For r/badpolitics

Z: All ideologies have their extreme variations. China is that extreme case.



J: What are you talking about. do you think that the video above is supposed to be representative of a stateless, classless society based on worker control and free association? next you'll be telling me that Fordism is communist doctrine.



Z: ... Communism is an extreme version of Socialism. Just like Fascism is the extreme version of Conservatism. That's all I was getting at.



J: This comment is going to be quite long, but if want a basic rundown of why what you just said is completely wrong, here you go:

You don't understand what those terms mean. Socialism is the democratic control of the means of production by the working class. This would extend past the workplace, so that society on many levels is managed democratically, in order to counteract class division, and overcome class contradictions, which if not rid of, require enforcement of one side of the contradiction, or a compromise, to overcome it.

an example of a contradiction is that in a capitalist workplace, it is beneficial for the boss to extract as much labour value out of their workers, while for the workers it is incentivised that the workers get as much pay as possible for a set amount of work. these cant both coexist, and so the rights of one side work against the rights of another (this is an example of class conflict, in a basic sense). the state is used to enforce private property rights, and enforce the status quo through threat of coercion.

Communism is thought by many socialists to be the eventual result of a socialist society, as the differences between classes are broken down, resulting in a stateless, classless society. the state would no longer be required to enforce the rules set to overcome class conflict (since there would no longer be any classes), and so the state would dissolve away (this is what i understand to be the marxist theory, but this is just a basic explanation. i am more familiar with anarchist socialist political theory, though, so im no expert in marxism).

Another thing to mention is that a socialist (or maybe just anarchist socialist, idk) may not view individualism vs collectivism in the same way as a capitalist. in anarchist theory, anarchism strives to bring about equality in freedom. it sees collectivism as a means by which the individualist rights of one person do not trample on the individual rights of another. since capitalism is inherently hierarchical and allows for the disproportionate control in the hands of a few, all historically significant anarchist movements have been socialist.

nationalisation is the ownership of the means of production put into the hands of the nation-state. collectivisation is the means of production run democratically, by consensus (preferably) or majority rule (if necessary) by all of those involved in a given workplace, or a given collective. it's important to make this distinction. marxism sees the state as the means by which the working class can work to overcome class differences. anarchism sees the state as a tool that inherently leads to the enforcement of class division. this difference comes from the way in which marxism and anarchism come from different starting points in terms of politics and philosophy, although some of the more popular forms of anarchism can seem to be quite similar to marxism, in their economic and social goals. there is quite a bit of argument between the two about preference for centralisation vs de-centralisation, whether a state is inherently oppressive, as well as semantics like 'what is/is not a state', stuff like that.

Now onto fascism...

Fascism is not just conservatism in extreme. Fascism is an extreme form of nationalism, that calls for unity of the nation, under the guide of the state. It is so bent on bringing about national unity that it will crush any form of social or political dissidence. Economically it can be quite centrist, although fascist economics does not desire strict adherence to any position on the left-right scale, it will adopt economic policy that most benefits its philosophy of extreme national unity.

Fascism values a strong nation, and desires a nation in which all people work for what is best for the nation. It desires class unity (as opposed to socialist class conflict), putting forward an idea of the state 'counterbalancing' the power of private property. However, it does call for a huge amount of power to be put into the state. Rather than the emancipation of workers, it would desire a country in which each person is secured a position in the mass machine that is the nation (as long as that person would work for the interests of the nation).

Conservatism is just a general view of what is preferred in culture and social policy, which i guess would normally adhere to capitalist economics, with it being the dominant mode of production in the western world in recent history.

Fascism rejects globalised capitalism, as fascism would instead give massive preference to the people that it holds within the borders of its nation. However it will participate in trade as long as it is necessary for the prosperity of the nation. It also rejects socialism, as fascism rejects the idea of democratic self-management, and sees socialism as internationalist, among other things. Some racist forms of fascism like naziism will see capitalism and communism to be jewish inventions, made in an attempt to undermine the white race.

If you got to the end, I appreciate the fact that you took the time to read what I have written.



Z: Here some of my research.
http://i.imgur.com/ujmAhDk.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics



J: really? like, really? you are just going to say 'but muh spectrum'?

the political spectrum, especially the 1-dimensional 'left-right' spectrum, is very bad, when it comes to differentiating economic and social policy of political ideologies that can be considered close on the over-simplified 'left-right' scale. yes, by the wikipedia definition of right-wing, fascism is far-right. but this is because of it's social policies and philosophical origins. it's economic policies can be all over the place in terms of the left-right spectrum (look up Strasserism for a sect of nazism that is considered to be comparable to left-wing politics, when it comes to economic policy. Hitler led the economically right-wing sect of the nazi party, and had the strasserists cast out of his party, because he needed to pander to german industrialists.

In the left-right spectrum, laissez faire capitalism and fascism can both be considered 'far-right', but they would be completely opposed to one another if they met in political discussion. do you see how the left-right spectrum is really rubbish?

the left-right spectrum also implies that political views that sit on the far ends of either side are just amplified versions of the political views that sit closer to the center. this isn't true at all. if you amped up the republicans, you don't automatically get fascism or monarchism or something. if you amped up liberal groups like the democrats, you don't get socialism or anarchism. the democrats and the republicans both support capitalist imperialist government, they both share a hell of a lot more than what they disagree on, when considering the vast range of political opinion that can be seen throughout history.

i gave you an explanation of what socialism is (and anarchism, in a basic sense). you can go and read for yourself about these things. go to r/anarchism101 or r/debateanarchism and learn about this stuff. even go to r/fascist or r/debatefascism and realise that the stuff that i am telling u about fascism is what they do in fact support, it's just that they think that extreme nationalism, militarism and anti-egalitarianism are good things.

but no, ur gonna tell me 'but muh horseshoe theory' as if an image that gives no explanation for anything disproves what i said.



Z: Did you even look at the wiki?



J: i mentioned the fact that i had in my last comment. have you read any of my comments at all?



Z: Well, provide links that proves your right and maybe I'll take your wall of text seriously.



J: ok, while on the topic of wkipedia, i guess ill google stuff for you (despite the fact that i gave you examples of subreddits where you can look into what proponents of the political systems that i talk about actually have to say).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

look to the most noteworthy anarchist movements, applying libertarian socialism to their revolutionary theory, as well as implementing economics systems heavily inspired by social anarchist political theorists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution_of_1936

"Much of the economy of Spain was put under worker control... Factories were run through worker committees, agrarian areas became collectivized and run as libertarian socialist communes. Even places like hotels, barber shops, and restaurants were collectivized and managed by their workers."

There were instances of peasant communes that ran on anarcho-communist economic models, and sustained themselves for years. There was a steady increase of people in the collectivised regions, which suggests that it was not a massive wave of militarist action that forced everyone to collectivise (however, pressures of wartime stress, particularly near the frontlines, where a few miles away, fascists were butchering anarchists by the thousands, it was noted that there was social pressure on non-revolutionaries to collectivise, but as if wartime-[anything] has not had it's issues resulting from hardship.

George Orwell also had an account of the Spanish revolution, called 'Homage to Catalonia'. he went there because he wanted to fight fascists, and wrote a book about what he thought of the liberation of people in the particularly revolutionary areas of Spain. (if you think that Orwell was talking about socialism in Animal Farm, think again, it was authoritarianism that he was opposing).

From the wiki article of the revolution:

Andrea Oltmares, professor in the University of Geneva, in the course of an address of some length, said:

"In the midst of the civil war the Anarchists have proved themselves to be political organisers of the first rank. They kindled in everyone the required sense of responsibility, and knew how, by eloquent appeals, to keep alive the spirit of sacrifice for the general welfare of the people. "As a Social Democrat I speak here with inner joy and sincere admiration of my experiences in Catalonia. The anti-capitalist transformation took place here without their having to resort to a dictatorship. The members of the syndicates are their own masters and carry on the production and the distribution of the products of labour under their own management, with the advice of technical experts in whom they have confidence. The enthusiasm of the workers is so great that they scorn any personal advantage and are concerned only for the welfare of all."

It was actually Stalinists that played a big role in bringing down the anarchists (Hows that spectrum going for you, eh? maybe the anarchists hadn't multiplied the democratic party by the right value to end up on the correct point on the left side of the spectrum).

Orwell actually initially spent time with the stalinists, but left them because he saw them for what they were: authoritarian bureaucratic state-capitalists.

For your love of good ol' wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

"Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies."

this economic preference is quite centrist, and highly authoritarian. a far-right 'libertarian' capitalist would be disgusted by the notion of protectionism and interventionism, but both fascism and 'libertarian capitalism' are both considered far-right, in the 1-dimensional political spectrum.

"Fascism presented itself as a viable alternative to the two other major existing economic systems – liberal capitalism and Marxist socialism."