(no subject)
Dec. 4th, 2024 | 02:17 pm
From:: balalajkin
Re: The End of Woke? - James Lindsay and Triggernometry
What I don't like about this discourse is that "fascism" is deliberately mixed with conservative reaction and the German National Socialism and misapplied to any opposition or political alternative to the woke overreach/communist insurrection.
This conflation and mislabelling is extremely woke by its nature and may mislead people to believe that any strong power that rejects woke ideology in its entirety is a fascist scarecrow, waiting to build concentration camps and burn the Jews.
It is asinine, to say the least.
Historically, Italian fascism was not a reactionary movement, but rather a faction within a broad progressivist/socialist movement, diverging from orthodox Marxism, but not rejecting its end goals, i.e. brotherhood of all working people. Divergence from the communists was a rejection of a grassroots democracy of all the working class people, - the power in fascist structures was concentrated in the hands of the chosen few. This is not that far from USSR's practice of top-down socialism, except that USSR had practised theatrical democracy with workers playing a role of stooges, voting unanimously for the decisions made somewhere above at the top of the bureaucratic ladder.
While Fascism was unashamedly elitarian, calling for a unity of the best people of the nation, the Soviet Socialist elite was hiding behind a thin veneer of the popular democracy.
German National Socialism was more of a pure socialism, rejecting both democracy as a hypocritical pretence and communism as a lie or a fiction (a Jewish lie / Christian fiction) and that was spelled out from the beginning (Hitler: "The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.") and it had a strong admix of purely reactionary political elements. It was as theatrical as USSR's Communism but with different scriptwriters and stage sets.
Yet Fascism and National Socialism had a common enemy - the bourgeois parliamentarian democracies of the West with their free enterprise and market economies; they were seen as a thing of the past, degenerate and unsalvageable. Soviets under Lenin and Stalin had the same enemy as well but were more radical in rejecting private property as such and individual entrepreneurship in its entirety. Hitler apparently planned to do the same, replacing private industrial magnates with his own Party-member bureaucrats, as soon as he wins the war; henceforth leaving only small private shops and farms in private hands. Mussolini was more open to the idea of private competition, but it had to be subordinate to the national interests as they are defined by the Fascist council.
And it is an irony of history that Fascism and National Socialism were losers in WWII while Soviet Communists and American Liberals together with British plutocrats went to be winners.
How about the Jews? Italian Fascism was had Jews in its foundation but drifted toward antisemitism during WWII due to pressure from Germany. On the other hand, Soviet Communists also had prominent Jews in its foundation but starting with Stalin's feud with Trotsky and Trotskyists it drifted toward rabid antisemitism, especially after WWII and the establishment of Israel, - as the Jews were now seen as carriers of dual loyalty, not pure international communists loyal to Moscow' Politburo.
This brings us finally to National Socialists and their dislike of the Jews for almost exactly the opposite reasons, - they were seen as loyal to international communism/bolshevism and/or plutocracy primarily.
This historical mess should not be allowed to create a logical mess in our current situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT8Yqnd
What I don't like about this discourse is that "fascism" is deliberately mixed with conservative reaction and the German National Socialism and misapplied to any opposition or political alternative to the woke overreach/communist insurrection.
This conflation and mislabelling is extremely woke by its nature and may mislead people to believe that any strong power that rejects woke ideology in its entirety is a fascist scarecrow, waiting to build concentration camps and burn the Jews.
It is asinine, to say the least.
Historically, Italian fascism was not a reactionary movement, but rather a faction within a broad progressivist/socialist movement, diverging from orthodox Marxism, but not rejecting its end goals, i.e. brotherhood of all working people. Divergence from the communists was a rejection of a grassroots democracy of all the working class people, - the power in fascist structures was concentrated in the hands of the chosen few. This is not that far from USSR's practice of top-down socialism, except that USSR had practised theatrical democracy with workers playing a role of stooges, voting unanimously for the decisions made somewhere above at the top of the bureaucratic ladder.
While Fascism was unashamedly elitarian, calling for a unity of the best people of the nation, the Soviet Socialist elite was hiding behind a thin veneer of the popular democracy.
German National Socialism was more of a pure socialism, rejecting both democracy as a hypocritical pretence and communism as a lie or a fiction (a Jewish lie / Christian fiction) and that was spelled out from the beginning (Hitler: "The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.") and it had a strong admix of purely reactionary political elements. It was as theatrical as USSR's Communism but with different scriptwriters and stage sets.
Yet Fascism and National Socialism had a common enemy - the bourgeois parliamentarian democracies of the West with their free enterprise and market economies; they were seen as a thing of the past, degenerate and unsalvageable. Soviets under Lenin and Stalin had the same enemy as well but were more radical in rejecting private property as such and individual entrepreneurship in its entirety. Hitler apparently planned to do the same, replacing private industrial magnates with his own Party-member bureaucrats, as soon as he wins the war; henceforth leaving only small private shops and farms in private hands. Mussolini was more open to the idea of private competition, but it had to be subordinate to the national interests as they are defined by the Fascist council.
And it is an irony of history that Fascism and National Socialism were losers in WWII while Soviet Communists and American Liberals together with British plutocrats went to be winners.
How about the Jews? Italian Fascism was had Jews in its foundation but drifted toward antisemitism during WWII due to pressure from Germany. On the other hand, Soviet Communists also had prominent Jews in its foundation but starting with Stalin's feud with Trotsky and Trotskyists it drifted toward rabid antisemitism, especially after WWII and the establishment of Israel, - as the Jews were now seen as carriers of dual loyalty, not pure international communists loyal to Moscow' Politburo.
This brings us finally to National Socialists and their dislike of the Jews for almost exactly the opposite reasons, - they were seen as loyal to international communism/bolshevism and/or plutocracy primarily.
This historical mess should not be allowed to create a logical mess in our current situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT8Yqnd