Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
CDM – Of course Fascism is a form of capitalism but like state capitalism it differs in some respects. The Party has never demurred from an in depth analysis of state capitalism (hard left capitalism) so why do you object to a similar analysis of Fascism (hard right capitalism) as an ideology? We don’t seek to confine Bolshevism to its historical context (early 20th century) to critique its contemporary incarnations.
TM – Certainly Marx used it in a derogatory way but the definition of ideology does differ depending on the source. To be a little provocative I sometimes think that you and CDM use the tracts of the SPGB in a rather ‘ideological’ way. Anyways socialism is obviously a system of values and beliefs that qualify it, for me, as an ideology. Interestingly your definition of philosophy clashes with many in the party who believe it has been entirely eclipsed by economics and science. Unusually I like your definition as an aspiration but it has to be said that most philosophers have been ideologically motivated in their work and conclusions.
Of course socialism is an ideology. It might claim to be much more, and with some justification, but it is still, at heart, an ideology. Think of the word ‘reality’. It is, obviously, a word but it claims to be more and something other than just a word. But whatever ontology you come up with it starts and ends as a word – same with ‘socialism’. I’ve studied, in some depth, the second world war and its origins so I don’t really need you to tell me what ‘I probably think’. Since Mussolini’s Fascism the word has, for obvious reasons, gone rather out of fashion but the ideology doesn’t depend on what it’s leader calls it but rather the policies it enacts when in power.
TM – What ‘blind alley’ is that? Critiquing contemporary Fascism like we do every other ideology based on capitalism?
I despair if you guys consider the holocaust as capitalism’s business as usual. Auschwitz was an immense city of death- I think you guys should pay it a visit sometime. So you believe no progress has been made since the days of slavery? You don’t think that the treatment of women and children has improved immeasurably over the last hundred years in many parts of the world? Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater! No wonder TM longs for the end of the world. CDM – we don’t confine Marxian socialism to the late 19th century so as to understand its historical context. Socialism is a living ideology as is, unfortunately, Fascism and Bolshevism. The fact that capitalism’s failure is responsible for the survival of these ideologies (including, of course, Socialism) does not mean that they cease to exist.
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.
