What is fascism? Anonymous 27-01-23 19:16:00 No. 17634 [Last 50 Posts]
I have struggled with this question a lot, particularly because many of the things that get called fascist are quite clearly, in my eyes, not unique to fascism from both sides of the political aisle (e.g. free market advocacy, socialism etc.) So, leftypol, is fascism truly everything I don't like?
Anonymous 27-01-23 19:18:23 No. 17636
>Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. Fascism rose to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. <The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries, most notably Germany. Fascism also had adherents outside of Europe. Opposed to anarchism, democracy, pluralism, liberalism, socialism and Marxism, fascism is placed on the far-right wing within the traditional left–right spectrum.
Anonymous 27-01-23 19:59:02 No. 17638
>>17634 Yeah pretty much. Its lack of a clear definition is one of its defining characteristics. Fascists take great pride in despising theories and well thought-out programs. They had some vague slogans that both capitalists and workers could squint at and project what they wanted onto it, but they didn't leave behind much in the way of a theory, their actual history was totally schizo, and fascist ideologues openly said at the time that their goal was to seize power first and then come up with a program. It's all "we're men of action." All that other stuff is just gonna muddle everything and prevent men from doing… action! Because moxie is in such short supply these days…
They openly embrace cynicism. ᴉuᴉlossnW said that no one was more relativistic than the fascists. They don't believe in "debate" other than a power flex. They don't believe in people reasoning together. They loved war and saw that as a source of spiritual renewal. In more industrialized countries with stronger socialist parties, they played up an anti-capitalist element, and in countries with less industry and weaker socialist parties, they downplayed it. They somehow managed to unite all the contradictions and antagonisms of their societies in a single point represented by a theatrical LEADER who promised that everything will change and all problems will be solved but nobody will have to change anything about themselves and their own group (except the Jews and communists or X other group who have to GTFO).
So that's the strength of fascism. That's also the weakness of fascism, since it's a reactionary system, and can only attempt to solve all of these contradictions by warfare. They want to improve the condition of the working class due to the anti-capitalist elements of their politics (which also helps get the working class to support the coming war), but the ultra-capitalist elements ensure that those conditions will go down anyways. They tend to support autarky, but want to conquer foreign markets and "take their oil." They want to preserve the middle classes as they are but also tinker with economic planning in league with large corporations that would ruin the middle classes. They want to go back to villages and WHEAT FIELDS but also want to boost heavy industry for the war effort. They don't just say one thing and do the other, they say both things and try to do both things which makes it an inherently schizo type of regime.
Anonymous 28-01-23 01:51:46 No. 17644
>>17634 Most anons have answered the question well enough since fascism defies most principles, and the one party that has taken power and has actually called themselves fascist (Italy) has been consistent about generally two things when describing themselves: the subsumption of the individual to the state in totalitarianism, and what they're against: democracy, liberalism, communism.
Fascism is generally a pretty hazy term that describes nothing aside from "right-wing dictatorship that isn't a traditional monarchy", and describes nothing about what they're actually for. Yet rightoids appeal to it all the time for different reasons that they project onto it, so the term itself isn't going anywhere. All that means is that fascism cannot be understood on its own terms. The only way to have anything close to an understanding of fascism is to see how it's functioned historically, and what it leads to. It was parasitical on the rise of socialism and worker consciousness, and when liberalism is eliminated as a real choice, it tends to be the bourgeoisie's second choice, despite, or because of, its tendency to eliminate the communist movements which are the most dangerous to them as a class.
Anonymous 28-01-23 04:57:16 No. 17648
>>17646 >colonialism come home This might be the best and most succinct way of putting it that I've seen.
Colonialism extended into the borders of the empire. Domestic colonialism / internal colonialism.
Most other attempts at descriptions rely too much on superstructural elements imo
Anonymous 28-01-23 05:31:07 No. 17649
>>17640 *Neoliberalisation
Fuck me
King Lear 28-01-23 05:58:07 No. 17652
My simple definition of Fascism has always been a One-Party State in the Capitalist Mode of Production, but if you want a more in-depth explanation of this definition you should read this highly informative article that clearly articulates the Maoist conception of Fascism
http://www.massline.org/Politics/ScottH/Fascism-MLM-Conception.pdf , ✊😜!
Anonymous 28-01-23 06:15:03 No. 17655
>>17653 That whole book is interesting because it's a Marxist work from the 1930s but it goes beyond the typical boilerplate. From "Chapter VI: The Conflict Between Capitalism and Socialism in Fascism."
https://www.marxists.org/subject/fascism/conze-wilkinson/ch26.htm Anonymous 28-01-23 06:24:38 No. 17657
So I've kind of spitballed a few definitions for Fascism before, but as other Anons here have said: it's really fucking vague. Honestly, I'd say it's more of a generic "vibe" than a more positive program. Like Oswald Mosley, IIRC, tried to lay out a specific Fascist economic and political program, but he was mostly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. You also have Fascists making some odd alliances. Like Peron (who was undeniably inspired by Fascism) was actually on pretty good terms with Salvadore Allende and seemed disturbed by Pinochet's seizure of power. Meanwhile Francisco Franco seemed to get along well enough with Fidel Castro. Because it's so abstract, every now and again you get a Fascist willing to make seemingly bizarre friendships/relationships because it's almost like a theater show.some direction. Any, really. And the theatrics of knowing what you're doing, of staying calm, and acting like you have a plan when you just picked a direction and started walking. Well that helps him keep the situation under control.
Anonymous 28-01-23 08:02:57 No. 17659
>>17634 Nobody here understands it, most scholars don't understand it, it's been distorted to history. If you want to understand it, read it straight from the horse's mouth: read Giovanni Gentile.
As concisely put as one can (and no I don't care about all the easily anticipatable snarky responses, none of you get it), fascism is a relativistic, idealist ideology concerning human empowerment under a totalitarian mode of collectivity and intersubjectivity. Under this pretext, ironically, fascism is an anti-essentialist, or 'radically constructivist' ideology operating under the most central criterion that one can do and make of their world, and, crucially, as well as of their abilities, whatever they will. On account of this anti-essentialism, the class model as being mechanistically determinative is rejected just as much as any other explanation, supplanting an alternative of collaborationism under the shared assumption of a self-constituting, self-accounting agential reality. When all of this is syncretized in tandem, you end up with the finalized, mediated expression of the nation-state as such. Modern fascists who lambast autism score testing, race realism, biological determinism, etc. don't understand what they're talking about in a political context and are just interested in being edgelords. If you qualify hitler as a fascist and don't bother on making the distinction between nazism and foundational fascism, then sure, they are consistent. If you do understand nazism to be a separate category though, then read it and weep:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/36762/36762-h/36762-h.htm Anonymous 28-01-23 13:03:14 No. 17678
>>17674 >Since 1945 Fuckin' Leninists.
>>17673 Fair enough.
>>17671 👆
>>17634 Fascism can be tied to the Romans and their successors but at the end of the day shit has gotten so out of hand and I'm pretty sure I got banned the last time I spoke about this, that I'll just say fascism is just what you don't like.
Anonymous 28-01-23 13:41:50 No. 17679
>>17634 First of all you cant define fascism based on what the fascoids say, you have to analyse them through class lens
Second of all , fascism isnt any millitant movement, not even all right wing larping movements.
>The fascist movement in Italy was a spontaneous movement of large masses, with new leaders from the rank and file. It is a plebian movement in origin, directed and financed by big capitalist powers. It issued forth from the petty bourgeoisie, the slum proletariat, and even to a certain extent from the proletarian masses; ᴉuᴉlossnW, a former socialist, is a “self-made” man arising from this movement. So the black hundreds of Lenins time who were sucking the boots of the royal family and of the aristocrats or any other movement who is sucking the cocks of any other bouj politician arent fascist and yes socdems and wtvr arent fascists either
Third question is weather fascists are inherently racists or wether fascism is some special for of nationalism ,fascism was chauvinistic from the start ,since the capitalists are always chauvinistic but all political ideologies that serve the capital can become chauvinistic.
>At the start of his political career, Hitler stood out only because of his big temperament a voice much louder than others, and an intellectual mediocrity much more self-assured. He did not bring into the movement any ready-made program, if one disregards the insulted soldier’s thirst for vengeance. Hitler began with grievances and complaints about the Versailles terms, the high cost of living, the lack of respect for a meritorious non-commissioned officer, and the plots of bankers and journalists of the Mosaic persuasion. There were in the country plenty of ruined and drowning people with scars and fresh bruises. They all wanted to thump with their fists on the table. This Hitler could do better than others. True, he knew not how to cure the evil. But his harangues resounded, now like commands and now like prayers addressed to inexorable fate. Doomed classes, like those fatally ill, never tire of making variations on their plaints nor of listening to consolations. Hitler’s speeches were all attuned to this pitch. Sentimental formlessness, absence of disciplined thought ignorance along with gaudy erudition – all these minuses turned into pluses. They supplied him with the possibility of uniting all types of dissatisfaction in the beggar’s bowl of National Socialism, and of leading the mass in the direction in which it pushed him. In the mind of the agitator was preserved, from among his early improvisations, whatever had met with approbation. His political thoughts were the fruits of oratorical acoustics. That is how the selection of slogans went on. That is how the program was consolidated. That is how the “leader” took shape out of the raw material. >On the plane of politics, racism is a vapid and bombastic variety of chauvinism in alliance with phrenology. As the ruined nobility sought solace in the gentility of its blood, so the pauperized petty bourgeoisie befuddles itself with fairy tales concerning the special superiorities of its race >The petty bourgeois is hostile to the idea of development, for development goes immutably against him; progress has brought him nothing except irredeemable debts. National Socialism rejects not only Marxism but Darwinism. The Nazis curse materialism because the victories of technology over nature have signified the triumph of large capital over small. The leaders of the movement are liquidating “intellectualism” because they themselves possess second- and third-rate intellects, and above all because their historic role does not permit them to pursue a single thought to its conclusion. The petty bourgeois needs a higher authority, which stands above matter and above history, and which is safeguarded from competition, inflation, crisis, and the auction block. To evolution, materialist thought, and rationalism – of the twentieth, nineteenth, and eighteenth centuries – is counterposed in his mind national idealism as the source of heroic inspiration. Hitler’s nation is the mythological shadow of the petty bourgeoisie itself, a pathetic delirium of a thousand-year Reich. TLDR:READ UYGHA READ
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330610.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm#p1 https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/lit_revo/ch04.htm Anonymous 28-01-23 16:07:41 No. 17682
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm >The genuine basis (for fascism) is the petty bourgeoisie. In italy, it has a very large base – the petty bourgeoisie of the towns and cities, and the peasantry. In Germany, likewise, there is a large base for fascism … >It may be said, and this is true to a certain extent, that the new middle class, the functionaries of the state, the private administrators, etc., can constitute such a base. But this is a new question that must be analyzed … >the fascist agency, by utilizing the petty bourgeoisie as a battering ram, by overwhelming all obstacles in its path, does a thorough job. After fascism is victorious, finance capital directly and immediately gathers into its hands, as in a vise of steel, all the organs and institutions of sovereignty, the executive administrative, and educational powers of the state: the entire state apparatus together with the army, the municipalities, the universities, the schools, the press, the trade unions, and the co-operatives. When a state turns fascist, it does not mean only that the forms and methods of government are changed in accordance the patterns set by ᴉuᴉlossnW – the changes in this sphere ultimately play a minor role – but it means first of all for the most part that the workers’ organizations are annihilated; that the proletariat is reduced to an amorphous state; and that a system of administration is created which penetrates deeply into the masses and which serves to frustrate the independent crystallization of the proletariat. Therein precisely is the gist of fascism … Anonymous 28-01-23 16:35:15 No. 17687
>>17657 >And when one considers Fascism as a war or soldiering ideology, well then a lot of things fall into place … because in a military setting you're expected, first and foremost, to follow orders. There's a great scene in the original Star Trek where Kirk Or like Kirk from the Mirror Universe who's evil and and carried out a coup of the Federation and became a fascist dictator. A military officer with masculine virility as a form of Caeserism. I think Hitler or one of the top Nazis said something too like "people don't need theories, they need someone to rule them."
You know an interesting contrast here is modern China where the would-be fascist warlords were put down by communists. Also ironically (?) Mao is more like a traditional Chinese ruler in the sense of being a literary type. He was a guerrilla but a lot of these stories of that time is "Chairman Mao giving his advice" and using his brains and strategy skills to help the generals win the battle. China had historically been ruled by literary bureaucrats who wrote stories about strong generals, but they also shat on the generals when things went wrong (for obvious reasons). The pen is mightier than the sword. A man with a sword can physically kill you. A man with a pen can shit on you for eternity.
>>17665 You can get some insights from him but I'd point out he's a fundamentally liberal and non-Marxist scholar which is why he focuses on this idealist concept IMO
Anonymous 28-01-23 17:03:02 No. 17688
>>17685 Holy shit!
Libya had a petit bourg class?!
Anonymous 28-01-23 17:36:13 No. 17690
>>17687 >>17657 Imo WW1 experiance is overstated , Sorel's Reflections on Violence was written in 1908
He influenced Marinetti who wrote the futurist manifesto in 1909 before even becoming a war correspondent .
In general italian fascoids while extremely chauvinistic and ready to serve in the millitary seem to self centered to support stratocracy ,their authoritarianism comes from their love of machines rather than from a millitary fetish, Marinetti even in street fights ,saw himself as a swashbuckler .
The nazis since they were nowere near as radical as their italian allies tied their paramillitarist to ww1 trauma and also jealousy since many SA members had fought only as freikorps or as office personel something often mocked by their rivals
Modern poltard love of fittnes aesthetics of various propaganda demostrations but those werent exclusive to the right (pic related)
Anonymous 28-01-23 17:52:02 No. 17692
The three definitions most useful for understanding fascism are as follows:>The open terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, chauvinist, and imperialist elements of finance capital. >Modern reactionary Caesarism >The application of colonial methods of rule to the metropole.
Anonymous 28-01-23 18:23:37 No. 17696
>>17692 This conflates way too many different forms of rule as belonging to merely one.
Fascism may have elements of autarky, but fascism is not strictly autarky itself. Same goes for its relationship with/to imperialism. Your post's definitions are just autarky and imperialism. If you believe fascism is merely the combination of the two, then you could have said so much more concisely.
Anonymous 28-01-23 18:52:20 No. 17699
>>17693 >I'm mostly going off what Evola described as Fascism understood
>The whole of society is mobilized to serve military ends. by this logic War Communism or FDR's wartime economy is also fascism
Anonymous 28-01-23 19:01:55 No. 17701
>>17657 Evola was a schizo who thought everything post 800bc was in some way degenerate(based on his readings of mythology)
His ideas became well known post ww2 in pro italian social republic circles of msi youth
Anonymous 31-01-23 05:33:05 No. 17705
>>17634 I’ve had it with the Nazlib glowie definitionfags
Fascism is when one section of the ruling class takes over a state and applies Malthusianism to stabilize the economy via authoritarian methods.
That’s it.
Anonymous 31-01-23 05:35:46 No. 17706
>>17705 (me)
The Democrats and the liberals in Burgerstan are more aligned with fascism these days than the GOP is.
Anonymous 31-01-23 05:57:45 No. 17708
>>17705 >I've had it with definitionfags <proceeds to give a definition, no less retarded (certainly much more) than the other ones in this thread huh is this the trve power of defying the anglobox? please teach me your skills
That said, focusing on definitions
is stupid, because behind every definition is a real thing that at one time didnt exist, then did exist, then ceased to exist again - and any number of other things with different names might take on similar aspects. The point of inquiry (if its useful at all) is to tell us about the material reality behind the name, allowing us to make connections to other similar things, as well as the context for a thing's existence and so on. Focusing on defining and re-defining a word is literally beyond pointless, no one has any better definition. One is good enough, it points generally as historical self-named fascism, and as many people pointed out through this thread, fascism is extremely tied to liberalism, capitalism, and the bourgeoisie (including petite-bourgeoisie, especially).
Honestly I think it's yet to be shown that fascism in its concrete existence is not a part of the normal functioning of capitalism. Of course it comes from capitalism, and historically tends to return to liberalism or have an uneasy relationship with power, but what's left out is the necessity of fascism. The prime liberal view of the essence of fascism is "inexplicable, excessive violence". This is what they think differentiates their worldview from the fascist one. I think they're correct, but not as correct as they think- the violence is obviously structural and necessary. The petite bourgeoisie couldn't fight back effectively against the big bourgeoisie, and so it attacked the working class. We see extreme repression in a fascistic manner in colonial countries. This doesnt mean fascism is colonialism in the imperial core, though, that is a silly way to frame things. The violence of fascism and colonialism are expressions of class struggle. Fascism is the bosses' offensive. And because of this it might be pointless to even consider fascism a thing distinct from "normally functioning" capitalism. In (class) war, there are always offensives on various fronts. Equally, there are retreats and stalemates. Liberalism is just as endemic to capitalism as fascism and colonialism. (interestingly as others pointed out, ideologically liberalism and fascism tend to be very similar, at least if you take new age liberals, or academic deconstructivist liberals, etc. Obviously at some point a thing turns into its opposite - but at the same time it may be less fruitful to hold onto this hegelian baggage of the "negation", when what's meant is "transformation"). When liberalism turns to fascism, the class war situation transforms. That's about its only significance. The minutia (fascist ideology, for example, fascist violence as opposed to liberal violence, fascist soldiers as opposed to liberal soldiers, fascism in its petite-bourgeois versus bourgeois character) are pretty much totally irrelevant and distractions, except insofar as the ideas have to be combated with superior information and theory, to dispel their stupid relativist/pragmatist philosophy, their shcizo use of historical mythological narratives, and most of all highlighting the class collaboration in their ideas and why it means only the suppression of the working class. (to be clear tho class collaboration is also present in liberalism, fascism only takes it further in promoting it absolutely, and with much prejudice). This is why there can be no alliance with "left-wing fascism", its at best extreme opportunism deriving from the academic and petite-bourgeois classes.
SabinyAk 31-01-23 05:59:49 No. 17709
>>17641 ideally fascism would be a centralized system based on mantaining hegemony.
in theory the strong get stronger and the weak get crushed
however, considering most fascist leaders have been weak closet faggots and federal agents.
in reality fascism looks more like capitalism where the oligarchs who are the weakest individuals mantain all the power and the working class are crushed every day
if you can survive being crushed every day you're strong and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise
if the situation was hopeless their propaganda would be useless
Anonymous 26-02-23 19:38:23 No. 17715
>>17634 "Fascism" comes from "fasci", which is the log and axe you posted. It symbolises the collection of a people, called by gentile, "the socius", the essential/spiritual harmony of a people, which typically entails race, and also class collaboration.
Corporatism, the fascist model, views society as a body, with different sectors accomplishing different tasks, the leadership occupying the "intelligensia", or "head" of state.
To mussolini all things revolve around the state, and so all things must become "nationalized" as an aesthetic and mode of production, which leads to many public organizations forwarding the national will.
Particular to fascism too is often a revival of paganism and a fetish for war. ᴉuᴉlossnW and hitler both celebrated the martyrdom of fallen soldiers and saw peace as a non-negotiable term.
Anonymous 25-03-23 09:59:35 No. 17719
>>17634 Authoritarian capitalism.
/thread
Anonymous 03-04-23 07:59:50 No. 17720
I figured I'd bump the thread with an update to share some disorganized thoughts as I try to dissect Fascism. I'm analyzing it from the works they wrote about themselves and will hopefully have a more thorough essay in the works eventually.energy was clearly there.
Anonymous 03-04-23 10:56:55 No. 17726
>>17725 It's an average post, before people like you arrived that didn't even try to read the books, the theory. Treating mere flags like spectacular identities of ecelebs you root for. How do you have such low confidence in your own capacity? Get your shit together and start believing in yourself man, you are capable of growth, of literary acculturation.
Start small. Start with the shorter works or pamphlets of the authors you're already interested in. You would be surprised by the short length of some of Marx & Engels PDFs/ePUBs you sometimes skip the thumbnails of on here when they get shared.
After you get through those in a breeze you will be reading historical overviews of fascism with ease too, why wouldn't you? You're clearly interested in the topic. A big problem with the above CPUSA post is that he completely leaves out fascism's very contrasting ideological idealism, which makes them very distinct from the scientific socialist movement. He is also wrong about the "uniqueness" of "fascism's critique of democracy", as that can be traced to Sorel, which was a prominent figure in the labor movement that both revolutionary socialists, rev. syndicalists and fascists took inspiration from and which still echo through in today's Marxism via the likes of Gramsci, Mariategui and the people they inspired (not to mention today's anarcho-syndicalist federalism). If you read a historical overview of fascism, you will be supplied with whole knowledge like that. Eventually you'll
prefer consuming information through the rich medium of literature over watching halfassed youtube clips by cringy grifting retards that attempts to shorten, contract, reduce the information from the source material, dispensing with important context, chapters and details in the process, saturating the runtime instead with timewasting appeals to aesthetics, marketing techniques that you've seen a thousand times over already, product placement and nags for you to subscribe for his channel for the "part 2" that comes after this 5 minute video. A lot of the self-important flagfag posts on here are much closer in quality to that of a 5 minute youtube video than that of widely acclaimed authors of books with reshare value throughout time. and you shouldn't be treating them interchangeably like you just did with your parasocial gushing.
You can do it, comrade. The brain is plastic, unlike what the algorithms would have you feel in the short-term. Anonymous 03-04-23 11:31:37 No. 17727
It's a meaningless term. ᴉuᴉlossnW and the PNF themselves didn't really have an ideology aside from ultranationalism and imperialism. The Nazis were racial populists who attempted to create a colonial empire, but many other "fascist" movements weren't as concerned with creating colonies or even empires, preferring isolationism.Treccani Encyclopedia was written or basically inspired by Giovanni Gentile, but it reflected a late-Hegelian notion of the Absolute and Ethical State which was never fully realized by ᴉuᴉlossnW. ᴉuᴉlossnW did not have any philosophy: he had only rhetoric. He was a militant atheist at the beginning and later signed the Convention with the Church and welcomed the bishops who blessed the Fascist pennants. In his early anticlerical years, according to a likely legend, he once asked God, in order to prove His existence, to strike him down on the spot. Later, ᴉuᴉlossnW always cited the name of God in his speeches, and did not mind being called the Man of Providence. Ur-Fascism
Anonymous 03-04-23 17:52:36 No. 17746
>>17725 Glad you liked it
>>17726 I intend to read some Sorel; and if you've got early reactions from Marxists on Fascism, I'd be happy to check them out.
Anonymous 03-04-23 20:41:20 No. 17751
>>17685 >"Petit bourgeoisie" i.e. free peasantry Lol
Lmao even
Anonymous 03-04-23 23:41:25 No. 17754
>>17732 >How the fuck do you oppose it you fuckin brainlet with a gun
and if that don't work
use more gun You watch channel ZERO?! 08-05-23 04:27:50 No. 17756
>>17635 First post shit post.
Just because you haven't read their theory or don't respect it doesn't make it non-existent and unanalyzable.
>but evola was a fucking schizo Yes.
Anonymous 08-05-23 06:36:24 No. 17758
>>17659 >If you do understand nazism to be a separate category though, then read it and weep: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/36762/36762-h/36762-h.htm That's 200 pages of shit I ain't got time to read all of. Which section supports your argument that Hitler's Nazism is consistent with foundational fascism? Or, to approach it another way, what arguments does it preempt?
It's a stretch to consider them as forks. It's more just an unintentional caricature parody of Nazi Germany through the lens of each side's propaganda. At least outside of Europe, I'm not sure how different it is there. But it's certainly built around edginess and aesthetics rather than any philosophy or socio-economic theories.
Anonymous 08-05-23 06:42:13 No. 17760
>>17634 Fascism is not a coherent ideology, though it is defined by certain invariant characteristics. This is by no means an exhaustive list.
>Extreme Militarism; the military serves as a model of society >Xenophobia >Irredentism (Muh Roman empire, muh Reich, make murrica great again) > Jingoism or a sense of racial, ethnic, or cultural superiority > (often) Territorial expansionism > Führerprinzip, or leadership principle of hierarchical authoritarian control (model society on military ranks) > anti-equalitarianism, anti-democracy >Authoritarianism, statism > Anticommunism > Civic religionism (the state is a religious substitute) > Cult of masculinity; masculinist chauvinism ; contempt for woman, antifeminism > Imperialism > Weaponization of science > Demagoguery, appeals to emotion Anonymous 08-05-23 06:49:23 No. 17762
>>17761 >ᴉuᴉlossnW Idk wtf happened here!
I meant to type ᴉuᴉlossnW
Anonymous 08-05-23 07:01:20 No. 17765
>>17764 Yeah I got it the second time :p I was bamboozled.
>>17763 You're right, that is a property that should be listed as well. Scapegoating and resentment is an enduring attribute of fascism .
Fascism is often defined by emotional forces. This feeling of wounded pride, of stifled greatness. It's honestly pathetic . It's a great big hissy fit.
Anonymous 08-05-23 07:09:55 No. 17766
>>17726 Comrade, they asked you to save a good post, not
make a good post.
Anonymous 08-05-23 07:46:31 No. 17768
Saw the thread was bumped, popping in with an update. Next book I'm gonna try and get a hold of is "Fascism for The Million" by Oswald Mosley; I think he's an important enough figure in that he was, by my estimation, a real believer in Fascist doctrine and simultaneously was attempting to explain his ideas, in plain English, to win over the masses of the U.K.>The Socialization of The RSI
Anonymous 08-05-23 08:45:57 No. 17770
>>17634 >>17648 >>17646 I'm also partial to "colonialism turned inwards"
And the (schizo) ideology that supports it or is created to justify it, or emerges out of the material conditions of the internal colonialism (
>>17638 ).
By that measure, I think its fair to say that America is a fascist empire with a happy face. The place (disproportionally black) poor Americans have in the US is (to my understanding) basically internal colonialism, not even counting the prison slavery system, which is even more egregious.
When it enters crisis, then it drops the mask, and "liberalism enters decay". Which is all this anti-trans hysteria, tikitorch alt right bozos, incel mass shooters, police murdering people left and right, all that jazz. What was once under the surface comes into the surface, but the fascist system was already there.
Anonymous 08-05-23 09:00:49 No. 17771
>>17659 That seems to be the ideological grounding of the original fascist movement, but not necessarily what came of it.
It tracks with what the original fascists were doing, which was shit like free association, sex parties, and other libertine shit like that (maybe I'm getting details wrong, I don't know much). It also tracks with the idea of taking liberalism to its limits, and also why libertarians are so ideologically close to fascism.
Neoliberal ideology, including shit like Ayn Rand, Hayek, but particularly Thatcher, seem to me to be a new, updated and also retardo version of this "foundational fascism". The line "society doesn't exist, only individuals", puts the individual at the center of the creation of the brave new world that was also promised by neoliberals, of the wonders of human reason, science, industry, all when man is a master of his own domain.
Does that make any sense?
Anonymous 21-05-23 18:07:41 No. 17774
>>17772 O
Fascism is authoritarian capitalism.
Anonymous 21-05-23 22:21:44 No. 17775
>>17659 >under a totalitarian mode of collectivity and intersubjectivity very important. to make it more succinct, fascism is the idea that the state furnishes an otherwise abstract ego with substantiality, and furthermore it must mediate all contradictions. that second point is motivated by a a moral constructivism that is rigorous until it begins to conflate the spiritual socius with the actual state. from all of this class collaborationism naturally follows. at the end of the day they didnt take marx's criticsms of hegel's philosophy of right seriously enough which is strange given the fact that gentile has read marx though perhaps not enough
>>17773 fascism is basically a sort of state syndicalism if you think about it
Anonymous 21-05-23 22:57:24 No. 17779
>>17776 oh course, and i have read some of gentile's criticism of marxism, but it doesn't seem to at all touch marx's critique of institutions. perhaps i have not read enough gentile
>>17775 oh yeah might as well link some stuff:
https://fascio.substack.com/p/the-anarchist-and-fascist-overlap?s=r >Italian syndicalists viewed social revolution as a means for rapid transformation to provide “superior productivity,” and if this economic abundance failed to occur, there could be no meaningful social change. One of the means to bring about the social revolution was Imperialism to spur economic development. Which would attract many nationalists inspired by fellow revolutionaries like Gabriel D’Annunzio to the Fascist cause. The emphasis by syndicalists towards the importance of “producerism” was originally argued by Sorel in 1907, who argued that Marx considers that a revolution by a proletariat of producers who have acquired economic capacity. They were referring to when Marx reminded his colleague that; “material conditions necessary for the emancipation of the proletariat” therefore must be spontaneously generated by the development of capitalism. A. James Gregor talks about in his book Italian Fascism and Developmental Dictatorship and it’s what motivated the original Manifesto of The Italian Fasces of Combat. >[…] The Fascists believed with Sorel they found in Marxism a plan of developmental historic ends to bring about worker control of the means of production by direct action. Meaning the intellectuals of syndicalism came to the realization that Italy’s primitive economy could facilitate neither socialism nor abundance for society. Without a mature industry developed by the bourgeois class, they came to understand that a successful social revolution required the support of “classless” revolutionaries, collaboration, and war. ᴉuᴉlossnW, along with Italian syndicalists, nationalists and futurists, contended that those revolutionaries would be Fascists. According to ᴉuᴉlossnW and other syndicalist theoreticians, Fascism would be “the socialism of proletarian nations.” The Futurists, some of whom were Fascists, talked favorably of Renzo Novatore, a prominent Anarcho-Individualist writer >[…] This revolutionary nature of Fascism from its anarchist and syndicalist origins, was therefore following a goal of its development for economic socialization. The economic policy of Corporatism for Fascism was in fact just Nationalized-Syndicalism an inversion of anarcho-syndicalism. Leading people like the musician Douglas Pearce to say this: <“The way I understand it is that, to paraphrase ᴉuᴉlossnW, the Fascists are the real anarchists for they truly did do exactly what they wanted. Libertarianism and Fascism are bedfellows no matter how some people might find that repugnant.” https://fascio.substack.com/p/giovanni-gentle-philosophy-introduction <For Fascism, on the contrary, the State is a wholly spiritual creation. It is a national State, because from the Fascist point of view, the nation itself is a creation of the mind and is not a material presupposition, it is not a datum of nature. The nation, says the Fascist, is never really made; neither, therefore, can the State attain an absolute form, since it is merely the nation in the latter’s concrete, political manifestation. For the Fascist, the State is always in fieri. It is in our hands, wholly, hence our very serious responsibility towards it. >[…] As the act of thinking constitutes reality, collective thinking constitutes collective reality that is manifest in the State (defined in spiritual terms as a higher subjectivity or greater Mind). All individuals are constituted in the Spiritual State, meaning that individuals (subject) and the State as Spirit (object) constitute a single, organic whole. There is thus no distinction between society (as a collection of atomic individuals) and State (representing the higher Mind or Spirit). The individual is not subject to the State (as in the classic formulation of authoritarianism), nor is the State subject to the individual (as in the classic formulation of liberalism). Rather, the State is the individual, and the individual is the State. The State is not merely an abstract, external object; you are part of the State, and the State is part of you. That is to say, it is the Aufhebung (sublation) of the two >[…] To Gentile, Marx's externalizing of the dialectic was essentially a fetishistic mysticism. Though when viewed externally thus, it followed that Marx could then make claims to the effect of what State or condition the dialectic objectively existed in history, a posteriori of where an individual's opinion was while comporting oneself to the totalized whole of society. i.e. people themselves could by such a view be ideological 'backwards' and left behind from the current State of the dialectic and not themselves be part of what is actively creating the dialectic as-it-is. >Gentile thought this was absurd and that there was no 'positive' independently existing dialectical object. Rather, the dialectic was natural to the State, as-it-is, which means that the interests composing the State are composing the dialectic by their living organic process of holding oppositional views within that State, and unified therein [emphasis added]. It being the mean condition of those interests as ever they exist. Even criminality is unified as a necessarily dialectic to be subsumed into the State and creation and natural outlet of the dialectic of the positive State as ever it is in these last two paragraphs i just pasted, we can see the idea that the state must somehow mediate contradictions. i guess he does sort of criticize marx here, idk where gentile writes this criticism though
https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/51160/1/2013WakefieldJPhD.pdf >For her (potentially flawed) will to generate moral claims, it must be ‘resolved into the universal [will]’ manifest in her ‘moral conscience.’31 This is achieved dialectically by reference to the ‘society inside the person’ (la società in interiore homine) >[…] A more elaborate explanation is offered in Gentile’s last book, Genesi, where he describes the ‘internal dialogue’ taking place in the ‘transcendental society’38 comprising the ego, or the narrowly personal part of S’s identity, as she considers her particular interests and circumstances; and the ‘socius,’ or the part voiced by other people as a whole,39 which presents itself to S as an ‘alter-ego [which] joins [her] in a dialogue, speaking and listening as [her] partner in life’s drama.’ This ‘dialogue’ between these two abstract parts of S’s ‘absolutely social’ identity enables her to identify the demands of her conscience, or the universal will, and distinguish these from the contrary demands of her internal and external enemies >[…] Gennaro Sasso argues that Gentile’s identification of the universal will with the (political) state is wholly unjustified and ultimately damaging to actual idealism’s credibility as a moral and social philosophy. S does not recognise the authority of the universal spirit’s will and align hers with it through the internal dialogue. Instead the universal spirit’s will (which is really the will of a dictator or equivalent political executive) replaces S’s will. There is no negotiation or justification or recognition; S’s will does not come into the equation. Under these circumstances it is senseless to talk about an ethical state, individual freedom, or even the state’s ‘interiority.’ Where the state is deaf to the individual will, yet possesses a will of its own, to which S is forced to submit irrespective of what she personally wills, the only meaningful will is external, possessed by a person whose arbitrary identity is only obscured by Gentile’s spiritual posturing >[…] [T]he real shipwreck of actualism came when Gentile began to confound the ideal of the self-constitutive act of thought with the reality of fascist politics, with the result that he saw fascism as the necessary, universal and self-justifying outcome of history. At this point the norma sui principle, which otherwise would have formed the basis of a most tolerant philosophy, turned into its own opposite, and formed the basis of one of the most intolerant philosophies in history Anonymous 27-05-23 02:38:25 No. 17786
>>17775 >>fascism is basically a sort of state syndicalism if you think about it depends for example Falangism and Polish Falangism are both Syndicalist but Italian Fascism and Classical Fascism aren't but are instead corporatists and Nazis are just libertarian Socdems but racist also known as
'yellow socialists or pissoc as I like to call it.
Anonymous 27-05-23 02:48:36 No. 17788
>>17787 did you have to read his shit?
because I had to
also did,t say fascism is corporatism I just said fascist economics are about corporatism 1479459
Anonymous 27-05-23 03:05:21 No. 17789
>>17788 the comment wasnt directed at you im just wondering if he ever directly connected fascism to corporatism… besides that fake quote
your comment just reminded me of the corporatism thing
Anonymous 28-05-23 21:35:49 No. 17803
>>17801 Shitty imitations on their part
Go with the OG
Anonymous 28-05-23 21:43:30 No. 17807
>>17805 Yes it is
Quite clearly
Anon is just being weird for no reason
Anonymous 28-05-23 21:58:43 No. 17809
>>17808 all of the world's evil can be traced back to an insecure manlet trying to overcompensate
eliminate manlets and you will eliminate fascism
(14 c,d,e,g) Anonymous 28-05-23 23:03:47 No. 17815
>>17814 Bro the heights are literally written on them
Are u okay?
Anonymous 30-05-23 04:59:53 No. 17817
So I'm still reading "Talks with ᴉuᴉlossnW" and, for comparison's sake, I skimmed "Mein Kampf" once.Fuck it just hit me: Hitler is his followers. He's some weird neet, "wronged by the world" who thinks having artistic or creative passions gives him "depth" that the "normies" just don't have. Mein Kampf's a rambling school shooter screed. Every last one of those little Patriot Front dweebs is a little Hitler. If we ever get some clownworld 4th Reich Nazi state, the next Fuhrer is going to write a rambling book about being beat up by Antifa or getting radicalized by some twitter spat.realize that even if it's only subconsciously. "Hey kids: here's a guy who couldn't make friends, couldn't get pussy, and was adrift and directionless in the world. And look at all he accomplished!"
Anonymous 30-05-23 22:59:47 No. 17819
>>17634 Fascism is a violent attempt by lower middle classes and lumpenproles to stabilize, reset, and “purify” capitalism so it works in their favor.
/Thread
Anonymous 30-05-23 23:59:54 No. 17825
>>17823 > fascism is always driven by the porkies first and foremost T. Historical illiterate
Fascism has always originated from bands of former veterans and lower middle classes who hate capitalism for leaving them in the dumpster of history. Typically, they moderate their program over time to secure funding from the capitalist class, until they come to power, when they pick their old ideas back up. This is most evident in the case of Italy, where 75% of industry was nationalized by ᴉuᴉlossnW
Anonymous 31-05-23 00:12:15 No. 17827
>>17818 >>17821 Admittedly I was stoned when I wrote that post, and the moment I had that kind of "Aha!" was when ᴉuᴉlossnW talked about his time in the military.
Both he and Hitler showed some degree of personal courage on the battlefield. Though I'd argue Hitler was more suicidally reckless than brave. Both of them wound up getting treated in a military hospital. But whereas Hitler seems to have developed a kind of psychosomatic blindness brought on the sheer psychic trauma of Germany losing the war, ᴉuᴉlossnW describes being confined to a military hospital and hearing artillery firing all around him, thinking at any moment: this could be it.
Honestly, ᴉuᴉlossnW just seems more psychically grounded than Hitler ever was. Were it not for the monumentally stupid decision to follow the Nazis into the abyss, I imagine he could've kept the Fascist regime semi-stable.
Anonymous 31-05-23 02:24:33 No. 17833
>>17829 Haha, well while I'm not sure of that, I figure I'd throw a few… interesting quotations from "Talks With ᴉuᴉlossnW" out here to get an idea of how his personality comes across:
Upon discussing his father's imprisonment and his escape to Switzerland:
>"One does that sort of thing [get a job in manual labor] in mingled enthusiasm and despair; but perhaps rage is the dominant feeling. I had been infuriated by the sorrow of my parents; I had been humiliated at school; to espouse the cause of the revolution gave hope to a young man who felt himself disinherited. It was inevitable that I should become a Socialist ultra, a Blanquist, indeed a Communist. I carried about a medallion with Marx's head in it in my pocket. I think I regarded it as a sort of Talisman." <"What do you think of Marx now when you look at such a medallion?" >"That he had a profound critical intelligence and was in some sense even a prophet." On being held up in a military hospital:
<"Is it true that when they performed a necessary operation, you refused to take Chloroform?" >"I wanted to keep an eye on what the Surgeons were doing." When discussing his expulsion from the Socialist Party:
<"I have been told that when the Party expelled you, you shouted, in answer to the hissing and invective which arose from all parts of the hall, 'You hate me because you still love me!' That was a fine saying. I suppose it really happened?" >ᴉuᴉlossnW nods Anonymous 31-05-23 13:12:50 No. 17835
>>17817 >He's some weird neet, "wronged by the world" who thinks having artistic or creative passions gives him "depth" that the "normies" just don't have. Failures make up the reaction. This has been a known fact since the conception of it.
There are exceptions, in the NSDAP for example there was Göring, who used to be an ace pilot.
Anonymous 03-06-23 18:08:50 No. 17839
>>17817 Hitler had childhood friends, including August Kubizek, an Austrian composer that wrote a book on his experiences with Hitler in the 50s
I don't know what angle you're trying to get at, both ᴉuᴉlossnW and Hitler were just very boring, standard petit-bourgeois who were thrown into politics by the collapse and crisis of that class
Anonymous 04-06-23 22:35:45 No. 17840
>>17839 I’m sure he had a couple, but from what I understand of Hitler’s personal life, he didn’t have much of a social upbringing. He had a crush but never actually dated anyone. He was a poor student who started skipping school. In Vienna his roommate would describe him being quiet, and then going on unhinged rants.
Like I don’t think Hitler’s personality can be described as “normal.” He was the prototypical psycho incel. Not necessarily the boring bureaucrat of Himmler. By contrast I’d say ᴉuᴉlossnW had a far healthier social development than Hitler.
Anonymous 04-06-23 23:11:40 No. 17843
>>17842 You already answered the question
This is why Bordiga said the only thing worse than fascism was anti-fascism
"If you don't follow norms and have a 'healthy' social life literally from childhood, you're basically Hitler"
Anonymous 05-06-23 01:08:43 No. 17846
>>17843 I think there’s some miscommunication going on here. I genuinely don’t know what you’re talking about.
I’m merely pointing out some of the features of Hitler’s early life, and how they appear to have affected his personality, and that personality was a major characteristic of the Nazi regime.
“Hitler as a boring petite-bourgeois bureaucrat” just isn’t an accurate analysis of his psychology. He missed key steps in his development and I don’t think that he would’ve been “any old normal German” and he not become Fuhrer. I believe he would’ve been a social recluse, a freak, and would’ve died in obscurity.
By contrasting that with ᴉuᴉlossnW, I think you can see an ideological difference between Nazism and Italian Fascism. ᴉuᴉlossnW
was concerned with ideological and economic matters; hence corporatism, hence his last testament proclaiming that Fascism isn’t “just capitalism in decay.” Because this was psychically important to ᴉuᴉlossnW. Hitler, by contrast, was content to surrender control of Germany’s economy to private industry. When he was about to die, he had no interest in “clearing his reputation for the next generation”, he wanted Germany to die with him.
As for comparing Hitler’s personality to many of his modern disciples, I think this can go a way towards explaining why the more repugnant and less intellectual of the pair has a major following all over the world, while ᴉuᴉlossnW’s acclaim is predominantly confined to Italy. There’s something perhaps universal about Hitler, or rather, Capitalist society can vomit out a million socially maladroit freaks who want to make the world pay. We’re just lucky that most blow their load on mass shootings or suicide rather than seizing power.
Anonymous 06-06-23 22:27:19 No. 17850
>>17847 Depends how you define "normal" I suppose. Maybe "typical" would be a better term.
I think there's some misunderstanding at least. I'm not saying anyone who was lonely or weird or otherwise "abnormal" is destined to become Hitler-like; if I was, well then I'd be condemning myself too. After all, I had a slightly similar childhood: strained relationship with my father, not too many friends growing up, not many long term relationships, so on.
I guess what I'm saying, is I think that there are certain milestones one can accomplish to have a broadly "healthy" (as in, pro-social) development. Having a strong relationship with both parents for example. Having a network of friends and acquaintances to socialize with. Having a lover. Sustained employment. All of these contribute towards making a person that's part of a greater social body.
As for why that is, I think its because when people don't have the company of others, they end up retreating to the company of their own mind. Now this isn't always a bad thing; plenty of Holy Men lived as hermits and there's a kind of intellectualism that can come from being alone with your thoughts. But when that isolation is seemingly forced on you (even if it's by your own inaction) then it can drive a person mad.
Take, for example, Hitler's hatred of Jews. I think the most shocking thing about it was how nihilistic it was. The awful truth about genocidal Nazism, is that it seems to have come about for no reason. I've tried researching it before, and I don't think there's a single negative encounter Hitler ever had with a Jew prior to the Holocaust. His first crush was Jewish. The doctor who treated his mother, for free mind you, was Jewish. His commanding officer during the war was Jewish. As silly as it is to think some Jew once cut Hitler off in traffic and so he decided he was going to commit genocide, it's almost baffling that Jews were the one people who showed this strange social recluse any kindness, and he responded with mass murder.
It wasn't even a lack of gratitude. Hitler made special exceptions for his old commanding officer and his mother's doctor. He could be
personally gracious, but to the Jewish people as a whole, he was a monster.
How'd he square the circle of Jews being nothing but kind to him and his desire to kill them all? If I had to guess, its because he was in this introvert's world for far too long. Remember, every single person we encounter on the street has a vast inner world. We only see what they want to show us. When a person is walking or driving or doing other non-social activities, they're still thinking. Ideas swim around their head. An introvert is merely someone who spends more time in this realm of ideas than out among other people.
So you have Hitler, he's sitting alone in some shitty apartment after selling his paintings to a bunch of tourists. And he's thinking. He's thinking. He keeps thinking. Next thing you know, he walks out of that room and he decides the Jews are the cause of all the ills in the world. There's no visible cause for his antisemitism, in just the same way that you'll have these /pol/ types spend 12 hours a day confined to their room, only communicating through the internet. As far as their parents know, their child was a good student, a bit quiet, but they thought they taught them right from wrong and explained life as best as they could. Somehow that kid became a Nazi; and no amount of pointing out how their cousins were Jewish or how their Jewish teacher was always their favorite can convince them otherwise. Because they've gone through a metamorphosis that took place entirely in the confines of their mind. And their fantasy world is closer to them than the real world could ever be.
One last thing I'd like to point out. Something that seems to be a recurring thing in the "quiet" White Supremacists, the ones that aren't shaving their head and loudly bellowing "Heil Hitler", is they're almost comically surrounded by the people they want to exterminate. There was a 4chan Greentext making the rounds of some "Nationalist" who got a new Muslim coworker and became friends with him, in part because he learned so much about Islamic culture through sheer immersion in hating it. He isn't out and out rude, and I'm sure the Muslim fellow considers him to be a good friend. I've heard people similarly claim that the notorious Antisemitic caricaturist, A. Wyatt Man, is close to tons of Jews. Again and again, among the people that would later go on to profess a kind of Nazism (Oswald Mosley and Ezra Pound come to mind) when called out on their rampant anti-semitism, they'll say something like "Oh, I don't hate hard-working, honest Jews! I think there can be good Jews! I only hate the bad ones!"
Some people would think that's the world's laziest excuse. Or that they're lying. I'd argue they may genuinely be telling the truth as they see it. They don't hate the Jews they encounter on a day-to-day basis, the friendly Jews, the
real Jews. They hate the Jews that are scrambling around their skull. The imaginary Jews they've reduced to a Demonic caricature. The slimy, hook-nosed, perverse, cunning Jews. If you lined up all the Jews they actually knew, and told them to push the button to the gas chamber, I think at least a few would find they didn't have it in them to do it. Maybe they'd justify it by saying "No no no, those are the GOOD Jews!"
But the fact is, when dealing with power as broad as passing laws; you don't distinguish between "good" and "bad." Once you punish a category, you punish all the people within that category. The thief that steals to feed his family is a thief and is dealt with like a thief.
The Nazis sentenced millions of good, hardworking, and kind Jews to their deaths. That they spared the ones they personally knew isn't a mark in their favor.
It's the ultimate absurdity of Nazism.
Anonymous 07-06-23 00:04:31 No. 17851
>>17850 >I guess what I'm saying, is I think that there are certain milestones one can accomplish to have a broadly "healthy" (as in, pro-social) development. Having a strong relationship with both parents for example. Having a network of friends and acquaintances to socialize with. Having a lover. Sustained employment. All of these contribute towards making a person that's part of a greater social body. Hahaha you'd have a lot in common with Nazi propaganda thinking this spooked sentimental bs
>Now this isn't always a bad thing; plenty of Holy Men lived as hermits and there's a kind of intellectualism that can come from being alone with your thoughts. Ah yes, Holy Men are the height of intellectualism
>How'd he square the circle of Jews being nothing but kind to him and his desire to kill them all? If I had to guess, its because he was in this introvert's world for far too long. Have you considered maybe there were larger political and social things happening which he became a representative face for due to no particular reason? That's not a thing that a self-proclaimed communist would consider?
Anonymous 07-06-23 00:19:57 No. 17852
>>17851 This kind of post is the exact kind of vulgar "materialism" endemic to people who get their Marxism from Memes and YouTube summaries than actually reading Marx.
The social environment classes and people engage in of course lends itself towards developing reactionary or progressive ideals. Do you even know what spooks mean?
Unique IPs: 97