deadken posted:what i was trying to say was that the fascism of the 20s and 30s was a total ideology of which nationalism was an aspect; the edl's entire programme can be reduced to 'pakis out'
I don't think this is true of EDL or BNP or FN and is overly reductionist.. but regardless of disagreement on the ideological advancement and content of racist groups (which is hard to qualify and somewhat irrelevant to a bigger point) it is not only that:
Racism proceeds from Fascism
but Fascism proceeding from Racism and Other Factors, and EDL + BNP leading to a British (or FN to French) Fascism that is currently existing but small and ineffectual now (with memberships flowing and overlapping and growing partially due to these non-overt proto-Fascist groups).. like DNVP and DVP and some Centre (and even little bits of KPD and SPD!) flowing into NSDAP under certain conditions and developments
perhaps not to credit the EDL and BNP with Total Ideological Fascism, but instead with having the capacity both numerically and "theoretically" to sacrifice their effete bodies to the eventual Fascist Host -- therefore being component and actual "Fascist" groups in this sense
it is in no way essential to it: even the 1934 Montreux Fascist Conference was riven by disagreements over whether Fascist societies could be multiethnic.
You don't see the progression of the war and the actions of the winning and powerful Fascist parties essentially cementing the course of this contradiction? Or is this a continuation of distinguishing pseudo-"austro-fascist" groups from historically successful fascism?
prikryl posted:You don't see the progression of the war and the actions of the winning and powerful Fascist parties essentially cementing the course of this contradiction? Or is this a continuation of distinguishing pseudo-"austro-fascist" groups from historically successful fascism?
the war kinda messed a lot of stuff up because it imposed non-ideological imperatives, which is why you get stuff like mussolini declaring that italian fascism had always been anti-semitic; they had to fall in line behind germany. before the war both italy and germany openly admitted that fascism and nazism were separate ideologies. which they were, nazism does kinda follow trotsky's aetiology
deadken posted:its not a matter of the bnp etc being an inchoate fascism though, it and associated groups are emphatically non-fascist. they broadly support parliamentary democracy, bourgeois mentalities, etc, etc. all they have in common with fascism is racism, and that's a non-essential attribute of fascism.
couldn't one argue that they have to promote non-fascism in order to be politically relevant at all under current conditions much like social democracy may not be overtly communist but much of a potential communist movement would be formed from a rupture within the social democratic sphere that does those same Bourgeois things, hence why social dems are oft labelled socialists (when they are, at best, inchoate communists that abandon radicalism for Faith in the practicality of Bourgeois Systems to meet their goals?)
the war kinda messed a lot of stuff up because it imposed non-ideological imperatives, which is why you get stuff like mussolini declaring that italian fascism had always been anti-semitic; they had to fall in line behind germany. before the war both italy and germany openly admitted that fascism and nazism were separate ideologies. which they were, nazism does kinda follow trotsky's aetiology
wasn't the war, and a war in general, an ideological imperative of community-supremacist fascism usually based in revanchism, which would inherently lead to a racism of one sort or another?? I guess I'm looking for more to prove the anti-inherent nature of Racism and Fascism than "they had this conference at the emergence point of the Movement, that people disagreed about it then but then it was pretty much racism from then on out in practice because of a non-inherent war but not necessarily (and not now?)" with nothing more than that behind it this far
Edited by prikryl ()
deadken posted:its not a matter of the bnp etc being an inchoate fascism though, it and associated groups are emphatically non-fascist. they broadly support parliamentary democracy, bourgeois mentalities, etc, etc.
You know who else broadly supported parliamentary democracy, bougeois mentalities?
that's right....germans in the 30s
The real reason why the EDL and BNP is marginalized is because liberalism/social democracy already gives the brits the blood and racism that they intrinsically lust for
I simply cannot understand how people take tut-tutting about the EDL from labour seriously when labour has murdered tens of thousands of muslims and as far as I know the EDL hasn’t even killed one.
prikryl posted:couldn't one argue that they have to promote non-fascism in order to be politically relevant at all under current conditions much like social democracy may not be overtly communist but much of a potential communist movement would be formed from a rupture within the social democratic sphere that does those same Bourgeois things, hence why social dems are oft labelled socialists (when they are, at best, inchoate communists that abandon radicalism for practicality?)
i dunno, marxist parties are vocally open in their opposition to parliamentary democracy and still maintain some level of popular support. i don't believe there's anyone in the leadership of the bnp or other far right movements who really wants to replace parliament with an imperial chancellorship. they do try to conceal their racism with monocultural nationalism and tend to fail abysmally. obviously with eastern european movements etc it's a different story
wasn't the war, and a war in general, an ideological imperative of community-supremacist fascism usually based in revanchism, which would inherently lead to a racism of one sort or another?? I guess I'm looking for more to prove the anti-inherent nature of Racism and Fascism than "they had this conference at the emergence point of the Movement, that people disagreed about it then but then it was pretty much racism from then on out in practice because of a non-inherent war but not necessarily (and not now?)" with nothing more than that behind it this far
not really i don't think... italian imperial ambitions were limited to southeast europe and africa. the former lacked much of a racial or a revanchist element and while european colonialism in africa was racist by nature the italians weren't really any worse in this regard than the liberal powers. as the current imperial powers show its very easy to have war without overt racism of the type associated with fascism. or take peronist argentina, which was of course racist in practice but not outside the bounds of non-fascist systemic racism accepted everywhere else
Ironicwarcriminal posted:You know who else broadly supported parliamentary democracy, bougeois mentalities?
that's right....germans in the 30s
bourgeois mentality yes, parliamentary democracy lol no
deadken posted:i dunno, marxist parties are vocally open in their opposition to parliamentary democracy and still maintain some level of popular support. i don't believe there's anyone in the leadership of the bnp or other far right movements who really wants to replace parliament with an imperial chancellorship. they do try to conceal their racism with monocultural nationalism and tend to fail abysmally. obviously with eastern european movements etc it's a different story
What Marxist parties are there that are actually open in their opposition to parliamentary democracy that have "some level" of popular support over something like .01% of the population? I honestly can't think of a single one (EDIT: a, ha, except Russia, but you can see why this would be a statistical outlier), this is an oft repeated critique of the irrelevance of "radical left" groups worldwide.. even the Naxals only have "popular support" in their corridor.
I have no idea if this is valid, but a little Google search turned up this:
Origins of the BNP
That the British National Party has fascist origins is of course indisputable. The party was founded in 1982 under the leadership of John Tyndall, a longtime Nazi sympathiser whose involvement with the far right dated back to the 1950s. A former chairman of the National Front and editor of the fascist magazine Spearhead, Tyndall was on record as stating that "Mein Kampf is my bible".
Having resigned from the NF in 1980 after losing a factional struggle against his rival and former close collaborator Martin Webster, Tyndall formed his own group called the New National Front. He established the BNP on the basis of a fusion between the NNF and two smaller fascist groups, the British Movement and the British Democratic Party. Tyndall remained at the head of the BNP until 1999, when he was successfully challenged for the position of chairman by the present incumbent, Nick Griffin. After his death in July 2005 a Guardian obituary rightly described Tyndall as "a racist, violent neo-Nazi to the end".
Enter Nick Griffin
For all the carefully cultivated "reasonableness" of his public persona today, Griffin has a similar far-right background to Tyndall. He was a national organiser for the NF in the 1970s, and in the 1980s was heavily influenced by Roberto Fiore, a leader of the Italian fascist organisation the Armed Revolutionary Nuclei (NAR), who fled to Britain to avoid prosecution over the 1980 bombing of Bologna railway station in which 85 people died. Throughout the 1980s Griffin was a leading figure in what remained of the NF, promoting a NAR-inspired "Third Positionist" ideology that claimed to offer an alternative to both capitalism and communism. Griffin and the Third Positionists advocated a "political soldier" strategy which rejected the 1970s NF’s objectives of mass membership and electoral success in favour of building an elite corps of professional fascist "revolutionaries".
(...)
Griffin explains ‘modernisation’
At the same time as he proposed to moderate the BNP’s image, Griffin made it clear that the party’s fundamental politics had not changed, and that its core membership should remain committed to fascism. In a 1999 article for Lecomber’s magazine Patriot, published some months before he deposed Tyndall as chairman, Griffin outlined to BNP activists his plans for the "modernisation" of the party. He wrote:
"Why do nationalists , and nationalists alone, insist on spelling out in words of one syllable where they come from and where they want to go? Is it really honesty, or is it just plain stupidity? This is a life and death struggle for white survival, not a fancy dress party. A little less banner waving and a little more guile wouldn’t go amiss....
"As long as our own cadres understand the full implications of our struggle, then there is no need for us to do anything to give the public cause for concern ... we must at all times present them with an image of moderate reasonableness....
"Of course, we must teach the truth to the hardcore, for, like you, I do not intend this movement to lose its way. But when it comes to influencing the public, forget about racial differences, genetics, Zionism, historical revisionism and so on – all ordinary people want to know is what we can do for them that the other parties can’t or won’t."
Griffin emphasised that this did not mean the BNP had abandoned its long-term political objectives. He argued that it was all a matter of tactics and expediency:
"Politics is always the art of the possible, so we must judge every policy by one simple criterion: Is it realistically possible that a decisive proportion of the British people will support it? If not, then to scale down our short-term ambitions to a point at which the answer becomes ‘yes’ is not a sell-out, but the only possible step closer to our eventual goal."
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/pages/latest/bnp2.html
I tend to buy it because I know for a fact that the same is true of Germany's NDP leadership as well as leadership in other far-right "racist" groups in Western and Central Europe.
not really i don't think... italian imperial ambitions were limited to southeast europe and africa. the former lacked much of a racial or a revanchist element and while european colonialism in africa was racist by nature the italians weren't really any worse in this regard than the liberal powers. as the current imperial powers show its very easy to have war without overt racism of the type associated with fascism. or take peronist argentina, which was of course racist in practice but not outside the bounds of non-fascist systemic racism accepted everywhere else
It is? Isn't some or much of the racism of the type associated with fascism and that is precisely a left critique? What differentiates these two types of racism to you?
Peronist Argentina I can see but have more trouble with but mainly because it's still disputed in academic circles as Real Existing Fascist.
The restoration of the Roman empire and the "roman Lake" didn't have a revanchist element? Agreed as far as equation of liberal racism and fascist racism, but I don't see that as disproving that it forms an essential element of both bourgeois and fascist systems, and doesn't that reinforce the view that it is very hard to have a war or extreme exploitation under bourgeois or fascist systems without very similar racisms emerging?
And even without Germany, this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Italy_aims_Europe_1936.png wouldn't have led to war with the Soviet Union or Britain anyways, and the racism inherent with the Enemy of the Italians in such a war?
Edited by prikryl ()
Ironicwarcriminal posted:I guess it's worth pointing out that the BNP opposed the Iraq war which doesn't strike me as something a fascist would necessarily do
one last little thing on this and then i'll stop hawking the thread:
it would, because it wants British Interests to be promoted, not Britain as tag-along junior partner in Imperial America's endeavors and squabbles with glorious Brits dying for Bush's oil profits
plus it can come to be a "popular" position
prikryl posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
I guess it's worth pointing out that the BNP opposed the Iraq war which doesn't strike me as something a fascist would necessarily do
one last little thing on this and then i'll stop hawking the thread:
it would, because it wants British Interests to be promoted, not Britain as tag-along junior partner in Imperial America's endeavors and squabbles with glorious Brits dying for Bush's oil profits
plus it can come to be a "popular" position
Could be but I’d say that their internal ideological motivation for the decision probably concerned Israel quite a bit too
prikryl posted:I have no idea if this is valid, but a little Google search turned up this:
yeah im sure it is. parliamentary power corrupts though. young fascist nick griffin might have been an avowed authoritarian but i really do doubt he is now; certainly the street-level operatives aren't. a political party can't really go forward with that kind of internal contradiction. anti-parliamentarianism is different to racism really, where a dutifully recited denial is accompanied by a sly wink at every level of the structure. of course it's possible that a secret fascist agenda still obtains, but given that we need to analyse these movements as movements rather than in terms of the ramblings of their inner cliques im not sure how relevant it would be even if there were. certainly there's no mass support in the uk or even in the bnp membership for the abolition of democracy. & i imagine its the same in france and germany as well
It is? Isn't some or much of the racism of the type associated with fascism and that is precisely a left critique? What differentiates these two types of racism to you?
well, nothing. that's the point. we need to stop essentialising this racism as 'fascism' if we're to properly apprehend it
The restoration of the Roman empire and the "roman Lake" didn't have a revanchist element? Agreed as far as equation of liberal racism and fascist racism, but I don't see that as disproving that it forms an essential element of both bourgeois and fascist systems, and doesn't that reinforce the view that it is very hard to have a war or extreme exploitation under bourgeois or fascist systems without very similar racisms emerging?
well yeah. i guess what i'm saying is that there's no racism intrinsic to fascism beyond that racism which is found in all alienated social forms, including borgeois liberalism. which, let's not forget, predates fascism. it almost makes more sense to critique fascism for being liberal in its racism than to critique liberalism for being fascist in its.
And even without Germany, this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Italy_aims_Europe_1936.png wouldn't have led to war with the Soviet Union or Britain anyways, and the racism inherent with the Enemy of the Italians in such a war?
lol ive never seen that before. although if spain's to be included as a client state i imagine it means as the junior partner in an alliance rather than as a client state through military conquest
deadken posted:fascism as a mode of social organisation is untenable imo and utterly irrelevant, but thats fine because fascism has been p much shoved out of the spectrum
gyrofry posted:THIRDLY, fascism, as the most inward looking ideology to ever develop, requires a verdant natural setting of myth and tradition to graze on to grow up big and strong
pepe the frog hoves into view
Horselord posted:i don't understand why you aren't banned
Banning isnt "normal" on this forum. We preferto solve our problems with Logick.
Anyway white people are too attached to their own fascism to get a proper grasp of it. a great book to understand Japanese fascism is Absolute Erotic, Absolute Grotesque: The Living, Dead, and Undead in Japan's Imperialism, 1895–1945 by Mark Driscoll and obviously The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze which gives German fascism the same economic base: settler capitalism in crisis. Obviously Settlers helps a lot bring it all together.
Horselord posted:i don't understand why you aren't banned
its b/c you touch yourself at night
aerdil posted:is.. nazbol the answer?... yes.
(gas)
