![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
underlankers.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThis post is perfectly appropriate to the monthly topic but offers me the chance to work out a few irritations I have whenever the F-word comes up (Fascism, not fuck, though of course fucking is always a more fun topic than fascism) for cheap political points by people without any obvious elements to support their case. Specifically the source of irritation is a claim made by both the Mises-worshiping Right and the Trotsky-worshiping left that the historical totalitarianisms were exactly the same. They generally prefer to use the word "fascist", claiming for instance that Stalin and Mao were fascists when reality, of course, says something precisely different.
As a prelude, I must request refraining from bringing up the bodycount issue. After a point when we're talking tens of millions of death it's not so relevant as to who killed more more rapidly, the entire toll is incomprehensible either way and the whole concept is a repulsive vulgarization. Thank you.
Now, the interesting bit about claiming that historical Fascism and Communism are the same is of course that the Axis-Soviet War, the largest sustained war in human history was fought between those two regimes and the two made every effort to differentiate themselves. In modern times societies that agree on more than not, even if they disagree on specific merits, do not wage long, ugly, gruesome wars over it. That's what Medievals do over one word. Moderns don't. They instead passively-aggressively wage political infighting with each other. This of course is the weakest argument to differentiate them. After all Stalin killed more Communists in Europe than Hitler did, and Mussolini was the first dictator to attempt to nip the rise of the Nazis in the bud, though from a gangster "Hey, asshole, this is mah turf. GTFO" approach as opposed to any decency in Benny the Moose.
Assuming we take for granted that the totalitarian state in all its forms is evil, then there is still a clear reason to recognize that these differences are real, and of right ought to be seen and viewed as such. The reason is that what goes into handling one will not be appropriate to the other. So then what, precisely, is the real difference between the two? The answer to me appears to be simple: each malevolent force rises out of the collapse of social institutions, but Communism represents undemocratic means of industrialization.
The centralized planning institutions seen in Gosplan and the Party-State create in Communist states infrastructure that does not otherwise exist. Communists tended to be from an urban elite group, at least as far as the leadership which makes sense: the ideology is an economic one that worships industry. One of course does not build mega-factories in the sticks, they exist in the great cities. Communism invariably rose also where industrialization was seen by a small, determined minority as a way forward. This means that a Communist state, with its Politburo and an apparatus intent on controlling every sector of the economy has (sometimes by far the grotesque parody of) representative institutions in theory that are anathema to fascism. Where Communism arose as a nationalist ideology it was because Communism gave coherence and consistency to people who needed something that would offer this to wage the kind of war that anti-colonial struggles were, and because Communism's objections to colonialism were straightforward. They were, however, in the end still committed to a Politburo, central planning, and the totalitarian state's infrastructure.
Communism and Fascism also differ greatly on the nature of military power. In Communism's view the triumphal march of the worker's revolution was inevitable. Communists as humans were simply agents of an inexorable and irrestisible force. They thus had reasons to build large armies (as the USSR, PRC, DPRK, and other such states did), but relatively little reason to use them in aggressive straightforward conquest. There were of course individual exceptions in this but the preferred Communist methods were fifth-columnists and exploiting the political systems of other societies, as opposed to initiating large-scale wars. In fact no Communists actually initiated such wars, where they were involved in such they were either prone to use small wars and drawn into big ones (WWII), or involved in civil wars that became international (Angola, Rhodesian Bush War, Indochina Wars). To the Communists there were places for mass graves and mass murder, but it was done quietly, out of sight and out of mind, officially denied and any claims were those of fascist sympathizers (which is how Nazis were hung for the Katyn Massacre).
Fascism, by contrast, owed itself to the brutalizing force of WWI, which inculcated in a generation the acceptance of military logic and the idea that the only thing that creates is naked merciless force. This is why fascism has elements of the Left-Wing, as armies are themselves collectivist in orientation and purpose. Veterans expect to look after their own. Armies issue orders to be followed in most cases unquestioningly, the worldview of a good army is "Find enemy, terminate enemy with extreme prejudice." The Fascist state has elements in common with Communist ones, to be sure, because at the level of a state there are only so many ways to make institutions function so long as humans run them. Too, fascism is military in orientation, where Communism itself in many ways resembles the classical war economy of rationing, strict limits on civil rights, and the like in peacetime so this element will also lead to superficial resemblances.
The key difference is in the understanding of both movements as far as force. The Communists used fifth columns, the fascists were entirely unsubtle and straightforward, in the standard pattern one expects of a bunch of soldier-worshiping war-addicted thugs. The Communists hid and denied use of force even when it was blatant lies and exploited political systems. Fascists did this only insofar as it strengthened their idea of perpetually war-oriented society but their instinct was always to unleash wars, and the bigger the better. Neither regime, it must be emphasized, would have any necessarily strong core of popular support. Most fascist regimes were imposed by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany from local fascisms in smaller European states, with the Communists using this same practice more often than not. However the very bureaucratic element of Soviet-style Communism is why Communism can, in the right circumstances in the real world moderate its worst excesses, while the very worship of war and violence in fascism is why it only radicalizes with both failure and success. Both are in the end evil to the degree that other movements are not, for the good reason that both in their classical senses failed.
To me I think that the dangers in treating all totalitarians as equal and the same is that these movements are clearly not the same,and it does no good to go after a crocodile with methods appropriate for hunting wolves. The very menace movements like this posed means that their true natures should be remembered, and their clear differences noted. Otherwise absurdity reigns triumphant in a fashion that while producing some hilarity portends a greater menace than recognizing the obvious evils and dangers of both of these long-dead and unlamented movements.
As a prelude, I must request refraining from bringing up the bodycount issue. After a point when we're talking tens of millions of death it's not so relevant as to who killed more more rapidly, the entire toll is incomprehensible either way and the whole concept is a repulsive vulgarization. Thank you.
Now, the interesting bit about claiming that historical Fascism and Communism are the same is of course that the Axis-Soviet War, the largest sustained war in human history was fought between those two regimes and the two made every effort to differentiate themselves. In modern times societies that agree on more than not, even if they disagree on specific merits, do not wage long, ugly, gruesome wars over it. That's what Medievals do over one word. Moderns don't. They instead passively-aggressively wage political infighting with each other. This of course is the weakest argument to differentiate them. After all Stalin killed more Communists in Europe than Hitler did, and Mussolini was the first dictator to attempt to nip the rise of the Nazis in the bud, though from a gangster "Hey, asshole, this is mah turf. GTFO" approach as opposed to any decency in Benny the Moose.
Assuming we take for granted that the totalitarian state in all its forms is evil, then there is still a clear reason to recognize that these differences are real, and of right ought to be seen and viewed as such. The reason is that what goes into handling one will not be appropriate to the other. So then what, precisely, is the real difference between the two? The answer to me appears to be simple: each malevolent force rises out of the collapse of social institutions, but Communism represents undemocratic means of industrialization.
The centralized planning institutions seen in Gosplan and the Party-State create in Communist states infrastructure that does not otherwise exist. Communists tended to be from an urban elite group, at least as far as the leadership which makes sense: the ideology is an economic one that worships industry. One of course does not build mega-factories in the sticks, they exist in the great cities. Communism invariably rose also where industrialization was seen by a small, determined minority as a way forward. This means that a Communist state, with its Politburo and an apparatus intent on controlling every sector of the economy has (sometimes by far the grotesque parody of) representative institutions in theory that are anathema to fascism. Where Communism arose as a nationalist ideology it was because Communism gave coherence and consistency to people who needed something that would offer this to wage the kind of war that anti-colonial struggles were, and because Communism's objections to colonialism were straightforward. They were, however, in the end still committed to a Politburo, central planning, and the totalitarian state's infrastructure.
Communism and Fascism also differ greatly on the nature of military power. In Communism's view the triumphal march of the worker's revolution was inevitable. Communists as humans were simply agents of an inexorable and irrestisible force. They thus had reasons to build large armies (as the USSR, PRC, DPRK, and other such states did), but relatively little reason to use them in aggressive straightforward conquest. There were of course individual exceptions in this but the preferred Communist methods were fifth-columnists and exploiting the political systems of other societies, as opposed to initiating large-scale wars. In fact no Communists actually initiated such wars, where they were involved in such they were either prone to use small wars and drawn into big ones (WWII), or involved in civil wars that became international (Angola, Rhodesian Bush War, Indochina Wars). To the Communists there were places for mass graves and mass murder, but it was done quietly, out of sight and out of mind, officially denied and any claims were those of fascist sympathizers (which is how Nazis were hung for the Katyn Massacre).
Fascism, by contrast, owed itself to the brutalizing force of WWI, which inculcated in a generation the acceptance of military logic and the idea that the only thing that creates is naked merciless force. This is why fascism has elements of the Left-Wing, as armies are themselves collectivist in orientation and purpose. Veterans expect to look after their own. Armies issue orders to be followed in most cases unquestioningly, the worldview of a good army is "Find enemy, terminate enemy with extreme prejudice." The Fascist state has elements in common with Communist ones, to be sure, because at the level of a state there are only so many ways to make institutions function so long as humans run them. Too, fascism is military in orientation, where Communism itself in many ways resembles the classical war economy of rationing, strict limits on civil rights, and the like in peacetime so this element will also lead to superficial resemblances.
The key difference is in the understanding of both movements as far as force. The Communists used fifth columns, the fascists were entirely unsubtle and straightforward, in the standard pattern one expects of a bunch of soldier-worshiping war-addicted thugs. The Communists hid and denied use of force even when it was blatant lies and exploited political systems. Fascists did this only insofar as it strengthened their idea of perpetually war-oriented society but their instinct was always to unleash wars, and the bigger the better. Neither regime, it must be emphasized, would have any necessarily strong core of popular support. Most fascist regimes were imposed by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany from local fascisms in smaller European states, with the Communists using this same practice more often than not. However the very bureaucratic element of Soviet-style Communism is why Communism can, in the right circumstances in the real world moderate its worst excesses, while the very worship of war and violence in fascism is why it only radicalizes with both failure and success. Both are in the end evil to the degree that other movements are not, for the good reason that both in their classical senses failed.
To me I think that the dangers in treating all totalitarians as equal and the same is that these movements are clearly not the same,and it does no good to go after a crocodile with methods appropriate for hunting wolves. The very menace movements like this posed means that their true natures should be remembered, and their clear differences noted. Otherwise absurdity reigns triumphant in a fashion that while producing some hilarity portends a greater menace than recognizing the obvious evils and dangers of both of these long-dead and unlamented movements.
(no subject)
Date: 5/2/12 00:42 (UTC)But then, as has been pointed out, it seems that a lot of the differences that seem to exist are more based in the types of societies in which those perversions happen, rural pastoral countries seem to go to communism, and industrialized powers to fascism. I think that the differences are therefore, kinda circumstantial. It's the same sickness, just with different complications. Communism deals with excess population by gulags, fascism with meat-grinders, both deliberately and systematically kill large swathes of their populations. Communism accumulates territories by subterfuge, fascism by open war, both accumulate territories. Fascism allows corporations to exist, but under price and wage controls and production quotas, communism doesn't allow them to exist.
All these are very *slight* variations around a theme from the "live and let live" chair.
(no subject)
Date: 5/2/12 01:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/2/12 19:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/2/12 00:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/2/12 02:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/2/12 09:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/2/12 20:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/2/12 21:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/2/12 22:32 (UTC)Now, employee rights, employee representation, employee ownership, those things make a difference. But neo-liberalism/capitalism is at least as hostile to those as Stalinism.
It's not one-dimensional, with Kapital on one side and Kremlin on the other.
(no subject)
Date: 5/2/12 22:44 (UTC)In short, under capitalism, the proles are frequently unhappy, under communism, they are frequently dead.
(no subject)
Date: 5/2/12 23:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/2/12 23:21 (UTC)Lest we forget, TOp-down command economies with similar ethos have been tried more than those few times, they have been tried *dozens* of times, in wildly differing climates, from completely variable starting points the failures were nonetheless, pretty consistent. Now, you're right that the most *spectacular* failures were in circumstances that marx always said would fail, but the concepts equally failed when implementation was attempted in the circumstances where Marx said it *should* work.
(no subject)
Date: 6/2/12 00:17 (UTC)Not really disputing that, but the top-down command economy isn't an essential or necessary feature of socialism/communism, so even conceeding that centralized command economies are failures always and everywhere doesn't do serious harm to the basic argument. It connects with the argument that markets per se aren't a defining feature of capitalism, the defining feature, by which I mean "if this is present it's capitalism, if this isn't present then it's not capitalism", is private ownership of capital by competitive enterprises.
Similarly the defining feature of socialism/communism is ownership of the means of production by the producers themselves — which is admittedly hard to nail down a precise definition for — then again it's also hard to nail down a really exact definition of "private", "capital" or "competitive enterprise" — but it does at least give us a rule to apply to discern communism/not-communism. (I'm going to put it more precisely for my purposes, as "maximizing the extent to which ownership and control of means of production lies with those directly engaged in production".)
Most communists have thought that the centralized command economy was the best or only way to accomplish that. I don't think it is. I do think that if it were the only way to accomplish communism then communism probably can't work, ever, period, given that there is really good reason to believe the command economy can't work, period, but productive enterprises don't have to be held in common by the whole bloody population to meet the criterion of being owned by "the producers", and market mechanisms aren't necessarily antagonistic to communism as I've defined it, which is admittedly not the way it's commonly understood, but if I think the way it's commonly understood is seriously misguided then I'm comfortable defying common usage.
(no subject)
Date: 6/2/12 02:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/2/12 02:41 (UTC)Anyway there are economic arrangements that are arguably both capitalist in some loose but minimally sufficient sense and communist in some loose but minimally sufficient sense, e.g., syndicalism. Nothing either side would enthusiastically embrace, but it shows the terms aren't strictly mutually exclusive (weird as that may sound).
(no subject)
Date: 7/2/12 05:56 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 6/2/12 00:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/2/12 01:01 (UTC)But, in the main, you're right, Ceterus is *never* Paribus in economics. Doesn't mean that certain trends cannot be observed, such as the already explored consistent failure of command economies, the tendency of capitalism to develop socialistic wealth transfers at some point, etcetera.
(no subject)
Date: 6/2/12 01:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/2/12 00:31 (UTC)The question is, is this due to intrinsic to capitalism or is it a contingent effect of the development of modern industrial capitalism out of long-extant earlier forms of organization whose potential to change the societies positively was basically exhausted, which implies, can we expect this trend of capitalism working to continue unconditionally? Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results.
(Amusingly, that last sentence is just about exactly the langauge of the disclaimer you get from any broker dealing in speculative financial instruments. It happens to be on point and exactly right.)
(no subject)
Date: 6/2/12 00:51 (UTC)Partly, I figure that's because of the "incentive issue", if the same results are obtained from hard work as merely showing up, then few people will work hard, and partly, I figure it's due to mises' "calculation issue", in that lacking smoothly operating, relatively unfettered markets, there's no effective way to determine what and how much to produce, how many resources to devote to it, etcetera.
(no subject)
Date: 6/2/12 03:01 (UTC)(Incidentally, in the table I'm looking at where most of the entries group their figures by "agricultural" "industrial" and "services", American Samoa has "tuna canneries", "government" and "other". I dunno why but I LOL'd.)
"if the same results are obtained from hard work as merely showing up, then few people will work hard"
Well, there are a lot of qualifications on that. Hard work doesn't necessarily equal productivity, for one. It's easy to work hard for 8 hours a day and get very little done. If I'm lazy but clever and can make 100 widgets in four hours and go home, that's preferable to working ten hours and making 90. So surely what we want to incentivize is productivity.
When capitalism does accomplish this it really doesn't have much to do with incentivizing the workers, it happens more by incentivizing the capitalists to continually improve productivity by every available means, because improving productivity is how they make a profit stay ahead of the competition. Lazy workers aren't necessarily a problem as long as they're not so lazy that I can't hire any to do what I need done, and in some circumstances laziness (more precisely, tight labor supply) can even drive productivity rather than hold it back. If absolutely everyone insists on going home after n hours or on not doing this or that, then as a capitalist, okay, that's a constraint on one of the resources I have at hand but maybe I can make up for it by improving processes and technologies. I'm clearly incentivized to try, anyway. (That's not a rule that applies in all cases, obviously, but there's no such thing as a rule that applies in all cases.)
The calculation debate is a whole new can of worms and it's seriously misunderstood by a lot of people on both sides. I actually accept a good part of Mises's argument against socialist calculation, personally, but I think the consequences are complex and don't necessarily work out in favor of capitalism. For example posit that Mises is right that socialist calculation is impossible but also posit that relative prices actually don't clearly signal subjective value the way they're purported to, which is at least conceptually possible — The result is that the planned economy can't calculate value but neither can capitalism. It's severely counterintuitive but there is, at least, an argument that that's exactly the situation we are in, but its nature is obscured because determination of subjective value by price under capitalism is just a tautology.
This is probably already wildly off topic.
(no subject)
Date: 6/2/12 03:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/2/12 01:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/2/12 03:07 (UTC)So what was the difference here between Jiang's misrule and Mao's misrule?