Leo I do not agree! It is not the more romantic leftists who deserve ridicule! Instead, I'd ridicule those who treat the writings of Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin as if these writings were inerrant scripture! Those who sorta regard certain political works as above criticism, as being perfect and divinely inspired, by God or the Devil?

Take "Foundations of Leninism" by Joseph Stalin, 3rd Australian edition, September 1944, forward by L L Sharkey ...

Certainly this work does discuss party organisation: its frankness about the sorts of Machiavellian strategy and tactics needed in the party the union movement and the wider working class movement to take on "the Quislings of the Nazi and Japanese espionage services" (from Sharkey's forward) is breathtaking and ever so sincere and honest!

Unfortunately the amoral methods of the Marxist Leninists then and thereafter meant that by killing the democratic method's credibility in the communist movement, they condemned Marxist Leninism to the dustbin of history!

The people who lost in the 1930's the anarcho-syndicalists had much better ideas of how to build a socialist outcome than these communists, much better and more attractive visions of how the outcome should be, and more likeable and moral methods of organisation too!!

Or take p77 "The Party Is Strengthened By Purging Itself Of Opportunist Elements": well what else can I say?

Interesting discussion.

Fascism and Marxism have important similarities but also important differences.

Both are collectivist (it was Hitler, Not Marx, who said society’s needs come before the individual’s needs), both see only one party as the authentic representative of the collective interest and rely heavily on the state to enforce it, both are based in dualist worldviews dominated by conflict between a favoured group and its enemies (classes or nations).

But, fascism has no interest in abolishing private property, the family, or the nation state – quite the reverse. While the state directed economic activity under Hitler, it was done in a corporatist model in which both business and unions were directed by the State.

Furthermore, in support that amany a leader has proven to have human failings, that a few leaders prove so bad they are best deposed as early as possible, and that no great leader's literature should be put on a pedestal as divinely inspired, that all political literature should be critically examined as to what practical lessons we should apply from said work to the situation at hand, one could rather cheekily comment that in 1956 a work of Marxist Leninist self criticism embodying much of this general position, to wit, "On Overcoming the Personality Cult and Its Consequences: Decision of the Central Committee, C.P.S.U. Moscow 1956" was published, because some of those who came to power after Stalin died and Beria was shot felt bad about Stalin's political crimes ...

p5.

"The existence of negative features arising from the personality cult was to their advantage," [Right wingers in the U.S.A.] "and they have tried to exploit them in the battle against socialism."

Unfortunately in the C.P.S.U. by 1956 the authoritarianism and hierarchy had set in, and the party was almost beyond reform.

That's why I take social democrat parliamentarianist classics such as Bernard Crick's "In Defence of Politics" so seriously. If insurrectionary politics seems self refuting, because of the dialectical reactions it provokes, the parliamentary road seems to my eyes not only possibly more fruitful but also, perhaps, more likely to lead to an attractive outcome, given that the parliamentary set of rules do offer a few chances to reformists of varying ideologies to achieve things ... Reformism might be the slow road, the long road, but if one takes it one can only wonder: will this lead anywhere?

The fact that Andrew Bolt simply does not understand
Marxism does not surprise me. Many people equate
Marxism with Communism.

When I studied sociology as part of my BA - Marx was regarded
as one of the most important nineteenth century social
thinkers. (Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber -
were the others). Marx wrote brilliantly on subjects as
broad and diverse as philosophy, economics, political
science, and history. He did not think of himself as a
sociologist, but his work is so rich in sociological insights
that he is now regarded as one of the most profound and
original sociological thinkers.

Millions of people accept his theories with almost religious
fervor, and modern socialist and communist movements owe
their inspiration directly to him.

It is important to realize, however, that Marxism is not the
same as communism. Marx would probably be dismayed at many
of the practices of communist movements, and he cannot be
held responsible for policies pursued in his name a century
after his death.

Even in his own lifetime, Marx was so appalled at the
various interpretations of his ideas by competing factions
that he declared, "I am not a Marxist."

To Marx, the task of the social scientist was mpt merely to
describe the world; it was to change it. Marx saw social
conflict and the inevitability of revolution. The key to
history, he believed is class conflict - the bitter struggle
between those who own the means of producing wealth and
those who do not. This contest, Marx claimed, would end
only with the overthrow of the ruling exploiters and the
establihsment of a free, humane, classless society.

Marx placed special emphasis on the economic base of society.
He argued that the character of virtually all other social
arrangements is shaped by the way goods are produced and by the
relationships that exist between those who work to produce
them and those who live off the production of others.

Modern sociologists, including many who reject other aspects
of Marx's theories, generally recognize the fundamental
influence of the economy on other areas of society.

Rhian,
You might also be interested in this article:
Who voted for the Nazis?
(electoral history of the National Socialist German Workers Party)
Dick Geary 1998
http://www.johndclare.net/Weimar6_Geary.htm

Speaking of calling people you disagree with maggots or cockroaches, this is precisely the kind of language that totalitarian regimes use to soften up their enemies as less than human for "righteous" ex-termination in the "name of the people", or as a necessary exercise in "cleansing" the body-politic from anti-social "enemies of the people".
A precise definition of fascist politics:
Applied patriarchal politics which is intrinsically hostile to any and everything to do with the Feminine or Pleasure Dome Principle, with Beauty, feeling-sensitivity, bodily pleasure, and spontaneous ecstasy.