assistance. In talking about my desire to see those who receive assistance rise to the ability to give back when they were capable, you mentioned the homeless that you pass by most every day. Perhaps I misundersood the point you were making then, but it seemed to me you were implying that there are those people in this world who are so in need ofhelp that they'd never really have the ability to give anything back. Is that the case? If so, is that not dismissing the notion that all human beings are equal? Further, is it not giving a slight tip of the hat to the facist notion of a superiority and inferiority in people?

[Mary]

First off, I'd have to ask how strongly you personally identify with Communism? And by this I mean true Communism in the theoretical sense, recognizing that what we see as communism in several governments today is not in fact true communism. I know this may sound like a silly question to ask a true lefty who is not just an American liberal, but I want to make sure I'm not working off of false assumptions.


I wish I could answer this question in a way that wasn't totally and utterly convoluted, but, this is the best I can do:

I do identify quite strongly with marx's critique of capitalism, but i don't identify very strongly at all with communism as a realizable, positive alternative to capitalism. I'm quite convinced by marx's analysis of the defects of capitalism, particularly the young marx's explication of alienated labor (i won't bore anyone with the details, unless someone wants to know!) On the other hand, I simply can't identify in the slightest with marx's historical optimism, which held that capitalism necessarily held within itself a series of contradictions which would inexorably lead to communisim, the final stage of history, in which mankind's essence would finally be realized. I recognize this as a very 19th century position - 19th century insofar as it clearly derives from the enlightenment's conception of worldly historical progress, and also 19th century insofar as the "crises" of capitalism seemed a lot more devastating in the context of the miserable industrial towns of england where marx was often writing. Things have, obviously, changed since then - both philosophically, insofar as modernism and postmodernism have really dealt a pretty devastating blow to the idea of historical progress, and economically, insofar as capitalism has found methods of internal regulation which can mitigate the abjection of workers without changing the fundamental relations of production.

I've said before that I most identify with the "Marxism" (if indeed it can still be called marxism, which is debatable) of the Frankfurt School, epitomized by thinkers like Adorno and Horkheimer. This Marxism views all the sources of "revolution" that Marx himself pointed to as bunk and exhausted - it sees no "gravediggers of capitalism" (to use marx's own phrase) on the horizon. It sees those militant activist marxists who loudly protest and set about planning some kind of socialist utopia as both deluded and arrogant. It views capitalism as basically triumphant - wrong and unjust and, in the case of some more hegelian marxists, almost aesthetically inexcusable - but triumphant nonetheless. Adorno was accused by more activist and politically involved leftists of an inexcusable resignation, of a politically quietist pessimism, and of all manner of other leftist heresies. But from my perspective Adorno's pessimism is the only way to maintain anything of Marx in the present age without simply being a pie-in-the-sky utopian fool.

Where I disagree with jllm that this means marxism/anti-capitalism is a complete dead letter in today's world is that I don't necessarily thing the only way of justifying these positions is through their ultimate practical success in overthrowing capitalism and installing some kind of socialist utopia. I do believe that capitalist critqiues can have smaller and more local effects, in the way that individuals choose to lead their own lives and to relate to one another. Part of Marx's critique of capitalism concerned the instrumentalization of human beings which takes place, and I think people inspired by marxism today can still learn valuable lessons about not instrumentalizing other human beings, about the limits of commodification. This is still, ultimately, a melancholy position - I wish I could believe both in the possibility of transcending capitalism and in the possibility that it could be replaced by something better, but I have absolutely no faith in either possibility, so instead I can only hope to resist some of the more pernicious logic of capitalism in my own conduct.

Sorry for the lengthy disquisition - dunno if that clears things up or makes them even messier!!! But regarding your other question:

That said, from my very non-left perspective, it seems to me that a lot of leftist thought loses touch with the aspect of the moral equality of all human beings. Not in the ways of their being equal in being deserving of the same opportunities, riches, etc. But in the equality of having something to offer. As an example of my not very well worded thought process here, I'd give the discussion you and I had not too long ago about public vs private assistance. In talking about my desire to see those who receive assistance rise to the ability to give back when they were capable, you mentioned the homeless that you pass by most every day. Perhaps I misundersood the point you were making then, but it seemed to me you were implying that there are those people in this world who are so in need ofhelp that they'd never really have the ability to give anything back. Is that the case? If so, is that not dismissing the notion that all human beings are equal? Further, is it not giving a slight tip of the hat to the facist notion of a superiority and inferiority in people?

I've somewhat forgotten exactly what point I was trying to make re: homeless people in Berkeley, but I absolutely agree that the basic dignity of human beings means that we all can contribute something meaningful to society - even those homeless people on telegraph avenue. However, I don't think all contributions can be measured in monetary terms, and I think that market prices do not always reflect the depth of a contribution (hell, sometimes they inversely reflect that depth....) It might be that I contribute a great deal to society by giving something that has no market price, and through which I therefore derive no monetary compensation. So I might still require some kind of aid or assistance, even though I'm making a meaningful contribution and "giving back" to society. Thus I don't think the only way to measure whether or not aid has empowered a person to give back to the community is by asking whether or not that person has become economically self-sufficient. So when I argue for the "moral equality" of all human beings, and simultaneously argue that some people - and not just the severely disabled - may require lifelong assistance, there is no contradiction, because I don't believe one's income, or lack thereof, in any way measures their worth as a human being, or their contributions to society.

FTR, just as a side note, my support for a strong welfare state is part of my pessimism and resignation. Really militant communists view the welfare state either as a means to a greater end, or as pernicious in and of itself because it's a kind of false salve that makes people forget the injustices of capitalism and resign themselves to the current system. (lenin, for one, was extremely critical of what he called trade-unionism, through which he thought workers were co-opted by capitalism by dispensing a few goodies to shut people up, without making any fundamental structural changes. a similar argument could be made from a pure marxist perspective about the welfare state) Since I reject that any 'greater end' lurks on the horizon, I have to fight for a welfare state simply as an end in and of itself - a position that makes me uncomfortable and sad, but one that I see no way out of.

M

[chrisfan]

That response clears up one thing from our previous discussion ... we're in agreement that the contrubution an individual can (and should) make to society is not always measured in monetary terms.

[Mary]

Instead of writing a sequel to Crime and Punishment, I should have just quoted my absolute favorite line from one of my favorite movies that no one else ever bothered to see in america - spain's mondays in the sun. One character is recounting for another a conversation between two russians after the collapse of the soviet union.

The first one says: "Isn't it terrible that everything they told us about communism was a lie?"

The second one replies: "yes, it was terrible. The only thing that's worse is that everything they told us about capitalism was the truth."

that's brilliant.

Cheers,
M

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Mary......I have to have a conversation with you one day.
I don't know if you've read it, but there is a great book called "Reading Capitol Politically" by Harry Cleaver. I think you might enjoy it, he's the marxist economics teacher at UT and I really enjoyed his class.

[Mary]

skvorisdeadsorta said:

Mary......I have to have a conversation with you one day.
I don't know if you've read it, but there is a great book called "Reading Capitol Politically" by Harry Cleaver. I think you might enjoy it, he's the marxist economics teacher at UT and I really enjoyed his class.

I've never even heard of Harry Cleaver (I don't really know much about who's who in economics departments..) but thanks for the heads up! I'm swamped this year - finishing my dissertation, teaching, and going on the job market - but maybe next summer I'll have free reading time

And skvor I'm always up for a conversation! Too bad my bro is moving out of austin though, cause that gave me a reason to keep coming back to your lovely neck of the woods... now, i dunno...

OK in the interest of my poor board not dying yet again after mere days of activity, here's yet another random - but related -
topic for everyone to pontificate about:

When the terms "left" and "right" first came to have political signification - in the late 1700s - the "left" was actually associated with capitalism (since it was the rising force associated with the death knell of feudalism) while the "right" was associated with feudal nostalgia, absolute submission to the church, and a contempt of capitalism. In the 19th century, the ideological divide kinda split three ways - the socialists (of all varieties - marxists included), the liberals (capitalist, eventually democratic, concerned with individual rights), and the conservatives (anti-capitalist and anti-democratic traditionalists). Thus capitalism was actually attacked from both sides in its early days - from a progressive left who supported it as a step forward over feudalism, but who were still waited for the next (and final) step, and from a traditionalist right who condemned it for atomizing communities, destroying morality, reducing things and people to monetary values, destroying organic traditions and continuity, and eroding the church.

I've just asked what, if anything, remains of the progressive left critique of capitalism - but perhaps an even more interesting question is what on earth happened to the traditionalist right critique of capitalism. There was a time when capitalism and catholicism, for example, seemed antithetical to each other. Has this brand of conservatism simply gone the way of the dodo? (at least in america?) Does no one worry anymore about the potential contradictions between capitalism and religion, or, more generally, between capitalism and morality? How do those who identify as both economic and social conservatives reconcile these two aspects of their politics, which seemed totally antithetical to 19th century conservatives?

OK....that's all... for now!

Cheers,
M

[strat-0]

Excellent expo back there, Mary. But the new question sounds like William F. Buckley. It makes my head hurt. I think I need a blue book. One of the large ones. But I wouldn't be able to even fill the first page, so... can I take a makeup?

If I could just say something about the US unions here... They flew too close to the sun. They grew too large and powerful and ate their young. As a former blue collar worker (and possible future one!), I am thankful for the many good things they did (and sometimes still do) for workers; eg., the 40 hour week, holidays, vacations, sick pay, workman's comp, etc., etc. But when large companies copied union benefits for their workers and those benefits became standard, the unions sort of outlived their usefulness. They remain a scary deterent to prevent exploitation of workers by management, but it's more efficient to cut out the expensive middle man (unions), which had become rife with graft, violence, and other corruptions, to the point where they were exploiting workers in their own way.

[Mary]

justgot back from a local boston bar that i love, and miss.... so i'm completley utterly totlaly shitfaced rihgt now

but strat, shit, sorry for the heavy academese - but ACK - don't tell em i sound like william f buckley jr?! ouch. that guy si so pretentious, he speaks with a faux-british accent. i saw him speak in college once. i turned to my frend and was like "oh, he's british?? i didn't realize that!!" and she said "no, he's not britsh at all, he's just pretentious!"

that cracked me up, way backwhen.

um anwyay, while i'm drunk, i can be much briefer.

basically i was just wondering what happened to traditionalist conservatism. is it gone? it just seems like eveyrone on teh right embraces capitalism these days, and that's totally not what it was like before. i'm wonderin gif anything remains of the anti-capitalist conservatives. maybe not. mabye that's good. i guess it would bewerid if people today were still pining away for feudalism

oh, shit...

when i look ati t like that, i realize how totally stupid the whole question was to begin with.

dammit.

well, just ignore me.

cheers,
m

[strat-0]

;D

Would it be over simplified to say that conservatives have consistently been resistant to change, while liberals embrace it as being necessary for the improvement of society?

[stratman19]

Yes.

[Artknocker]

At least the first part anyway.

[Mary]

admin said:

;D

Would it be over simplified to say that conservatives have consistently been resistant to change, while liberals embrace it as being necessary for the improvement of society?

Well, yeah, I think this is generally right, but that's what's so odd about the wholehearted conservative embrace of capitalism - if capitalism means anything, it means rapid and constant change. Yeah, I understand, we've now had capitalism for practically 2 centuries (hard to identify the precise moment it "began") so in that sense it's conservative to support it, but what essentially, what is being conserved is a state of perpetual impermanence.

To quote Marx on this - if you can put aside any animosity to Marx and just appreciate his prose for one minute, I think this passage is a rather lovely description of capitalism:

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his, real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

Cheers,
M