Che Guevera (1 Viewer)

[danie]

stalin's russia democratic? i'm sure you're aware of the event in history that russians have labelled the ezcovschina. how is that democratic let alone liberating?

tienanmen square.

pol pots systematic elimination of the "educated" class.

martial law under franco.

these were to protect the revolution from capitalist states during the paranoia of the mccarthy era (from both sides i'll add - miller's the crucible is an excellent example of the red terror paranoia in the usa) and from internal "enemies".

how do you justify these actions in the name of the revolution? i don't look at it from a capitalist perspective i view it in a humanist perspective. what i've mentioned is what people think of when they hear the word "communism".

as charles points out there have been examples of the positive effects of "modern socialism" although these are only aspects of this political model because fundementally sweeden and costa rica are democratic states, the people of those countries can choose the country's leading party. in the same breath there are many holes in the capitalist system that i am very aware of.

while economically, china is gaining momentum this i believe has been a result of their shift to a more lenient economic policy by allowing their planned economy transition in to a more market-based one.

essentially political parties are put in to power to run the country by the people for the people. while they screw up heaps, we never have to worry they'll open fire on us should we openly disagree with them.

to link back to the thread somewhat obliquely: in october 2004 castro stated that should he ever get ill he will hand the reins to raul, his brother. after howard's term would you allow him to hand the reins over to someone he chose without an election?

i'm getting tired and would probably continue to debate with you for argument's sake.

 

[deusexmachina]

What do we mean, anyway, by the 'fundaments' of a country? Do we mean the method by which the country is governed? Do we mean its economic foundations? Are the two the same thing?

Erk! Comrade Nathan, please don't slander the good name of Marxism by associating it with the bastard Stalin...his policies were authoritarian, egoistic, verging on the fascist, and highly contrary to the 'democratic' spirit of communism. He failed. He screwed up. He was a dictator, not a general secretary.

Franco -- fascist. Communists fought AGAINST him. And this is where communism gets slandered from: dictators masquerading as communist liberators.
Pol Pot -- dicatatofascist. In fact, his systematic destruction of the educated class closely resembles Hitlerian policies through Poland and the Czech republic - find the doctors and teachers and hang 'em all.

Socialism/Marxism/communism (for the purposes of this argument, they mean one and the same) is fundamentally a democratic organ. It is about the rule by the people - not by a few, but by the MANY. Socialism and democracy, I believe, go hand in hand. In today's world, to truly achieve its primary aim - equality - socialism MUST reside within the confines of the democratic system.

Don't believe me? Look at the endemic decentralisation of Australia's economy into corporate hands - the hands of an oligarchal few, not the many. Question the logic of conservatives who claim socialism is insustainable - is it a genuine social comment or simply an attempt to protect their bank account? We CANNOT remove corporations through democracy, yet they remain wholly in control of a great deal of our utilities - water, gas, electricity - and public transport. Capitalism, at its very core, is a fundamentally undemocratic economic system, as it espouses the rule by the rich and 'deserving' few -an oligarchy, if you will - while depriving those of lower socio-economic status a valid input in the running of their country. Sure, everyone can vote, but if parliament hands power to the corporations, whats the use? Only the rich will have a say. Money is not a determiner of a person's worth, nor is it a determiner of how valuable their input will be to the running of a country. Capitalist governments are increasingly becoming 'toothless tigers', both unwilling and unable to sustain a country environmentally, socially, and economically.

Perhaps, also, we might look at communist countries from something other than a monetaristic viewpoint. Whether or not their GDP is alongside Western countries is, for many communists, irrelevant - what matters is that they live sustainable, free lives alongside their comrades: in equality. Perhaps the 'spirit' of a country is more important than conspicuous wealth. I myself would prefer to see a thousand people just surviving than one man driving a Mercedes while his countrymen/women starve.

I would prefer to see a country where ethical, rather than exploitative, behaviour is considered the norm. Where idealism is not considered 'naive' but is encouraged as a hope for a better world. Where the masses aren't exploited for the monetary benefit of a few but for EVERYONE. Put it this way: Is not an even harvest better than massive crop growth in one area and none in another? I would prefer to see a sparsely, but completely, covered field than a bare one with a small area of extreme growth.

I am of course speaking as a Utopian socialist. In the modern world, such a system is noble, but apparently unachievable, at least on a societal scale. My question to the world is: why can't we at least try? We have already seen the examples of such attempts in the countries I've mentioned before - a cohesive, democratic society, fully aware of its own place in the world yet able to interact on an economic level with the rest of it.

There must be a level playing field. Capitalism in its purest form (back in the days here) is morally dubious. Modern-day monetarist capitalism is morally repugnant.

 

[chubbaraff]

Comrade Nathan
It is at this point in my argument that I come out gunes plazing against your Stalinist politics and that of the CP. In my rebuttal the other night i wrote it twice had it crash twice and gave up but I can intergrate the response into this one. deusexmachina are you in the Socialist Alliance? You continual justification of Stalinist degerneerated state capitalist states like China is a reflection of politics that I predict youve learnt from the CP. The electrolist appoach you previously outlined in the other thread shows just how insane the politics of the CP are. In fact I came home with a guy today who was an imbeded reporter for the DSP's paper Direct Action when communism (so they called it ) came down in russia. He told me something ive never heard before, he said Stalinism whilst having total disregard for human dignity or civil liberty guaranteed a livelihood for people who who lost 40% of GDP when it came down. Even though i believe reform was nevcessary or even a people led re-revolution it shows that as Democratic Socialist like myself or deusexmachina have a brain and can tell the difference between democracy and autocracy. Franco, Mao, Il Sung, Jong Il, Stalin were/are fuckers at most part and i can say that at ease but it is comrade nathan who cannot break party ranks and admit this. Why? I dont really think you have properly or in nathans case dialectically examined the issues, nor have the ppl in this forum who say saddam was a leftist, stalin was communist. When Iraq became independent the two parties were the baathist and the marxist socialists. The baathists said that ppl couldnt be moslem and be marxists, so the baathists won most of the votes and eventually saddam like stalin killed any moderates in the party and all the marxists as well. Just like stalin killed all the bolsheviks until he put an ice pik in trotsky. Ill try get closer to the point. As a democratic socialist, im not sure if deusexmachina follows the marxist line but marxists code of morality in a less dogmatic way as possible recognizes that the morals of the modern proletariat will be astoundingly different to those of the capitalist class because they represent conflicting interests that cant be resolved. In a nut shell SMH can bag che all they like, but we know from hes writing that he advocated a system without massive profits for biased newspapers and hence there is no interest for them in praising che as a liberator. Sorry to baby ppl here but most people would know more about this then me, just clarifying this for the stalinists and the text book know it alls and the not so smart who are easily identifiable by nickname, who lack any greater scientific analysis exterior to their ideas for a society built on compasionatless barbarism who have seemed to occupy a portion of this forum.

For now back to che:
See the god damn movie, and be inspired and remember only you can ensure the revolution isnt betrayed

El Pueblu, Unido, Jamas sera Vencido!!

 

[chubbaraff]

Hey Danie
By the tone of your argument, that i didnt get to before my first post, yuo seem like a descent person to chat to in that you, unlike the other people here seem open to ideas. Marxist economic theory doesnt advocate equall pay but rather a closer differential from highest paid to lowest paid. This is spelled out in his book on economic theory that forms the greater dialectical law of value. It states that the labour power of skilled workers is inevitibly more valuable then that on non-skilled workers based on the price of training that worker.

This is precisely Utopian Socialism, im fresh on the topic coz i just came back from a conference, this is the idea that bougoise will form the revolution. ie Kerry Packer conceding that the dictatorship of the proletariat is inevitable.. hence... utopian.

How do you change people?? perfect question for the moment, If you watch motorcycle diaries youl see what changed che. Radicalisation as it is called is a core part of the Socialist Alliance's politics or infact any left party. This is why Green Left Weekly is such an important paper because just as in the beggining of the russian revolution before it was betrayed, the paper their radicalised workers, and just as GLW radicalised me, its definately a matter of extracting the humanitarian instinct in someone no matter how much money they earn they can see the compassionate result of action. This is how you must convince people. Its through this agitation that you show the yuppie wearing their made in indonesia apparel that the death of that worker could inherently be their fault.

Free Education universal and accessible is possible. Kery Nettle evaluated its cost at 6 billion dollars, half our surplus... the rationalist assertion is a myth. Humans are not what they were. Marx outlines that t he progression of a society is the result of labour which he defines as the precreation of the means of subsitence using tools of labour. In stateless pre feudal society the division of labour brought the means for feudalist exploitation. This impossible in the extremely futuristic society that marx wrote about becuase tis stateless society would have at a precondition for its existence almost fully automated production of the means of subsitence, marx said this himself. The basis for wage expoloitation like feudalism is the need to aquire a means of subsistence. If this were guaranteed, there would be no viable coercion of people into labour thus, there would be no basis for the reestablishment of private property. This theoretical basis is rather obscure though becuase for me the issue is socialism and not communism. socialism is everything democratic and is a viable option when people realise "Freedom is the acknowledgement of need" - Engels. In my opinion even though i regard myself as a marxist, the basis for political struggle is not whether or not marxist communism works but rather a need to combat reactionary capitalism. Castro once said in a speach about imperialism that one of the supreme battles of the 21st century will be the battle for ideas.

 

[deusexmachina]

"how do you tell a group of people who have tasted materilistic wealth to conform to an idea where their years of working up the corporate ladder is unaccounted for?"
Quite easily. You do it from the other end of an AK47.

How do you change materialism? You promote a culture that does not promote it. You promote a culture that depicts the wages of materialism for what they really are, rather than for their superficial value. Next to billboards of attractive men wearing designer clothes and dating younger, attractive women, you place pictures of sweatshops. Simple, effective marketing - try and dispel the ethical apathy that surrounds it all.

Whitlamite free education. Ironic that most of the Howard government experienced it. You know the 2 billion dollars that was lost in the 'sandwich and a milkshake' tax cut? Could've essentially solved the university situation and made it low-cost, if not partially free. But tax cuts are more popular than infrastructure.

I don't advocate that doctors should earn the same as, say, a stripper. I merely advocate that we have a sliding tax scale that reduces the income rich people can attain - instead, their money goes towards social services - education, health, infrastructure. Those of lower socio-economic status will be taxed at a foundationally lower tax rate. This is a Fabian policy aimed at promoting equality. What I advocate is an equal base - not a 'user pays' system with 'two-tier' (i.e. rich and poor) structure (e.g. public/private school, public/private healthcare), with the possibility of building on it to a moderate degree - not to a degree that deprives the poor of basic rights.

As for 'natural' humanity. We all have specific abilities, yes. My gripe is that those with a specific talent for making money alone are rewarded - making money for the sake of making money. Their end result in the world? Well, nothing. Their millions get passed onto their children. They contribute nothing to the cultural wellbeing of the world; nothing to its intellectual progress; and certainly nothing towards equality. The easiest way to become rich and hence powerful is to push money around. This has no end result save a larger wallet for you and yours.

Prehistoric humanity is no longer an effective model for the world. It can quite clearly be seen that we inhabit a substantially different world from the one that our biological ancestors inhabited. Likewise, competition THEN is different from competition NOW. With our commodity-filled world, we can gain more from co-operation than competition: more from teamwork than from individual success. The power of uninty; solidarity, even, is unbridled. When humans work together magnificent things can occur.

Even if we use your start of civilization humans: why should the thinker be any more worthwhile than the athletic? Why should the leader be worth more than the follower? Perhaps there are aspects of Darwinian 'naturality' in capitalism, but there is certainly not the even playing field that there was then. Inheritance and bias have skewed this system to such inequality that it no longer becomes possible for a person on the wrong end to achieve in such a system.

In any case, surely humans today are capable of more than the most base emotions of their apish predecessors. As before, my quasi-Nietzschean idealism stands -- are we not capable of transcendence?

 

[danie]

the problem with some of the youth today (and i think this is where it has to start because we are in our most impressionable state), is that they aren't worldy enough. it's all fine to to make them read pamphlets and newspapers that highlight inequality and appeals to their humanitarian instinct, but the truth is it's not felt as acutely in twenty-first australia as it was by nineteenth century russians:

1. because we are not living it.

2. because we cannot see it physically.

the problem with people living here is that many people are sheltered not necessarily dissensitized, but disattached. there is a level of empathy though it's over as soon as the news coverage is, not to mention it's usually sporadic dependant on being brought to the forefront of the media by rockstars (live aid) or current events (like the devastation in asia spurred on by the tsunami). i know the state of the global situation and while i'm not approaching it as you it doesn't mean i haven't been affected by it and i'm reacting in a different way.

i've acknowledged everything you said and you almost converted me... almost. i'm probably going to read up on it anyway.

for the record: "stalinists and text book know it alls" - i didn't just get everything from a textbook thank you very much.

 

[deusexmachina]

Some very good ideas, chubbaraff! As it stands, I'm a Green(which is a party any proto-socialist, social democrat, leftist thinker, or environmentally conscious should join). I staunchly advocate the unification of the left to provide a feasible alternative to capitalism. If we are separate, divided, because our readings of some obscure part of Marx's capital changes, what good then are we? Solidarity, comrades!

Let's make this clear, though: the Greens are not a 'watermelon party'. Their primary goal is social justice and environmental sustainability. It is demonstrable that capitalism cares for neither and indeed does much to work against them. The belief that monetarist capitalism is responsible for environmental degradation and the stripping of rights from the many is the catalyst for a social-democrat approach to policy-making.

GLW and other such papers are incredibly important. Many people consider such polemical publications (they come from the right too) as indoctrination - I consider them closer to crystallisation. The altruistic motive is something that is certainly espoused in socialism, and it is something that ALL humans have. My major reason for being a socialist is that I believe it actively espouses nobler values: at least, nobler than Ayn Rand's self-interested conservative capitalism. These nobler values rub off, too. Indonesian factory workers wouldn't earn 8 cents for making a t-shirt: they'd earn several dollars. Likewise, Phil Knight (head of Nike) wouldn't earn quite as many hundreds of millions as he does: but this is necessarily a good thing. Too much money is more than enough.

Particularly good quote from Engels too. Freedom has come to be believed as 'the ability to become economically wealthy.' This is a repulsive corruption. But I digress!

Largely, Utopian socialism's popular because many Marxists are themselves bourgeois, but would, I believe, aspire to actually suffering once in a while. It stands that many members of the proletariat are, in fact, capitalist - an unfortunate imprinting from the dominant climate of our times. The end goal of such thinking is something like Icaria: classless, industrial splendour. Whether it is attainable or not is irrelevant: idealism, rather than mute acceptance, is vital in political thinking for today's unequal world.

 

[deusexmachina]

And precisely this is why Che is so goshdarned popular. As well as the fact that it's a damned good movie. Go see it, no matter your political preference.

The Asian tsunami disaster, I believe, proves that there is a strong economic altruism throughout the world. It comes out at disasters: why can't it remain fixed in place? The Australian government has more than enough money to spare. Heck, with all that not-funding education and healthcare, who wouldn't?

If you want to SEE the results of modern capitalism, watch The Corporation on Wednesday night at 8:30 on SBS. And don't tell me capitalism's different from corporatism: shifting power from democratic government to autocratic corporations is the definition of capitalism.

 

[danie]

i've been intending to watch that but i always get caught up in doing something else.

i don't know if you guys have heard about this but according to a wall street article by steven landsburg, in finland speeding fines are not determined by the speed you are going but by how much you earn.

from each according to his ability?

curious to hear your thoughts.

... and that che is one great chap.

 

[Comrade nathan]

stalin's russia democratic?

For its time it was. Compared to past russia it was.

tiananmen square.

China was under the leadership of the revisionist Deng Xiaoping, who had over the years liberalised the economy. At the protest some people had Mao's Little red book with them. The also sang the "Internationale".

how do you justify these actions in the name of the revolution?

The extened the revolution to the reactionaries and revisionist who's goals are to destroy the revolution and revert back to capitalism and use the party as a tool of oppression over the masses, like in China today and Krushechevs USSR. Anyway most of the actions you have mention are no linking to progressive communists.

i don't look at it from a capitalist perspective i view it in a humanist perspective.

When ever someone criticises Stalin they never do it in context or time period. For example to war on the peasants. The kulaks goals where to keep teh grain as a profit so to fight the collectivisation they decided to tell the peasants to burn their grain and slaughter their livestock, while the Kulaks hide there supplies. What was the party to do let the city starve at the greed and idiocy of the Kulaks and peasants.

in october 2004 castro stated that should he ever get ill he will hand the reins to raul, his brother. after howard's term would you allow him to hand the reins over to someone he chose without an election?

I cant see how Raul will gain leadership without vote of the Central Commitie who have gained that position through voting from lower leves in the party. Most likely what Fidel means is Raul will take his spot and run in place of Fidel.

Erk! Comrade Nathan, please don't slander the good name of Marxism by associating it with the bastard Stalin...his policies were authoritarian, egoistic, verging on the fascist, and highly contrary to the 'democratic' spirit of communism. He failed. He screwed up. He was a dictator, not a general secretary.

How so, if your a Marxist i dont see why people condemn Stalin. He followedm Lenin to the greatest of hist ability. He only acted the reactionaries, he always pushed for Socialism.

He was never dictator, he was just very influential and never did anything wrong. Stalin being moral was considered a perfect Bolishevik, while many of his enemies on the right where prosecuted and demoted because they had conduct in a unfashionable manor. This allowed him to rise in the party and form alliences.

Stalin was elected general secretary in 1922, and at any time the Central Committee could remove him, and alot of decision had to go throw the CC and other levels.

Socialism/Marxism/communism (for the purposes of this argument, they mean one and the same) is fundamentally a democratic organ. It is about the rule by the people - not by a few, but by the MANY

Its is Dictatorship of the Proleteriat. Leaders before the revisionist took over allways acted in the interest of the working class.

Perhaps the 'spirit' of a country is more important than conspicuous wealth. I myself would prefer to see a thousand people just surviving than one man driving a Mercedes while his countrymen/women starve.

I agree. Places like China and Russia now the revisionist and capitalist have taken control standards of living are radicaly decreasing. In China many people from rural areas move to the City limits and are creating squalor, also medical services are decreasing. While this happens a middle class has emerged and many grow rich from the expliotation of workers.

Look here for facts on the USSR transformation into a more capitalist society

http://www.newint.org/issue366/facts.htm

I am of course speaking as a Utopian socialist. In the modern world, such a system is noble, but apparently unachievable, at least on a societal scale. My question to the world is: why can't we at least try?

Very unachievable. We shouldnt try for one because if you do it peacefully and with permision of the working class as Utopian Socialism tradional was desgined to be, then its a waste of time and resources.

because humans now were just like humans at the start of civilisation.

Wong. First civilisation was primitave communism, everyone acted collectively. It was only till technology advanced that mans behavoiur changed. Thats why you're belief about human nature is flawed. Mans conscious is a product of material world and is therefore bound to its changes.

Franco, Mao, Il Sung, Jong Il, Stalin were/are fuckers at most part and i can say that at ease but it is comrade nathan who cannot break party ranks and admit this.

Why did you put Franco in the same group as Socialist.

Im sorry but calling them fuckers isn't an argument.

What party ranks am i not breaking?

 

[deusexmachina]

My, we certainly have gone off topic.
In fact, all of us lefties have completely betrayed a Maoist principle - at meetings, speakers should not speak for too long, lest they verge into egoism (which happens to be perhaps the greatest internal risk to socialism.)

In any case: if you're interested in Utopianism, Utopian socialism, marxism, and its relevance in contemporary literary theory, you might want to check out my Extension 2 major work on the showcase on that thread. It's a literary approach to things, but it holds true in political philosophy as well. Look at the reflection statement too!

 

[Kierkegaard]

As for 'natural' humanity. We all have specific abilities, yes. My gripe is that those with a specific talent for making money alone are rewarded - making money for the sake of making money. Their end result in the world? Well, nothing. Their millions get passed onto their children. They contribute nothing to the cultural wellbeing of the world; nothing to its intellectual progress; and certainly nothing towards equality. The easiest way to become rich and hence powerful is to push money around. This has no end result save a larger wallet for you and yours.

That's why any sensible socialist would use a commodity (i.e. Gold and Silver) backed currency. Just like Mao did.

It's far too often that those who contribute least to the economy attain the most from it (-Vampire Capitalists). Maybe we should replace tax scales with wage scales, based on contribution to the economy. A flat tax rate would mean that all get taxed evenly, yet those who contribute most to the economy and are willing to work hard, benefit most.

 

[chubbaraff]

that wasnt a shot at you danie that was a shot at "not-That-Bright" and "Comrade Nathan" . I actually regard you as a cool one in this thread!!

 

[chubbaraff]

Comrade, he killed the whole bolshevik party and eliminated trotsky from history.. before putting an ice pick in the back of his head, you are really insane in calling stalin socialist, you give the movement a bad name...

 

[Comrade nathan]

He didnt. Molotov, Kalinin, Vorosholiv are just some examples of old bolsheviks who hadn't attempted to betray the revolution to the right so where not trialed and executed.

The people who were expelled from the party had trials and were found guilty. Some where german spies and others were bureaucrats who were taking advantage of their poition. Others where revisionist and rightist who planed to stop collectivisation and socialism.

you are really insane in calling stalin socialist

Why? because he doesnt fit your idealistic view of what socialism is? because he didnt create a classless Utopia in Russia? and you think Trotsky could do this?

Any leader who's goal was to create a progressive society in Russia would have done excactly what Stalin had done to defeat the rightist, revisionist and thoose like the Kulaks who wanted to keep a backward Russia.

You should stop looking at Stalin through a right wing view and look at this period as a Marxist Leninist. Then you will see the right and wrong of this time.


Here is a little quote a Russian who had an experince with some Trots and their Stalin bashing

At once she instructed me that the main mistake of my country was that we did not wait till the world revolution comes. This blue-eyed girl, wrapped in a Palestinian kerchief, with her soldiers’ boots on, did not experience anything even remotely close to what our grandfathers and fathers had gone through so that my generation could get free education and medical care, have childhood free of need and humiliation. She did not care at all about the real achievements of our socialism, far from perfect but quite real. For her it never existed in the first place, it was only a “bureaucratic dictatorship,” even though our country had solved most of the problems, which her comrades in the West are only hoping to solve… by their vocal cords. What if here there lies the secret of their nihilistic attitude to our country? How dared we to have solved those social problems on our own, without the help of their vocal cords, before they have solved them…?

 

[loquasagacious]

Idiot.

Stalin was a dictator, he was not a fascist.

Fascism refers to specific poltical beliefs and practices (albeit usually undertaken by dictators) - hitler was a fascist, Mussolini was a Fascist, Pinochet is a facsist.

Whilst a dictator may be fascist a dictator may also be communist - in Stalins, Pol-Pots and Maos cases.

See www.politicalcompass.org for an explanation of how this works, basically people can be expressed as a product of two axis' at 90 degrees, anyone along the top is a fascist, anyone along the bottom an anarchist.

My advice to you in think more.

 

[Kierkegaard]

Fascism (in the broad sense) refers to a system of dictatorial control, in which opposition is 'stamped-out' through means of propaganda or force. I believe that it is this broad sense of the word that is being used in this discussion (not the specific term, which refers more to capitalistic, nationalistic right-wing pseudo-politics).

 

[Comrade nathan]

This is a abstract from Benito Mussolini's What is Fascism. The abstract is used to show the difference between Marxism and Fascism.

Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

...The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after...

...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....

...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....

...even that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

...For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mussolini/works/fascism.htm

 

[danie]

Fascism:

Refers to any system of government resembling Mussolini's

i.e:

- exalts nation and sometimes race about the individual

- uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.

- engages in severe economical and social regimentation.

- fascist economic model of corporatism promoted class collaboration by attempting to bring classes together under the unity of the state.

whether or not stalin was a socialist or a dictator or his rule was authoritarian or totalitarian. his rule of the ussr adheres to those basic points no?

p.s. nathan you do realise that mussolini would romanticize the notion of fascism due to his obvious bias.

but word to you, you'd rather educate and hold an argument rather than make an inane comment on the root meaning of a word as i was not referring to the movement rather its more inclusive definition.

 

[Comrade nathan]

exalts nation and sometimes race about the individual

No Stalin never put race above the individual. The talk about him being a anti semitic is a lie, he promoted jewish communist, and there were many Jewish artist and dancers he admired.

- uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.

No The NKVD did all invistigations and gave trails.

There ofcourse were the personality cults but at times Stalin condemn this. Also the russian people were use to personality cults, it was apart of their culture. Before Lenin and Stalin there was Peter the Great.

- engages in severe economical and social regimentation.

Yes But for the good, you are a socialist arent you?

- fascist economic model of corporatism promoted class collaboration by attempting to bring classes together under the unity of the state.

No Stalin strengthen the Dictatorship of the proleteriat by removing the Bourgeois and their collaborates, also the war on the Kulaks.