You're viewing a single thread.
France is speedrunning this right now. Any time a liberal claims to be antifascist, ask them to explain why they think fascism exists and where it comes from, materially.
To be fair, if liberals were capable of material analysis then they would no longer be liberals.
Fair, lol
What does "material analysis" means in this context? What should I search to know more? I searched the term and only came up with chemistry topics.
Simply put, materialism — as opposed to idealism — is the idea that everything we do and experience as a society (our history, culture, politics, etc) is shaped by the material reality around us, rather than ideas.
"Material analysis" in this case therefore means analysing politics and history through this lens. And it's a fundamental component of socialism/marxism.
Simple diagram of how our material reality shapes our society
⠀
Yogthos is insulting liberals because liberalism is an idealist ideology that always eventually gives way to fascism when a capitalist state is (inevitably) in decay.
Thank you for the explanation. Hopefully I learn something from the reference you linked. I'll watch the video first before reading the literatures.
My original comment is meant to refer to the concept of Materialism, which contains the concepts of Marxist Dialectical and Historical Materialism. Materialism is a "reality-focused" branch of philosophy and analysis, contrasted with Idealism, which is idea-focused.
The connection to liberalism and fascism is because Liberalism is Idealist as opposed to Materialist. The Liberal answer to "where does fascism come from?" Would be "demagogues like Trump rising to power, racism, xenophobia, etc," yet when you ask why those ideas are present or not present, the Liberal cannot answer genuinely.
For Marxists, fascism is a consequence of Capitalism's decline, resulting in the Petty Bourgeois elements of society, ie the "Middle Class," sliding into worse conditions and allying with the Bourgeoisie against the Proletariat. In the Weimar Republic, Capitalism was declining and genuine Communism was gaining steam, with the KPD at the forefront and the SPD representing the moderate Socialists, so fascism gained power as a reaction. Communism and Socialism gained appeal among the Lower Classes while fascism gained power among the Liberals, ie the Middle and Upper Classes.
The other works listed by other commenters are great, but my personal favorite work on the subject is Elementary Principles of Philosophy.
In Nazi Germany
Weimar Republic
Yes, misspoke. Was refering to the eventual rise of the Nazis, not their period of control. Has been corrected now, thanks.
Thank you for taking the time to explain the topic to me. I appreciate it. I'll try to read the book.
No problem! DM me if you have any questions, or ask in one of the Marxist communities here, on Lemmygrad, or Hexbear.
You're very good at strawmanning arguments. I think most libs would just say that racism and xenophobia are inherent to tribalism, which is inherent to the human mind as an evolutionary trait. It can and should be overcome, but that doesn't change its innateness in our psyche.
"Human nature" is formed by societal norms, which are in turn formed by the present mode of production and thus material reality. Humans aren't racist by nature lmfao, such a dumb right wing assertion.
I never said anything about human nature. If you're interested in reading more I replied to another comment on this thread.
I think most libs would just say that racism and xenophobia are inherent to tribalism, which is inherent to the human mind as an evolutionary trait.
This is still Idealism. The concept of "Human Nature" is nebulous, and changes throughout history. Materialists assert that what is considered "Human Nature" is reinforced and created by Mode of Production, Liberals just claim Capitalism to be natural and the default state of humanity. The difference is that Materialists have historical evidence, whereas Liberalism stands against historical evidence.
You're strawmanning my argument. I never said anything about human nature. I said that tribalism, as a psychological principle, is inherent to humanity.
Here is an article which details some studies supporting this concept from a pop-sci website:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-reboot/202307/the-neuroscience-of-tribalism
Also, for somebody apparently on the side of historical evidence you seem to be ignoring the mountains of genocides and racially-based conflicts throughout our species' history.
I'm not saying racism is good. I'm saying that every time we see fascists come to power they have roughly a third of the population that supports them... is that just a coincidence or could there be a reason that the data is the same every time? I posit the reason that the data is the same every time is due, at least in large part, to human psychology.
Besides that, let's take this outside the concept of liberalism and capitalism, as race-based conflicts and genocides have occurred long before the creation of capitalist or liberal systems, which are truly an advent of the modern era.
You're strawmanning my argument. I never said anything about human nature. I said that tribalism, as a psychological principle, is inherent to humanity.
"I didn't say anything about Human Nature, I spoke about the Nature of Humanity!" What on Earth?
Also, for somebody apparently on the side of historical evidence you seem to be ignoring the mountains of genocides and racially-based conflicts throughout our species' history.
Not in the slightest have I ignored them. What's considered natural changes alongside Mode of Production.
I'm not saying racism is good. I'm saying that every time we see fascists come to power they have roughly a third of the population that supports them... is that just a coincidence or could there be a reason that the data is the same every time? I posit the reason that the data is the same every time is due, at least in large part, to human psychology.
You would be wrong. Fascism is a result of Class Collaborationism between the Petite Bourgeoisie and Bourgeoisie against the decline in Capitalism. Due to their class interests, as the Petite Bourgeoisie is proletarianized, it collaborates against the Proletariat as a response to Socialism. Your position is, again, Idealism.
Besides that, let's take this outside the concept of liberalism and capitalism, as race-based conflicts and genocides have occurred long before the creation of capitalist or liberal systems, which are truly an advent of the modern era.
Yes, again, Human Nature changes alongside Mode of Production.
Please provide some form of example or evidence for any of your points rather than fancy sounding words :)
The Weimar Republic saw small business owners and large corporations collaborating against the rising Communist and Socialist movements. It wasn't random or genetic selection, it was specific classes acting in their class interests.
What do you mean by human nature changing with Mode of Production? We have quantitative psychological data for a reason, and many of the fundamentals haven't changed since long before the industrial revolution, with many people still ascribing to classical Greek and Roman philosophies or philosophies first found in the Vedic Texts or Dead Sea Scrolls. Clearly then, if these philosophies are still so valuable to modern man, man's psyche cannot have changed significantly, even over such a vast amount of time and even vaster amounts of lifestyle change. I understand that when there is less competition for resources that people tend to be more generous, but that is always true regardless of the mode of production. A surplus is a surplus is a surplus, but when a large portion of the population becomes poor/impoverished, regardless of the state of the elite, that is when tribalistic tendencies most arise. I often see ideas that the elite somehow controls the narrative, which may very well be true today, but was much less so true in the early-mid 20th century.
What we had in Germany was a portion of the population that was predispositioned towards hatred/tribalism/xenophobia/whatever. These are the people that supported and voted for Hitler. Without them, Hitler doesn't have any chance of coming to power. By and large, these people were not bourgeois nor petit-bourgeois, but proletariat, often poor and uneducated. This is the most vulnerable psychological state to the type of culture war that Hitler waged, just as Trump does now, or Netanyahu. These ideas aren't simply implanted into people, but come as a result of hardships. When people are doing poorly, they are more likely to form small groups and turn on the whole. That is a constant throughout history, as it is generally more sustainable to be in a small group, even if it forgoes other luxuries.
To be sure there is often class collaborationism, but to say that is always how fascism arises is ridiculous. For example, Toussaint and Dessalines would return the freed slaves to forced plantation labor. Plantations the generals (and later king for Dessalines) now owned as a result of the war. Another example would be Modhi in India, where there's no real threat of class consciousness because of the historical prevalence of racism/casteism. Similarly, there's no communist threat to Netanyahu's government currently genociding Gazan Palestinians.
If we're taking a more historical definition of fascism rather than my more casual usage that's fine, but I'm gonna need to brush up on specific examples bc this is not entirely my area of expertise.
Necessary reading.
You could start here though.
The latter is probably a little easier to digest/dip your toes in. The former is the answer to your question.Material analysis is an analysis using the method of dialectical materialism and historical materialism.
To put in in a grossly oversimplified way, one of the most important concepts of dialectical materialism is that ideas aren't independent from society. Peoples don't pull ideas out of some Platonist void, their ideas are shaped by and consequences of the society and material conditions they live in.
For example, writing didn't appear just because some guy one day said "what if we drew funny shapes in clay and pretended the shapes are words?". When the first human societies started accumulating reserves of food, lumber, domestic animals and materials and to exchange these with other groups of humans, keeping track of everything was becoming a problem. The first writing systems were invented as a way to solve that problem, they figured out that by associating each resource with a symbol they could easily keep track of what they had and how much of it they had.
The same logic apply to fascism. Fascism didn't appear because some guy woke up one day and decided to be an asshole for no,reason. As the contradictions of capitalism worsened (contradictions are also a concept from dialectical materialism btw), peoples were becoming radicalized against capitalism and the bourgeoisie which created the threat of a potential revolution overthrowing capitalism, in order to protect capitalism from that threat, the petty bourgeoisie tried to hide the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat by fabricating a fake struggle against a group of the proletariat (typically a "race") that they could point to to divert attention from the class struggle.
This is what is meant in this context. Since liberalism is the main ideology of capitalism, when the contradictions of capitalism inevitably makes everything break down, liberals will either be radicalized to the left and stop being liberals, or defend capitalism to the end by slipping more and more to the right until they become indistinguishable from fascists.
Great explanation, thanks!
In this instance, the petty bourgeoisie are the Professional Managerial Class?
Yes but not only, small business owners, small landlords and "casual traders" who own some stocks but not enough to be considered rich or have influence in the company the stocks are from are also part of the petty bourgeoisie.
Generally, the petty bourgeoisie are peoples who technically own means of productions and may even have a few employee working for them, but don't make quite enough from that to not have to work anymore. They are constantly under the threat of being out-competed by larger businesses, especially corporations owned by the high bourgeoisie, and becoming a proletarian.
Basically, they are the subclass at the boundary between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. They are better off than the proletariat and own means of production and private property but are under constant threat to lose these privileges and become part of the proletariat, especially in time of crisis.
They are the source of the overwhelming majority of fascists as I've said, because they still benefit from capitalism and generally aspire to become part of the high bourgeoisie even tough they are very much the underdogs. The bourgeois state will intentionally let fascism grow unopposed so that if the bourgeoisie feels their privileges are threatened by working class movements, they can give power to the fascists who will crackdown on the proletariat and protect the capitalist system from being overthrown.
Thanks for the detailed explanation
Petty Bourgeoisie are generally Capital Owners that must also work, and are proletarianized in competition with the actual Bourgeoisie. Think shop owners.
The analysis of how materialistic wealth accumulates in control of very few people and how these people obtain said wealth.
For example, the vast majority of billionaires nowadays became billionaires by inheritance or by working with an already absurdly high inheritance. Often it's families where generations ago a man had an idea, worked on it, exploited the working class (absurd wealth can only be accumulated by exploitation) and the environment, and their heirs continued that, getting richer by each generation.