Ask HN: Why is it ok for my uni to have a Marxism society but not a Fascism one?
37 comments
Is it actually against the rules to have a Fascist society? Or is there just not one?
I don't think there is a rule against it per say but just as a thought experiment, I don't think it would go down well. Perhaps a better question would be why is a Marxism society accepted?
> Perhaps a better question would be why is a Marxism society accepted?
Broadly, because Marxism isn't the same thing as Leninism and because non-Leninist Marxism, though it wanted more radical change, was a central source of ideas, organization, and activism in the movement from classical capitalism to the modern mixed economy throughout the developed world.
Broadly, because Marxism isn't the same thing as Leninism and because non-Leninist Marxism, though it wanted more radical change, was a central source of ideas, organization, and activism in the movement from classical capitalism to the modern mixed economy throughout the developed world.
I have read this sentence several times and I still don't understand what you are saying. Can you either expand or convey your thoughts in plainer English?
> it wanted more radical change, was a central source of ideas
You could say the same thing about Fascism
> it wanted more radical change, was a central source of ideas
You could say the same thing about Fascism
I'm sorry, I'm confused, are you claiming you didn't understand what I said about Marxism or that you did and it is equally true of fascism?
To attempt to dispense with either: Marxism very much was and Fascism very much was not an important source of ideas, activism, and organization driving the transition from relatively pure capitalism (“pure” in the sense of being essentially the dominant system in the developed West criticized under that name by Marx, not pure in the sense of embodying the post hoc idealistic rationalizations invented in response to criticism of that system) to the modern mixed economy.
To attempt to dispense with either: Marxism very much was and Fascism very much was not an important source of ideas, activism, and organization driving the transition from relatively pure capitalism (“pure” in the sense of being essentially the dominant system in the developed West criticized under that name by Marx, not pure in the sense of embodying the post hoc idealistic rationalizations invented in response to criticism of that system) to the modern mixed economy.
> why is a Marxism society accepted?
They explicitly seek to align themselves with disadvantaged persons which arises sympathy in the part of the audience and therefore attracts activists. Fascism on the other hand does not have this sympathetic attraction as its authoritarian nature is comparatively undisguised.
They explicitly seek to align themselves with disadvantaged persons which arises sympathy in the part of the audience and therefore attracts activists. Fascism on the other hand does not have this sympathetic attraction as its authoritarian nature is comparatively undisguised.
This is an excellent and simple answer. On the surface fascism doesn't hide what it is but the implementation of Marx's ideas require more than a cursory look to understand why they inevitably lead to mass mortality.
This of course is a lightning rod, but I'll give me perspective.
At a high level, Marxism is not the antithesis of Fascism, it is more so the antithesis of Capitalism. As such we might expect there to be plenty of influence in higher education for Capitalistic and Marxist thought given they are at least partially grounded in the economics of allocation of scarce resources.
Fascism has little grounding in economic theory nor in fostering discussions on how to allocate scarce resources. At some level Fascism offers no room for enlighten discussion at all. Fascism is a form of authoritarian ultra-nationalism that is inconsistent with contemporary higher education.
As such, we might reasonably expect that we might find Marxist and Capitalistic "societies" but not Fascist ones at universities. Even then, I imagine that many who would join a Marxist society actually believe and advocate for a form of cooperative socialism not a revolutionary one and stop well short of Communism.
At a high level, Marxism is not the antithesis of Fascism, it is more so the antithesis of Capitalism. As such we might expect there to be plenty of influence in higher education for Capitalistic and Marxist thought given they are at least partially grounded in the economics of allocation of scarce resources.
Fascism has little grounding in economic theory nor in fostering discussions on how to allocate scarce resources. At some level Fascism offers no room for enlighten discussion at all. Fascism is a form of authoritarian ultra-nationalism that is inconsistent with contemporary higher education.
As such, we might reasonably expect that we might find Marxist and Capitalistic "societies" but not Fascist ones at universities. Even then, I imagine that many who would join a Marxist society actually believe and advocate for a form of cooperative socialism not a revolutionary one and stop well short of Communism.
There is plenty of economics in Fascism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism
"Historians and other scholars disagree on the question of whether a specifically fascist type of economic policy can be said to exist."
"scholars argue that fascists had no economic ideology, but they did follow popular opinion"
If the experts cannot agree if a fascist type of economic policy can be said to exist how can you be so sure that one does?
"Historians and other scholars disagree on the question of whether a specifically fascist type of economic policy can be said to exist."
"scholars argue that fascists had no economic ideology, but they did follow popular opinion"
If the experts cannot agree if a fascist type of economic policy can be said to exist how can you be so sure that one does?
That's a bit different than saying that Fascism "has no grounding in economic theory nor in fostering discussions on how to allocate scarce resources".
Both Marxism and Fascism *can* provide valid discussions about economics and how to "allocate scarce resources".
So your argument that we can dismiss Fascism because it has no relation to economy is simply wrong.
Both Marxism and Fascism *can* provide valid discussions about economics and how to "allocate scarce resources".
So your argument that we can dismiss Fascism because it has no relation to economy is simply wrong.
>This of course is a lightning rod
I will admit this was a particularly barbed question, probably why it was flagged.
I like your answer although arguably reading about the Nazis you can generate a lot of discussion around it (obviously much of it counter-arguments). I think if a Marxism society can generate any discussion worth having, a fascism society could do the same?
>advocate for a form of cooperative socialism not a revolutionary one and stop well short of Communism
I think you'd be surprised considering the number of hammer and sickles social media posts and Che Guevara t-shirts.
I will admit this was a particularly barbed question, probably why it was flagged.
I like your answer although arguably reading about the Nazis you can generate a lot of discussion around it (obviously much of it counter-arguments). I think if a Marxism society can generate any discussion worth having, a fascism society could do the same?
>advocate for a form of cooperative socialism not a revolutionary one and stop well short of Communism
I think you'd be surprised considering the number of hammer and sickles social media posts and Che Guevara t-shirts.
There is also considerable room for argument as to the extent to which Marxism is inextricable from the crimes of Stalin or Capitalism is from the crimes of the Belgian Congo, whereas Fascism is defined to a considerable extent (at least in the minds of people) by its association with with mass murder.
True. When people starve to death, or die in prison, etc, under Marxist countries, the deaths are attributed to Marxism.
When the same happens in liberal, capitalist countries, or due to those countries imperialism, the deaths don't seem to be attributed to liberalism or capitalism.
When the same happens in liberal, capitalist countries, or due to those countries imperialism, the deaths don't seem to be attributed to liberalism or capitalism.
> When the same happens in liberal, capitalist countries, or due to those countries imperialism, the deaths don't seem to be attributed to liberalism or capitalism.
Probably because it wouldn’t make sense to attribute the effects of imperialism or anti-liberal, anti-capitalist policies to liberal capialism; whereas the Marxists took over specifically in the basis that they claimed to be able to have better living conditions and fewer deaths and less suffering than capitalism. Surely you can understand that we are interested in how poorly they have failed to live up to this promise.
Probably because it wouldn’t make sense to attribute the effects of imperialism or anti-liberal, anti-capitalist policies to liberal capialism; whereas the Marxists took over specifically in the basis that they claimed to be able to have better living conditions and fewer deaths and less suffering than capitalism. Surely you can understand that we are interested in how poorly they have failed to live up to this promise.
> effects of imperialism or anti-liberal, anti-capitalist policies to liberal capialism;
I don't what you're saying. Are you saying that imperialism is anti-capitalist?
I don't what you're saying. Are you saying that imperialism is anti-capitalist?
Yes, imperialism is where a government exerts political and economic control over another different country. Capitalism is a system of private ownership of the means of production. Clearly, these systems are in opposition.
That only happens if there is a meaningful separation between government and private owners or oligarchs. When one is actively involved in lobbying and introducing candidates whose agenda is favourable to them into government, the lines are blurred. Your definition is reductive.
> When one is actively involved in lobbying and introducing candidates whose agenda is favourable to them into government, the lines are blurred.
Capitalism requires private property. If you come up with a system “capitalism except we relax private property norms” then you’ve blurred the line right out of “capitalism” into fascism, communism, centrism, some other “-ism.”
> That only happens if there is a meaningful separation between government and private owners or oligarchs.
Yes, exactly. When the government expropriates property and gives it to friends of the people in government, its imperialist but not capitalist.
> Your definition is reductive.
Indeed.
Capitalism requires private property. If you come up with a system “capitalism except we relax private property norms” then you’ve blurred the line right out of “capitalism” into fascism, communism, centrism, some other “-ism.”
> That only happens if there is a meaningful separation between government and private owners or oligarchs.
Yes, exactly. When the government expropriates property and gives it to friends of the people in government, its imperialist but not capitalist.
> Your definition is reductive.
Indeed.
Capitalism fuels imperialism, and fascism.
Capitalism fuels everything because capitalism is the system where people consistently generate a surplus. The problem is social norms that permit fascist / imperialist /socialist systems to expropriate the value produced by capitalism.
Capitalism doesn't fuel everything. People do things for lots of reasons outside of money or generating surplus.
The problem isn't social norms. The problem is untethered capitalism allows concentrations of wealth and power with no check on it. Those capitalists then stoke fascism to retain power once material conditions have decayed enough due to that concentration of wealth.
The problem isn't social norms. The problem is untethered capitalism allows concentrations of wealth and power with no check on it. Those capitalists then stoke fascism to retain power once material conditions have decayed enough due to that concentration of wealth.
> People do things for lots of reasons outside of money or generating surplus.
They are able to choose to do those things because capitalism has created massive surpluses that allow people to survive on a relatively small amount of labor. This creates a surplus that can be directed towards leisure or given to the less fortunate.
> Capitalism doesn't fuel everything.
Its true there are a handful of susbsistence level societies that do not rely on capitalism for anything but they are in danger of being assimilated and exterminated. [0]
> The problem isn't social norms. The problem is untethered capitalism allows concentrations of wealth and power with no check on it.
While I disagree with you that is an accurate statement of the facts; surely you can see that allowing concentrations of wealth is a social norm that you consider to be a problem.
> Those capitalists then stoke fascism to retain power once material conditions have decayed enough due to that concentration of wealth.
The material conditions that result from capitalism are widespread prosperity; conditions deteriorate when the oligarchs convince you to allow them to use the government to redistribute the wealth of the middle class.
[0] https://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes
They are able to choose to do those things because capitalism has created massive surpluses that allow people to survive on a relatively small amount of labor. This creates a surplus that can be directed towards leisure or given to the less fortunate.
> Capitalism doesn't fuel everything.
Its true there are a handful of susbsistence level societies that do not rely on capitalism for anything but they are in danger of being assimilated and exterminated. [0]
> The problem isn't social norms. The problem is untethered capitalism allows concentrations of wealth and power with no check on it.
While I disagree with you that is an accurate statement of the facts; surely you can see that allowing concentrations of wealth is a social norm that you consider to be a problem.
> Those capitalists then stoke fascism to retain power once material conditions have decayed enough due to that concentration of wealth.
The material conditions that result from capitalism are widespread prosperity; conditions deteriorate when the oligarchs convince you to allow them to use the government to redistribute the wealth of the middle class.
[0] https://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes
Okay so capitalism bad -- what alternative do you propose? Because as far as I can tell capitalism is the best we have.
Think about what capitalism has brought us. More and more people on the planet are lifted out of poverty every year as a direct consequence of capitalism.
Why did the colonials, when they arrived in west Africa, find they had basically done nothing for thousands of years? Because they didn't have capitalism in my eyes. Capitalism brought you the computer you are typing on.
Think about what capitalism has brought us. More and more people on the planet are lifted out of poverty every year as a direct consequence of capitalism.
Why did the colonials, when they arrived in west Africa, find they had basically done nothing for thousands of years? Because they didn't have capitalism in my eyes. Capitalism brought you the computer you are typing on.
New one! Many denigrate Marxism because it aligns so well with fascism (state above all). Similarly, many vilify capitalism because it aligns so well with imperialism (let's get rich from Africa, Arabia, India, etc.).
What’s odd is calling it capitalism when its the same as the communism: you see something you want and you take it.
> You see something you want and you take it
Mantra of every bleeding heart capitalist since Adam Smith.
Mantra of every bleeding heart capitalist since Adam Smith.
> > You see something you want and you take it
> Mantra of every bleeding heart capitalist since Adam Smith.
>>> When the happiness or misery of others depends in any respect upon our conduct, we dare not, as self–love might suggest to us, prefer the interest of one to that of many.
>>> Avarice over-rates the difference between poverty and riches: ambition, that between a private and a public station: vain-glory, that between obscurity and extensive reputation. The person under the influence of any of those extravagant passions, is not only miserable in his actual situation, but is often disposed to disturb the peace of society, in order to arrive at that which he so foolishly admires. The slightest observation, however, might satisfy him, that, in all the ordinary situations of human life, a well-disposed mind may be equally calm, equally cheerful, and equally contented. Some of those situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others: but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardour which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice; or to corrupt the future tranquillity of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse from the horror of our own injustice.
>>> In ease of body and peace of mind, all the different ranks of life are nearly upon a level, and the beggar, who suns himself by the side of the highway, possesses that security which kings are fighting for.
>>> The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it.
>>> Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog.
>>> Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens.
>>> Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith
> Mantra of every bleeding heart capitalist since Adam Smith.
>>> When the happiness or misery of others depends in any respect upon our conduct, we dare not, as self–love might suggest to us, prefer the interest of one to that of many.
>>> Avarice over-rates the difference between poverty and riches: ambition, that between a private and a public station: vain-glory, that between obscurity and extensive reputation. The person under the influence of any of those extravagant passions, is not only miserable in his actual situation, but is often disposed to disturb the peace of society, in order to arrive at that which he so foolishly admires. The slightest observation, however, might satisfy him, that, in all the ordinary situations of human life, a well-disposed mind may be equally calm, equally cheerful, and equally contented. Some of those situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others: but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardour which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice; or to corrupt the future tranquillity of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse from the horror of our own injustice.
>>> In ease of body and peace of mind, all the different ranks of life are nearly upon a level, and the beggar, who suns himself by the side of the highway, possesses that security which kings are fighting for.
>>> The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it.
>>> Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog.
>>> Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens.
>>> Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith
Imperialism is often done for capitalism. Look at Hawaii for imperialism done for basically purely capitalist reasons.
It seems like in Hawaii they expropriated lots of people, which is a violation of private property. Private property is a necessary prerequisite for capitalism so I’m sure that it’s not correct to say that “imperialism is often done for capitalism” as its an oxymoron. “We had to destroy the village in order to save it”.
You're right, American incursions against native peoples and Mexico exhibit utter disregard for the sanctity of property rights. It's an egregious mischaracterization to call the U.S. a bastion of capitalism.
> American incursions against native peoples and Mexico exhibit utter disregard for the sanctity of property rights.
I would express this as “human rights” and I agree.
> It's an egregious mischaracterization to call the U.S. a bastion of capitalism
Agreed.
I would express this as “human rights” and I agree.
> It's an egregious mischaracterization to call the U.S. a bastion of capitalism
Agreed.
I don't think you have given an honest answer.
Fascism is just a modern riff on imperialism, which is old as the hills. As such, it is definitely something that should be studied and discussed from every possible angle.
And if it is a mistake (it is), you should have faith that these college kids will, upon closer examination, outgrow the sieg heil phase, and come out with a better understanding of politics & history.
OR, just keep suppressing everything with credentialed word salad, Streisand the hell out of it, and make it so that even the Jewish kids are denying the holocaust.
Fascism is just a modern riff on imperialism, which is old as the hills. As such, it is definitely something that should be studied and discussed from every possible angle.
And if it is a mistake (it is), you should have faith that these college kids will, upon closer examination, outgrow the sieg heil phase, and come out with a better understanding of politics & history.
OR, just keep suppressing everything with credentialed word salad, Streisand the hell out of it, and make it so that even the Jewish kids are denying the holocaust.
What the hell are you talking about?
inconsistent with contemporary higher education
These are the words of a bureaucrat doing battle, not a teacher.
These are the words of a bureaucrat doing battle, not a teacher.
Fascism is necessarily bad but Marxism is at least plausibly deniable
Have they just abstracted the deaths that lead from Marxist thinking and ignored them? Surely one could make the same argument for fascism. I am genuinely curious, because my university certainly won't give me the answer, nor the student union.