From Marxism to Fascism

[Chris]

The root of the problem is centralization.

[Peter1469]

I get you! I was just trying to trace out the philosophical roots of the problem so we can gather the specific place where the problem begins.

OK, I agree with that.

[Ethereal]

Marxism is theoretically an anti-state perspective...

I find this an odd description. Because while the stated END of Marxism is the emergence of a stateless society, the MEANS of achieving that end are aggressively statist, i.e., state socialism. Trying to create a stateless society by aggrandizing and empowering the state would be like trying to end rape by legalizing it.

...where fascism represents an openly statist outlook. What fascism and Marxism have always had in common was an embrace of Hegelian (or semi-Hegelian) dialectics. Where they have differed is on the matter of what the core contradictions of society inhibiting social advancement are. For Marx, it was class. For Mussolini, it was nationality. For Hitler, it was race. That I think sums up the essential ideological divide. It is significant then in my view to see the one morph into the others, not just on a micro scale, but as an entire philosophy. If there's anything that communicates to me, it's that there is something fundamentally wrong with Hegelian dialectics!

Then again, this doesn't necessarily account for cases like Slajov Zizek, who subscribes to critical theory, which is basically a Marxian variety of postmodernism instead of traditional dialectics. The overlap I see in his case lies in that postmodernism has itself always been a favorite tool of fascist regimes.

It's true that they each emphasized different elements of the social struggle and identity, but economically speaking, they were largely indistinguishable from one another. Whether it was Marx, Mussolini, or Hitler, they all agreed upon the centralization of the economy with the state. That is an inherently authoritarian outlook, so it should come as little surprise when a Marxist, having discovered some kind of ethnic or national identity, takes to fascism like a duck to water.

[Green Arrow]

I just want to thank @IMPress Polly for starting this thread, and @Ethereal, @Chris, @Peter1469, and @Mister D for participating. We need more good discussions on deep subjects like this around here.

[Mister D]

The root of the problem is centralization.

Centralization is efficient and desirable provided it's limited to particular spheres.

[Chris]

Centralization is efficient and desirable provided it's limited to particular spheres.

Sort of what progressive reason. But here's one aspect of it can't be denied: When a centralized state--be it Marxist or otherwise--makes choices for you, those making the choices never feel the effects the way those for who choices are made. If I chose to act this way or that then I get feedback on it, suffer consequences, so I can correct my behavior. Not so with a distance Kafkaesque state.

[Mister D]

Sort of what progressive reason. But here's one aspect of it can't be denied: When a centralized state--be it Marxist or otherwise--makes choices for you, those making the choices never feel the effects the way those for who choices are made. If I chose to act this way or that then I get feedback on it, suffer consequences, so I can correct my behavior. Not so with a distance Kafkaesque state.

That's not at all how progressives reason. For them, the centralized state will not just handle foreign policy, defense or macroeconomic policy but will determine who will use what bathroom. Anyway, there is a certain and undeniable efficiency to centralization in certain areas. If acknowledging the obvious makes one progressive then so be it.

[Chris]

That's not at all how progressives reason. For them, the centralized state will not just handle foreign policy, defense or macroeconomic policy but will determine who will use what bathroom. Anyway, there is a certain and undeniable efficiency to centralization in certain areas. If acknowledging the obvious makes one progressive then so be it.

More efficient to the purposes of the state, sure.

I meant early progressive who believed they could reason out a better society or state through planning. The thinking the Germans, Italians and Americans all explored leading into WWII.

[Mister D]

More efficient to the purposes of the state, sure.

I meant early progressive who believed they could reason out a better society or state through planning. The thinking the Germans, Italians and Americans all explored leading into WWII.

The state is but the political expression of a people and entails its existence as such. The Kurds you admire, for example, are fighting for their own state (i.e. their own political existence).

It has nothing to do with reasoning out a better society, a better tomorrow or a "new man". In certain respects, it's just more efficient and coherent particularly in terms of defense and foreign policy.

[Chris]

The state is but the political expression of a people and entails its existence as such. The Kurds you admire, for example, are fighting for their own state (i.e. their own political existence).

It has nothing to do with reasoning out a better society, a better tomorrow or a "new man". In certain respects, it's just more efficient and coherent particularly in terms of defense and foreign policy.

The Kurds are fighting for a stateless society, so far as I know.

The state, like any organization, becomes self-serving and self-protective, against even its own people.