Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "THIS is the Actual Idea behind Fascism" video.
-
1
-
@DavidBusiness-wb2jo Nazi Germany did reach the lower stage of Socialist Mode of Production. As the economic policy of Nazi Germany did able to make its economic system ascend from capitalist mode of production under Marxist theory.
Under the capitalist mode of production:
1.Both the inputs and outputs of production are mainly privately owned, priced goods and services purchased in the market.
Production is carried out for exchange and circulation in the market, aiming to obtain a net profit income from it.
Inputs and outputs of production are State owned (German businessman to American businessman, from Reimann, "The Vampire Economy,”)
2.The owners of the means of production (capitalists) constitute the dominant class (bourgeoisie) who derive its income from the exploitation of the surplus value.
No free Market in Nazi Germany (The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry)
Surplus value was controlled and regulated by the state.
3.Surplus value is a term within the Marxian theory which reveals the workers' unpaid work.
“Hitler’s Beneficiaries” makes clear, most of the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews.
They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
4. A defining feature of capitalism is the dependency on wage-labor for a large segment of the population; specifically, the working class, that is a segment of the proletariat, which does not own means of production (type of capital) and are compelled to sell to the owners of the means of production their labour power in order to produce and thus have an income to provide for themselves and their families the necessities of life.
There was no wage-labor, because work were guaranteed, and the wages or salaries in Nazi Germany were fixed by DAF instead of market-determined. ( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.).
1
-
@DavidBusiness-wb2jo Historical fact show that Nazi Germany gradually eliminate unemployment, the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
“Family and child tax credits, marriage loans, and home-furnishing and child-education allowances were among the measures with which the state tried to relieve the financial burden on parents and encourage Germans to have more children.” (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” p38-39.)
In addition to this, there were price controls, wage controls, rent controls, and centralised distribution of goods - materials could only be bought with certificates which had to be obtained from one of the various central planning boards which distributed said materials.( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p51-52, p67-70, p251-254.)
1
-
@DavidBusiness-wb2jo Regarding DAF
Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was not pro-capitalist as the Nazi in your own imagination. Capitalists were also being regulated by the DAF. Under the new National Socialist regulations (enforced by the DAF), the concepts of “employers” and “employees” were done away with, being replaced with the terms “leaders” and “followers”. And while some “followers” did complain about the new system, saying it was benefiting the “leaders” at the expense of the “followers”, their “leaders” also complained about the new system.
(Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p107. Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p70, p83. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327-329.)
“Yes, I am the ‘leader’ in my factory; my workers are my ‘followers.’ But I am no longer a manager...
(Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p107.)
I cannot decide what is allowed or forbidden in my own factory...
(Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.)
There have been cases where managers were removed by the Party of Labor Trustees and replaced by ‘kommissars.’ ”
( Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p116.)
Furthermore, the “private profit” of those private companies would still be forced to redistribute among the workers ( to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF, the party subordinates, or directly by the Nazi Government.
"A year or so ago I was ordered to spend social evenings with my 'followers' and to celebrate with them by providing free beer and sausages. The free beer and sausages were welcome enough ... Last year he (The Labor Front secretary) compelled me to spend over a hundred thousand marks for a new lunchroom in our factory. This year he wants me to build a new gymnasium and athletic field which will cost about 120,000 marks." (Reimann, The Vampire Economy, p. 112)
1
-
1
-
Yes according to Mussolini, and so did the German Communist Party. During the Weimar era, they called each other “Social Fascist” and “Red Fascist”, aka late stage capitalist under Communist definition.
In the meantime, according to Karl Marx what you just stated were also socialists. As Karl Marx said socialism that advocated class collaboration, together with Proudhon’s Anarchism as Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism as Karl Marx said in the Manifesto:
“
…
We may cite Proudhon's Philosophie de la Misère as an example of this form.
The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat.
…
A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations”(2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, III. Socialist and Communist Literature, Manifesto of the Communist Party)
The only mode of production that can never be classified as Fascistic and Socialistic are AnCap Society and Marxist Statless Society. As in both cases either the private ownership or state ownership are eliminated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The Birth of Fascist Ideology" illustrated the Socialism origin of Fascist economic and political ideologies.
The political aspect of Fascism originated from Sorelianism, while the economic aspect of Fascism originated from Émile Janvion’s revolutionary syndicalist.
Sorelian belief or realized that the classless communist state was not achievable by class struggle as Marxism suggested because Marxism failed to account for/predict the following factors:
1. The bourgeoisie would avoid a fight, reduce its power, and purchase social tranquillity at any price.
2. Socialist parties would become instruments of class collaboration and concoct Democratic Socialism.
3. The elimination of bourgeoisies' appetites (the freedom of purchase) and the proletariats' ardor (the reward of production) would lead to the decadence of civilization (Production Inefficiency).
4. A state of affairs in which the official syndical organization became "a variety of politics, a means of getting on in the world" (the power of uniting proletarians would ascend the syndical leader social class from proletarian. Hence the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms can never be swept away)
5. The government and the philanthropists took it into their heads to exterminate socialism by developing social legislation and reducing employers' resistance to strikes."
6. Proletarian violence would come on the scene just at the moment when social tranquility tries to calm the conflicts.
(Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66)
Hence, therefore, Sorelian had two conclusions.
The first is that capitalism failed to accomplish its social purpose and create a united, organized proletariat, conscious of its power and mission. (AKA Capitalism was not Self-Destructive in late 1800s to early 1900s) In order to achieve the "communistic revolution", Class Consciousness, Will to Struggle, and Social Polarization needed to be artificially created. (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66)
"class antagonisms were never automatically or necessarily produced by capitalism. Capitalism does not inevitably produce class struggle; a capitalist "inevitability" exists only in the domain of economics, production, and technology. If capitalism develops as the result of a certain necessity, if the capitalists all have to try and improve their equipment, to find new outlets, to reduce their manufacturing costs, "nothing obliges the workers to unite and to organize themselves." For this reason, capitalism can neither automatically cause social polarization and class antagonisms nor give rise to a combative way of thinking and a spirit of sacrifice. Class struggle materializes only where there is a desire, continually fostered, to destroy the existing order. The mechanisms of the capitalist system are able to give rise to economic progress, create ever-increasing wealth, and raise the standard of living. These mechanisms are a necessary but not sufficient precondition for nurturing a class consciousness. The capitalist system does not by its nature poduce a revolutionary state of mind…" ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p51-52)
The second one is that the classes would be the foundation of all socialism. The end goal of class struggle would be a free-market society in that different classes coexist in harmony with “an equality of expenses, efforts, and labor for all men, as well as an equality of profits and salaries.” ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66, p147)
"In that case, "should one believe the Marxist conception is dead? Not at all, for proletarian violence comes on the scene just at the moment when social tranquillity tries to calm the conflicts. Proletarian violence encloses the employers in their role of producers and restores the structure of the classes just as the latter had seemed to mix together in a democratic quagmire." Sorel added that "the more the bourgeoisie will be ardently capitalist and the more the proletariat will be full of a fighting spirit and confident of its revolutionary force, the more will movement be assured." This was especially the case because he considered this division of classes to be "the basis of all socialism." This is what created "the idea of a catastrophic revolution" and would finally enable "socialism to fulfill its historical role." " (Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p66)
To archive this final goal, a Fascist Revolution will be required.
(Because of the need to include Mosley's Fascism, which did not use any myth to push his fascist revolution, into the definition, and even Communism IRL also used "antimaterialistic" and "antirationalistic" values like Cult of personality, social solidarity, the sense of duty and sacrifice, and heroic values to justify its final goal of the classless communist state, which was deemed as not purely scientific by Sorelian. I will skip the myth part.)
"The capitalist system does not by its nature produce a revolutionary state of mind, and it is not by itself capable of creating the conviction that the bourgeois order deserves to be overtaken not only by a "material catastrophe," but also by a "moral catastrophe." ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p52)
1
-
The economic aspect of Italian Fascism mainly originated from revolutionary syndicalist economics theory, a revision of Marxist economics.
The revolutionary syndicalists proclaimed revolutionary syndicates to be the necessary combat weapons for the working class. Even though they did not deny the professional syndicate a positive role, revolutionary syndicalists believed professional syndicates is that their field of action is extremely limited due to the nature of the capitalist economy. The limits were set by the overriding need of capitalism to accede to workers' demands only to the degree that this concession would leave it with a profit. As soon as profit ceased, the capitalists moved on to some other sector where profit was assured, leaving the workers of the professional syndicates without employment. Therefore, this syndicate is incapable of posing a threat to bourgeois society.
To address this limitation, the Revolutionary Syndicalists proposed the creation of industrial unions that would organize workers across different trades and industries. This approach would allow workers to exert greater collective power over the capitalist system by coordinating strikes and other forms of direct action that could disrupt the normal functioning of the economy. By focusing their efforts on the economic sphere, the Revolutionary Syndicalists hoped to bring about a change in the infrastructure of society, which would, in turn, lead to a change in the superstructure. They believed that this change could not be brought about solely through political action or a small revolutionary vanguard's actions but required the working class's active participation as a whole.
In addition to industrial unions, the Revolutionary Syndicalists also advocated for creating worker cooperatives, where workers would collectively own and manage the means of production. This approach was seen as a way to challenge the capitalists' power and create an alternative economic system based on worker control and cooperation.
Overall, the Revolutionary Syndicalists believed that the key to achieving social change was to organize the working class in a way that would allow them to exert direct economic power over the capitalist system. By organizing across trades and industries and focusing on the economic sphere, they hoped to create a society where workers could control their destinies and build a new, more equitable social order.
As a revision theory, the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is distinct from traditional Marxist economic theory, as they focused on the relationship between workers and the process of production rather than the relationship between workers and the means of production.
One of the key concepts in the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory is that of "producers." The term "producers" indicates a type of corporatist organization that appeared just after the war in the political writings of Lanzillo, Panunzio, and De Ambris. In the revolutionary syndicalists' economic theory, producers have to be grouped into corporations whose members are bound by a community of socioeconomic interests.
Unlike the Marxist conception of the proletariat or workers, the class/category of "producers" could include not only workers, but also technicians, administrators, managers, directors, and even capitalist industrialists who participate in the productive process. In this model, the revolutionary syndicalists opposed the class/category of "parasites," consisting of all those who do not contribute to the productive process.
The revolutionary syndicalists believed that this model of a corporation formed from the bottom upward, beginning with the proletarians and some producers and then including all producers, reflected reality. However, above all, it had the enormous advantage of providing an integrated solution to social and national problems.
Furthermore, revolutionary syndicalists add a voluntarist element to their theory. They believe that moral improvement, administrative and technical amelioration, and the emergence of elites among the proletariat would lead to the formation of revolutionary syndicates. These elites would lead the fight against bourgeois society and bring about a "liberalist" economy in which the capital would have no legal privilege and relations between capital and labor would be regulated by market forces. ( Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p143-145)
Sorelian myths were “systems of images,” that is, constructions that enabled “people who participate in great social movements” to conceive “their next action as images of battle ensuring the triumph of their cause.” As “outstanding examples of myths,” Sorel mentioned “those which were invented by primitive Christianity, by the Reformation, by the French Revolution”; in a similar manner and to the same degree, he wrote, “the general strike of the syndicalists and Marx’s catastrophic revolution are myths.” Sorel was perfectly aware of the importance of the invention of this irrationalistic interpretation of Marxism. “In employing the term myth,” he wrote, “I believed I had made a lucky find, because in this way I avoided any discussion with people who wish to submit the general strike to a detailed criticism and raise objections to its practical possibility.” The potential of this “theory of myths” lay in the fact that it not only eluded “any control by intellectualistic philosophy” but gave an intelligibility to historical phenomena, psychological reflexes, and modes of behavior “that intellectualistic philosophy cannot explain.” Sorel claimed that “intellectualistic philosophy”—that is, traditional philosophy—revealed its impotence whenever it had to explain the propensity to self-sacrifice of the soldiers of the Napoleonic armies, Roman virtue, or the Greeks’ love of glory. What could rationalism do with “the myth of the Church Militant?” he asked. Sorel concluded that “intellectualistic philosophy truly suffers from a radical incompetence with regard to the explanation of the great historical movements.”
1
-
1