[The Immortal Goon]

I'd point you to the Trotsky quote above. The fascists aren't just capitalists, they're the party of the exploited petite bourgouisie. In this context, the bourgeoisie uses the fascist as it's battering ram against a rising proletariat. But once in control the petite-bourgeousie must fall back onto a kind of Bonapartism to stay in power, and then further surrender to the realities of finance capital, which it has not overthrown.

[mikema63]

So, long story short, fascism is jast capitalism by other means.

[The Immortal Goon]

It's a form of capitalism, in the same way the Jacobins in the French Revolution were capitalist (though one was revolutionary and the other reactionary). It's not the preferred form of capitalism for the bourgeousie, but can be a means to an end.

[Leninist]

WW2 certainly saved their asses in the 20th century. Without it capitalism would have collapsed long ago.

[Deutschmania]

What is referred to as the third position encompasses so many diverse currents of thought that it will be impossible to create a general critique of it, that would be altogether accurate. For example Strasserism, while still racist, and anti-liberal, does favor the establishment of a system of guild socialism, none the less. And I think that in the aftermath of the Soviet bloc's collapse, with Communism no longer being considered to be so much a threat, third positionism does tend to be mose so critical of liberal capitalism. So to some superficial extent anyway, there might sometimes be common cause between neofascists, and we Marxists. The difference being is that we are democratic proletarian international socialists, while they are still at the very least still despotic petit-bourgois feudal socialists.

[Varax]

Good discussion, I agree with most of what TIG said but would like to add a few things. While the class base of fascists derives itself heavily from petty-bourgeoisie and lumpen proles in practice once it is in power it partners heavily with the haute bourgeoisie and various reactionary elements. While it may not be the haute bourgeoisie’s preferred power structure for those who partner with the fascist state it can be very profitable. It often serves the interests of counter-revolution first and foremost by making socialists, communists and anarchists its first targets – openly and brutally destroying any kind of revolutionary working class movement. Fascists make out-groups the equivalent of non-citizens who are then bereft of any semblance of "rights" or "privileges" and thus are openly exploited as a source of slave labor and are ghettoized, deported or exterminated outright. Workers "lucky" enough to be part of the in-group are then instilled with all sort of nationalistic and jingoistic rhetoric, told that they are more "worthy" than the out-groups who are alienated and dehumanized. Total loyalty to the state is expected which also has the effect of total obedience to the allies of the state including the monopoly capitalists who make a comfortable arrangement for themselves. Thus the workers are instilled with a rigid industrial discipline, any labor organization is neutralized and subject to the control of the state via corporatism.

The jingoism and warmongering done conscripts large elements of the proletariat and lumpen proletariat into the armed forces. The focus on military leads to a large military industrial complex that favors certain companies. This combined with a large public works program is used to eliminate unemployment which further solidifies loyalty to the state. For weaker countries deemed "lesser" nations the fascists then are all too eager to launch imperialist wars - the resources of the other nations is expropriated, the monopoly capitalists can move in and get a fresh supply of slave labor and the land is taken to expand "living space" for the in-group.

So, long story short, fascism is jast capitalism by other means.

It is. It is heavily state driven monopoly capitalism. While again the preferred superstructure of capitalism is a parliamentary or presidential republic, fascism can be very profitable for certain business interests. By co-operating with the fascist state businesses have enormous control to exploit out-group slave labor, have total control over workers, benefit from state support and can concentrate power over rivals.

However, this arrangement rarely lasts long. Fascism has a tendency to burn itself out very quickly as witnesses by launching aggressive military campaigns where it often bites off more than it can chew and losing. Otherwise fascism is often weak in terms of succession so after the immediate threat of a revolution is past the ruling clique will eventually die out or be removed and the bourgeoisie will return to their preferred form of presidential or parliamentary governance.

The increasingly global aspects of capitalism post it at odds with the nationalist and ethnocentric positions of fascism and the third position. So in this light who can see that ruling class usually regards the far-right as a nuisance and obstacle to increasingly multinational capital. Fascists are simply cast into a reactionary mode in which they are against the tide of history both with regards to international capital and the corresponding international nature of the working class. They may achieve temporary victories in a few countries but these tend to be short lived and often a tool used by the bourgeoisie in countries where they feel their power is threatened. After they feel that threat has passed they are then discarded or in the case of WW2 destroyed when it gets out of control and runs afoul of both other capitalist countries and socialists alike who then make it their business to put it down. Fascism then tends to be a speed bump when it comes to international capitalism in today's world.

[Ombrageux]

While I'm not a Marxist, I think the response would be that Third Positionism is one more tactic the bourgeoisie can use to delay their inevitable liquidation as a class. No matter how much glowing rhetoric you throw at it, ultimately class collaborationism is unsustainable. Nationalism can unite the classes for a period of time, but it can't stop the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and eventually the contradictions of capital accumulation will come back with a vengeance.

What do you mean by "inevitable liquidation as a class"? I can see that Fascism can be a useful form for bourgeois power when there is a viable threat to them, even if the Fascists taken on a life of their and can force the bourgeois to submit, but what is "inevitable" about it? What strikes me as inevitable, given the current level of technology and the complexity of our society, is the existence of ruling elites, typically with bourgeois features.

[The Immortal Goon]

Relevant:


From Adam Tooze, The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy.





Source.

[Paradigm]

What do you mean by "inevitable liquidation as a class"? I can see that Fascism can be a useful form for bourgeois power when there is a viable threat to them, even if the Fascists taken on a life of their and can force the bourgeois to submit, but what is "inevitable" about it? What strikes me as inevitable, given the current level of technology and the complexity of our society, is the existence of ruling elites, typically with bourgeois features.

The bourgeoisie require the continuous accumulation of profit to maintain their existence as a class. As Marx pointed out (though he was far from the first to do so), the rate of profit has a natural tendency to fall, all else being equal. Fascism is a good means of staving off this tendency, but like all other such tools in their belt, it is only temporary. The rate of profit will eventually collapse to nothing, and the bourgeoisie will lose their standing as a class.

[Ombrageux]

I think history has discredited any mechanistic causal relation between "falling rate of profit" and "inevitable collapse of the bourgeoisie." But maybe we need to wait longer.

But I would say:
* The rate of profit sometimes recovers, depending on technological and other factors (demographic, colonial or other opportunies).
* When the rate of profit is low, this certainly leads to potentially regime-threatening contradictions (financial speculation to hide lack of profits, until the bubble blows, wealth concentration and oligarchization according to Thomas Piketty), but this does not necessarily destroy the regime or lead to a non-bourgeois regime.
* Bourgeois is certainly a useful ideal-type, but one shouldn't fetishize it. Ruling elites are, in the present state of things, inevitable and these elites tend to have bourgeois characteristics (just look at mass Marxist parties themselves: always dominated by déclassés, respectable middle classes, or even "champagne socialist" bourgeois). Societies also, given the centrality of individual rationality and economic self-interest, always have some market elements (including the USSR, via the black market). Some degree of market/bourgeois features is inevitable or, at least, it needs to be shown how the contradictions of a bourgeois regime inevitably lead to collapse and replacement by non-bourgeois regime. (I do not think Marx, for all his dialectical gusto, did so.)

So I think there's some potentially questionable assumptions in this assessment of Fascism.

[Quantum]

The Third Position is impossible because it assumes that labour and capital can ever co-exist without one dominating the other. Corporatism, like any variants of capitalism, will inevitably lead to the domination of capital and the erosion of democracy for workers. The illusion of class harmony will have to be maintained by creating a national mythology that workers can take pride in and to demonise other groups, such as racial minorities, homosexuals and political enemies to maintain bourgeois dominance.

I never seen a corporatist or Third Positionist not devolve into worshiping private property and not advocating the arrest of those who fight for the rights of workers, mainly socialists. Workers only receive tokenistic representation in the decision-making process, in exchange for giving up the right to strike, whilst preserving the unequal privileges that the bourgeoisie hold.