I have studied the mysterious history of Fascism for a while now and realized that Mussolini and gang were actually National Syndicalists. Im not trying to equate them with you guys at all, Im just saying that the biggest battle between syndies is the battle of anarchism or nationalism.
Francisco Franco was definetly a National Syndicalist. If you go to the existing websites today on his Flange Party it says it plain as day that thier party is the party of Syndicalism only nationalistic, not anarchist.
National Syndicalists are basically lumpenproletariats and petit bougies that wanted to gain control of the production through thier own labor union. They used Nationalism as a rouse to incite the people. Fascists believed that the class struggle was dead and the proletariat would not rise up, but a nation would.
Thats why its been so hard to pin Fascism as a right wing or a left wing ideology. Its neither and thats why it was been regarded as the great "Third Way".
Just a though guys, anyone wanna weigh in?
Fascism is National Syndicalism.....
Moderators: Yarrow, Yuda, Canteloupe
45 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
great now it's trendy
by cat~maxwell » Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:05 pm
yeah.
they used the class struggle as a grabber to get recruits. anyone conforming to the kampf was one more person looking to be a cog in their war machine rather than working or fighting for objective freedom.
the key idea is the nationalism.. any anarchist should realise that most patriotism is a mental poison that sets people up to get drawn into the power struggles of those the ancient egyptian scribe caled 'suten-khenen' -- kings and all their queens who wish totell the peope anything so they will live and die as slaves, vasslas serfs. 'villeins' --
the twist is deep. 'villein' itself is a word used to demoralise the poor -- it meant 'villager' but came to mean people not of allegedly 'noble' blood. in other words from an old world perspective only charles and his hasburg cousins are not villiens as long as his family is enthroned. good for them, so they can domore of what we know as proper actual villainy...intruige, conspiracy and the destruction of conspicuous exalted princesses who have served their function as brood mares and gon on to consort with undsirable dark skinned folk. that royalist attitude is the basic evil beneath syndical fascism or national syndicalism as you have basically sussed it.
easier just to say national socialism -- because stalin hiter and Mussolini are like hthe tom dick and harry of 20th century evil doing -- every young would be evildoer wanted to be like them -they only minorly vary from each other, stalin loated jewry and mussolini was a psychopomp who hated everyone -- youcan tell from his politics.
the politics of fascism are the politics of psychosis. with that in mind we can examine the new face of old fascism, Constitutional REpublic and see that Cheney and Old man Bush are not much different from Stalin and Hitler.
people want to put Hitler behind them so when old man Bush shows up hiding evilly behind his pathetic figurehead of a distraction, george junior, people would rather not see it.
'not see'..get it? basically mussolini was the same as Shitler. just italian insatead of german...where its nazionale all day long. pity.
begun these clone wars have.
they used the class struggle as a grabber to get recruits. anyone conforming to the kampf was one more person looking to be a cog in their war machine rather than working or fighting for objective freedom.
the key idea is the nationalism.. any anarchist should realise that most patriotism is a mental poison that sets people up to get drawn into the power struggles of those the ancient egyptian scribe caled 'suten-khenen' -- kings and all their queens who wish totell the peope anything so they will live and die as slaves, vasslas serfs. 'villeins' --
the twist is deep. 'villein' itself is a word used to demoralise the poor -- it meant 'villager' but came to mean people not of allegedly 'noble' blood. in other words from an old world perspective only charles and his hasburg cousins are not villiens as long as his family is enthroned. good for them, so they can domore of what we know as proper actual villainy...intruige, conspiracy and the destruction of conspicuous exalted princesses who have served their function as brood mares and gon on to consort with undsirable dark skinned folk. that royalist attitude is the basic evil beneath syndical fascism or national syndicalism as you have basically sussed it.
easier just to say national socialism -- because stalin hiter and Mussolini are like hthe tom dick and harry of 20th century evil doing -- every young would be evildoer wanted to be like them -they only minorly vary from each other, stalin loated jewry and mussolini was a psychopomp who hated everyone -- youcan tell from his politics.
the politics of fascism are the politics of psychosis. with that in mind we can examine the new face of old fascism, Constitutional REpublic and see that Cheney and Old man Bush are not much different from Stalin and Hitler.
people want to put Hitler behind them so when old man Bush shows up hiding evilly behind his pathetic figurehead of a distraction, george junior, people would rather not see it.
'not see'..get it? basically mussolini was the same as Shitler. just italian insatead of german...where its nazionale all day long. pity.
begun these clone wars have.
- cat~maxwell
- Swivel-Hips
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 12:05 pm
dont underestimate your enemy....
by Guest » Tue Apr 12, 2005 3:22 pm
Well you actually went into much greater detail than I did. But you're right none the less. I wasnt really getting at Nazi Germany, though. That was actually just plain white nationalism. That really wasnt a rouse, Hitler knew what he was doing.
You see Fascist doctrine destroys Socialist ones. If Fascist doctrine were as open to the public as it should be, Socialists and Marxists would scream bloody murder.
Marx thought of his philosophy as a science and therefore was inevitable. Yet, after years and years of waiting for a socialist revolt, it never came and if it did it would fail. It failed because Marx failed to calculate the changing and evolving face of capitalism. in the late 1800's Eduard Bernstein led the Critique on Marxism and out of this movement across Europe led to the rise of Syndicalist thinking. Robert Michels was proly the best known syndicalist at the time and he left for Italy to join the Fascists.
Yet the question still remained as to when and how the movement should be led? How are you going to start a union that will take over the means of production? Are we going to sit here and wait for the proletariat to rise? This is where Mussolini's shoddy interpretation of George Sorrel came into play. He said that he rejected the revolution as a science in which it will come about on its own and he also rejected that it would come about through anarchy. He said the quickest way was through a union of nationalism. The myth of a nation was more powerful than the conflict of class struggle. He said that its never been a struggle of class but of nations.
When Socialists claim that Fascists were right wing reactionaries because they oppressed other unions. Its because they were the ultimate union! It had nothing to do with actually hating labor unions, but when the power is concentrated into one massive labor union, why do you need more?
They were reactionary because Syndicalism is a direct action. Motivated by nationalist fervor it became a war mongering, racist, evil ideology. Its main drug was hate and its main struggle was more power.
You see Fascist doctrine destroys Socialist ones. If Fascist doctrine were as open to the public as it should be, Socialists and Marxists would scream bloody murder.
Marx thought of his philosophy as a science and therefore was inevitable. Yet, after years and years of waiting for a socialist revolt, it never came and if it did it would fail. It failed because Marx failed to calculate the changing and evolving face of capitalism. in the late 1800's Eduard Bernstein led the Critique on Marxism and out of this movement across Europe led to the rise of Syndicalist thinking. Robert Michels was proly the best known syndicalist at the time and he left for Italy to join the Fascists.
Yet the question still remained as to when and how the movement should be led? How are you going to start a union that will take over the means of production? Are we going to sit here and wait for the proletariat to rise? This is where Mussolini's shoddy interpretation of George Sorrel came into play. He said that he rejected the revolution as a science in which it will come about on its own and he also rejected that it would come about through anarchy. He said the quickest way was through a union of nationalism. The myth of a nation was more powerful than the conflict of class struggle. He said that its never been a struggle of class but of nations.
When Socialists claim that Fascists were right wing reactionaries because they oppressed other unions. Its because they were the ultimate union! It had nothing to do with actually hating labor unions, but when the power is concentrated into one massive labor union, why do you need more?
They were reactionary because Syndicalism is a direct action. Motivated by nationalist fervor it became a war mongering, racist, evil ideology. Its main drug was hate and its main struggle was more power.
- Guest
by Guest » Tue Apr 12, 2005 3:31 pm
Dont you get it? The reason why Fascism has been swept under the rug is because Socialists and Marxists know that it is thier undoing. So they write it off as "right wing" extremism. When in actuality it was National Syndicalist extremism. Fascist doctine probably makes the best case for syndicalism, but it just breaks off on anarchy. Instead it opts to collectivize the masses through a rouse of nationalism.
Thats why Spain's Franco sought to revive the old Spanish Catholic Kingdom, Hitler wanted to revive Aryan Supremacy, Mussolini wanted to revive the Roman Empire and now today the Islamic Extremists want to revive the old Muslim Caliphate. To them this is the only way to get syndicalism to work. The anarchy part is not worth waiting around for.
Thats why Spain's Franco sought to revive the old Spanish Catholic Kingdom, Hitler wanted to revive Aryan Supremacy, Mussolini wanted to revive the Roman Empire and now today the Islamic Extremists want to revive the old Muslim Caliphate. To them this is the only way to get syndicalism to work. The anarchy part is not worth waiting around for.
- Guest
by Non-Sectarian Bastard! » Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:55 pm
Too tired now to make a lenghty post. But dude, the Spanish fascists take advantage of a popular sentiment. Just like their counterparts did and do.
Take par example the Germany of the late 1920's, early 1930's. Socialism was at that time a very popular stream, in order to take advantage of that, the fascists called themselves national-socialists.
A more recent example. In present day Russia, there is a flourishing fascist movement which takes advantage of the current sentiment which is among many Russians. Many long back to the old "glory" days of Bolshevism. So, to no suprise the fascists call themselves this time: National-Bolsheviks.
So, Spanish fascists calling themselves syndicalists hasn't so much to do with their ideology then with picking a popular name. Who knows when we will get the first "national-anarchists".
Take par example the Germany of the late 1920's, early 1930's. Socialism was at that time a very popular stream, in order to take advantage of that, the fascists called themselves national-socialists.
A more recent example. In present day Russia, there is a flourishing fascist movement which takes advantage of the current sentiment which is among many Russians. Many long back to the old "glory" days of Bolshevism. So, to no suprise the fascists call themselves this time: National-Bolsheviks.
So, Spanish fascists calling themselves syndicalists hasn't so much to do with their ideology then with picking a popular name. Who knows when we will get the first "national-anarchists".
No war between Nations - No peace between Classes!
- Non-Sectarian Bastard!
- Swivel-Hips
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:42 pm
by Guest » Thu Apr 28, 2005 9:56 am
this is all very true. the biggest mass murderers in modern history have been socialists. the question is why? does "empowering the masses" and "power to the people" automatically result in mass murder and genocide? maybe. perhaps socialism could be thought of as institutionalized lynch mob-ism.
- Guest
by Guest » Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:50 am
http://feastofhateandfear.com/archives/falangist.html
"
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p--5_Whisker.html
the movement was obviously syndicalist. it wasnt anarchist, but nationalist.
No. The National Syndicalist Movement is convinced that it has found the right way out: neither capitalist nor communist. Faced by the individualist economy of the bourgeoisie, the socialist one arose, which handed over the fruits of production to the State, enslaving the individual. Neither of them have resolved the tragedy of the producer. To address this issue let us erect the synicalist economy, which neither absorbs the individual personality into the State, nor turns the worker into a dehumanized cog in the machinery of bourgeois production. The national syndicalist solution is the one which promises to bear the most fruit.
"
The fascist party had conceived the fascist state. One could not think of a "corporate state" or a "syndicalist state" without thinking of the fascist party. Fascism was inseparable from corporativism or syndicalism. If one removed the one concept, he necessarily removed the others. The fascist party, not the state, was the guardian of the fascist ideals, especially including syndicalism and the corporate organization of the state. The orthodoxy of syndicalist ideas was safeguarded in the fascist party. Hence, the highest value in the fascist state was syndicalism-corporativism."
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p--5_Whisker.html
the movement was obviously syndicalist. it wasnt anarchist, but nationalist.
- Guest
by Guest » Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:53 am
çthe Spanish fascists take advantage of a popular sentiment. Just like their counterparts did and do.
Take par example the Germany of the late 1920's, early 1930's. Socialism was at that time a very popular stream, in order to take advantage of that, the fascists called themselves national-socialists.
after the great depression people had lost thier faith in capitalism and communism. anything international was viewed as against the interests of the state. so the fascists did not take advantage of the socialist craze. they went against parlimentary socialism and opted for direct action. nationalist syndicalist action. it was genuine. it wasnt a guise. the only guise was to push for thier syndicalist state through the use of nationalism and the state as thier big gun.
- Guest
by JudeObscure84 » Sun May 08, 2005 10:47 pm
Actually the Fascists disagreed with the anarchists about the idea of the state. You see, people think of Fascists as being one with the state or the state. No, Fascists were the workers union, they were the massive union that most syndicalists envision. Only they opted that it would only be through nationalism that the workers would rise, not just workers solidarity.
But in the end the Facsists were right. Anarchy IS a dead end. Even teh CNT had to establish commitees which were just as fascist. I mean you need to force people to but shoddy artisan co-oped products, or otherwise they would sink competing with non-syndicalist buisnesses. Thats where the state came in. The Fascist party Union used the state as the party pleased.
But in the end the Facsists were right. Anarchy IS a dead end. Even teh CNT had to establish commitees which were just as fascist. I mean you need to force people to but shoddy artisan co-oped products, or otherwise they would sink competing with non-syndicalist buisnesses. Thats where the state came in. The Fascist party Union used the state as the party pleased.
- JudeObscure84
by tsihcrana laicos » Mon May 09, 2005 1:41 pm
Anonymous wrote:This just shows how bad anarchy and all its ties are....they all turn into stupid dictatorships great job guys....great job... dosnt the truth hurt?
Anarchy doesn't have any ties with any authoritarianism. That would make your conclusions wrong.
The truth hurts. No?
Even teh CNT had to establish commitees which were just as fascist.
Where's your evidence?
Cews
- tsihcrana laicos
- Denizen
- Posts: 375
- Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:13 pm
by tsihcrana laicos » Tue May 10, 2005 12:48 pm
they all turn into dumps of chaos and a hell on Earth
wrong
Cews
- tsihcrana laicos
- Denizen
- Posts: 375
- Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:13 pm
45 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Return to Anarcho-Syndicalism 101
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests