Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Both TM and CDM would like to dismiss the words Fascism and Nazism from the political lexicon as if the second world war had never happened and that there are no lessons to learn from that terrible time. This seems to me to be totally irrational. They keep invoking the left’s use of these words to emphasize why we should be prevented from their usage. The left use the term ‘socialism’ quite often so does that mean we shouldn’t? Of course not – the left’s lexicon is a red herring in this debate. Was the holocaust an example of capitalist ‘business as usual?
TM – It’s quite possible that Trump will die soon (he’s not a well man) and Vance will take over. I believe him to be more dangerous than Trump so your contention that US fascism will die with Trump is unfounded. I don’t care what leftists shout about but unlike you I can’t see any evidence that fascism is dead – quite the opposite as it goes from strength to strength all over the world. I don’t understand this irrational denial that fascism still exists and that we shouldn’t bother to counter its ideology. We deconstruct every other ideology out there so why not this one?
CDM – I do agree that there are dissenting voices in the Party but I think that that’s a good thing as it proves we’re not a monolithic sectarian organization. I strongly disagree that the denial of the existence of contemporary fascism is in any way a ‘general principle’ of the socialist party.
TM – Do you accept that Fascism is an ideology that exists today? If you do then there’s no reason why we can’t subject it to the same criticism as we do with all other ideologies such as Liberalism, Leftist ideology, Nationalism, Conservatism etc., etc.
TM – I’m not responsible for what the left say and do however some of them also say: fight poverty, fight inequality and fight racism etc., which is something all socialists can agree with. My point is that fascism as an ideology is alive and well and was not destroyed in the 1940s. And since it can only flourish because of the failures of capitalism to deliver on its promises a critique of one is necessarily a critique of the other.
CDM – All I can say is that in June 2024 I had an article published in the Standard entitled ‘Fascism as Ideology’ which was a refutation of all that you write above and I received no criticism from the editors or the membership. So I think this is an ongoing debate rather than Party policy.
CDM wrote: ‘The Socialist Party has always said that within a limited capitalist democracy, a personal dictatorship and Fascism cannot be established…’
Didn’t Germany, Italy and Spain have ‘limited capitalist democracies’ in the ’30s? Anyone who has any doubt that Trump is a Fascist is burying their heads deep in the sand. The idea that Fascism was defeated in the 1940s has not been paying attention to regimes in South America and Africa etc., etc. Are you sure this denial is Party policy?‘Peasants worked in the fields from childhood too. Hardly either were navel-gazing over their waistlines or whether they stank, nor about what other members of their class were thinking of them.’
Some ‘peasants’ became quite educated and wealthy (hence the Peasant’s revolt) so I’m sure they payed attention to both physical and fashion appearance. You may be thinking more about the serfs and slaves of medieval times and since they left very little imprint on history we don’t know much about their culture.
TM – There has always been class conformity in terms of appearance. I’m always fascinated by how hair styles have defined class and/or radicals down the centuries. For women this has been even more exaggerated and I believe some even went so far as to having ribs removed to acquire a slimmer waist. Of course the working class had their flat caps and bowlers. In the 1930s women were flat chested with shoulder pads and in the 1950’s they were expected to be ‘full figured’. You did also refer to the pre-1890s which is why I referenced Renaissance body expectations among the aristos. We don’t have many surviving accounts of how the peasantry felt about physical appearance but I do know that it was illegal at one stage to wear certain types of coloured clothing. I suspect there was just as much ‘class conformity’ and male and female identity conforming as there is now.
TM – ‘I see no evidence of body obsession/neurosis prior to the 1890s, especially none where men are concerned.’
One of the main commentaries concerning Henry VIII at that time was how elegant and physically perfect this renaissance prince was as a young man.BD – ‘Where I teach there is an expectation that all sources are authoritatively referenced.’
Who has the ‘authority’ to define Fascism? Perhaps Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini? Any glance at what they wrote will tell you that their ‘ideology’ was far from coherent. In terms of those who followed them, which is far more important, it is unlikely that their values and principles were ‘defined’ in any logical sense. Fascism was based on faith without the need to recourse to rational thought – that is why it became so strong.
ZJW – You don’t have to agree with a book to review it. Your attitude doesn’t really help with starting dialogue with those who disagree with us – just sounds like sectarianism.
CIT – ‘I am resting my case: There is no fascism, there are no fascists, and socialism is not an ideology, and it is not a doctrine either, even though Engels used the expression: doctrine in a different context. Later on, he called socialism/communism a movement’
Well that’s that then. The high Priest has spoken. As usual his more didactic and preachy statements make his socialism sound more like a religion rather than an evolving corpus of ideas.
