haha jk but it was bad im going to log off
people getting bombed and murdered by punitive fascist squads dont fucking care if youre some Eurasianist or 'defending the brave Slav race against hte degenerate West', as long as you're fighting for them. it's not the failure of Donbass that a handful of nationalist wackos are joining the call for liberation while 'leftists' are 'sitting this interimperialist war out' because the Orient doesn't value life or whatever
Edited by Crow ()
slight tangent but it's honestly hard for me to reconcile that fetishistic neonazi kind of rightist, with actual will to to battle, let alone ability outside of a bar fight. the triumph of a neoliberal society such as mine -- most of the people who enjoy acting out violence simply get into organised crime and/or footy
Petrol posted:bravo brother crow
slight tangent but it's honestly hard for me to reconcile that fetishistic neonazi kind of rightist, with actual will to to battle, let alone ability outside of a bar fight. the triumph of a neoliberal society such as mine -- most of the people who enjoy acting out violence simply get into organised crime and/or footy
that reminds me of something i've been kind of thinking about, anger and violence, and I'm not sure you can really psychologize most of it to a particular ideology. Or, rather, you can't be like "violence for violence's sake" or even "this guy is just a bloodthirsty psychopath" necessarily. violence always comes out of particular personal circumstances, which are always determined by a class situation. Fascists aren't even necessarily more 'violent' than like some petit bourgeois imperialist, because most likely they are a petit bourgeois imperialist. so yes they'll love to go bomb some villages, or bash in some unionists or Ethnic Enemies or whatever. but a blatantly corrupt oligarch will maybe just be met with cynical dismissal, or even a lone murder, not a systemic campaign against capitalists. certainly no violence against their class interests, and in fact much of it can lay dormant.
likewise, some kid in Iraq that's seen his family plunged into hopelessness and poverty with the invasion of the US and then turned refugee by ISIS contras may have a lot of anger. but it's a class anger that could potentially be put into national liberation struggles, whatever.
the same thing with a bunch of disaffected leftists, you'll have alot of their anger and frustration turned into a fascist adventurist turn (or assorted petit bourgeois romanticisms), or radical political organizing, or even an internationalist armed struggle, all to an overwhelming degree related to their class and relation to the means of production.
I mean this isn't exactly anything new or not obvious. But I guess the conclusion I reach from that is, you should think where your place is in class society, without romantic illusions (ie. try to do some material analysis), what the national and local situation is in regards to the different classes and their attitudes, what goals are realistic in the short term and what goals to strive for in the long term. Is it realistic for leftists to go out to certain hotspots and form internationalist brigades? Maybe for some, not for others. The truth of the matter is it's much easier financially for some bougie asshole to spend some money and go on a fascist adventure in Ukraine or Iraq, they may even secure funding quite easily, because there is an entire global apparatus to support this. For many (broke) leftists, it may mean antifascist organizing of allied classes at home instead. Maybe securing funding from sympathetic sources for something more.
But I think you'll certainly find people to do battle against the fascists, there's no shortage of anger in the world. It may be immigrant youth, it may be working class kids, it might not be a petit bourgeois guy on twitter. And it's the same online, though you'll come across a much bigger share of idle petit/big bourgeois sitting around due to leisure time and disposable income. We just need to look in the right places. Besides, organized crime and/or footy is just a hobby for most people. Give em something worthwhile
the related point, that it's dangerous to psychologise violence, at least in terms of defining/drawing conclusions about identity/ideology. yes. it's well taken. but i think it's important to recognise the psychological aspect in certain respects, to other ends. a concept i keep coming back to, for example, is trauma as a regulating force. which is to say, the role trauma can play in activating certain tendencies towards violence and control more generally. put it this way: a mad doctor who is able to produce trauma in his subjects, as a central technique of a project to produce a certain kind of person... ignoring the fact that such projects tend to be doomed, wouldn't you think that trauma, where it plays a role in shaping a person, will tend to endlessly reproduce fascism rather than anything of the radical left?
Petrol posted:mmm. well i didn't mean to suggest any link between class and propensity for violence, just to be clear - i was trying to say that, contrary to the impression one may get from observing the work of neo-nazis in e.g. ukraine right now, my personal experience is of bored, soft fellows, play-acting at being hitler. this extends even to those groups with a loud bark, who reach out to overseas groups of like mind, for example the local offshoot of golden dawn who intend to have their pals from the motherland over to visit soon. distasteful, especially in light of the current feverish campaign of the australian federal government and security services to encourage serious conflict between muslims and whites.
the related point, that it's dangerous to psychologise violence, at least in terms of defining/drawing conclusions about identity/ideology. yes. it's well taken. but i think it's important to recognise the psychological aspect in certain respects, to other ends. a concept i keep coming back to, for example, is trauma as a regulating force. which is to say, the role trauma can play in activating certain tendencies towards violence and control more generally. put it this way: a mad doctor who is able to produce trauma in his subjects, as a central technique of a project to produce a certain kind of person... ignoring the fact that such projects tend to be doomed, wouldn't you think that trauma, where it plays a role in shaping a person, will tend to endlessly reproduce fascism rather than anything of the radical left?
i guess it depends on how one defines fascism, right? i'd say fascism is a rightwing tool of terror used by the bourgeoisie in times of severe crisis, times when parliamentarian-democratic 'process' is either suspended or circumvented heavily. it's historical in the sense that it can only exist under specific conditions in capitalism (ie. does not exist in feudalism or other modes of production). and it relies on a class to buttress its violence due to having its 'skin in the game'.
in a sense, yes, a certain trauma may have specific consequences, like capitalist subjectivity may produce a fascist thru some violent social trauma or specific alienation or something, but it also relates to their class, their position in society, which will determine it. like its much more likely that a white petite bourgeois man in the US will turn towards fascism than a poor aborigine teen or wahtever. Thats my understanding. Fascism, just as imperialism more generally, functions based on class interests. Violence/anger whatever knows no class, but it will take an attendant form
Crow posted:i guess it depends on how one defines fascism, right? i'd say fascism is a rightwing tool of terror used by the bourgeoisie in times of severe crisis, times when parliamentarian-democratic 'process' is either suspended or circumvented heavily. it's historical in the sense that it can only exist under specific conditions in capitalism (ie. does not exist in feudalism or other modes of production). and it relies on a class to buttress its violence due to having its 'skin in the game'.
yes!
i guess the other nagging thought i have, though, is that violence is integral to fascism as a strategy of control. given that, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that fascism is likely to encourage in the fascist a desire for violence; likewise, that fascism will be more attractive to those who already have a strong desire for violence. (none of this is to suggest that every fascist is compelled to personally commit acts of violence - as you point out, class will generally be the determining factor)
if any of that has merit, what about communism? it might be argued that violence is integral to communism only so far as it is necessary in the context of revolution. the functional difference suggests to me that a violence/desire nexus does not arise from communism.
that's all a bit of theoretical wank perhaps, but i guess i'm trying to frame a gut feeling i have about the natural attractiveness of fascism for the lover of violence, and what the strategic implications might be.
e:nm
Edited by Flying_horse_in_saudi_arabia ()
c_man posted:Putin doesn’t believe that there is real competition between the political parties in the West. He thinks of it as a game, like a round of golf in a private club: one player is slightly stronger, another is slightly weaker, but in fact there is no real competition.
i know who i'm voting for
Petrol posted:Crow posted:i guess it depends on how one defines fascism, right? i'd say fascism is a rightwing tool of terror used by the bourgeoisie in times of severe crisis, times when parliamentarian-democratic 'process' is either suspended or circumvented heavily. it's historical in the sense that it can only exist under specific conditions in capitalism (ie. does not exist in feudalism or other modes of production). and it relies on a class to buttress its violence due to having its 'skin in the game'.
yes!
i guess the other nagging thought i have, though, is that violence is integral to fascism as a strategy of control. given that, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that fascism is likely to encourage in the fascist a desire for violence; likewise, that fascism will be more attractive to those who already have a strong desire for violence. (none of this is to suggest that every fascist is compelled to personally commit acts of violence - as you point out, class will generally be the determining factor)
if any of that has merit, what about communism? it might be argued that violence is integral to communism only so far as it is necessary in the context of revolution. the functional difference suggests to me that a violence/desire nexus does not arise from communism.
that's all a bit of theoretical wank perhaps, but i guess i'm trying to frame a gut feeling i have about the natural attractiveness of fascism for the lover of violence, and what the strategic implications might be.
e:nm
the idea that violence is inherently Fascist or that Fascism is inherently violent is, i believe, a neoliberal myth designed to camouflage and put a friendly face on Actually Existing Fascism and prevent righteous direct action against it. i think youll find that the Western concepts of "Peace", "Nonviolence", and "Civilized Behavior" have done more to destroy, fragment, silence, and imprison the Left, and accelerate the spread of Global Fascism and White Supremacy than any skullbashing call to arms ever has
when the State is the sole arbiter of what is considered violence (always), then all that is Revolutionary will be labeled as violent. Yet although the secular West has largely abandoned Religion in favor of the State, in areas of global conflict Religion still remains to empower the People with the authority to define violence by what is Moral, rather than what is Legal
Superabound posted:the idea that violence is inherently Fascist or that Fascism is inherently violent is, i believe, a neoliberal myth designed to camouflage and put a friendly face on Actually Existing Fascism and prevent righteous direct action against it. i think youll find that the Western concepts of "Peace", "Nonviolence", and "Civilized Behavior" have done more to destroy, fragment, silence, and imprison the Left, and accelerate the spread of Global Fascism and White Supremacy than any skullbashing call to arms ever has
when the State is the sole arbiter of what is considered violence (always), then all that is Revolutionary will be labeled as violent. Yet although the secular West has largely abandoned Religion in favor of the State, in areas of global conflict Religion still remains to empower the People with the authority to define violence by what is Moral, rather than what is Legal
I'm definitely not trying to claim that violence is inherently fascist, that's obviously a nonsense. I'm not really trying to claim that fascism is inherently violent either - that sort of vague sentiment is basically meaningless. Your point about that kind of mythology is well taken.
I need to clarify what I meant when I claimed that "violence is integral to fascism as a strategy of control". By 'violence' I mean the use of force intended to cause harm (physical or otherwise), or the threat thereof (explicit or otherwise). Without delving into a full definition of 'fascism', I want to clarify that I mean fascism as a system, and that its defining characteristics are authoritarianism, nationalism, and eugenics (including racial superiority and veneration of strength).
So, what I am suggesting is that in a fascist system, violence forms, in large part, the basis of authority. By contrast, while violence may play a part in communist direct action, it has no integral role in communism per se.
Following your point about the friendly face of Actually Existing Fascism, I want to clarify further that fascists in positons of power need not personally commit nor personally direct any acts of violence; their authority often derives from the implicit threat of violence, and more than this, it will inevitably give rise to actual violence for which the fascist authority must be held responsible, even though the casual relationship may be indirect.
The train of thought that followed - about fascism encouraging a desire for violence, and attracting people who already have such a desire - is contentious, and probably pointless. Maybe I was trying to psychoanalyse something better explained by other means... but I feel strongly that the irrational plays a huge role in motivating political action. And I don't say 'the irational' in a sneering, negative way. The thing that interests me here is motivation, I've probably just come at it from the wrong angle.
On that note, your comment about religion is interesting.
Crow posted:Petrol posted:mmm. well i didn't mean to suggest any link between class and propensity for violence, just to be clear - i was trying to say that, contrary to the impression one may get from observing the work of neo-nazis in e.g. ukraine right now, my personal experience is of bored, soft fellows, play-acting at being hitler. this extends even to those groups with a loud bark, who reach out to overseas groups of like mind, for example the local offshoot of golden dawn who intend to have their pals from the motherland over to visit soon. distasteful, especially in light of the current feverish campaign of the australian federal government and security services to encourage serious conflict between muslims and whites.
the related point, that it's dangerous to psychologise violence, at least in terms of defining/drawing conclusions about identity/ideology. yes. it's well taken. but i think it's important to recognise the psychological aspect in certain respects, to other ends. a concept i keep coming back to, for example, is trauma as a regulating force. which is to say, the role trauma can play in activating certain tendencies towards violence and control more generally. put it this way: a mad doctor who is able to produce trauma in his subjects, as a central technique of a project to produce a certain kind of person... ignoring the fact that such projects tend to be doomed, wouldn't you think that trauma, where it plays a role in shaping a person, will tend to endlessly reproduce fascism rather than anything of the radical left?i guess it depends on how one defines fascism, right? i'd say fascism is a rightwing tool of terror used by the bourgeoisie in times of severe crisis, times when parliamentarian-democratic 'process' is either suspended or circumvented heavily. it's historical in the sense that it can only exist under specific conditions in capitalism (ie. does not exist in feudalism or other modes of production). and it relies on a class to buttress its violence due to having its 'skin in the game'.
so crow would you consider the current rise of fascism in europe as a tool of the bourgeoise? it's a response to immigration, war with the muslim world and I guess neoliberalism yet there's no left wing enemy. like where is the bourgeois motivation to activate fascism when it faces no credible threat from the left in most places. At the very least, that doesn't seem like the primary concern of those fascist groups, who put anti immigration at he top of their priorities seemingly.
take the ukrainian example, fascism is being wielded for imperialist designs on a non-socialist country, as well as spearheading austerity plans in a time of anarchy for the left forces. there is a lot of confusion in Ukraine (particularly in the West), and in east Ukraine the separatist forces are generally an eclectic movement (though it seems a revolutionary consciousness is decisively rising) that is certainly not capable of bearing a title of an Organized Left. i mean in a sense, fascism is a bit agnostic about what it's used against. it doesn't have to have a 'legitimate target', it (as joolso points out) is foremost a tool to discipline society.
c_man posted:since crow is posting, id be pretty interested in his opinion on this NLR article. it seemed interesting but i dont know anything about the guy who's being interviewed (and basically nothing about russian politics in general) but it sounds like he has some kind of a chip on his shoulder. to what extent was he correct in 2012, and if he was does it still make any sense?
yeah i read that a lil bit back, i was going to post some commentary on it, its actually a pretty interesting article. i forgot what i wanted to say, so maybe it isnt that important. i'm gonna re read it in a bit and respond
e: something that im specifically interested in is some way to put the mostly personal character of the discussion in that article in the context of the structures though which power is gained or exercised in russia, which is something i know essentially nothing about.
Edited by c_man ()
HenryKrinkle posted:even if both sides in Ukraine have fascists among them, it should go without saying that the Kiev regime has more fascists both in its highest levels of power and in their rank-and-file. the "pro-Russian" side's reactionary politics is mostly limited to nostalgic Czarist/White Russian symbolism and a few monarchist oddballs. plus it appears that nostalgia for the USSR is a far greater sentiment than nostalgia for Czarist times.
euroskeptic parties endorse putin and pledge to forge ties with russia should they achieve power, both le penn and farage have spoken of their admiration for putin and his distinct "style" of rule. it is clearly the perogative of the russian state to see the dismantlement of the european union, of that there can be no doubt. this conflict in its global connotations is american political hegemony against russian, but the end of the european union would mean once again the rise of nationalism and fascism (as we are seeing)
daddyholes posted:well why does that work? why are many europeans, and europeans of a specific class, worried about immigrants? what would cause a lot of people in one country to get upset that people are coming in from another country with lower average incomes and standards of living?
it's almost like immigration is an important issue and the left has no good arguments on it, also the people seeing the effects of it don't like it. it's great that you guys think fascism is astro-turfed by the bourgeois when actually it's an expression of the proletariat's real concerns and feelings.
NoFreeWill was probated until (Oct. 7, 2014 03:28:12) for this post!
NoFreeWill posted:daddyholes posted:well why does that work? why are many europeans, and europeans of a specific class, worried about immigrants? what would cause a lot of people in one country to get upset that people are coming in from another country with lower average incomes and standards of living?
it's almost like immigration is an important issue and the left has no good arguments on it, also the people seeing the effects of it don't like it. it's great that you guys think fascism is astro-turfed by the bourgeois when actually it's an expression of the proletariat's real concerns and feelings.
it's great that you have zero evidence for any of your claims.
NoFreeWill posted:daddyholes posted:well why does that work? why are many europeans, and europeans of a specific class, worried about immigrants? what would cause a lot of people in one country to get upset that people are coming in from another country with lower average incomes and standards of living?
it's almost like immigration is an important issue and the left has no good arguments on it, also the people seeing the effects of it don't like it. it's great that you guys think fascism is astro-turfed by the bourgeois when actually it's an expression of the proletariat's real concerns and feelings.
is this guy IWC? what ever happened to IWC?
Crow posted:.custom252131{}NoFreeWill posted:.custom252073{color:#000000 !important; background-color:#F8FFBD !important; }daddyholes posted:well why does that work? why are many europeans, and europeans of a specific class, worried about immigrants? what would cause a lot of people in one country to get upset that people are coming in from another country with lower average incomes and standards of living?
it's almost like immigration is an important issue and the left has no good arguments on it, also the people seeing the effects of it don't like it. it's great that you guys think fascism is astro-turfed by the bourgeois when actually it's an expression of the proletariat's real concerns and feelings.
it's great that you have zero evidence for any of your claims.
all those patriotic germans during WWII, clearly astroturf.
NoFreeWill posted:Crow posted:.custom252131{}NoFreeWill posted:.custom252073{color:#000000 !important; background-color:#F8FFBD !important; }daddyholes posted:well why does that work? why are many europeans, and europeans of a specific class, worried about immigrants? what would cause a lot of people in one country to get upset that people are coming in from another country with lower average incomes and standards of living?
it's almost like immigration is an important issue and the left has no good arguments on it, also the people seeing the effects of it don't like it. it's great that you guys think fascism is astro-turfed by the bourgeois when actually it's an expression of the proletariat's real concerns and feelings.
it's great that you have zero evidence for any of your claims.
all those patriotic germans during WWII, clearly astroturf.
do you know what astroturf means