Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by AvalancheMaster, Dec 1, 2013.
This can be applied on every country. Just replace name Putin with some local name.
Militarism isn't central to fascism, I don't think. The first fascists, or what we'd now recognise as such (the name would of course have been alien to them), weren't exceptionally militaristic, and often less so than the traditional right. That only really emerged after the First World War, when the movement became dominated by embittered former soldiers. Contemporary fascism is never going to be a straightforward retread of interwar fascism, and in the absence of any war with the generation-defining significance of the First World War, we shouldn't expect them to display the same militaristic preoccupations. What's more important, I think, is the narrative of rebirth through struggle, which even in the interwar period was the underlying mythology of their militarism, and it's not necessary that this struggle should take the form of inter-state military conflict.
Not, I'll grant you, the non-necessity of militarism doesn't mean I just can call any ultra-nationalist a "fascist" and be correct. I don't doubt that a lot of Svoboda's members aren't authentic fascists, and that less of its voters are. But, like the Golden Dawn in Greece, they began as an overt neo-Nazi group, and there's no reason to think that, even if they've dropped the Hitlerite paraphernalia, they've actually stopped being fascists.
(And, of course, before anyone says, I'll emphasise the "small-f" on fascism, as the broader, imprecise but none the less necessary shorthand for a certain cluster of traditions in European political thought and practice. I'm open to better terminology.)
Uhuh. And communist is a communist. So damn all you Khmer Rouge in this forum.
Not to take any stance towards Svoboda - I know nothing about them specifically, but for some reason I'd have expected a less simplistic approach from you.
Well, no. It's never been that straightforward. The communist movement was pretty irreparably fractured by early 1920, when the majority of the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands split to form the council communist Kommunistische Arbeiter-Partei Deutschlands in protest against Lenin's policy of the "Bolshevisation" of European communist parties. And this wasn't just a power-struggle or a quibble over policy, it was a fundamental disagreement about what communism is, about what a communist party is for, and the relation between communists and workers. So the analogy falls apart, like, five minutes into the history of modern communism.
You imagine that I'd take a less simplistic view of things, or you do not realise that sometimes things really are that simple?
I don't think fascism in a meaningful sense existed before WWI precisely because proto-fascist groups that lacked the necessary militarist elements. There were ariosophic ultranationalist groups in Germany which could be seen as precursors to Nazism, but they weren't fascists nor Nazis, since they lacked the populist elements of both and the militarist elements of the former. Likewise, there were Italian socialists that advocated war against Austria-Hungary that could be seen as precursors to fascism, but they lacked the explicit support for social stratification. Mussolini belonged to the latter group and became only a proper fascist after he disowned the socialist label, in part to gain support of anti-communist elements; We see here how ideology is crafted from the personal interests of its authors.
Now Nazism would not be necessarily fascist (many modern neo-Nazi groups lack militarist pre-occupations and use pro-peace rethoric to justify Anti-semitism - because Jews and Israel are the same for them - go figure), but Hitler was both a Nazi and a fascist. Fascism combines militarism with right-wing populism and opposition to both socialist and capitalist economic thought (essentially, fascists want hierarchical economic interventionism). If you remove militarism, you essentially get into the area of populism of the likes of Marine Le Pen.
Now, the Golden Dawn is not necessarily fascist, but is quite dangerous still, as it contains Neo-Nazi elements. They are not militaristic, but their thought is highly racialised. Fascists do not have to be distinct from Nazis; you can be both at the same time, but it is possible to be a Nazi and not a fascist or vice-versa. Nazism = Right-Wing Populism + racialism while fascism = Right-Wing Populism + Militarism. Svoboda repeatedly rejects being labeled racist (though there are arguably some authentic Neo-Nazis who were there in the first hour and would revel in being called such). You might as well say it is Right-Wing Populist with an occasional but not omnipresent tendency towards racialism.
The USSR and the Khmer Rouge and practically all self-described Communist polities were in practice far more autocratic than proposed by original Communist thinkers like Marx.
Neo-nazi groups, when gaining relevance, tend to form paramilitary street militias, though, and to fetishize the whole paramilitary aspect.
Their denials are dubious to say the least.
From that point on they are Neo-Nazi AND fascist.
True. But that's also true for pretty much any Right-Wing populist.
"Little Russians" (as Russians like to call Ukrainians) protest not only in Kiev:
Link to video.
Something in English:
Link to video.
Pro-Russian authorities apparently do what they can to literally "beat out of Ukrainian heads" their dreams about joining the EU.
Link to video.
I see that there is a discussion about ideologies such as fascism (which - supposedly - is an ideology typical only for right-wingers) going on above.
So maybe it is a good time and place to ask forumers what do you think about theories of people such as George Orwell (and his writings about fascism from 1946), Jonah Goldberg (author of book "Leftist Fascism"), Hannah Arendt (who in "The Origins of Totalitarianism" wrote that National Socialism was called "national" only to attract rightist Germans, while in fact Nazism was a leftist and racist - not national - ideology) and French-Jew Alain Finkielkraut - who claims that majority of modern Anti-Semites are left-wingers (in his book "In the Name of the Other"). Also a Polish-Jewish journalist Konstanty Julian Gebert claims exactly the same thing as Finkielkraut - that modern Anti-Semites are people with leftist views, who are called by Gebert "a coalition of progressives and islamists" - and that this coalition is "openly anti-Israeli, subcutaneously anti-Semitic and unambiguously anti-liberal". I think something is in the air when it comes to this issue.
Since 1945 all right-wing parties have to prove all the time, that they are not fascist and not anti-Semitic.
While nobody asks left-wing parties about this - whether they were / are fascist and anti-Semitic - maybe it has been a mistake?
Communist countries after WW2 also used to persecute their Jewish minorities - how comes that countries with left-wing ideology did this? Of course one type of Jewish people was not persecuted by Communist countries - Jews who renounced their Jewishness and became loyal and devoted Communists.
And George Orwell basically wrote that "fascism" became an umbrella term used by the New Left when calling everything they do not like.
And I agree with Orwell here - in 2013 it is even more clear than it was in 1946, that "fascism" is an umbrella term with no any meaning today.
Nowadays "fascism" = everything radical leftist fanatics do not like. Before WW2 "fascism" had a totally different meaning.
One might as well say that anti-semitism is an umbrella term with no meaning today.
It is of course true that the Soviet regime tended to be anti-semitic. I'd suggest (without being an expert in the subject - this is just my guess) that this was a hangover from the Czarist times. Anti-semitism runs deep, and just because there's a political revolution probably isn't going to change the thought habits of centuries over night.
There's also the tendency to scapegoat any sectors of society who can be thought to harbour split loyalties. In fact, all sectors can be thought to do so, but Jewish communities have long been easy targets in this regard.
As for anti-semitism being a leftist trait, isn't this plain ridiculous? Many, many of the most prominent leftist thinkers and activists have been Jewish.
It's certainly an interesting line of thought you bring up, though: that the right have to be frank about their absence of anti-semitism unless they want to lose all credibility. While a leftist anti-semite might pass unnoticed. This might even appeal to me. If I didn't immediately reject it out of hand. No. I don't buy it.
This also applies to many, many of the most prominent rightist thinkers and activists.
And don't tell me that a Jew cannot be an Anti-Semite. Especially a Jew who doesn't self-identify as a Jew.
And most of Communists did not self-identify themselves with any ethnicity, religion or nationality.
Actually Karl Marx himself is credited with many Anti-Semitic statements:
As you can see, Marx was awfully racist and anti-Semitic - he despised Jews, especially those from Eastern Europe. Adolf Hitler as well despised Jews from Eastern Europe above all. He considered German Jews subhuman, but Russian and Polish Jews even 100 times more subhuman than German Jews.
Even author of this article - Robert Edwards - who clearly has leftist sympathies - writes about "the mindset of a Jew".
If some right-winger claimed that such a thing like "the [typical] mindset of a Jew" exists, he would be immediately called a rabid Anti-Semite.
And here you have a left-winger who tries to justify Karl Marx's obvious Anti-Semitism and himself writes about "the mindset of a Jew"!
Moderator Action: Article snipped. Please don't copy and past whole articles.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Early Soviet anti-semitism was indeed a leftover from Czarist times, after a short Pro-Jewish period between 1941-1952 followed. Thereafter, Stalin fabricated the Doctor's Plot. This partially had to do with the fact that the USSR became an enemy of Israel after 1952, as late Soviet anti-semitism more had to do with identifying Jews with Israel and the fact the Soviets had geopolitical interests in opposing Israel.
Now, anti-semitism by the Left and by Muslims happens. Unlike anti-semitism by the far-right, and like Medieval anti-semitism, it doesn't really have a racialised element: You can choose to be not a Jew, which is why it also possible to be of Jewish descent and still be "anti-semitic" or an inspiration to "anti-semites". It is comparable to how some Japanese and German communists oppose the existence of their own country and ethnic identity as they deem it naturally suited for fascist beliefs due to their geostrategic interests and locations.
Also, ideology in general is a Platonic concept, and as such it is practically impossible to be an ideological purist. This applies to ALL ideologies. Even though left-wing thought ought to be anti-hierarchical and thus anti-racist, occasionally racist sentiments (like Anti-Semitism due to Israel, Anti-German racism due to WWII) break through due to the political interests of left-wing political organisations (I.e. getting votes from Arab immigrants, supporting Arab states, being at war with a certain nation).
It is comparable to how Right-Wing populists fervently deny they are racist or Nazis exempt certain ethnic groups that are their allies from their 'anti-'sentiment: They want to adapt their rhetoric and even their political views (thus straying from ideological purity) to the political reality on the ground, informed by the economic interests and customs of the locale they live in. Attaining ideological consistency and political relevance at the same time is almost always impossible.
A racialised element was typical for German Nazi Anti-Semitism. And probably only for this branch of Anti-Semitism.
However, it is disputed if German Nazism was a rightist or leftist ideology.
There are some people (see above) who claim that Nazism was a far-leftist ideology, not a far-rightist one.
Right-wing types of Anti-Semitism - such as Anti-Jewish sentiment which existed among far-right groups in Poland - did not incorporate any racialised elements, but saw Jews as an "alien element" within the society and as an economic and a political threat - not as an "inferior race", like the German Nazis did.
Another specific view of right-wing Anti-Semitism was associating Jews with Communism.
This one single view was also shared by German Nazis - but in their ideology it was a much less important element, than the "inferior race" thing.
So, are you saying that being Jewish is a permanent and indelible fact of a person's life?
I feel I've been transported back to medieval Europe. When Jewish people who converted to Christianity were still considered to be Jewish.
USSR started to demonstrate mild hints of semiofficial anti-semitism since late 1930'ies, but it was not until late 1940'ies and the campaign against "rootless cosmopolitism" it really took off - Kaiserguard extends the "Pro-Jewish" (only in comparison to what that followed, really) period by 3 years or so past its end.
I do not think that is as simple as "hangover from Tsarist times", at least if we're talking about official and semi-official policy. Soviet anti-Semitism really took off 30 years or so after 1917.
This doesn't sound like most of Medieval Europe in general. Limpieza de sangre is 15th century.
In Central and Eastern Europe, it is considered so, often even by the Jews themselves. Soviet secularism, combined with "forced recognition" of Jews as nationality/ethnicity, along with Primordialist understanding of ethnicity played a major part in it.
Well, late medieval takes one to the C15th, no?
And no, I don't suppose it applied to the whole of Europe, you're right.
But, in the end, you're saying it does still apply?
I'm ok with the conversation about left ideologies and anti-semitism, as long as it's connected with the topic. Would you want to ask a mod to split the thread?
Being Jewish is not a permanent and indelible fact. But this doesn't justify Anti-Semitism. And Karl Marx was an Anti-Semite because he expressed racist views about "Jews who did not liberate themselves from their backward Jewishness". Are you defending Anti-Semitism as long as it is only against religious Jews?
So basically in your opinion Karl Marx was OK when he expressed racist views only about religious Jews, but not about those who abandoned Judaism?
This is such a typical leftist way of thinking - "we can call Jews as racially inferior, as long as they are stuck in their backward Jewish culture."
So everyone who do not share leftist views (Rednecks, Catholics, Jews, etc.), is either dumb or racially inferior ??? And it is OK to say this ???
The single reason why Nazis were slightly worse than this, is because they considered the state of "racial inferiority" as permanent.
In Medieval Europe Jews who converted to Christianity were NOT considered to be Jewish anymore. And surely not their Christian children.
For example in Lithuania (and in some periods also in Poland) Jews who converted to Christianity were automatically being granted the status of nobility.
Considering converted Jews as still Jews was an idea which became popular much later - together with 19th century Western European racism.
Not only it is 15th century, but also it is Western European - and not Eastern European, where Jews fled from Western Europe during the Middle Ages.
Even as late as 1930s, majority of Jews in Poland (and also in Russia) were religious and Orthodox in their religion.
This is why the Nazis considered "enlightened" German Jews as less subhuman than "backward" Polish Jews.
Eh, don't bother. The whole line of discussion has been irreparably Domen'd.
Moderator Action: Trolling another user like this isn't acceptable in the Chamber.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Firstly, I'm writing a mod to split the threads.
Secondly, Marx's notes about Jewish people are clearly not based on their believes, but on their abilities and potential as human beings. Same goes for his notes on Mexicans and on black people. Extremely disturbing that he and Che Guevara have became a strong symbol of socialism. Those guys were racist, delusional terrorists that endorsed dictatorship. I'd prefer Lenin over those, and that's a strong thing for me to say.
If this is true then Marx was even worse than I assumed he was.
When you start researching details about Lenin's biography, you will see that he was not really better.
Some people say that Lenin is responsible for more human deaths than Stalin.
Probably this is an exaggeration, but anyway - Lenin was just another Communist genocidal criminal.
Maybe he did not kill Jews - but instead he focused on many other targeted groups (just like later Stalin).
And Stalin actually is responsible for deaths of many Jews - even though he did not kill them because they were Jews, but for other reasons.
Approximately 1,000 Jews were killed by Stalin at Katyn alone - of course not for being Jews, but for being Polish Army officers.
Separate names with a comma.