*Sickle and Swastika: A Comparative Analysis* Nick Oskroba 03.23.2011
The development of communism and fascism both as ideologies and political movements provides perhaps two of the most significant political developments of the last two centuries. Both ideologies extend into realms far beyond mere political theory, being philosophical, economic, and social as well. Necessarily total in nature, these political phenomena involve society in its entirety; all classes of individuals are called into their formulations. Fascism and communism inhabit opposite ends of the political realm, however does this prove to be the case with regards to the practical manifestations thereof? This paper will endeavour to demonstrate that indeed these manifestations exhibit similarities in spite of their conflicting theoretical foundations. *note: however these similarities are the result of the USSR failing to adhere to communist theory This will be accomplished by first identifying the differing conceptions these ideologies have of social relations; the communist notion of the class struggle and the fascist notion of a supreme state. It will then be necessary to examine a historical example of communism and one of fascism, the U.S.S.R. and Italy of the inter-war era respectively provide these examples. With regards to communism, it is necessary to delimit the theoretical development thereof at various points of evolution. This will be accomplished beginning with Marxism, the ideology which gave birth to theoretical communism. Developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the mid 19th century, the essence of Marxism can be derived from The Communist Manifesto (1848). Within the first chapter “Bourgeois and Proletarians” Marx states “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” He elaborates on this concept of class struggles referring to historical examples: “In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.” From this it follows that class struggle entails hierarchy, and subjugation of the subordinate classes. These historical examples are complicated however, Marx writes of his epoch stating that it has a “...distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other – Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.” This simplification refers to the polarization of society into those who own the means of production – bourgeoisie – and those who operate them – proletariat. Whether this polarization continues in contemporary society or not is beyond the scope of this essay, it suffices to merely acknowledge the evident phenomena of income polarization globally in order to ascertain the validity of Marx’s claim. Marx states that the discovery of America and development of colonial trade as gave to commerce and industry “…an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.” Such impulse resulted in technological developments which revolutionized industrial production – steam being a primary example. Modern industry led to the rise of the modern bourgeoisie and the development of a global market providing adequate resources so that eventually had “…conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” This increasing acquisition of influence is unceasing, it seeks to expand in every possible direction: “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.” Such global expansion entails production on a scale hitherto unheard of in prior history, yet Marx postulates that the shear magnitude of productive forces – and their rate of expansion – threaten to undo bourgeois society. “Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule.” Marx cites the cyclical economic crises inherent to capitalism – that is to say the bourgeois mode of production – as an omen of the impending doom which the bourgeoisie face as a consequence of their own designs. “And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones.” The means through which the bourgeoisie avert these crises only serve to lay the foundations for further crises of even greater severity. While capitalism undergoes its cyclical crises it approaches ever further its inevitable end at the hands of revolting forces of production. Such forces of production are the seeds of destruction bourgeois social relations have themselves sown in their relentless pursuit of capital accumulation. Indeed the term ‘class struggle’ highlights the conflict that exists between these classes. Such class antagonism is evident considering the commoditization of labour; the reduction of workers to mere capital, placing them at the mercy of fluctuating markets, serves only to illicit a hostile disposition amongst the proletariat. Yet the hostile response necessary to culminate in the overthrow of bourgeois society is not initially present, it lacks severity, and above all: coordination. For these reasons, the development of proletariat resistance in class warfare involves of several stages of development which are outlined by Marx. In its infancy, the proletariat struggle is “…carried on by individual labourers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them.” The resistance in these instances is not directed against bourgeois production, but rather against other production, including but not limited to competing production – domestic or otherwise – in a vain attempt to “…restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.” At this point in the development of the proletariat the members of the class “…still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition.” Such competition directs the efforts of the class towards one another or against other elements of society such as the petit bourgeoisie instead of against the bourgeois social relations themselves. “But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more.” Through increasing polarization of society the proletariat continues to grow and develop, in response to the exploitation of the dominant class, resistance begins to develop. However, in order to challenge such a dominant class requires coordination; trade unions and other forms of collective action consequently begin to emerge. Coordination is facilitated to a greater extent by constantly improving communication infrastructure – itself a product of bourgeois society. In spite of the development of directed action, internal competition continues to rob the proletariat of a crucial objective: the formation of a coherent class which can then create a political party. Such a political party would then seek to establish the control of the proletariat over the means of production, however Marx maintains that this is only possible through the destruction of all previous modes of production – that is to say, the destruction of all previous arrangements of social relations, including the current bourgeois society of which the proletariat are a part. To summarize, the progression of bourgeois society towards its inevitable end can be delineated as follows. First, it must be noted that the bourgeoisie derive their dominance from the constant accumulation of capital. Capital is derived from wage labour which exists inexpensively due to competition. The increasingly global nature of production substitutes the isolating internal competition of the proletariat with collective action. This collective action then facilitates the development of a coherent class capable of overthrowing bourgeois society, a class that exists only as a result of the conditions of bourgeois dominance, the need for accumulating capital. Such self-imposed destruction leads Marx to believe that the bourgeoisie’s “…fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.” Fascism emerged nearly a century after communism amidst the same strife of the historical context. The industrial revolution precipitated many drastic changes in society and these volatile social phenomena demanded of fascism attention to many of the same issues as communism. The Doctrine of Fascism (1932) provides an articulation of the principles of fascism by Giovanni Gentile although it is generally credited to Benito Mussolini – and will be so attributed for the purposes of this essay. Benito Mussolini was born 1883, he became an Italian socialist and journalist until WWI when a schism occurred among Italian socialists as a result of the disagreement over whether Italy should join the war effort. Thereafter, Mussolini departed down a path that would lead him to develop fascism theoretically and implement it politically. According to Mussolini, an understanding of the empirical manifestations of Fascism – that is to say the institutions and social relations thereof – can only be obtained when fascism is “…considered in relation to its general attitude toward life. A spiritual attitude.” The development of fascism from a general spiritual attitude differs starkly from the meticulous theoretical deductions from which communism is derived. In spite of this many of the same units of social action in communist theory are considered in this attitude. The individual forms the barest component of a social class in communism, in fascism the individual is a mere constituent of a greater social manifestation: the sate. The state is also an actor subject to analysis in communism, but not as a manifestation of society in its entirety, but rather, as an institution which is subservient to the bourgeoisie. Whereas communist theory extends towards social and economic deductions, the spiritual attitude of fascism instead considers the metaphysical essence of society and the consequent moral and political implications. In addition to the individual and the state as social actors, fascism also considers the binding of individuals and generations by moral law. Such a bond encourages the repression of natural states where individuals pursue personal interest in their respective limited domains in favour of the higher pursuit of societal objectives which are deemed to be greater than any individual. In “…suppressing the instinct for life closed in a brief circle of pleasure, builds up a higher life, founded on duty, a life free from the limitations of time and space, in which the individual, by self-sacrifice, the renunciation of self-interest, by death itself, can achieve that purely spiritual existence in which his value as a man consists.” The ‘higher life’ and ‘spiritual existence’ refer to the supremacy of the state in fascist ideology; such existence is attained through pursuit of the ends of the state before ones own. “Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State.” Mussolini proceeds to label fascism as ‘totalitarian’ stating that the fascist state “…interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people.” In fascist society no individuals or groups exist outside the state. Mussolini explicitly notes that fascism is opposed to socialism due to the pursuit of a classless society and the focus on the class struggle it entails. Waging class war through labour unions is also unacceptable, however – in a brief acknowledgement of the common social relations from which these two ideologies emerged – it is noted that the concerns that led to the development of communism and the labour movement are legitimate. With this in mind, it is not the intention of fascist society to marginalize labour, rather, the objective is to coordinate with all elements of society to ‘harmonize interests’. The existence of classes is recognized as being a result of common interests among individuals but these classes are secondary to the state. The Marxist historical materialism which explains history in terms of class struggle is rejected by fascism: “Having denied historic materialism, which sees in men mere puppets on the surface of history, appearing and disappearing on the crest of the waves while in the depths the real directing forces move and work, Fascism also denies the immutable and irreparable character of the class struggle which is the natural outcome of this economic conception of history; above all it denies that the class struggle is the preponderating agent in social transformations.” Of the utopian culmination towards which the Marxist dialectic is destined Mussolini refutes all notions of possibility; to derive happiness from material means is similarly impossible. In essence, well being is not tantamount to happiness: man, unlike animal, needs spiritual fulfillment as well, and finds it in the service of the state. Fascism is also opposed to democracy “…which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number…” Democracy institutionalizes political opposition and thus prevents a unified state. Additionally, the democratic notion of equality contradicts the idea of a unified state, as unity requires a cohesive hierarchy: “…it asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men who cannot be leveled by any such mechanical and extrinsic device as universal suffrage.” According to the principles of fascism, there may be “No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State.” Essentially, the state is total, unified, and hierarchical: “…as the most powerful idea… which acts within the nation as the conscience and the will of a few, even of One, which ideal tends to become active within the conscience and the will of all…” The fascist state is thus “…a community historically perpetuating itself, a multitude unified by a single idea, which is the will to existence and to power: consciousness of itself, personality.” Thus far it has been demonstrated that similar context has yielded two very different ideologies, although the content of these ideologies concerns similar subject matter due to the conditions of the epoch. It is now necessary to examine the practical historical examples of these ideologies as they manifested themselves in the U.S.S.R. and Italy of the inter-war epoch. To begin with, communism underwent some ideological changes before manifesting itself in the U.S.S.R. It is essential to recall the earlier mention of the development of the proletariat, culminating in the overthrow of bourgeois society. Marx maintained that as capitalism increased in intensity, so too would the proletariat’s capacity, willingness, and need to revolt. It follows that only in the latter stages of capitalism would revolution foment. Social relations in Imperial Russia lagged behind, being feudal in nature. Thus the idea that advanced capitalism was requisite for proletarian revolution was modified by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin – a Russian revolutionary. He postulated that a revolutionary vanguard consisting of professional revolutionaries would be necessary to bring about revolution, and that this would be particularly necessary to bring about revolution in nations that were not sufficiently developed. The February Revolution in Russia took place in 1918; the result being Tsar Nicholas II was removed from power by a coalition of various political groups including the Russian communists or Bolsheviks. This was followed by a subsequent revolution known as the October Revolution wherein the Bolsheviks seized control of Petrograd, and subsequently fought a civil war for the domination of the remainder of Russia which lasted until 1922; unfortunately Lenin was severely wounded and died in 1924. After a power struggle, Joseph Stalin emerged as the leader of what was now the U.S.S.R. The dictatorship of the proletariat was intended to be a temporary phase in which the communist party would allocate the resources of advanced capitalism to bring about the classless society. This was not the case in the U.S.S.R. due to the aforementioned lack of industrial development; the proletariat would have only limited means of production to accomplish the transformation of their society. Stalin began immediately collectivizing production and centralizing the economy in what amounted to state controlled industrialization; implementing the first of his ‘five year plans’ bolstered industrial development greatly. It is at this point that a comparison can be made by the introduction of fascist Italy. The Partito Nazionale Fascista (PNF) was founded when the Mussolini called a national congress in Rome from November 7 to 10, 1921. “The new party was defined as ‘a revolutionary militia placed at the service of the nation. It follows a policy based on three principles: order, discipline, hierarchy.’” Mussolini and the fascists made their famous March on Rome during October 27-29, 1922 resulting in an invitation from Victor Emmanuel III, King of Italy, to Mussolini to “…come to Rome to lead a new parliamentary coalition as Prime Minister. Initially, while transforming Italy into a fascist state the now Prime Minister Mussolini led this coalition, but dictatorship was the ultimate objective. In 1925 power was consolidated; Mussolini’s aid orchestrated the kidnapping of the leader of the opposition and Mussolini used this as grounds for the dismissal of parliament and the assumption of complete executive control of the government. “ In September [1926] the first pillar of the corporate state was introduced, when a structure of national syndicalism was created for the economy. Twelve national syndicates were set up for the various branches of economic production, plus a thirteenth for professionals and artists. Employers and workers would be organizer in separate branches of each national syndicate. These were not yet integrated corporations, but a ministry of corporations was created to develop them. Eventually, in 1934, the national syndicates were replaced by twenty-two national corporations, structured much the same way. In 1927 an official Labor Charter was created, theoretically guaranteeing rights of Italian labor(sic).” Italy progressed further towards fascism in 1928 with the replacement of parliament with a legislative body consisting of four hundred representative selected through various public and private entities in order to achieve… “...‘organic unity’ through the representation of genuine social, economic, and professional interests, instead of the divisive special interests of individual voters and political parties. By 1938 the parliament would be further reorganized into an official Chamber of Fasces and Corporations… In September 1928 the Fascist Party Grand Council was officially made ‘the supreme organ that coordinates all activities of the regime,’ with the power to approve all deputies for the chamber and all statutes and policies of the party… Yet the Grand Council itself had no power to initiate anything; its utility was to give Mussolini more complete authority over his own party, now a state institution whose leaders were appointed by the Duce” Thus both Italy and the U.S.S.R. underwent serious social revolutions – although the former saw much more violence – and both revolutionary governments sought to assert greater control over their respective economies. Italy’s national syndicalism and the U.S.S.R.’s collectivized centralization served similar functions: they totally mobilized the economies of their nations and restructured them into a more unified hierarchy of administration, directed by a single impulse. A significant component of this similarity is the degree to which political power has been consolidated, reaching a magnitude such that the entirety of the state is at the disposal of the political leaders. However, the similarities between these nations however are not limited to these. The aforementioned supremacy and totality of the state in fascist society is characteristic of the ultra-nationalism fascism is so well known for. At first glance, to attempt to find similar elements within a socialist state appears to be an absurd endeavour. Communism is an international ideology; being global in nature, the class struggle transcends all political borders and hence nationalism is considered to be a product of bourgeois social relations. “The working men have no country… Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.” Stalin deviated from this theoretical principle, developing a policy of ‘socialism in one country’ which shifted focus from the long-term objective of global revolution to the more immediate one of strengthening the military and economic infrastructure of the nation. Furthermore, it entailed the pursuit of revolution – through the dictatorship of the proletariat – in the U.S.S.R. to the exclusion of all other nations. * Note: faces of janus => socialism in one country =nationalism * Note: faces of janus => Stalin = anti-semite * Note: Ultra-nationalism => racism => Carl Schmitt and the friend enemy distinction -socialism in one country vs. ultra-nationalism -cult of personality vs. leader principle -racism -Faces of Janus: communism and fascism are the same thing -Faces of Janus: wrong (incorrect) - Significant economic, institutional, and social similarities – between these nations – have been demonstrated thus far. However, the U.S.S.R. deviates too greatly from Marxist principle for one to be able to conclude that the similarities between this socialist nation and fascist Italy are evidence of common ideological ground. It is therefore, unacceptable to relate communism to fascism or to state that these ideologies are indistinguishable as is done in The Faces of Janus. It is necessary to remember that the U.S.S.R. was merely a socialist dictatorship – not even one of the proletariat – that may have espoused as its objective the creation of a classless society, but in reality made little effort in the way of creating a free and equal society *** -- Hasta siempre la Commandante SIthembewena Tsembeyi *Socialismo o Muerte...* -- You are subscribed. This footer can help you. Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this message. You can visit the group WEB SITE at http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, pages, files and membership. To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this address (repeat): [email protected] .
