This can’t be true if Stalinism and Khmer Rouge are kinds of fascism, which they are generally agreed to be.
Fascism is “might makes right” without checks and balances. With those it would be feudalism, but those don’t form overnight. With checks, but without balances it would be absolutism. With balances, but without checks it would be free-for-all. So fascism is what you have after a society has fallen to barbarism, but before it has learned to live in it.
This can’t be true if Stalinism and Khmer Rouge are kinds of fascism, which they are generally agreed to be.
I’m not sure i see the link youre making here. Could you expand on that please?
Capitalism is (financial) might makes right, with the appearance of chacks and balances. All of which have been utterly compromised and perverted by capitalism.
History shows us that fascism is simply capitalism when you try to say no. There was 1900s capitalism. Then, there was a movement trying to say no to the workhouses, debtors prisons and wealth theft. In direct response to this, fascism arose to protect the assets of the wealthy from the people trying to say no to capitalism. You can see it in America where striking workers were gunned down by police, as one example there. In the UK too, where the Royal Hussars cavalry were set on protesting workers. So, where I say that, I mean it in a very literal way.
Most people just don’t see it, as very few of us are even able to say no much less actual say it too. That doesn’t make it any less true though.
I meant that in case of Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain and such it was what you say (in Spain not so clear though). But Stalinist regime with very similar traits was driven by then new Soviet bureaucracy willing to increase its control over society, grow heavy industries necessary for revolutionary offensive wars their ideology then demanded, and crush political opponents.
This can’t be true if Stalinism and Khmer Rouge are kinds of fascism, which they are generally agreed to be.
Fascism is “might makes right” without checks and balances. With those it would be feudalism, but those don’t form overnight. With checks, but without balances it would be absolutism. With balances, but without checks it would be free-for-all. So fascism is what you have after a society has fallen to barbarism, but before it has learned to live in it.
I’m not sure i see the link youre making here. Could you expand on that please?
Capitalism is (financial) might makes right, with the appearance of chacks and balances. All of which have been utterly compromised and perverted by capitalism.
History shows us that fascism is simply capitalism when you try to say no. There was 1900s capitalism. Then, there was a movement trying to say no to the workhouses, debtors prisons and wealth theft. In direct response to this, fascism arose to protect the assets of the wealthy from the people trying to say no to capitalism. You can see it in America where striking workers were gunned down by police, as one example there. In the UK too, where the Royal Hussars cavalry were set on protesting workers. So, where I say that, I mean it in a very literal way.
Most people just don’t see it, as very few of us are even able to say no much less actual say it too. That doesn’t make it any less true though.
More than one way to come into some situation.
When?
I meant that in case of Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain and such it was what you say (in Spain not so clear though). But Stalinist regime with very similar traits was driven by then new Soviet bureaucracy willing to increase its control over society, grow heavy industries necessary for revolutionary offensive wars their ideology then demanded, and crush political opponents.
Spain was exactly the same and rose from putting down the Marxist and Spanish anarchist movements who were trying to say no to capitalism.
The stalinist regime evolved out of people trying to say no to capitalism.