[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


 No.3250

There is a lot of confusion on what fascism is and what it means.

So I think It may be useful to clear things out by making a little general so it can be properly defined and pointed out.

I will start by laying some popular questions about it:
-What is Fascism? (or who best defined it)
-What is function of Fascism?
-Is Trump fascist? (if not, why and where he stands instead)
-What (if it exist) is Post-modern Fascism (/leftypol/s sugarboy Prolekult talked about it)
-Are there Fascist still around/what would take them for to rise up again?
-Does QAnon have any Fascist pararels?
-Some post-1945 historical examples of Fascism.
-Economics of Fascism.
-Flavours of Fascism (based on different material conditions, nations etc.).
-Fascist relations to Imperialism, can Fascist country be Imperialist?

 No.3252

>>3250
I think dimitrov has the best definition

 No.3273

Made an effort post about this on the main board but now its lost. Basically my take is this: fascism is a flawed concept, as it tries to describe a fusion between two competing and mutually contradicting concepts that try to use each other, or when one of them is just held up as a public ideological mask for the other. These two concepts in my personal pulled-from-the-ass terms would be corporatism and reactionary anarchism.
In short, the former is just a far more authoritarian dictatorship of the bourgeois - willing to curb personal freedoms, use excessive force and compromise on the ideal liberal traditions. In other words it is capitalism in decline, driven to desperation and using all its power structures to maintain the status quo. If we would consider this enough to be "fascist", then of course Mussolini's Italy, Third Reich and Franco's Spain would all still be fascist, however so would be states like Singapore, Pinocchio's Chile and to a large extent modern USA. This also means that "liberal" fascism exists, if the corporate state chooses to use more socially progressive ideology to try and justify their acts with, the Biden democrat-neocon gang might be a good example of this.
Then what about reactionary anarchism? Basically it is a collectivist ideology that values the community above all (which isn't good or "based" by the way), sometimes down to the minute regional level, but more often on the nationalist / race level. It also has a deep desire to revert back to the past, which is perceived as a glorious golden age, and thus it also shares all the batshit insane reactionary ideas of the past. I would actually argue that homophobia and sexism is far less some repressed pathology (though it is often the case with internet reactionaries) and more down to the fact that this was the way the world worked in their glorious vision of the past. Because these beliefs are so fringe, they barely ever came to represent a powerful political force, and even rarer still an independent one. Nazi Germany for the most part was a corporate state, however they, unlike their "fascist" allies, chose a reactionary-anarchist ideology to be the obscuring facade instead, though one can argue that in many case the insanity of the ideology broke through the boundary of corporatist common sense (trains that could be used for supply runs being redirected to concentration lagers). Apart from the Nazies, the only other real example of this that was successful would have to be ISIS and other radical Islamist groups. While they were manipulated a bit by their Saudi handlers, they also are true believers in what they do, genuinely thinking that they can reintroduce the medieval era Caliphate as a utopic Muslim society, and unlike the Third Reich they are the real deal, and not just an ideology used to mask corporatism.
Thus, I'd say, fascism is a flawed term that should be abandoned. Not only does it fail to show the entire story, it is also incredibly loaded term, where you can be certain that most people will interpret it differently.

 No.3275

-Fascism is capitalism that tries to snuff out class struggle by killing communists and promoting "class collaboration" aka porky fucks the proles over and they don't fight back.
-Some examples post 1945 would be maybe Spain, Chile, South Korea and Taiwan.
-Economics. It depends but there's always mass privatization, big public works projects and promoted self reliance. High military spending too obviously.
-Yes fascist countries can be imperialist, undoubtedly. See Italian invasion of Ethiopia or WwII for proof.

 No.3350

>>3273
Other than kinda disagreeing with your post as a whole, I have to ask why use the term reactionary anarchism? I don't see how that has any relation to anarchism as a concept whatsoever, in any form. The only fascists that could be called reactionary anarchist would be those inspired by Mason's Siege, such as Atomwaffen, who see Hitler as proof that state based fascism is unworkable.

 No.3364

>>3350
>The only fascists that could be called reactionary anarchist would be those inspired by Mason's Siege, such as Atomwaffen
Precisely. I call it reactionary anarchism because it is specifically these kinds of groups (as well as groups like ISIS or Soviet-Afghan war era Taliban) that are the purest strain of it. As I said, in my view Nazi Germany is at best a hybrid. In the end it was a porky project and the NSDAP schizos just were the stooges for it. Also they undeniably had some socialist influence in their party politics, so even NSDAP on its own wasn't purest reaction.

>Other than kinda disagreeing with your post as a whole

Could you elaborate why?

 No.3365

File: 1608528292378.jpg (108.81 KB, 907x1360, understanding the f-word.jpg)

>What is Fascism? (or who best defined it)
Fascism is a system of government characterized by:
1) rigid one-party dictatorship
2) forcible suppression of opposition
3) private economic enterprise under centralized government control
4) belligerent nationalism
5) racism
6) militarism

>Some post-1945 historical examples of Fascism.

USA.

&ltRigid one-party dictatorship?
Check. (Republicans and Democrats are the same party: the party of Capital. They only present the illusion of being opposed to each other as theatre for the masses.)
&ltforcible suppression of opposition?
Check. (Ludlow massacre of 1914, 1943 massacre of Black protestors in Detroit, MOVE bombing, COINTELPRO, police brutalization of the Seattle and L.A. protests against W.T.O. globalization in 1999, etc.)
&ltprivate economic enterprise under centralized government control?
Check. USA is ruled by oil and arms-industry corporations, bankrolled by billionaire capitalists with lobbyists infiltrated into every sector of federal government to help carry out their economic agenda.
&ltbelligerent nationalism?
Check. Easily demonstrated by the mass public fervor of patriotic bloodlust, flag-waving and open display of the flag as a symbol on every other house that accompanied the Gulf War in 1991, the bombing and sanctioning of Iraq in the 90's and the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan 2001 (which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks) and Iraq 2003 (which had no WMD's). All of which resulted in the deaths of over 2 million people in those countries, overwhelmingly civilian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR8It6Yr-Sg
&ltracism?
Check. Genocide of Native Nations and enslavement of African-Americans for almost the first full century of its existence, combined with Reconstruction/Jim Crow/lynching/police murder/redlining/prison-industrial-complex including modern slave labor of Black people and modern massacres of them also (Charleston shooting), removing Mexicans from their lands like the Natives (US war of aggression against Mexico) and historical massacres/lynching of Mexicans by the Texas Rangers and modern anti-Mexican and anti-Central American immigrant baiting/repression/violence (Pete Wilson, Prop 187, Arpaio, ICE detention, San Ysidro 1984 and El Paso 2019 massacres), mass incarceration in which black people are much more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted than whites and receive harsher convictions also given the same circumstances; reducing Native Nations to tiny reservations that are still pillaged by mining and oil corporations (not to mention that Native Americans have by far the lowest living standards, highest rates of victimization by crime and even higher rates of incarceration than black people).
&ltmilitarism?
Check. C'mon now. USA has 1,000+ military bases on over 120 countries, carries out coups, bombings, mercenary proxy wars, direct invasions and/or economic sanctions and sabotage of any country or group that fails to comport with the dictates of Wall Street by being socialist or just independent of the West in general (Iran, Cuba, DPRK, Hezbollah, the Palestinian resistance factions, Yemen, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Nicaragua, Saddam's Iraq, Gaddafi's Libya, Vietnam, Arbenz's Guatemala, Allende's Chile, Lumumba's Congo etc)

Wow, looks like it ticks all the boxes!

 No.3385

>>3365
This should be updated to say "rigid one-party/anocratic dictatorship" so it includes the two-party dictatorship of the usa

 No.8689

>>3250
In my opinion Fascism is defined by 3 main characteristics:
- The believe that your nation had a great time in history that one should return or one should return to forgotten traditions that the nation now lost
- The only way to return to this state is through the fascists and only the fascists
-There is always a scapegoat someone that is to blame for this like the jews or migrants etc
This results in a ultranationalist, xenophobic totalitarian state

 No.8690

anti-communist nationalist militarist class collaborationist ideology that lived and died in the early 20th century and is used as a useful shorthand for anything similar since then

 No.8691

I'll answer all your questions in one. It gets very confusing if you try to do checklists or 14 points or even "capitalism in decay".

Fascism is anti-communism.

 No.8692

>>8690
>>8691

That is to say, fascism is primitive accumulation under capitalism, but anytime after the british did it lol. It is a form of imperialism that results from the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and consolidation of industry into monopolies that require outward expansion and cause a crisis. At this point the state can be taken by the proletariat for internationalism(communism) or it can be seized by the bourgeoisie and stripped of its liberal dressing in order to save a subsection of capitalists. This is the key difference between communism and other ideologies and why anything that is not communism is fascism, literally. Fascism comes from fasces, the bundle of sticks that carries the ceremonial execution ax that holds the power of the emperors authority in rome. It represents that people are stronger together in a group, but that the group is selective. Communism is when the group is international and universal. Its that simple and always has been but people generally tend to reject it because it defines the United States as unambiguously fascist.

 No.10347


 No.10367

>>3273
I think you have it right that there are two aspects in fascism, but you get some things wrong about historical fascism

I 100% agree with the idea that the material reality of fascism is essentially a completion of liberalism, as carried out by the bourgeoisie. It is the annihilation of the individual in the name of the social body (as represented by the nation, which is represented by the state or singular leader himself). It is also in some ways anti-capitalist in that it formally subjects the economy to political control, but the nature of that control will always tend to be in favor of whatever bourgeois interests are ruling the system. This is not paradoxical, since companies have to exist in the context of a whole economy, and so in order to shape themselves as they see fit, they need the freedom to impose on all others. This is achieved through political control of the economy. In this way it's even materially progressive. The US deepstate is currently upholding these ideas in a socially progressive veneer. Hillary Clinton, by this definition, is a fascist.

But the other side which is equally necessary to fully understand fascism is it's irrationalism. It is an answer to the problem of modernity. It's a failed answer, but tbh as far as things go it's pretty advanced I think. Fascism is for the rejection of this modern period of generalized nihilism and overturning by the installation of an "eternal" state which is to faithfully represent the true national Spirit. It's at it's core Idealist. It's similar to anarchism maybe? In that they can both be idealist and copes with the problem of modernity. But other than that they're pretty unrelated. Though between these ideas there is a sort of voluntarism or libertinism for the leadership, who are to have full artistic freedom over society. This makes sense, since the state needs it's solidity recognized in order to "represent" (or more accurately, displace) the reality of the individual citizen.

And it's not so much necessarily racist, as trying to worship an aesthetic rendering of their understanding of their particular national being. This is why I say it's more advanced. They fail because of their worship of an aesthetic representation and the negation of the individual (imagining an antagonism between real concrete individual, and the society they make), but they are correct to hold up the particular over the universal or singular. They crucially miss that the particular is alive in every individual, and only gains expression through their material being, and any rending is an adulteration.

They fail to overcome the crisis of modernity satisfactorily because they repeat the fundamental adherence to a deeper truth over reality, and the need to reject reality for an ideal. They think that they can get away with making this deeper truth a particular rather than universal (and annihilating) one, and rejecting the nihilism and modernity of reality, but all they succeed in doing is repeating the formula of modern thought. And look what they have come to represent: the utmost horror of modernity, nihilist depravity, etc.

This is really important though: We can analyze them in their philosophical or mythological dimension and we find them pretty advanced, and not necessarily bloodthirsty stooges of international Capital. We can also analyze the material dimension, and we can see very close comparisons to other modern economies. They represent illiberal or post-liberal liberalism. It's really interesting. This obviously is not a hard position, but can exist in degrees, which shows why it's so slippery to defined different things as fascist, and why there's such a broad spectrum and even opposing ideas which seem to define fascism.

I think these two parts should be treated separately, if possible. They at least have to be critiqued in different ways, since they don't overtly necessitate each other.

 No.10368

>>3364
i'll take back a total criticism of your idea of them being reactionary anarchists, but I think that there's a lot more nuance there to be had. But then it becomes a job of charting out the different tendencies around there….

The common factor of consistency though is their position as a cope for liberalism, they rest on nihilism, which is dysfunctional, and so they cover that up with idealism. The nihilism is at it's core always an active nihilism, so there's a current of overturning and savagery under their "beautiful idea" which they want to implement against reality.

 No.10369

>>3365
this book is pretty neat. but it sadly goes on a literally dictionary definition of fascism, instead of investigating how fascism was for people living in it, and what they thought and did and said, etc. I wish we could have seen a parallel of how fascist subjects viewed their society to compare to our view of our society…

 No.10381

>>10367
This is one of the few posts on here (or anywhere really) that actually understands fascism and isn't just the usual liberal claptrap/reflexive definition-mongering. You actually know its philosophical basis beyond some vague notion of 'racism'. One thing I would add is that, because of the idealism and its relation to the spirit, as well as the totalism of the state, fascism is also something which keenly regards the 'potential' within each member of its national identity. Fascism is a strange ideology in this respect, because on the one hand, it is intensely hierarchical, but on the other, the hierarchy is a sort of 'fluid' one, rather than a fixed or essentialized one (insofar as we are exempt nazism as being apart from the other strains of 'proper' fascism); the 'hero in every man' ambition is an extension of its concept of spirit, and its national totalism, a collective totality of assimilated particulars, wrought with its tendency towards the equalizing potentiation of each person: the power they have in themselves to become something more. But in doing so, they assert their own hierarchical sovereignty under the same state which subsumes and potentiates them all with an equal sense of identity. The economically related stance of corporatism is precisely the attempt to reconcile the seeming contradiction already enmeshed within liberalism, that problem of 'equality yet competition', and it (fascism's evolved 'solution' to the problem) does so through the leveraging force of a national belonging which promises all members of society to be contributive members, contributive in the sense of having some functional purpose regardless of standing, whilst simultaneously encouraging upwards mobility nonetheless. Corporatism was the synthesis of maintaining the 'lower' end of the strata without dehumanizing it, via the promise of unlimited internal possibility and the valuing of all members. In this way, the caricature of communism most people mistakenly preconceive 'communism is about some naive sense of equality' is actually much more at home within fascism's philosophical implications and doctrine than it is within real communism, which has little to do with such an assertion necessarily. Gentile even outright states in 'theory of mind as pure act': "Think of what you wish to be, and you can become it". His seminal work 'on education' is similar. This is the crux of a pure idealism, the utter rejection of any kind of inborn upward limit with respect specifically, particularly, and solely, to one's mind, which is to say, the actions that may in turn result in one's economic, educational/intellectual, and behaviorally decided positioning within society.
The logical conclusion of this is a funky acceptance too; i.e. the Italians even understood crime to therefore be a part of the state, not an outsider-aberration nor an opposition, but a mere myriad-component of expression, a 'feedback' of dissatisfaction in need of punitive addressal.
This is also why it's funny when neo-'fascists', which is to say, nazis who have no philosophical background in the basis of the brown movement as it existed historically outside of germany, with specific respect to its philosophical appendages, emphasize I Q–you know, an actual fascist, which is to say, not the aforementioned 'germanic' type, would be in opposition to the very concept. And this is historically verifiable, too! I doubt you or anyone here has really read him, but Francis Parker Yockey's 600+ page book 'Imperium', which is indeed an ideological manuscript, actually contains a particular section in which he (explicitly) contemptuously disavows formalized attempts at testing 'genius', supplanting it and eschewing it instead with a metaphysical greatman theory (which must thusly find itself irreducible to any kind of analytic objectification).
So yea, in a twist of sublation beyond the advent of modernity which introduces liberalism, there arrives with fascism a more novel reconciliation regarding the aspiration towards the becoming of the 'great-man's being', and it is one which kind of takes liberalism's fetishism of upwards mobility and runs it to a new extreme, exceeding and penetrating/evolving beyond liberalism's almost 'self-imposed' precautions or limitations thereof. In a way, the grandest ideality of fascism (in its classical philosophical conception) is almost akin to a post-human topology, according to which a figurative new-man renders itself literal precisely due to it having been nascently figurative, since the premise is predicated upon the ideal as the 'truest' starting foundation.

 No.10403

>>10381
woah cool post

this really fills in the idea that fascism is a more total reckoning of the liberal idea of a singular individual, the difference being that the fascist state is supposed to represent the particular national interests rather than claim some universality.

Also you touched on a point i havent really reconciled yet (due to lack of knowledge), which is the relation of the two faces of fascism, the material and the ideological. At first i assumed there was no necessary tie, but now I think they probably are very intertwined somehow, but i can't say exactly why… my hangup is just that basically we already are getting a fascism materially, but without the ideology. So will we develop a fascist ideology to go along? Or does neoconservatism among the elites constitute this fascist ideology? IMO neoconservatism is less advanced than fascism (because it still keeps liberalism's ideal of universalism, while in its real material character, promoting the interests of one nation… i'll take a guess and say that you face off neocons against welfare "socialist" democrats and you'll basically develop nazism out of it… all the more easily because no one actually gets acquainted with the real philosophy of nazism and just learns "concentration camps bad, racism bad" instead) but it seems to be bringing about a similar material state of things either way.

anyways, this lays the groundwork for dialectical-materialism and a society which is both oriented inwards and with a knowledge of its particular nature, but also which sees the exactly reciprocal relationship it has with its people, particular individuals, who fully embody society in their being. But alas, no one even cares about this shit it seems like….


Unique IPs: 8

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]