gazit@ganelon.usc.edu (Salit) (01/23/88)
In article <2464@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: >In article <6385@oberon.USC.EDU> gazit@ganelon.usc.edu (Hillel) writes: >>In article <2445@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: >>>I checked the dictionary. >>>Fascism - A centralized, autocratic, national regime with severely >>>nationalistic policies, excercising regimentation of industry, >>>commerce, and finance, and forcible suppression of opposition. >>By your definition the USSR is a fascist country. >Yup. Interesting, eh? Remember, Nazism stands for "National >SOCIALISM". I wonder what the Soviet apologists on the net think of >that? >>I suggest you to read some history of Italy in the thirties. It will help >>you to understand the subject. >Why don't you tell me what is wrong with the DICTIONARY's definition? >I really want to know. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'll try. In the three classic fascist regimes (Italy, Germany, and Spain) you find the big leader (The Duce, Fuehrer, Franco). In all these cases, when the leader died, the regime died with him. This is not the case with the USSR. Another difference is the private industries and the efficiency. The trains in Spain were always on schedule. Two private companies (Tesch and Stabenow of Hamburg) produce the Zkylon-B. There were competitive prices and all the usual capitalist characteristics of the military-industrial complex. In the USSR no private industry exists. My main point is based on Albert Camus' analysis of fascism and terror in his book "L'Homme Revolte" (1951). Albert Camus (1913-1960) was a philosopher, author and journalist. He was the editor of the Resistance Journal during WWII, has written some important books and received the Nobel Prise in 1957. He was considered one of the great thinkers in his time. This book discusses the moral, social and political situation of the modern man, and devotes a chapter to terrorism of the state and irrational terror. In this chapter Camus explains the difference between fascism and the USSR. His claim is that the main difference is the irrationality of the terror. The soviet terror has some goals it wants to achieve and nobody cares what the means are. The fascist terror has only one goal, terror itself. Can anybody explain otherwise what was the Duce looking for in Ethiopia? Rosenberg (the Nazi philosopher) talked about the "style of a marching column, and it does not matter at all what its direction is or why the column is marching" (free translation). When the German army was stuck deep in the Russian snow, Hitler declared war on the US. When Germany was at war with the US, the UK and USSR in the same time, it became very clear the biggest industrial powers were going to win. The German industry was in great need for slaves' labor, however in that time Germany decided to kill the Jews. When it became clear that Germany was going to lose the war, Hitler gave the command to destroy (in Germany): "all industrial plants, all important electrical facilities, water works, gas works, food stores and clothing stores; all bridges, all railway and communication installations, all waterways, all ships, all freight cars, and all locomotives." I suggest that you read these last four lines once again; it will help you understand what is fascism. >These are the official opinions Mike Friedman Hillel Gazit gazit%ganelon.usc.edu@oberon.usc.edu
gene@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Yevgeny Y. Itkis) (01/26/88)
In article <6427@oberon.USC.EDU> gazit@ganelon.usc.edu (Hillel) writes: > >In article <2464@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: >>In article <6385@oberon.USC.EDU> gazit@ganelon.usc.edu (Hillel) writes: >>>In article <2445@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: >>>>I checked the dictionary. > >>>>Fascism - A centralized, autocratic, national regime with severely >>>>nationalistic policies, excercising regimentation of industry, >>>>commerce, and finance, and forcible suppression of opposition. > >>>By your definition the USSR is a fascist country. > >>Yup. Interesting, eh? Remember, Nazism stands for "National >>SOCIALISM". I wonder what the Soviet apologists on the net think of >>that? >... >>Why don't you tell me what is wrong with the DICTIONARY's definition? >>I really want to know. > >I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'll try. > >In the three classic fascist regimes (Italy, Germany, and Spain) you find >the big leader (The Duce, Fuehrer, Franco). In all these cases, when the >leader died, the regime died with him. This is not the case with the USSR. In Italy and Germany the leader died when the regime did, not the other way around. >Another difference is the private industries and the efficiency. >The trains in Spain were always on schedule. They used to say the same thing about Stalin. >Two private companies (Tesch and Stabenow of Hamburg) produce the Zkylon-B. >There were competitive prices and all the usual capitalist characteristics of >the military-industrial complex. In the USSR no private industry exists. It does now :-) (the Gorbachev's reform) > >My main point is based on Albert Camus' analysis of fascism and terror in >his book "L'Homme Revolte" (1951). Albert Camus (1913-1960) was a philosopher, >author and journalist. [Etc,... more of his qualifications. btw, you forget to mention that Camus was pro-Soviet at least at some point] >the difference between fascism and the USSR. His claim is that the >main difference is the irrationality of the terror. The soviet >terror has some goals it wants to achieve and nobody cares what the means are. This is already where theory and practice split tremendously. While I don't claim the ability to pick in anyones brain, I find it highly unlikely that Stalin had any goal other than to stay in power (and maybe entertain himself - a joke most unfamiliar with details should skip). This, I think, was not much different from say Musolini. Btw, stay in power and increase the power and power domain is the goal I have in mind. Also, Brezhnev comes across as little of an idealist, though he sure does not discriminate the means too much. One can argue about the others too. >The fascist terror has only one goal, terror itself. Can anybody >explain otherwise what was the Duce looking for in Ethiopia? Same thing Russians are, except they do it more subtly and not only in Ethiopia. > Rosenberg (the >Nazi philosopher) talked about the "style of a marching column, and it does not >matter at all what its direction is or why the column is marching" >(free translation). When the German army was stuck deep in the Russian snow, >Hitler declared war on the US. When Germany was at war with the US, the UK >and USSR in the same time, it became very clear the biggest industrial powers >were going to win. The German industry was in great need for slaves' labor, >however in that time Germany decided to kill the Jews. When it became clear >that Germany was going to lose the war, >Hitler gave the command to destroy (in Germany): >"all industrial plants, all important electrical facilities, water works, >gas works, food stores and clothing stores; all bridges, all railway and >communication installations, all waterways, all ships, all freight cars, >and all locomotives." > >I suggest that you read these last four lines once again; it will help you >understand what is fascism. > >>These are the official opinions Mike Friedman > I can think of a whole bunch of other countries that did about the same thing when about to be defeated, except some of the things you mention were not yet invented. (e.g. the same Russians burnt Moscow when Napoleon entered it) In the early thirties hunger was artificially created in Ukraine, at the time the country needed the fod and people to rebuild it after the civil war. Now, the private food suppliers are consistantly molasted even after the official permission, while the food shortages caused the card system to be activated even in the larger cities (some places never abolished it). All this can be said, even though some of your exemples come from Hitler's Nazi side (not fascist). Btw, this is inappropriate for this group, but I always enjoyed this trick: Can I conclude that you are absolutely opposed to qualifying Israel as a fascist state (it seems ALL of your criteria are suggesting that it is not)?