No.1601511[Last 50 Posts]
Glasses edition.The Purpose of This Thread
I've seen about a dozen threads asking about Fascists: "Why are they like this?" "What is Fascism?" "Is Fascism Far Right?" "Is the modern KPRF Fascist?" "Why do laymen Nazis hate America?" "How did Hitler organize the Nazis?" "What does /leftypol/ think of <insert random Fascist here>"
These repetitive threads get a lot of attention and people end up retreading the same few questions, so I figured I'd make a general for all questions and inquiries into Fascism. Consider it a study group for a niche subject. Whether it be out of genuine curiosity or means of countering Fascist ideology, I'm hoping people can point to this thread instead of starting new ones or bumping a dozen different old ones.Links and Fascist Literature>Biblioteca Fascistahttps://bibliotecafascista.blogspot.com/<Collection of translated articles from Italian Fascists, useful as a historical source.
>Fascism: One Hundred Questions Asked and Answeredhttps://ia804600.us.archive.org/11/items/fascism-100-questions-asked-answeredoswald-mosley/Oswald%20Mosley%20-%20Fascism%20100%20Qs%20and%2010%20Points.pdf<Pamphlet written by Oswald Mosley. It was famous enough that Fascist parties in other countries imitated it. He outlines in detail the British interpretation of the Fascist Political and Economic system.
>The Doctrine of Fascismhttps://sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/2B-HUM/Readings/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf<Pamphlet by ᴉuᴉlossnW where he lays out the basic beliefs of Fascist ideology.
>The Concept of The Politicalhttps://tomatdividedby0.gitlab.io/resources/references/schmitt_concept-of-the-political.pdf<Work by a German Nazi-Jurist elaborating his view on authoritarianism and politics. Influential enough to be studied by neocons, Pinochet's regime, and even by scholars in China.
>Reflections on Violencehttps://assets.cambridge.org/052155/117X/sample/052155117XWSC00.pdf<George Sorel's infamous work outlining his philosophy of revolutionary syndicalism. It was instrumental for the foundation of Fascist ideology.Closing Statement
This thread is not for the propagation of Fascist ideals or apologism for Fascism. However, in some instances, I may practice a neutral tone when describing Fascism or give it the benefit of the doubt to better understand the Fascist psyche and its stated ideals. In that regard, I'll be treating Fascism as an alternative theory of social, political, and economic organization no more incapable or insidious than any other and not dismissing it out of hand.
God damn it, the thread title disappeared.
Mods, can we tag this "Study Fascism General"?
Huh, guess they got to it. Thanks mods.
Anyways I've been researching bits and pieces of Fascism for a while now. So if anyone has any specific questions I'll try to answer to the best of my ability.
>>1601511>>Reflections on Violence>https://assets.cambridge.org/052155/117X/sample/052155117XWSC00.pdf>George Sorel's infamous work outlining his philosophy of revolutionary syndicalism. It was instrumental for the foundation of Fascist ideology.
Can someone give me the TL;DR of Sorel?
I'll re-assert something I said in on of the older threads:
I typically don't consider neo-Nazism an ideology, rather than a subculture. Much like a punk or emo, there is an edginess and symbols and typical worldview, but it's not a coherent ideology, there is no study of ideas. 'Theory' reading is typically restricted to Mein Kampf (auto-biographical rant), or in many US orgs, Siege, The Turner Diaries and other fictional fantasies.
Anyway, I remember a few years back there was a classical fascist who used to come here once or twice a year and start a thread, and this was someone who could actually have a dialectical conversation and articulate that their main objection to communism (iirc) was that they insisted a state must always exist, statelessness was impossible. Interestingly, this person claimed to be ambivalent about most of the trad shit that plagues all on 'the right' who aren't lolberts: neutral on da gays and jews, pro-recreational drugs, still big on the family unit of course. The point being it was an interesting perspective and someone who could actually have a decent enjoyable argument with.
So, I sent them a link to the former anon.cafe/fascism/ which then got booted and went to 16chan, which died, so they went to zzzchan and have fizzled to 0 PPD, but not before first being invaded by boring /pol/ neo-nazis who drowned out the single-digit number of users who could tell you who sorel was and they ended up getting banned within a day for telling them how shit their reading list was and pointing out that most of them weren't real fascists.
I think it was CPUSA who said something akin to, the ludicrous obvious bullshitting of neo-nazis makes them obvious, but the actual classical fascists (as few and far between as they are) would make a much more powerful threat. They can fly below most radars these days. So it's important to learn what fascists can be like if we want to fight them.
>If you take one look at [4chan] /pol/, they hate statism and flirt with this renegade pastoralism or basic bitch populism.
I don't think this is useful either. I'm obviously no expert on /pol/, but in my limited visiting I'd say most of them are anti-fascist lolberts or mere conservative neo/liberal racists. It is largely a US board, and many other users are very highly influenced by the US media sphere through television or online news feeds. Nazism is not embraced in these circles, and a huge amount of them are 'small goverment' advocates.
My point being, even NotSoc is a minority there, so they're not even representative of e-fash.
But yes, e-fash are not cohesive and extremely far removed from intellectual forms of fascism. They're not useful in studying, well, fascism as an ideology, but they are representative of the current manifestation of 'the authoritarian far-right' in the West. So I'd say, independently of historical fascism, they do warrant study. Just so long as people recognize they're different and probably don't even know what corporatism is.
IIRC (got to be brief because I’m at work) Sorel asserted Marx’s value was first and foremost as a sociologist before all else. He thought Marx’s true genius was creating the “myth of the Class War.”
It’s important to note that Sorel used myth in a positive sense. He saw myths as basically ideas that spur people to action and manifest in those actions. Nationalism, Religion, and the idea of Class War all contributed towards getting a mass of people working toward one goal. I think he was also pretty confident about the power of violence, which is why he supported Lenin and the Bolsheviks even while other socialists were fretting about the war and purges of reactionaries.
>>1601663>It’s important to note that Sorel used myth in a positive sense. He saw myths as basically ideas that spur people to action
Does this mean without the implication that it's false or greatly exaggerated? Because I've learned the word 'myth' to effectively mean a socially-ingrained falsehood. Or did Sorel believe Marx made a powerful but false story that activated everyone's almonds?
Did he ever express his thoughts on fascism? Iirc they often cited him as an influence, but he never abandoned his socialist views.
Reminder that the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were Social Fascist!>https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/iwk-ussr.htm>https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-5/cpml-tito-3.htm>the Soviet Union, once ruled by the proletariat, is now under the rule of a monopoly capitalist class that has fully restored capitalism. The Soviet Union is fascist at home and social-imperialist abroad, socialist in words and imperialist in deeds. It is a superpower and contends with the U.S. for the domination of the world. Everywhere the Soviet social-imperialists are enemies of the masses of people.>Tito’s mission would be to break with the Soviet Union and Stalin, and work to separate the other countries of people’s democracy established after the war from the socialist camp, in order to isolate the Soviet Union, weaken the revolutionary movement and strengthen the position of U.S. imperialism. This grand plan was an important part of U.S. imperialism’s tactics following World War II. In struggle against the revolution and the socialist camp which e-merged greatly strengthened from the war, U.S. imperialism used outright aggression and military intervention as needed, on the one hand, and ideological aggression and subversion, on the other. On this second front, Tito was U.S. imperialism’s chief agent.
There is no difference between pledging your support for a capitalist power is a "progressive" mask such as Canada and continuing your support for the Soviet state after the Khrushchevite seizure of state power via coup detat, which meant that the bourgeoisie controled state power and not the proletariat.
Fair warning: it’s been a while since I read Sorel. My explanation might be subject to my own interpretation of him as well as the fog of memory.
With that said, I think Sorel viewed the “truth” behind the myth as functionally irrelevant and left room for exaggerations. What gives the myth power is its use
rather than any truth to it. Sorel was described as relativistic or a proto-pragmatist (which funny enough is considered America’s philosophy and might explain why it seems really fascist.)
To Sorel, a myth was distinct from ideology in the sense that ideology tried to create a coherent worldview—liberals have individualism and natural rights and the social contract and shit, conservatives have “tradition” and the like. A myth is essentially an idealized story that gets people to act, it’s not concerned with what’s real or even coherence, so much as what gets people to move towards a goal. It ultimately doesn’t matter who’s “right” if you’ve got an army at your back.
If you need some examples: the Q boomers who stormed the capitol because they idiotically believed Trump was the messiah who’d destroy the cabal. Sure they’re wrong on so many levels, but the truth of their beliefs didn’t change the very real impact of them forcing open the doors and tearing down barricades. Consider Father Kolbe, the man obviously believed in God enough to volunteer to be executed in place of a Jew during the Holocaust—does whether his beliefs were irrational or stupid change what he did? Does the fact he expressed his own bigoted sentiments prior to the Holocaust?
In Sorel’s interpretation, what’s right or wrong is irrelevant to what’s practical. I think Sorel would look at Khrushchev’s secret speech as fundamentally the worst mistake in the USSR’s history. In one instance, he tore the “myth” or “symbol” of Stalin away. Destroying the myth introduced what I believe Xi termed “historical nihilism.” Even if Stalin did
do bad things, the myth was important to keep alive for the international socialist movement, without it that abstract “energy” or “action” of the masses retreated and was replaced with nihilism and individualism. I think today he’d point to the deconstruction of the founding fathers as a mortal flaw in American society—suddenly they’re “just a bunch of slave owners” and the ideals of the revolution were entirely self-interested merchants scheming to get rich. What’s the point of this “national project” if the whole thing is rotten at its foundation?
Again: he didn’t use myth negatively. He might’ve been a cynic but he didn’t think myths were necessarily good or bad. Does the “truth” of MLK plagiarizing his thesis and cheating on his wife take precedent over the myth of him as a leader, a saint even? I think even though it’s a really cynical interpretation of things, a lot of people might subconsciously find themselves fundamentally agreeing with it. The myth being more important than the reality.
Where would the PRC be if a critique of Mao as vicious as some critiques of George Washington on here hit the mainstream and spread unabated? It would slowly rot the whole structure of the state. We even apply myths to our own parents and friends. If we love them we look past their flaws, even serious ones. If we hate them, we look past their virtues, even the noblest ones. It’s like that monologue from Death at the end of the Hogfather, we tell ourselves little lies so we can believe bigger ones: Justice, honor, love, so on.>>1601678
I think one of his students was a close ally of ᴉuᴉlossnW and if I had to guess, I think he’d be broadly supportive of Fascist Italy. It’s important to note even ᴉuᴉlossnW claimed to still be a Socialist while a Fascist. Even Nicola Bombacci, a Fascist executed alongside ᴉuᴉlossnW, shouted “Long live Socialism!” As his last words.
>>1601761>the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were Social Fascist!
Stopped reading there, cute cosplay tho.
Fascism is just Hegelianism without the Marxist critique.
then what does that make schopenhauer
According to his mom, an annoying prick
>>1601573>I think it was CPUSA who said something akin to, the ludicrous obvious bullshitting of neo-nazis makes them obvious, but the actual classical fascists (as few and far between as they are) would make a much more powerful threat. They can fly below most radars these days. So it's important to learn what fascists can be like if we want to fight them.
Yeah that was me. Though to elaborate a bit more, the Nazis were pretty solidly reactionary and their entire worldview is basically violent fantasies—a few “intellectuals” tried to codify their race science nonsense into something coherent but at the end of the day it was mostly the result of Hitler’s whims. Neo-Nazis today basically believe in nothing other than blind hatred, they can’t build shit, just hop onto it and parasitize it.
The classical fascists were more coherent, cunning, and adaptable. Nicola Bombacci, who I’ve mentioned before, was one of the founders of the Italian Communist Party.
Fascists can adapt, Nazis would just smash their heads against a wall because they fundamentally can’t, they’re only driven by resentment.
Giovanni Gentil, the co-author of the doctrine of racism, was a Hegelian does anybody know of his critique of his interpretation of hegel. And how it differs from Marx.
I go on /pol/ because I despise idpol and am not an orthodox marxist, but they're genuinely horrible to talk to 99% of the time. The smart ones are race-ambivalent NRx types, and the rest just racist Paleocons, or even Neocons at times. They distrust most people who apply any label on themselves, seeing it as D&C concern trolling, and have no respect for any academic attempt or aspirations. The place to actually go for right discussion is /lit/'s one decent thread on the subject a month. I fucking hate smugly pithy 'fascism is just capitalism in decay' (capitalism decays, no shit any answer to the contradictions of capital will be an effect of it, be it right or wrong), but that perfectly describes the self-described 'NatSoc' who simultaneously hates any use of the word socialism, because of Karl Marx's pictured summation of his dogma.
I do not, however, think they should be discounted. /pol/ does represent the worst tendencies of anonymous image boards (probably why it is what I'd guess first comes to mind when one hears about 'chans'), but that doesn't mean you can't identify trends in authrightism in /pol/. I think you absolutely can, and you can see which group has a more viable path.
Take the biggest group (because I don't want to ramble longer), WN-Paleocons. White nationalism and paleoconservatism go fine together, though this group has little in ways of praxis. Even the dictatorship lovers want mostly Pinochetist 'purge dictatorship' time before returning to a conservative democracy, such as Trump doing something that will 100% land him in prison forever. I think the main political strategy here is just slowly escalate from Trump with more radical and more intelligent (the latter being mostly unstated, but they have to know it's true… right?) right-populists upsetting the liberal status quo. The issue is, of course, that this is absurdly passive, and open to opportunism. Who is going to be Trump's successor? Tucker? Tulsi? MTG? Donald Jr, then III, then IV (not born yet)? I think the authright investment into Trumpism is a bad idea, because movements of personality cults, from Mohammad to Joseph Smith to Stalin, are bound to shatter after their leader departs. >>1601535>>1601700>>1601600
So… are you a weird social-absolutist then? Because I understand the philosophical appeal to it for sure, considering Gentile's weird desire for fascism to be a hegelian nationalist mystery cult, but, to pull from William James, how is that a live option? In a liberal/postliberal world, there is no place for absolutism qua itself anytime soon, and, since it's a combination of the very broad school of classical political thought, it lacks any sort of core analyzable theory in the modern sense.
I can get liking it (I feel that masculine pull to idealism too) but I don't see how it means anything in the modern world. Fascism, Socialism, and Liberalism are the modern philosophies, and even those claiming to be Fourth Positionist butthole flags don't try to claim their ideology actually exists *yet*.
I've been wanting to ask; where do you put the CCP in this?
I'd argue that Xiist (though not Dengist) China is functionally a National Socialist state, without Hitler's retardation; a love of privatization, resource extraction, police state apparatus, ethnic supremist overtones, etc. A lot of people on the right see this and celebrate, as if Xi would be any kinder to them than Nazis were to the Austrofascists or Strasserists.
As of 2017, in terms of assets in industrial firms, SOEs hold 79.4% of assets within industrial firms. The number of private industrial firm ownership appears to have peaked in 2013 at around 23% of asset ownership but the number has never risen above 23%.
The Rise and Fall of China’s Private Sector: Determinants and Policy Implications - Kerry Liu, page 8
In 2010, according to the US China-economic security comission, 81% of all 81% of all 52,425 industrial firms are under the state's direct control, of which there are 42,474
In the book, China's Great Economic Transformation by Loren Brandt and Thomas G. Rawski found that between 1990 to 2003, only 6.97% of companies could be considered "private", while the rest were very clearly in state hands. These companies are allowed to have acces to private revenue, but their control rights are strongly within the hands of the state and should therefore be considered state firms.
In 2008, according to Derrick Scissors, 75% of all of the 1,500 listed shareholder domestic companies are functionally state-owned
Interesting. What does using the same methodology show for Nazi Germany? Or Fascist Italy for that matter? Not that I think the definition of fascism should be 'when yuo have between 50% and 75% percent of tha socialisms'
Regarding that I have to investigate, but from what I recall mussolini italy did have a lot of soes. Though even with that the political and economic context of mussolini italy is quite fucking different than communist china.
Sorel said negative things about fascism, until when ᴉuᴉlossnW tried to do the Pact of Pacification with the socialist's, did sorel opinion change somewhat, but he did died before fascism rise to power, so we will never no, if sorel would of supported fascism.
The ideology of China is "there is never any savior, we are our own masters."
I've also noticed in these discussions about how Modi is India is overlooked as a more relevant example of a fascistization process (the Indian government also just assassinated a Sikh separatist in Canada) with the elevation of Hindu rituals in politics, idealizing medieval raja-paja kingdoms, real campaigns of hate and violence against the religious minorities in particular, etc.
>>1601832>there is never any savior, we are our own masters
'We' being 'the party,' who is also the savior
Also, hate to say it anon, but that's because nobody in the west gives a fuck about india.
You're the most cringe person on this board.
It's honestly fascinating, when you post i wonder what your life is like, it cannot be a normal one with going to work and social interactions and a friend and partner.
My money is on over 100 hours of screen time a week.
I see a ‘you are the most cringe person on this board’ post every single day.
Those who say it are the most cringe people on this board
The Communist Party isn't perfect though, it has many flaws. If someone doesn't believe that, then he's brainwashed or spreads propaganda. But that high standard is also held for the Communist Party as a dialectical materialist and modern political party, not for the party that denies the existence of the COVID, or the one that puts on a good show but doesn't get anything done.
That's what religion does to politics. It turns everything into metaphysical idealism. Point being, we don't really need some metaphysical almighty "God" in our lives, and the political implications of organized religion are more serious.>>1601780
I was reading a little bit about Italian fascism before the March on Rome and it was very eclectic and Sorelianism was identified as a major influence on left-wing types who joined with it. There had been others who were syndicalists and "national syndicalists" that were to the left of the Socialist Party. The syndicalists were also an eclectic hodgepodge, some considered themselves Marxists, others anarchists, and others something else. Sorel's beliefs also emerged as a critique of the orthodox Marxism of the day which he saw as making peace with the parliamentary road to power, which was challenged from the left by the Bolsheviks and from the right by the fascists. Sorel believed in the power of myths and passions and stuff like that. Also violence and conflict as a way of binding a group together.
At the same time, there were new ideas circulating among the right. Nietzche's philosophy. Also various "elite theories" that were pseudo-scientific justifications why elites are good because they're naturally superior people. Then you have imperialism and militarism produced by the hardening experience of the war. ᴉuᴉlossnW was eclectic, too, he had been calling himself an "aristocratic socialist" or something like that.
One more note about China, "historical nihilism" and such. I think the revolutionary war provides a mythic narrative that the party taps into. It's also a story of shared suffering, and Mao and his comrades roughed it out with the poorest peasants, living in caves, for the best part of their lives; so this serves as a reminder for the party not to become detached from the people, to be willing to make sacrifices, stuff like that.
>>1601860>Also violence and conflict as a way of binding a group together.
Not just bindimg a group, but a full moral and character rejuvenation of all classes in society. No joke he thought militant workers would make the capitalists smarter and more creative, a positive hegelian cycle for all sides.
This might be the most controversial thing I've written, doubly so because the CCP (CPC? I'm fucking sick of arguing over the acronym) is the CPUSA's fraternal communist party and so I might be biased in its favor.
The thought occurred to me while I was researching Fascism, especially its evolution in the era of the Italian Social Republic, that modern China appears to fit the mold for what an idealized Fascist state should be; on the surface level at least. I don't say that as an insult to our comrades in China, or a pejorative, and I confess I simply might not know enough about how China works to say with 100% certainty. But I think ᴉuᴉlossnW would be proud of China's achievement and point to the similarities between modern China and his conception of Fascism.
Before I go further, let me be clear: Fascism is an extremely adaptable ideology, which is part of what makes it so difficult to pin down. At times ᴉuᴉlossnW claimed Stalin was, in fact, a National Bolshevist or Fascist (he didn't see it as an insult) and he still praised Marx as a great thinker, even when he was a Fascist leader. Supposedly, ethnic Romanian communists captured by the Iron Guard would speak with their captors and the Fascists would remark that they ostensibly agreed on most things other than nationalism. Finally, I've seen modern "classical Fascists" (including a native Italian one) praise Socialists such as Fidel Castro or Che Guevara; in one particularly bizarre instance, one of those "classical Fascists" claimed to have known an old RSI partisan who escaped to South America and even met Che Guevara, supposedly the two respected one another as revolutionaries (take it with a big grain of salt.)
So in saying all that: a fascist is wholly capable of incorporating aspects of socialism into the fascist project, or even respecting the work of socialists on a surface level.With that said…
Toward the end of ᴉuᴉlossnW's reign, he introduced an economic policy of Socialization which has drawn comparisons to China's State directed economy. I don't know how close to the truth that is, but I've heard numbers like 75% of the economy was brought under state control, even against the wishes of the Nazis. And I think here we see a nugget of Fascism more "true to form". ᴉuᴉlossnW and Nicola Bombacci both argued, as I understand, that the Fascist revolution was a continuous process that didn't end with ᴉuᴉlossnW's seizure of power. Even in power, Il Duce had to struggle to bring disparate factions (the Church, the aristocracy, the capitalists) under his rule. He wasn't indisputably in power.
And so when members of the National Fascist Party and the Monarchy turned on ᴉuᴉlossnW, it was said that the simmering conflict below the surface had finally exploded out into the open. Now ᴉuᴉlossnW wouldn't be restricted by the Monarchy and Capitalist class, his enemies revealed themselves in the open. Of course, Socialization was a failure: the Germans hadn't approved it, the industrialists despised it, and the workers saw it as a sham after decades of Fascism's kowtowing to Capital.
I think that what ᴉuᴉlossnW ultimately wanted would find a tangible expression in China's economy. He saw Fascism as "Practical Marxism" after all, a retreat from what was "possible" toward what was "probable."
Now, I don't think that necessarily means that China is "Fascist". It could be surmised that the a few quirks of history ended up reproducing an economy which ᴉuᴉlossnW would have applauded. It could even be that the stage preceding Socialism bares a striking resemblance toward Fascism, which is to say, the victory of the state over the independent capitalists. If the period of private capital under state direction eventually gives way to greater democracy and control over the allocation of resources by the proles, and at last the withering of the victorious state, then I think its safe to say that China isn't Fascist. However, if the period of China's modern economy is expected to continue in perpetuity, then they might honestly be brushing against Fascism.
he modified hegel, his form of it is called 'actual idealism'.
Interestingly enough 'action Francaise', the French monarchist restorationists described themselves as syndicalists.
If you really want to understand fascism, learn Italian and have a 5 minute conversation with a taxi driver or a small business owner, especially if their business is a bar or a restaurant.
>>1601780>Where would the PRC be if a critique of Mao as vicious as some critiques of George Washington on here hit the mainstream and spread unabated? It would slowly rot the whole structure of the state.
As someone similarly cynical and pragmatic, I can understand that people are complex enough that they can have huge flaws and still be smart, effective and in certain ways admirable while in other ways despicable.
And that's why I laugh at irrelevant ad hominum jabs and shallow paradoxes ('marx was a racist! che was a homophobe! kropotkin was privileged nobility! vegetarianism was practiced by hitler!') and by people deluding themselves to preserve a myth.
I understand myth is a very powerful concept, but it's something I'd hope diminishes more and more as critical thinking skills and healthy cynicism rise.>I think one of his students was
I skimmed wiki and it said it's contested, he was definitely critical in some writings but I don't know if that's definitive enough to say he rejected it. I got the (naive) impression that he was more supportive or at least admiring of bolsheviks.>>1601788>[x] is just [y] with-
stopped reading, go back to twitter
One thing you didn't mention in this post that I think is worth emphasising is that Fascism was, in many interpretations, progressive. In fact, the Futurist movement was somewhat tight-knit with it. One of the previous threads had someone commenting on how a modern fascist party policy list was filled with some populist progressive policies. At the very least, it isn't fundamentally incompatible with a lot of 'left-leaning' ideas like environmentalism, anti-racism and various civil liberties.
Futurist politics was a mix of everything that was going on during the early '900.
They were in favour of women's right to vote, but also anti-feminist and anti-traditional role of women. Futurism was cool as shit, but it was an artistic movement not a political movement and Marinetti quickly sell out to fascism.
>>1601971>The thought occurred to me while I was researching Fascism, especially its evolution in the era of the Italian Social Republic, that modern China appears to fit the mold for what an idealized Fascist state should be; on the surface level at least. I don't say that as an insult to our comrades in China, or a pejorative, and I confess I simply might not know enough about how China works to say with 100% certainty. But I think ᴉuᴉlossnW would be proud of China's achievement and point to the similarities between modern China and his conception of Fascism.
In ideology and form, rather than result, I assumed Moosy would be most partial to DPRK and Juche.
I think it's important to emphasise the difference between correlation and causation/status.
The PRC does not have a socialized economy, they have not 'established socialism' and they're well-aware of that. Yet, we call them socialist and they call themselves socialist. Their motivation is to establish (at least) socialism.
Italian fascism might
also be considered socialist [in intent], supported by the fact that both ᴉuᴉlossnW and Bombacci praised socialism when their death was inevitabe, even if we think their ideal method of getting there is bullshit that won't work and should be combated. However, despite some ideological similarity, they seek different goals through very different methods.
But Nazism, so-called 'National Socialism', does not have that goal at all, and, well, it basically is
Hitler's retardation and little more. They are not socialists in any useful meaning of the term. Even if they both have privatization, one-party, strong law enforcement, nationalism/racial chauvinism, etc., that doesn't make them functionally the same. It does explain the paradoxical praise and respect from anti-communists.
>>1601971>And so when members of the National Fascist Party and the Monarchy turned on ᴉuᴉlossnW, it was said that the simmering conflict below the surface had finally exploded out into the open. Now ᴉuᴉlossnW wouldn't be restricted by the Monarchy and Capitalist class, his enemies revealed themselves in the open.
This is the real crux of the issue though, since what fascist intellectuals had in mind for society and what such a movement is actually capable of achieving are two different things. Fascism always has an eclectic mix of right and left elements, but in this form it can only occupy a certain (mostly petty bourgeois) political niche which at the time was not sufficient to actually take and hold power. It had to expand beyond this petty bourgeois niche if it ever wanted to be more than a passing curiosity, the way the Spanish National Syndicalists (as opposed to Franco's conservatives) were. Maybe there's a world where they choose to expand into the proletariat by becoming more left wing, but historically that simply didn't happen, and they expanded into the ruling class by becoming more right wing. Framing fascism as a retreat away from the possible towards the probable actually makes a lot of sense in this context, since in a country with a powerful Left, where established forms of liberal bourgeois rule are in crisis, its easy to see why cozying up to the ruling class and offering an alternative way of preserving their rule would be the path of least resistance for fascism to take power. Whether ᴉuᴉlossnW continued to hold faith in the supposedly revolutionary character of fascism is ultimately immaterial, because the only fascism that could exist in Italy at the time was decidedly pro-bourgeois and reactionary. It's worth noting that these ideas of fascism as an alternative revolution remained the strongest among fascist parties which were unable to actually take power on their own. You already mentioned the Iron Guard in Romania, but it's important to remember that they always played second fiddle to Antonescu's conservative regime. The same is true of the Arrow Cross in Hungary, JONS in Spain, etc. Even in Italy it was obvious by 1943 that fascism could no longer stand on its own two feet because it had lost the support of the ruling class as you said, and only then did ᴉuᴉlossnW "rediscover" fascism as an alternative socialism. So whatever ideas of alternative may be floating around in the heads of fascist leaders and intellectuals, the practical reality remains that they cannot take and hold power without shedding them.
If you haven't read Robert Paxton's "The Anatomy of Fascism" I would highly recommend it.
I should also add that we may well be facing a radically different situation today, one that will produce some seriously weird results. As I said before, I think fascism in both Italy and Germany tended towards the right because it was expanding into the only space available to it. Obviously if you're an Italian worker or PSI member in 1919 you have absolutely no need for something like fascism. After all, in this moment it seems in that moment that you're on the cusp of victory, and the already established left wing political machinery is what has brought you to this point. Why would you suddenly reject this in favour of some weird new movement full of right wing tendencies? What are they offering you that the Marxists aren't? What are they actually delivering on that the Marxists aren't?
However from the perspective of the bourgeoisie, the exact opposite is true. The old forms of your rule as failed, liberalism is in shambles, and if you don't find a new way to deal with the Left there's a real chance that they could win a total victory. So along comes some new political movement, which while having leftist elements, is still firmly anti-communist, and most importantly displays no intention to abolish capitalism entirely. Crucially, they are proving to be effective in containing the left, meaning that even if they offer you less than establishment liberalism, they are delivering on more. Obviously you are much more likely to side with such a movement than the workers are, and this movement in turn will have to change to reflect the political coalition that it leads. If that coalition consists of the bourgeoisie and various middle class elements then clearly this means becoming more right wing.
Where things get weird is when you consider how this dynamic may play out in a situation where the left isn't strong, but weak, as in most of the West today. It opens up the prospect of a fascism that veers left instead of right. Unlike in the early 20th century, the political space occupied the left is relatively wide open, while the institutions of establishment liberalism have yet to face any serious threat. In other words, the situation is precisely the reverse. The ruling class has no reason to throw their weight behind a fascist movement because their existing institutions are doing their job, while the established institutions of worker power (mainly unions and socdem parties) are in shambles. This could lead to a situation where right wing populist parties are forced to expand into the proletariat, and become more left wing (at least economically) as a result. What this will look like I can't be sure, and of course it's always possible thay they, like the Spanish fascists, will simply try to remain in their niche and thus remain irrelevant. However if you look closely you can already see the beginnings of this, like with PiS in Poland being more economically leftist than their main opponents, RN in France having practically the same economic platform as FI, etc. Of course the anti-communism inherent in these movements will likely put a limit on how far this can go, but expect to see some weird shit in the coming years.
I think I saw a quote from one of the heads of Action Francaise saying something along the lines of "Socialism fits nationalism like a fine glove fits a beautiful hand.">>1602047
I mean I've seen "classical Fascists" praise the DPRK, generally because they rightly pointed out that "South Korea" was an entirely American invention whereas the DPRK was a product of the people themselves.>>1602060
You summarized what I hoped to explain pretty intelligently, thanks. I'm not saying China is
Fascist but rather that what Fascism aspired to be, economically and politically, would bear a striking resemblance to what China is currently.
However where ᴉuᴉlossnW made his mistake, as Sabo anon here points out >>1602260
was that he fundamentally couldn't upend the power of the Bourgeoisie, even when he was placed into power. The reason Hitler didn't have that same issue, as you say, was precisely because Nazism was an empty doctrine that was content to let the Bourgeoisie run things.>>1602271>However if you look closely you can already see the beginnings of this, like with PiS in Poland being more economically leftist than their main opponents, RN in France having practically the same economic platform as FI, etc. Of course the anti-communism inherent in these movements will likely put a limit on how far this can go, but expect to see some weird shit in the coming years.
I remember reading an article ages ago that was discussing Marine Le Pen's failures in the previous French election, and what stood out was that (according to the article, at least) she turned down an offer for a "Right Coalition" precisely because it would mean raising the retirement age in France, something deeply unpopular which goes without saying. Of course there was the usual politician jargon of "I want to unite France, not a political tribe within France" but it underlined that the interests of the "right populists" doesn't cohere perfectly to classical liberalism, or at least understands where its bread is buttered and knows it'll collapse if it attempts "neoliberalism but racist."
And its here the Left has a problem parallel to the proto-Fascist Right, which is that we're somewhat pinned on the defense. Basic decency and ideological commitments means the extreme Right can keep pointing towards jobs being shipped overseas and labor migrating toward Western Nations and undercutting wages, of course they blame the foreign laborers themselves for this, but the fact is they have a real winning strategy with riling up depressed workers then pointing to the fact "the Left" keeps saying "No, we won't let you throw all the migrants out" as "proof" we don't care about "our own people."
I hear RN even parades "former Communists" around to show that they're the "real" Party of The Working Class. The Left, I think, is in a nigh-unwinnable situation. Because the supposed conflict between "foreign" workers and "native" workers gives the impression of being irresolvable. It reminds me of this moral dilemma an old professor of mine gave in our ethics class; he said people have a hierarchy of who they value based on closeness, and gave the example of only having enough food to feed your kids or the starving kids next door. A girl raised her hand and awkwardly tried to imply she "saw everyone equally" but he asked her point blank whether she'd let her kids starve to feed her neighbors' kids or not.
She mumbled that she'd feed her kids first.
I think the only workable and important takeaway here is that Fascism's ideological foundations are so fundamentally opposed- not necessarily separate, but opposed- to Marxism's that, aside from its obvious difficulty of defining and categorizing it, that a Fascist state and a Marxist state can both be functionally identical, and still be distinct types of states, because the way a Fascist Party and a Communist Party arrive at the economic, social, and political mandates they share through very different paths/theories. So I don't see any contradiction in the idea that China can be communist and still appear very fascist.>>1602260>>1602271
So, to simplify, are you seeing Classical Fascism as emerging from the left- specifically the more Marx-skeptical side of the left- and moving to the right, while Modern Fascism emerges from the right and moves to the left? These are very simplistic terms of course, and don't address the complex reasons for either moving as they did, but I'd be inclined to agree. I have to additional points to add.
One, this definition necessarily excludes the retarded /pol/fag racist paleoconservatives. They have little future. Even Nick Fuentes has apparently been ranting about how he hates poor people and wants a 'new aristocracy' (fine, but who the fuck do you think is going to build that? the aristocrats of the Burgerreich are liberal oligarchs who hate you, your ideal base doesn't exist.) Those right movements who are fine with criticizing class and capitalism are more successful, and are also exclusively in Europe. But though they exist as major movements only in Europe doesn't mean they don't have an untapped base in America. Most Americans hate immigration, but they also are very uncomfortable with blaming actual immigrants (to the chagrin of /pol/fags, who wonder why racial hatred is so unproductive, what could it be?!?!). But most Americans are totally ignorant of Latin American politics, and are probably uncomfortable to talk about American Imperialism, and too proud to negotiate mutually beneficial deals with Latin leaders. This attitude extends to their leaders- I'd wager most highly intelligent are inclined to avoid politics, recognizing it for the BS it functionally is. American rightist leaders are incapable of satisfying their base because they don't understand Latin politics and are too high on their own kool-aid of American exceptionalism to not blame individual brown people and recognize the flaws of imperialism. If they could produce even one charismatic leader who brought that to the table, it'd be all fucking over. Thankfully- or maybe not, if you're a red-brown alliance type- people want Trumpian political theater.
But, of course, the left hasn't done anything to help either. The mainstream American left- even the self-described socialists- has been totally corrupted by bourgeois interests, and is neither willing nor able to ever resist capital. Make of that what you will.
Two, if Classical Fascism emerged from the left and evolved (you could even use Darwinian language here, selective pressure) to be more right, while Modern Fascism emerged from the right and evolves to be more left, does that mean this Modern Fascism can really be said to be Fascism at all? Especially if we're excluding Nazis for having no consistent ideology.
Not OP, but I was hoping this thread wouldn't devolve into shitflinging when I first saw it. I'm very glad with how it went, keep it up boys.
>>1602701>So, to simplify, are you seeing Classical Fascism as emerging from the left- specifically the more Marx-skeptical side of the left- and moving to the right, while Modern Fascism emerges from the right and moves to the left? These are very simplistic terms of course, and don't address the complex reasons for either moving as they did, but I'd be inclined to agree. I have to additional points to add.
This touches on something I'd mentioned in another thread, which was that I think Leftism provides Fascism with some fundamental essence that allows it to survive. I know that sounds really woo-woo and idealistic. Let me use a metaphor to help explain things; when a person is conceived they receive 23 chromosomes from both parents and, ideally, they grow up into a healthy child. If the child is born missing a chromosome or with an extra, it'll suffer from birth defects.
Nazism, to continue the biological metaphor, is like the product of incest. It copied only the surface-level elements of Fascism (Italian Fascists thought Hitler was a reactionary, they ignored the Nazi party for most of its history prior to coming to power) while stewing within the genetic swamp of Right Wing thought, repeating itself over and over and over again. Call it an incestuous dialectic I suppose; ideas born of the same tribe, interbreeding with themselves over and over and over again, getting more extreme and absurd with each iteration.
And like incest, past a certain threshold, the subject's genes get so scrambled that it's ultimately sterile.
What are modern Neo-Nazis doing? They're parading around with Swastikas, throwing up Sieg Heils. What do they want? Well, most of them can't even elaborate a coherent vision, it's all sloganeering ("STAND UP FOR THE WHITE RACE!") detached from any deeper political analysis. They'll giddily screech that "Hitler was right" but never specify about what. Economics? Politics? All they're stating is that they viscerally hate Jews.
That's an important difference between Hitler and ᴉuᴉlossnW. Hitler genuinely despised the Left, and his only policy towards them was mass extermination. The "Left Nazis" were near-entirely annihilated in the Night of Long Knives. This clipped the wings of Nazi political thought; it set boundaries on what they'd ever discuss or argue over. It became an incestuous relationship of Rightists congregating with other Rightists.
By contrast, ᴉuᴉlossnW's most interesting quality was his magnanimity. He's like Caesar in that regard. His Fascism didn't just crush the Left, but invited sectors of it to join the Fascist movement. There was a "Left" wing of Fascism and a "Right" wing. The most striking anecdote I learned was that he put feelers out to see if he couldn't get Sacco and Vanzetti (two Italian-American bank robbers set to be executed by the U.S.) exile in Italy. Now both those men were committed Anarchists. Anarchists had even made assassination attempts on ᴉuᴉlossnW. But there he was trying to save their lives out of some supposed "racial solidarity" or what-have-you. The idea of Hitler doing that is laughable; he was disgusted by the very idea of the alien.
Hitler was an imitator. He'd so lacked creativity that the extent of his "artistic abilities" that he wanted the world to appreciate him for, were just recreations of what he could see in front of him. By contrast, the Futurist movement more associated with Fascist Italy was exciting and new and abstract.
The Right, existing only among the right and indulging only in Right wing thought, becomes sterile. It can't see politics as it is, only the illusion of it. The Left, engaging with politics from the position of being out of power and under siege, can grasp at the true nature of the political and utilize it. It can understand how to appeal to people, how to gain power, how to manage power. Nazis haven't gotten a step beyond:>March in public>???>4th Reich
so far youve talked about nazi germany and fascist italy. What about showa japan and its mixture of ikka kita "socialism", imperial militarism, matsu pan asianism, ishiwaras defense state, manchuko planned economy, sadao arakis spirit and etc.
Strictly speaking, you could argue that Japan was never fascist, depending on how you're using the term. If you just mean "right wing autocracy" then obviously it qualifies. But usually when people are looking at what made German and Italian fascism different from previous forms of right wing autocracy in Europe (e.g. Napoleon III) they emphasize its origins as a middle class mass movement and all the quirks that brought with it (e.g. its populism, pseudo-revolutionary posturing, appropriation of left wing rhetoric, etc.) They distinguish it from established conservatism on this basis, which has its root and origin in landowners and industrualists rather than the petty bourgeoisie. This is why many have argued that Franco shouldn't be considered a fascist. According to this understanding late Imperial Japan wouldn't be labeled as such either. Realistically the distinction is minor, but it can be important in understanding the interactions and differences between the ruling and middle classes.
Admittedly I haven't really analyzed Japanese Fascism. As I understand it there was at least one Japanese reporter who analyzed Fiume and became a liaison between Italian and Japanese Fascists, but as for its quirks I'm not entirely sure.
>>1602271>Where things get weird is when you consider how this dynamic may play out in a situation where the left isn't strong, but weak, as in most of the West today. It opens up the prospect of a fascism that veers left instead of right.
I (admittedly naively) think this is unlikely, even if possible, because I interpret it less as expanding into spare room in the political space and more seeking power through sponsorship. The booj held the power but were losing it, so they needed to invest in a more militant anti-communist movement.
Then again, if the racist and sexist right-booj and neo-fash in the US become a tangible threat to boojie-of-color and progressive-booj, then maybe they will seek to invest in a militant anti-racist, anti-socialist force. A left-fascism that leans into progressive liberalism territory.
I mean a lot of the characteristics that you listed of populism, pseudo-revolutionary posturing, appropriation of left wing and etc did exist in imperial japan. It just instead of existing in the manner of italian fascisms and nazis germany middle class mass movement, instead in imperial japan it existed as a mass movement of lower ranking military officers or soldiers alongside groups that tended to support these officers. (I havent checked the class composition of these two tbh.)>>1602771
thats a shame
and when im saying groups I also refer to the civilian sector. Because the young officers, soldiers and their coup attempts were supported and defended by segments of the japanese population. Supported and defended in a way where they were seen as heroes against certain "evils" that overlap with what the other fascist states targeted. And over time this support didnt disappear but grow during the 1930s while the coups and shit didnt stop until finally being nipped at 1936. There was a sense of mass movement and populism in imperial japan though it was lead by the military.
Fascism is just as anticapitalist as it is anticommunist
no it's against liberal capitalism not capitalism as such
Nazis coined the term privatization and copied notes from Henry Ford. The Italian fascists pursued “super capitalism”. Shut tf up, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I’ve always thought fascism is a capitalist system which idealizes the order the Soviet Union provided its economy. So the Fascists claim to want to recreate the capitalist fantasy of a country defined through competition between small producers, hence the support in enjoys from the petite bourgeoisie. But since capitalism is already established in the places fascism developed, it translates into the large corporate projects which in turn absorb smaller producers. The little Fuhrers in Germany come to mind.
>>1603108>implying Nazis killed the jewish haute bourgeoisie
They deepthroated the Rothschilds the entire time.
>>1603041>I’ve always thought fascism is a capitalist system which idealizes the order the Soviet Union provided its economy. So the Fascists claim to want to recreate the capitalist fantasy of a country defined through competition between small producers, hence the support in enjoys from the petite bourgeoisie.
You're pretty close, though I'd offer an alternative explanation. In some of the literature from them I've read, they argued that Europe hadn't had a "true state" since the fall of the Roman Empire. I think that's the "key to the gate" for lack of a better word. They weren't fans of feudalism and tiny, competitive principalities, they were fans of huge empires.
I'm reminded of Chinese history to some extent. Despite long stretches where there was essentially no centralized authority, China as we've come to understand it is virtually inseparable from the State of China. The Ming, Qing, Han, Zhou, Yuan, and other dynasties defined what China is. China is the State, and the State is China. Even when state authority hadn't been known for over a generation, the goal of the competing warlords of China had been to reestablish a singular Chinese authority; until such a time China would be regarded as "disunited" or somehow incomplete. Its a far cry from Europe's own history; after Rome there was no state which could properly claim to be THE European State. Even though some of the nations emerging from Europe formed powerful empires, State authority wasn't absolute, and it's from this collapse in real statism that the Bourgeoisie could emerge as a real force for themselves.
Fascists thought could be seen, therefore, as the dialectics of statism. It regards history not as the history of class struggle, per se, but the history of states attempting to expand themselves in combat against anarchy.
mosley actually was big on the cnt-fai and wrote several times that they should team up with the national syndicalist elements in the falange to overthrow franco https://www.oswaldmosley.com/the-syndical-revolution/
I think he meant Moosy as in ᴉuᴉlossnW, but didn’t want to set the filter off.
That aside, Oswald Mosley was a real weird one. If I remember right he actually wanted the Black and Tans in Ireland to be put on trial for their crimes against the populace, which didn’t win him allies among Conservatives.
well the founder of the first british fascist group accused mosley multiple times of being a crypto bolshevik, something that was echoed by pro-german elements in his party because they hated that he wasn't pro-hitler enough even though he sold out his own supporters for nazi funding (middle class jews)
>>1603366>well the founder of the first british fascist group accused mosley multiple times of being a crypto bolshevik, something that was echoed by pro-german elements in his party because they hated that he wasn't pro-hitler enough
The self-defeating Autism of Nazis never ceases to entertain. Something I've noticed about Mosley's writings is that he seems way more interested in politics and economics; the stuff about the Jews seems almost tacked on in a few places. Like I think in "100 Questions Asked and Answered" Mosley devotes maybe two lines to the Jews, one in the preamble saying he took on "the Jewson" and the other when he responds to claims of anti-semitism with some bullshit "we only hate bad Jews."
>>1603352>lead a party whose entire thing is about the collective spirit of the state<hmm these anarchists are based>>1603366>they hated that he wasn't pro-hitler enough
Hitler went to his damn wedding lmao
But yes, a quick glance makes me think Mosley was more of an Italian Fascism fan, even if his plaform was strongly anti-Semetic and anti-immigration.
would never have guessed that
That whole artistocratic circle was weird. If anyone hasn't read about the Mitford sisters yet, give it a shot. Diana Mitford was Mosley's second wife.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitford_family#Mitford_siblings
read the other part, he was pro-nazi for party funding essentially and hitler knew it the wedding gift to mosley from hitler was a signed portrait of himself, apparently he threw it in the trash.
>>1603510>Lintorn-Orman wanted nothing to do with the BUF as she considered its leader, Oswald Mosley to be a near-communist and was particularly appalled by his former membership in the Labour Party.
But she was unbothered by ᴉuᴉlossnW's former membership in the PSI?
Looks kinda cute, ngl.
That aside, that she got sidelined by Mosley and the BUF isn't too much of a surprise. This goes back to what I was saying before that Fascism needs a "Left" wing to achieve some amount of success. Just being a more militant version of the Right causes it to quickly spin its wheels. >>1603464>>1603423>>1603425
Honestly it's pretty surprising how reviled Hitler was by some of the original Fascists versus how he came to essentially dominate the movement. He was held in contempt by a huge amount of Italian and even German fascists at the time as "just a reactionary."
Haters will say she's not a girlboss
It's an interesting point, that the concept of the [Anglo/US] right as we know it demonizes even classical fascism, in all but name, as socialist. And that rejection from both the booj right and the labour left helps contextualize their pitch - neither right nor left, but a third position. Their best best is to take a seemingly radical-centrist post-liberal pitch to catch those disillusioned by liberal democracy but disturbed by communism and by the unhinged capitalism or the blatant religious and sexual and racist chauvanism of the present right.
I've argued before that a clever Fascist in America would probably be socially moderate, economically left, and racially progressive.
One of the major stumbling blocks that American Nazis have going for them, beyond the fact that Nazism is associated with genocide and violent racism, is that the western world has gotten a lot more diverse. In the case of America, I'd think there's just too many hurdles for them to ever be a credible competitor for power. "White people" make up only 70% of the country, and even then I don't think "white solidarity" is something that could even manifest in the same way that German ethnic chauvinism did. Plenty of white people have friends in minority groups, or their kids are openly gay, or what have you. That makes "RETVRN TO TRADITION" a hard sell on normal whites.
A Fascism that doesn't embrace the worst excesses of the extreme right can maneuver in a way that the Fascism of Nick Fuentes of MAGA Republicans can't.
When we propose the idea of a 'moderate fascist' though we're kind of drifting into the question of what a fascist even is, to me most people I would describe as fascist have little in common with Italian futurism and mostly just the radical right
That’s the first question this gen should address methinks. It’s not an easy thing to define. I think CPUSAnon does it best here though >>1603300>Fascists thought could be seen, therefore, as the dialectics of statism. <It regards history not as the history of class struggle, per se, but the history of states attempting to expand themselves in combat against anarchy.
You can extrapolate a lot from this, such as the class-cooperative socialism (which is not exclusive to Fascism) and the relationship with Marx. Maybe the wording needs to be refined but I think it’s a good start.
>>1602701>while Modern Fascism emerges from the right and moves to the left?
I don't know if it will move to the left, only that there are possibilities for that to happen which weren't there before. Keep in mind that not all classical fascist movements moved to the right in order to gain power. Some stuck to their eclectic, quasi-leftist origins and remained irrelevant as a result.>One, this definition necessarily excludes the retarded /pol/fag racist paleoconservatives. They have little future.
I think so, not without reaching that untapped base you mentioned. Ironically the base of a movement like that in the US would probably look a lot like the base of American social democracy, i.e. white middle class workers and petty booj. The issue though is that those white workers don't have the numbers, cultural dominance, or economic leverage they did in FDR's day. In order for any working class coalition to be successful in America, it would need to be multiracial and thus to some degree meaningfully anti-racist. I can't see this lot making such a change. So they have no further room to expand on the right, because the ruling class won't jettison establishment liberalism for these jokers without a good reason (i.e. a strong left). At the same time, America's racialized capitalist structure will likely prevent them from being able to occupy the space on the left, especially with a renewed, non-racist social democratic movement emerging. This leftward expansion I'm talking about definitely seems much more likely in Europe.>does that mean this Modern Fascism can really be said to be Fascism at all?
It would depend on whether it does end up drifting to the left, and how far. At the moment it hasn't really made that transformation yet. Le Pen's campaign promises are one thing, but actually governing is another. It may be that she would veer right the moment she got into office, ditto for the other right wing parties across Europe. Until that happens I would be comfortable calling it fascism, or putting it in the fascist "genus", since it has very similar class origins and obvious ideological similarities.
>>1603690>it would need to be multiracial and thus to some degree meaningfully anti-racist
lightskinned hispanics and east asians will just be redefined as white
>>1603697>lightskinned hispanics and east asians will just be redefined as white
Idk if that will be enough. Also, the middle classes of those groups would have to be cleaved off from the Democrats and mainstream liberalism. Again without a strong left scaring them into it I don't think it's likely. That's another hurdle I forgot to mention: the fact that the white middle class from which such movements spawn is divided between liberalism and right-populism. This roughly mirrors the blue-collar (though not necessarily working class) white-collar divide. A fascist movement in America would definitely need to unite the middle classes in order to be successful. The problem is they're more divided than ever.
I've had a mini realization about this while having this bougtube video in the background; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2-_FTpnMJ0&t=385s
The reason why there's so much difficulty in defining 'fascism' is because discussions on it fail to establish dimensions, with the only establishments being ideological, and ideological gaps are famously resistant to bridging. So, what is fascism?
First, we are going to have to explain how to define 'fascism'- redundant? That's why people don't ask it. But what I really mean is how to before how do; the thing and method before how we define it. So, what do we mean by
Fascism? Why does 'fascism is capitalism in decay,' beyond feeling like a smug reddit comeback line, feel so dishonest?
Well, the Marxist, that is, a materialist, consideration would be that fascism is the movement
of fascism; it's motivations to its actors to its effects, and next to nothing more.
To the idealist, fascism is the ideology of the founders of fascism and their thoughts, their origins, and their effects- including the movement's motivations/actors/effects.
(Note that idealism contains the materialist; that's just the empiricism showing through. Love Lenin.)
So, what does this mean? Who's right?
Obviously materialism- with the whole empiricism- can be agreed by all to be the correct structure of the analysis. If ideal stacks atop that is where they disagree. We, of course, are used to simply rejecting all the largely useless terms devised by idealism. But that is not what we should do here; because there are two different empirical truths here. One is that fascism is, in the form it actually was, a movement, before it was esoteric theory. Two is that mussolini, Gentile, and the Fascist Intellectuals of the book of the same name, had a set of shared ideas which they recognized as fascism.
Thus, much more can be said about fascism by simply which thing called fascism we are talking about- the movement as it existed, or the theory as it was conceived. Overwhelmingly, we prefer to do the former, more descriptive, class and material analyzing one. The latter, note, is used by idealists, but not so exclusively- they're happy to point out how they were bolstered by corruption and dishonesty, both visible with material, historical evidence.
But only saying the class analysis truth is not the totality of the matter. Because they're idealists, they've internalized the concepts of idealism into their analysis, and also because they have a stockholm relationship with capitalism; they know it's bad, but are too attached to it to let it go. This is what makes fashies seethe so bad in these conversations; they don't LIKE the liberalism, that is, the capitalism which fascism is attached to- and you can argue if it's fully removed or if it's still a polyp on its side, but it IS related- and they are still forced into defending it, arousing much internal conflict. Because they know we aren't saying the totality of truths here; they assume that means we're lying through are teeth, but it's more benign neglect.
This is also where the video from above comes in; capitalism failing to provide meaning leads easiest to fascism. That's the philtoober's conclusion in response to Francis Fukuyama's End of History; we may need to rethink liberal democratic regulated capitalism. This is what fascism being capitalism in decay is saying- it surely got popular because it implies that fascists are just failed capitalists, which is a very fun masturbatory rhetorical tool. But the more correct saying is that fascism is a route through capitalism's failure. That route will, of course, mostly what it actually was. But we can talk about how it was supposed to be too, because if they ever try it again, you'll need to know how it was planned.
The 'they' here is fascist intellectuals, not anyone who can be equivocated with anything we can call fascism. I could've started this by saying more simply there are two things we call fascism. We can call these Ideal Fascisms and Realist Fascisms. They're both wide topics, with Ideo-fascism potentially containing everything from Nicola Bombacci's left-nationalism to Savitri Devi's Hindu Mantic Fascism and Julius Evola's Gigabasedist Superfascism (I suggest we leave the 'how schizo is too schizo' debate for later), and Realo-fascism potentially everything from Stalin to Xi to Vargas to Trump.
Why is this useful? Obviously everything material we can say today comes from an analysis of Real fascism. But that is not necessarily guaranteed to always be the case. Because we are living in a time when capitalism is increasingly clearly failing, we need to be prepared to get the closest theories we have to the truth propelled through anything. Though all fascism as we could maybe describe it (the more moderate side of Real fascism) today is of the one we materialists prefer analyzing, there is nothing stopping a dedicated reader and believer of Theoretical fascism to take a new, economically left leaning, reactionary political force. The Real Fascism as it has been is almost comically opposed to the Neoliberal regime, but as that regime is not the Liberal-Conservative regime of the 20th century, it has become embroiled in that which it's co-opted- Idpol, race and gender spooks. But a movement which appeals to the fear of revolutions social and material, doesn't demand too much thought outside a capitalist realism understanding, and most of all, actually offers material solutions based in a cohesive theory? That will be much more successful, and thus dangerous, than Boomer Trumpists and fat 'National Socialists' from Blogger ever could be.
The only thing holding fascist back was, oddly, that which least often holds back movements, and most often stunts them; the fear of realpolitik- or lack of thereof. Because they were not dogmatists of any prior position while simultaneously being neither radically left nor right, they felt no shame in sacrificing ideals to get ahead- after all, once they won the war and took all the power, they could change things how they saw fit. This, on top of having a complicated relationship with Marxist theory, was, also ironically considering how anti-marxist fascism was, almost tailor-made to frustrate Marxist analysis of fascism. But I hope now to bring the idea that the two distant ideas of what fascism is is now more understandable as a right and a wrong, but as a historical-objective and a theoretical.
I'm not gonna say we should stick to one of course- though we're theorizing here, theory can be about theories and praxes alike. So let's talk about both- so we can know what we're actually talking about, so that we can put it into lay terms. That's the reason why we do this after all- so we can better talk about ideas, and that shouldn't just for people with the leisure time to be educated.
Don't worry, it was an interesting read. I like how you draw a dividing line between Fascism in reality and Fascism as ideal; you raise a good point about how we really need to establish what dimensions of Fascism we're talking about.
Something I'd also consider is that Fascism, it seems to me, expands into realms we don't normally consider when discussing political ideology. Fascism doesn't just focus on ordering the economy and political system, but also interpersonal relationships; almost like a religion in that regard. Replacing greetings with Roman salutes and demanding a certain code of conduct among its members. Its almost religious in a way, like how Muslims greet each other by saying "Peace Be Upon You" (Catholics do something similar, but it's confined to the ritual of Church).
On an unrelated note, I was wondering if any Italian Anons would be willing to help translate some of Nicola Bombacci's works. I think it could be of some historical importance to understand how the man went from being a committed Communist to a Fascist; what analysis he employed, how he thought about Fascism, so on.
>>1604141>Replacing greetings with Roman salutes and demanding a certain code of conduct among its members. Its almost religious in a way, like how Muslims greet each other by saying "Peace Be Upon You" (Catholics do something similar, but it's confined to the ritual of Church).
Is that so different from Tovarish and whatever?
I was gonna say that. We certainly all have the feeling that that it’s more extreme. But is it more extreme because it’s actually from a more intense social/cultural revolution, or is it more extreme because we’ve been conditioned to think it (Roman salutes , etc) is extreme?
Fair points, I’d forgotten about that. Granted I use Comrade mostly as a title and that’s mostly what I’ve seen from other communists, sort of like how you’d call your uni teachers “professor” or the President as “President Biden.” It’s used in the context of referring to your political allies. By contrast, “Heil Hitler” or “Vive Il Duce” full on replaced the standard greeting in Germany and Italy. It feels like there’s something intrusive about that. Like, if I go shopping or see someone on the street, I usually say howdy, sometimes good afternoon or hello. I couldn’t imagine working in a grocery store and being made to say “Heil Hitler, did you find everything alright today?”
>>1604269>By contrast, “Heil Hitler” or “Vive Il Duce” full on replaced the standard greeting in Germany and Italy.
Not it didn't, at least in Italy. Not even the roman salute replaced handshakes.
I think it's important to understand fascism from an idealism perspective as well as
a material analysis of how it manifested, because I'd say all of those trying to make it happen are those are most inspired by its [ideal] theory, and they are living in very different material conditions to any fascist regimes, so it will materially manifest differently. In this thread, people are mentioning how it's theoretically likely for fascism to swing in different directions if it were to try and gain power in modern USA.
I mentioned in another thread that my biggest issue is the sloganistic 'Fascism is capitalism in decay' line is that it falsely implies fascism is an inherent component or result of capitalist crisis rather than a distinct, arbitrary movement that was opportunistic enough to be exploited for its militant anti-capitalism. I can see that happening just as easily under a militant social-democracy off-shoot too.
Why so many text when the only that matters is: A good facist is a dead facist
If you don't understand an enemy, you'll be outmaneuvered by them.
>>1604269>Granted I use Comrade mostly as a title
I treat it as something more casual than a title or honorific, I don't go around unironically
calling people Comrade Smith, but I would say 'hey comrade, good to see you'.
>>1604141>Replacing greetings with Roman salutes and demanding a certain code of conduct among its members. Its almost religious in a way, like how Muslims greet each other by saying "Peace Be Upon You" (Catholics do something similar, but it's confined to the ritual of Church).
This doesn't rebut your idea of it being culty with shit like 'Heil Hitler', but I would say unique greetings and mores are a part of unique culture rather than religion (religions have cultures, and influence cultures, but are different).
I wonder if it's worth discussing Cult of Personality, especially in the context of it not only being associated with fascists.
feel like this is the only really appropriate way to do it if you are not part of a strong communist movement that is popular outside of its own ranks, and even then its halfway ironic & only for other communists. not a judgement about CPUSAnon or anyone elses use but without being very casual and half-ironic it just always feel anachronistic and cringe
>>1601971>I don't know how close to the truth that is, but I've heard numbers like 75% of the economy was brought under state control, even against the wishes of the Nazis.
Late reply but this got me thinking, if this is true or if the % is close to this, what does this make the Italian Social Republic's economy? Is it a socialist economy? Can it be possible for a fascist country to be socialist economically?
I will immediately lean towards no, that it doesn't make it socialist since socialism isn't just "when the state owns and manages 100% or close to 100% of the economy". I'm not a socialist but I used to consider myself an ML in the past, and what I understood and still consider to be socialism, at least Marxian socialism (lower stage of communism) is an economy where the dominant mode of production is socialist (state-owned, yes, but with an important caveat) where production isn't done for profit but simply for "social needs" (to serve society, to put it that way). I guess that the main reason why I'm making this post is kind of to know what you lads understand Marxian socialism to be and if perhaps this socialism (if it is that) of Italy during the late ᴉuᴉlossnW government can be considered economically non-Marxian socialist. And I get this leads to many different questions, like what is the endgoal of non-Marxian socialism compared to the standard Marxist interpretation of socialism and whatnot.
This derails a bit from the thread topic so that's why I wondered if it makes sense to make a "what is socialism" thread but I understand that may be unnecessary and those type of threads usually lend themselves to be derailed and baited very hard so it might not be worth it.
>>1604614>This derails a bit from the thread topic so that's why I wondered if it makes sense to make a "what is socialism" thread
If you thought 'fascism' was hard to define, enjoy 'socialism'.
A relatively safe definition (albeit one each socialist ideology will consider incomplete) is when the workers control the means of production. I don't have a source but I think it's safe to assume fascism is anti-democratic, in contrast to even M-L and Juche which have at least some elements of democracy within the ruling structure.
Like you said, socialism isn't when the industry is state-owned, there's more to it than that.
I would go as far as to assert that the explicity classical fascist goal of corporatism, combined with their anti-democratic mode of rule, contradicts any useful definition of socialism.
I emphasise 'useful', because I have come across people saying socialism is when things are paid for by tax, and that the US military and highways are peak socialism success. There were people recording 40 distinct definitions of 'socialism' before the second red scare started. So we have to be selective with our definitions.
>>1604629>A relatively safe definition (albeit one each socialist ideology will consider incomplete) is when the workers control the means of production
As you say, this description would probably be considered incomplete to most self-described socialists. That being said though even as a barebones introductory definition I came to really dislike and reject it (I would reject it now too) since it lends itself to be misinterpreted so easily and too often. I would say the situation of how people understand socialism, online at least, is probably more developed and complete now than it was 5-10 years ago. So many people considered socialism to be when the entire economy is ran by coops, and that was definitely facilitated by this definition of socialism.
I'm aware why Marxists use it though (and anarchists too) however I think it's misleading because it may lead people unaware of Marxist terminology and outlook to view it as a far more direct involvement of the average worker into the management and operation of industry and the MoP in general. They probably wouldn't be aware that Marxists see the workers represented through the state, hence why they "own" the MoP; it can be misleading and I know it took me a bit to understand since the state as a bureaucratic apparatus can be diffcult to perceive as representative of the workers as individuals.
How do fascists plan economies? Any resources on that matter?
You're both undervaluing the importance of apostate leftists in coalescing and leading a hypothetical future fascist movement. Contemporary right-wingers who aren't wedded to the status quo or unhinged racists are far too marginal and hung up on Christian identity and the like. And so much 'right-wing' sentiment these days is tied to a reflexive hatred of the state and liberal politics, defaulting to a vague libertarian localism.
A leftist could square this circle by combining a grassroots organized workerism, in line with the old syndicalists, with a conservative interpretation of the New Deal era which focuses on isolationism, protectionism, and militarism. THAT could make some political headway, at least in America. The situation is probably different in Europe, with its more complicated relationship to classical fascism and more diverse, entrenched right wing.
I think American fascism will be very similar to, or will be outright, futurism.
You need to develop an artistic culture first before you can have futurism.
I disagree with this. I think the importance of/idea of ‘white’ will be dropped altogether. Cultural nationalism is a better unifier than ethnat autism
American fascism is radlibism
I wouldn’t really say I underestimate it. A key part of my argument is that the fascist Right is ultimately unable to reproduce itself.
Thank you so much OP
Pretty much. It's going to be a weird combination of socially progressive and nationalistic, with both characteristics playing off each other.
I’m just hoping it can cut down on the amount of questions about Fascism.
Also I’m gonna skim through that Oswald Mosley website and see if I can find anything neat. I’ve noticed that whoever their political cartoonist is, his anti-semitic caricatures look more adorable than repulsive.
Perhaps you could study fascists by look at at what they actually say. https://www.youtube.com/live/IVhwc4ccpzI?si=a-GgZIvTxCtr2u3z
I should research him more, but his weird view on race (that Spanish admixture into different racial groups would create a super race) is a decent showcase that Fascism doesn’t necessarily mean weird Nazi racial theory.
I didn't know he believed that. I was aware he spoke fondly of mestizaje and the mixed status of most Hispanic Latin Americans but I thought that mostly came from the observation that Spanish colonization of the Americas was much less destructive and more built on cooperation than the colonization of the British or French. But him believing in the la raza cosmica stuff is kind of amusing.
Did he actually? You're not confusing him with Jose Vasconcelos? That's funny if true.
I have a schizo theory that people living in warmer climates like the Mediterraneans or Middle Easternerd tend to believe in cosmopolitanism and cosmic race stuff while people living in colder climates or insular areas like the N*rds people tend to emphasize racial purity since lack of clean water in these areas means a huge emphasis on purity and phobia of the outside
I'm almost certain he believed something of the sort. I'm looking for a particular quote that talks about this but I can't find it, this one is kind of related but the one I'm thinking of is more explicit. All Hispanist-minded figures believe this or something similar so a lot of them hold to similar beliefs.>>1605494
Not unlikely tbh, what's also interesting is that Spain and other Euro countries that also were big colonizers like France and the UK were also sea-adjacent thalassocracies. Lev Gumilyov talks about the sea adjacent people being more cosmopolitan and colonial in that way, in comparison to the landed Eastern Europeans that didn't carry out any colonialism.
VGH… Panhispanic fvtvrism VVHEN
With the fully anglosaxonified Spain we have and Latin American countries getting slowly anglosaxonified as well, I don't see it happening any time soon unfortunately.
What do you mean by this exactly? I'm guessing you mean cultural/economic lingua franca sphere?
Yes, broadly speaking.
I was gonna say that maybe the seafaring culture of mediterraneas also contributed, but then I remembered the vikings.
Debunking the "Greatest Story Never Told" documentary :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_9vf64XXJ0
Holocaust denial memes, claims debunked:https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/
Unique IPs: 71