If you read my previous posts in this thread, I made a distinction between a value oriented differentiation and the outcome from the physical capacities, and explained why if we are to go by ideology, it should be defined though values. In that sense, I agree with the values you attributed to fascism.
Fascists do not hide the values they cherished either, its not like we need to debate over what values to attribute to socialists or fascists...it is our friends here with the revisionist agenda doing that. Both fascists and socialists throughout history have made what values they cherish clear.
However, we cannot deny the similarities in functions or outcomes due to physical capacities.
By its function, both fascist and socialist political structures have varied. For instance, whereas fascist dictatorships of latin america which had their powerbase among landholders were a lot more pro private property than the Nazis.Nazi agenda was more about gearing the industrial elite for an idealized goal. In that sense we cannot equate a latin american fascist dictatorship, the early south korean regime and Nazis as one type.
Additionally, it is undeniably true that a lot of the Leninist socialist regimes of the 20th century, while having slight variations
functioned, and this is the important word, functioned in a similar manner, not to mention the similarities coming from the totalitarian attitude. However this does not mean this would either be a result of fascist or a socialist political structure, a pro-market capitalist regime, due to its inner political relations can turn into something like this as well.
This is the inevitable result of political struggle in modernity expressing itself through relations over state.
And this brings to my next point:
In my post, I make another distinction between the left and right within a different contextualization. Right and left within and outside capitalism(as in how they relate themselves to system), have different attitude.
The traditional left, the socialists and even the social democrats who came out from the second international have accepted the idea that the state is a tool of oppression.
This idea within the LEFT had always remained to this day. The idea was revised by Althusser(Introduced the concept of "ideological instruments of the state", which later paved the way for Foucault's conceptualization of bio-power)in the 60s and later in the 70s left discourse produced a new debate(Poulantzas and Miliband debate, you can look into it) where a new idea was produced.
So LEFT, as in the far left has two view against state currently:
1) The traditional idea, has its roots in Marx but especially in Engels' work on origins of state and family: That the state is a tool of oppression, the class that holds it wields the power to supress the other. That state is the inevitable product of societies that have classes. > and from there the conclusion that the state has to be taken by socialists TO BE DESTROYED eventually to lift all class distinctions and thus oppression, ending history.
Most of the radical left dances around this idea with slight variations.
2) The new ideas coming in 70s and with the introduction of post-modernity has lightened the approach on state. The Poulantzas thesis was that state was autonomous in its relations to society. You can look into works of Bob Jessop who has worked on this in detail as a contemporary social scientist.
So the state autonomy idea is that state is more concerned with maintaining the status quo of the system, so it serves primarily to the system rather than the class. However the system serves the class. So in the last instance, state still serves the bourgeouise, but it limits the greedy expansion of the elite to make sure the system continious to function and the lower classes don't go
crazy to make a revolution. Because the bourgeouise on their own do not have their limits for exploitation.
------
The ideas that are in peace with capitalism, the social democrats ALSO originate in the Marxian thesis of the 19th century. However they preferred the slow approach through democracy where state is limited over time.
This also led to Lenin's imperialism thesis, again declaring social democracy's legitimiziation of the state as treachery pretty much.
None of this changes the fact that many socialists, when they took over state were poisoned by the power they took over and the power took over them. They did not know where to go from there exactly so they decided to utilize the state. This also produced a lot of variations.
Nonetheless, today's radical left, except the fossils generally have a staunchly anti-state attitude due to the experience of Leninism.
The concept of radical democracy entertains the idea of local autonomy and direct democracy as a way to empower the lower classes against the powers of globalization.
The problem is, our "right wing" friends don't seem to get this and revise a whole new idea based on their limited views they got from the online echo-chambers.
Note: Afaik, in the original fascists doctrines, state is especially emphasized. The worship of state is a fundemental aspect of the fascist ideology.
Like I explained above, fascism(s) varied, however in the 1920s to 30s it was quiet popular as a way of developing the nation.
You can call the "developmental state" thesis(Early Asian Tigers like Korea and Japan, Turkey...etc) a sub-category of fascist mobilization of nation for instance.
Re: Does fascism/nazism belong to the left of the political spectrum?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by DaVinci
