![[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 22:41 (UTC)Yes. Conceptually prior, in that the system of ownership is what determines how the markets operate, and prior in the sense that historically it tends to happen first.
Owned doesn't necessarily imply purchased — A lot of property titles in evolving capitalist economies are simply converted from feudal titles, the thing just becomes a capital asset in a business enterprise where previously it was an item in the family estate or whatever. (This is where you tend to get hardline conservative or traditionalist resistance to capitalism, the established landlord class or its equivalent have to go into economic competition and succeed or potentially lose property they feel is their right by birth or social status.)
(no subject)
Date: 5/2/12 22:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/2/12 23:14 (UTC)Of course. But then for the same reason capitalism in any society always has the fingerprints of the previously established power structure all over it, usually for a very long time. Who gets what and who gets the startup capital to establish themselves in the emerging economy depends very much on who's best positioned to grab what's there to grab when it's up for grabs.
(Not totally, of course — It's always possible to get a huge starting advantage and still screw it up completely.)
(no subject)
Date: 5/2/12 23:40 (UTC)Looking here:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/
In the top 10, 5 are self-made, and 5 are first generation. *None* are "old money. It's even more pronounced on the second page.
So yeah, the fingerprints do take some time to wash off. America had the advantage of being a frontier, so there were no fingerprints to wash off (just some native american blood). But the point is, they *do* wash off. In the other systems, they generally don't. The other systems tend to enshrine their roots for far longer-terms.
(no subject)
Date: 6/2/12 03:20 (UTC)I'm specifically using Bourdieu's concepts, which I ought to link but I'm reluctant to recommend a web source I haven't first read and I'm kind of reluctant to read a 20 page article just to see if it's worth linking, so, um. The Wikipedia pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu) are not obviously terrible, at least, and at least as a starting point.
The observation that cultural and symbolic capital is convertible back to economic capital is a really, really useful and important one in general, IMHO.