| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/3 |
| 2004/3/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:12917 Activity:very high |
3/29 Isn't the PRC fascist? Why do people still refer to it as communist?
It fits perfectly with fascism but is not communist at all. Right?
\_ american is fascist too.
\_ Cool! ChiCom troll is back! I was afraid he'd been
sent to re-education, or promoted to peoples' regional
secretary for truth or something! Hi, ChiCom Troll! -John
\_ this is your problem. Saying PRC is a fascist is not
considered as troll, but saying American is fascist
is.
\_ Was I commenting on your content? Your reading
comprehension is as poor as your grammar. Doesn't
speak highly for ChiCom peoples' education. Welcome
back, ChiCom troll! -John
\_ You're being silly. He is not the real chicom
troll. Just arrived at work, eh?
\_ ChiCom troll is not person, it attitude.
Back to highschool, stupid american. -John
\_ nah, he's the best friend you day dream
about everyday at work.
\_ Yermom's not a day dream, and she's not
my best friend, she's on my lap.
\_ masterbating at work again, eh?
\_ nah, he's your imaginary best friend
you day dream about at work.
\_ Along with Republicanism...
\_ no.
\_ Communism is just one insidious type of fascism.
\_ Not really. It's just that people choose to keep calling
something communism that isn't communism.
\- helo it is an interesting question whether communism and
fascism, call them totalitarian ideologies, are essentially
identical due to structural factors or the "substance
of the ideology" rather than the structure [say class vs
nation/ethnic focus] plays the dominant role in defining
its character. you may wish to read "Revolutionary Change"
written by Chamlers Johnson before he went insane or this
book by R. Paxton: http://csua.org/u/6nx ok tnx. --psb
\_ Communism is not a totalitarian ideology per se, it is
an economic system which can only be achieved by
compulsion. (One wonders sometimes if this is true, to
some extent, of any civilized economic system which
relies on abstractions such as property). Fascism is a
more complicated concept, but I don't believe it needs to
be necessarily totalitarian either. Most people who
accuse people or states of fascism these days (e.g. "Bush
is fascist!") have no idea what the word means. I don't
believe fascism and communism have anything in common,
aside from the fact that they lend 'color' or 'charge',
if you like, to government. Twentieth century made a
convincing case that governments should remain as
colorless as possible. -- ilyas
\- per se, communism isnt communism per se. --psb
\_ That's nice, Partha. -- ilyas
\- not as good as: "The women at fandom cons are
bi and large, by and large." --psb
\_ What does it mean? that's my real question. I did do
some reading on it now and I see why the PRC doesn't
really fit that term. But, I can also see how aspects
associated with fascism can be used by both PRC
and USA (appeals to nationalism, fearmongering,
scapegoating, militarism/patriotism, propaganda).
But I think authoritarianism is intrinsic to fascism.
The only communism we've seen is the Stalinist brand
of totalitarianism. Modern China with its economic
ventures seems to have abandoned communism.
\_ yes, China have abandoned communism since 1985,
*YEARS* before Berlin Wall came down.
\_ nonsense. the government still controls the
entire economy. just because you're now allowed
to own an apple cart or a small factory that
makes a few widgets doesn't mean they've
\_ ussr? ussr is no more. otoh, russia under
putin has wisely decided to follow in
china's path of capitalism under strong
authoritarian rule, reversing russia's failed
experiment with democracy. this was also
the proven path followed by many US allies
such as japan, s.korea, taiwan, singapore.
and the world is voting with their hard
earned money pouring them into russia and
china. check out stock symbol mbt or vip,
i am buying a beemer using earnings from
those stocks. the only people who can
attain democracy and capitalism in the
reverse order are the indians, and even
then, it's under strong nationalistic
leadership of the BJP party.
*YEARS* before Berlin Wall came down.
suddenly turned into a capitalist society. they
have only just caught up to where stalin's
ussr was more than 50 years ago.
\_ Actually I take it back. Classic, Mussolini-style
fascism cannot help but be totalitarian in human
societies. -- ilyas
\-YMWTGF(ant, spider, bee, bacon) --psb
\_ human societies?
\_ The Bugs are facist by nature.
\-YMWTGF(ant, spider, bee, bacon) --psb
\_ bugs aren't totalitarian.
\_ Not necessarily bugs. Humans are just not
collectivist enough, they like small packs.
An interesting take on how a collectivist
human society would come about, see
book by R. Paxton: http://csua.org/u/6nx ok tnx. --psb
collectivist enough, they like small packs.
-- ilyas
Herbert's "Hellstrom's Hive" (yes, same
Herbert). -- ilyas
\_ if humans were collectivist like bugs
we'd be doing about as well which is
to say not very well at all overall.
\- sort of like france :-) --psb
\_ Why nobody ever complains that psb write incoherent
English sentences?
\_ because we know he could form coherent sentences
if he wanted to. otoh, we can and do complain that
he's a lazy bastard.
\_ nah, it's better described as authoritarian planned-economy
\- sort of like france :-) --psb
\_ "A specter is haunting Europe..." -- ilyas |
| 4/3 |
|
| csua.org/u/6nx -> www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400040949?v=glance Fascist parties could not approach power, however, without the complicity of conservatives willing to sacrifice the rule of law for security. Paxton makes clear the sequence of steps by which fascists and conservatives together formed regimes in Italy and Germany, and why fascists remained out of power elsewhere. While fascist parties had broad political leeway, conservatives preserved many social and economic privileges. Goals of forced national unity, purity, and expansion, accompanied by propaganda-driven public excitement, held the mixture together. War opened opportunities for fascist extremists to pursue these goals to the point of genocide. He goes on to examine whether fascism can exist outside the specific early-twentieth-century European setting in which it emerged, and whether it can reappear today. This groundbreaking book, based on a lifetime of research, will have a lasting impact on our understanding of twentieth-century history. All Customer Reviews Average Customer Review: Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers. Fascism is the genus to which Nazism, Falangism, Francisme, the Arrow Cross, the Order of the Archangel Michael, the Ustasha, and possibly also certain strains of militant Islam belong. The book provides a very useful primer to the subject which, by the way, goes well beyond a standard insult for supposed right wingers. It is, however, addressed to college students and wont be much fun for those with an occasional interest, nor very informative for those who have already read on the subject. The book, however, does make a serious blunder, when, in the final chapter, it compares Fascism to Communism and concludes that Nazism was far worse because it persecuted people for who they were, whereas Communism persecuted them because of what they did or had, and these things could be changed. When Stalin ordered the kulaks to be liquidated as a class, he did not mean that those who gave up their excess property would be left alone. He meant that anyone classed as a kulak should be liquidated irrespective of what he did or didnt do. When the Soviet Union or China created the group Enemies of the People, it included the children or spouses of such enemies of the people, who clearly couldnt have done anything to avoid being named thus. Enemies of the People were persecuted, incarcerated and often killed. And when Stalin ordered that the families of soldiers who did not stand their ground in battle should be punished he wasnt giving them any choice. So, it is false to state that Communism punished people only because of what they did. The implication that people under Communism could save themselves by changing their behaviour is also falso, and deeply offensive. To anyone who might be misled by Paxtons opinion, I can only recommend enduring texts such as Anne Appleabums Gulag: A History, or Solzhenitsyns Gulag Archpielago. I still give Paxton 3 stars because this dubious opinion is marginal to his analysis, and other than that the book is pretty good if slightly wooden. Whether or not fascism still exists today, and if it could make a resurgence. An alternative view of the Israel/Palestine conflict is presented. This book is written in a highly intellectual style, and yet all the arguments are easy to understand. Little prior knowledge of fascism or politics in general is assumed, and the explanations and background information are well presented. I bought this book as a present for my husband, since I normally read literary fiction, romances etc. The fact that I picked it up and was hooked finished it before he did, is a testament to its comprehensible style and content. It will appeal just as much to the lay person who likes to think, as to the scholar in the field. How the fascist movements gained political legitimacy by making deals with incumbant conservatives and liberals who feared a communist takeover. Anatomy of Fascism is certainly not an easy read - it is written in a highly intellectual style. Nevertheless, the arguments it proposes are always clear and understandable. I bought this book as a present for my husband, and I finished it before he did. I have never read political history or non-fiction before, as I always thought the topic too dry and boring. The fact that this book managed to captivate me I normally read literature, romances etc, is a testament to its comprehensible style and fascinating content. The Anatomy of Fascism will appeal to the uninitiated novice as well as the student in the field. It assumes little prior knowledge of fascism and explains things in context, giving background information where necessary. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to explore political history, and see fascism in a new, more objective light. It is a response to the failure of traditional elites to maintain power in a democratic society, who then work with the ferocious populism of fascist parties. Paxton works to this conclusion by comparing Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy as well as by looking at unsuccessful fascisms, various neo-fascisms of the present day, and whether other movements can be properly described as fascism. One can see this as Paxton succinctly judges other theories of fascism and finds them wanting. It would be wrong to describe its origins as primarliy intellectual, when it was the traumas of the first world war and the Great Depression that led to fascisms triumph. Moreover intellectuals were only important in its early stages before it achieved popular support, while fascism radiated a contempt for coherent thought Paxton quotes one Italian fascist who declared The fist is the synthesis of our theory. Often lurid psychological explanations of fascism cannot explain why sexual repression and misogyny did not lead to fascism in France or Britain. Turner has demonstrated that most German businessmen preferred an authoritarian solution. Yet it cannot be said that fascism was anti-capitalist: its rhetoric was precisely that, and fascism could not have come to power without the support of the conservative establishment. The idea that fascism is the result of atomized masses, one supported by Hannah Arendt, does not do justice to the fact that pre-1933 Germans joined hundreds of private clubs and associations. Nor is totalitarian a useful label, since it does not explain the chaotic, competing and disorganized nature of the Nazi state. Such a theory implies that fascism is a response to the spiritual crisis caused by secularism so why in Germany and not in England? Describing fascism as a Developmental dictatorship is also not convincing. Italy grew faster before 1914 and after 1945 than it ever did under Mussolini. What we see in fascist states are a conflict between normative and prerogative sectors, one governed by rules the other increasingly by the dictators desires. Paxton goes on to discuss the tug of war a useful metaphor between fascists and conservatives, the leader and the party, and the party and the state. Paxton makes the provocative, and to my mind convincing, argument that the Ku Klux Klan could be seen as the first intimation of fascism. By contrast Paxtons definition as fascism as popular mobilization against democracy allows him to dismiss a variety of movements as non-fascist. Islamic fundamentalists are not fascist, because the Moslem states they are fighting are not democratic. By contrast, because Israel is a democracy, its chauvinist and sectarian elements could, ironically, mutate into fascism. But Peron, or the Brazilian dictator Vargas were not fascists, since they were neither fighting democracies in fact Peron was freely elected at least twice and both provided some genuine encouragement to labour movements. Paxton seems a bit uncertain about Spain: on the one hand Franco appears as a traditionalist and an authoritarian. On the other hand he certainly squelched Spanish democracy, slaughtered 200,000 people during World War II and before 1945 freely indulged in very fascistic rhetoric indeed. On the other hand Imperial Japan did have a fascist movement, but after assassinating several prominent politicians it was suppressed by t... |