Fascism as an ideology was crushed in WW2 by the Soviet Union and the last remnants of it were subsumed into the Liberal order as Paperclipped Anti-Communists who simply became your typical shitlib neocon hawks in State Departments and NGOs who purely act not on any Fascist ideology, but on Nationalist/intergenerational seethe.
"Fascism is just capitalism in decay" copium response for the need to justify the left calling everything Fascist, no, it wasn't, Fascism was an actual ideology, with actual worldviews, actual philosophy shared by ᴉuᴉlossnW and Hitler that revolved around Social and state organism, rejection of slave morality and return to a "hero" ideal, Blood and soil and Futurism. If the state and ideology does not have these values, it is not Fascist.
>But Franco, But Pinochet.
Not Fascists. Just reactionary right wing capitalists. Franco was a turbo Christcuck, which goes explicity against the core Fascist philosophy and worldview around rejecting slave morality like Christianity.
>But Zionism
Zionism developed before Fascism and along side it, but is it's own retarded 19th century cousin that was born out of 19th century blood and soil Nationalist mindsets.
>But Neo Nazis
Retarded Larpers who don't actually adhere to any Fascist ideals, just have a surface level understanding of Fascists being "racist", rather than Fascist "Racism" actually was a rational and logical position dictated by Social Organism, as "foreign elements" were seen as a sickness to the host organism. If Neo Nazis were actually Fascist, they would also be massive health food and other health/eco nuts, but they are not, because they don't even know about Social Organism at all.
>But Taco Drumpf
Not Fascist, just a retard.
The reality is, that Fascist elements were all just subsumed into the Liberal Capitalist structure, psychotic right wing elements today are not Fascist at all. They are the result of contradictions and class struggle that are unqiue to modern materialist situation.
If we go by literally, what most Leftists call "Fascism" then, literally every state before the rise of Liberal Social Democracy was "Fascist" going back to near the start of history.
>>2298720Yes. No, rightoid authoritarian states post-WW2 have any form of Fascist bent. They are not futurist, they do not believe in social organism, they don't reject slave morality at a state level.
>>2298721yes, this is what I said in my post, but this didn't make Liberalism Fascist, all Liberals took from Fascism was the Anti-Communist fanaticism.
Fascists would literally be aghast at an ideology like Neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is the exact opposite of the Social Organism. Fascists believed in the health of an entire social whole, and Neoliberalism is a hyper-individualist, anti-statist clusterfuck.
>>2298723Zionism is the closest thing to Fascism today, but it's not Futurist nor does it have Social organist beliefs. I consider Zionism a very close cousin to Fascism born out of the exact same 19th century blood and soil nationalism, but not Fascism itself.
>>2298733Was Bismarck a Fascist? Was the British Empire Fascist? is China Fascist? The French Empire etc? Ancient Rome? No of course not, despite all have elements that could be considered elements of Fascism.
Right wing Capitalist Authoritarianism = / = Fascism.
>>2298732Using this logic, any state that tries to enforce itself over the bourgiousie to keep them in line is Fascist? China is Fascist by this logic.
It is also extremely incorrect to say there was no philosophical basis for Fascism. Social Organism was the core of Fascism, rejection of slave morality was a core aspect of Fascism, Futurism was a core aspect of Fascism. Hitler and ᴉuᴉlossnW both shared much of the same ideological views despite being schizo.
>>2298733it doesn't just look and act like fascism, it is
OP is just afraid of using the word because he is a coward
>>2298744>Using this logic, any state that tries to enforce itself over the bourgiousie to keep them in line is Fascist? No, because fascism (attempts to) unite the bourgeiosie under the rule of the big finance capitalists. In Germany, they were called the Friends of the Economy, in Japan, they were called the Zaibatsu.
You're also confusing rhetorical justifications with the actual material reasons fascism was implemented. I hope you don't consider yourself a Marxist. Why was this sort of rhetoric used? What was it justifying?
>>2298744>Hitler and ᴉuᴉlossnW both shared much of the same ideological views despite being schizo.There are innumerable instances of ᴉuᴉlossnW demagogically championing something as key to fascism, before being told by his benefactors right after that that was unacceptable, after which he would just shelve it without qualms.
Same with Hitler. The great philosophical work which the Nazis championed as outlining the foundations of Nazi Philosophy, was in private rejected by practically all of them as being mystic nonsense. Fascism did not arise out of some ideas, and if only those dumb ideas didn't occur, there would be no fascism. It arose out of material needs of the Finance capitalists in particular, and the capitalist system more broadly.
>>2298762>cult of national palingenesisYou agree with OP, you think Fascism is just when "national palingenesis", which is just a rhetorical mask.
Was Japan fascist? In the actual organization of the state, it was extremely similar to Germany down to the Fuhrerprinzip. But the nationalist rhetoric was not really of any sort of "rebirth", they never had any sort of decline era that the Germans had with Weimar.
>>2298776Shinto already became distinct from Buddhism under the Meiji era.
When would you consider Japan to have become fascist? I would say in 1938 with the National Mobilization Law, since that banned dissenting media even from bourgeois perspectives and marked the end of factionalism in the Diet. As late as 1937 there were party splits and factions, such as the Kokumin Domei splitting in 1936. That would not be tolerated under a fascist state, and that's why under the fascist government the Taisei yokusankai was formed.
>>2298718>The reality is, that Fascist elements were all just subsumed into the Liberal Capitalist structure, psychotic right wing elements today are not Fascist at all. They are the result of contradictions and class struggle that are unqiue to modern materialist situation. I think one way of looking at it is that fascism was an extreme form of reactionary potentiality in the 1930s/1940s and that form is dead. There are rightists today (including in governments) who in substance share some common DNA with it (being reactionaries) and seem to want something like that, but I don't think people really understand how crazy actually-existing fascism was. Or just how obsessively organized they were in attempts to violently reshape society according to a total vision. It was awhile back but I was listening to Contrapoints (I know…) interviewing Noam Chomsky, who grew up in an antisemitic neighborhood in Philadelphia in the 1930s, and remembered the celebrations when the Germans conquered Paris. And he was like, Trump is bad, but back then we had REAL fascism.
>"Fascism is just capitalism in decay" copium response for the need to justify the left calling everything FascistOr to support a theory that capitalism is on its last legs, but capitalism recovered and expanded after the war, so that prediction wasn't accurate.
>>2298734>Zionism is the closest thing to Fascism today, but it's not Futurist nor does it have Social organist beliefs.I don't understand why futurism is a requisite, fascism was spearheaded by many artistic types and out of the avantgarde movements of the time the futurists were specially drawn to it but so were to communism in russia, it was a radical movement overall. It says more about fascism's relation to aesthetics than about any specific movement
>Social organist They delude themselves to be God's chosen people and actively undermine whoever is against their lebensraum
>>2298781Imperial Japan is as fascist as it gets, their ideology of Japanism goes beyond even Italian or German national essentialism and they were rounding up dissidents far before that
>>2298806>They just accept the liberal explanations, when "ultranationalist palingenesis" is an explanation that tries to decouple the historical examples of fascism from the capitalist systemOn that – palingenetic ultranationalism as the essence of it comes from Roger Griffin who is a decidedly liberal historian with a pronounced humanist bent. There are some interesting things in this but I wouldn't use it as a total explanation. I liked some of his writings on the psychology of terrorists and mass shooters.
He doesn't agree that Trump is a fascist BTW. He's a funny speaker.
>Its important to explain how fascist leaders didn't give a shit about their "ideology" beyond giving working people a copeI think they do, but the ideology is irrational.
>>2298819The Japanese bourgeoisie (aka the Zaibatsu) was already well on board with the imperial ambitions that naturally turned into fascism since it's formation, there was never a period of liberal-democratic factions forming because Japan industrialized so fast. The monopolists were in bed with the state since the beginning
And unlike the Nazi esoteric ideology that barely anyone took seriously but were fine with it as long as they used it to destroy the Soviets and other opponents, the japanese common folk actually believed the shintoist tales because they were to put it bluntly more socially backward. Also they could have stayed in Korea and Manchuria and have enough resources to power their empire but invaded China and the pacific almost out of pure spite. It's the purest fascism I'd argue
>>2298806>>2298832NTA and I partially agree with this anon.
First no one mentioned Trump.
Second, Marx himself literally describes that material viewing of a society is more important than just thinking people are retards who buy into ideas.
And to while some extent the opposite is true as well, it is greatly less so than anyone thinks and has more to do with the arts rather than "ideology."
Stratocracy, which I refuse to let go of, is a stage of development, and material existence, it requires a creation of a massive class of men from a crisis leading to a war like mindset, rather than an ideological one.
It has nothing to do with capitalism outside of the capitalist origins.
It also is why MAGAism is not "fascist" it has no class of warriors spearheading it.
Ironically if a post ww3 veterans class comes back angry and starts stanning Luigi Mangione or something, sorry but they're fascist.
>>2298845>First no one mentioned Trump.OP did (but he called him Taco Drumpf)
>Second, Marx himself literally describes that material viewing of a society is more important than just thinking people are retards who buy into ideas.True but I don't think his intention was to say that ideas don't play a role or that people don't believe in stuff.
>leading to a war like mindset, rather than an ideological oneWouldn't a war-like mindset be an ideological mindset? In your theory, you have this warrior class, and they have a system of ideas and beliefs which justifies their class interests (i.e. an ideology), right?
>>2298875Ideology created by material conditions of warfare pre existing, conditioning them into these beliefs, although there is a crisis in capitalism prior to "fascism" stratocrats developed that their experiences and abandonment by the previous governments can be solved through different means than conventional Marxism.
The methods taken are less important, and although there is a reproductive system for this new warrior class you can argue is based on ideology, it is something brought on by material conditions.
>>2298981This is just the old idea that the proletariat (and the oppressed more generally) beget their own oppression by fighting back.
Capitalism inevitably results in crisis, especially since it became dominated by finance capital in the 1890s. That's what the organized resistance of the bourgeoisie is geared for, hence why fascist governments don't just wage class war, but imperialist war as well.
>>2299044/leftypol/ when Marx talks:
>Nah there's no point in being orthodox and he and Engels are not cemented as being right sorry./leftypol/ when some fucking backwoods retard who is too busy shooting people instead of reading talks:
>Yes! I will listen unquestioningly to whatever the fuck it is you have to say!Pol Pot was also called fascist by another communist leader, but he was also communist.
Uh oh, what now bros?
>>2298718>Stop calling non-fascist things fascistOh shit a good thread on leftypol?
>ideology>values>personal motivations>great man theoryNever mind
>>2298834>The Japanese bourgeoisie (aka the Zaibatsu) was already well on board with the imperial ambitionsThe American, British, and French bourgeoisie had imperial ambitions covering the whole world yet the US, Britain and France were never fascist aside from the Vichy regime.
>there was never a period of liberal-democratic factions forming The Taisho era in particular had significant liberal factions. It was never what the Soviets called a "national-democratic state" but still had significant liberal parties. Rikken Minseito was one the largest parties for example.
>The monopolists were in bed with the state since the beginning And yet they still had their open petty bickering about this or that haute bourgeois concern within their bourgeois democratic state. For example Nissan clashed with Mitsui and Mitsubishi over certain financial policies and how quickly war should be waged and where. They had slightly different interests depending on what industries they were excelling in. It was only in the late 1930s where they shifted to maintain a united public display. Before that, Nissan would make public displays of how much they opposed the other Zaibatsu for being financial oligarchs who didn't care sufficiently about Imperial conquest.
>>2298986explain
>>2298987>>2299017i think you misunderstand. as capitalism (or imperialism) enters into crisis, of course the bourgeoisie is going to try to appease the crisis by austerity at home and/or imperialist war abroad. but neither yet constitutes fascist policy. as long as the bourgeisie can rule in the old way, there's no need to change, even if organizationally, the way a bourgeois state operates. once a proletarian dictatorship is possible (after a prolonged and organized class struggle and no other option
but toppling the bourgeoisie are going to cut), only
then has the bourgeoisie a reason to 'switch' to fascist policy. only when its power is question does it need to more fiercly struggle for it. as lenin says, class struggle only intensifies during the proletarian dictatorship because the bourgeoisie is trying
by all means to keep or retain state power.
i'm not saying that the bourgeoisie is not taking a turn to the right when crisis comes around. only that the way it exerts power stays virtually the same, but when there is a possiblity of proletarian dictatorship, it has to change state policy to upkeep its power.
why do i argue this? look at where historically a strain of fascism developed. almost everywhere where capitalism entered crisis. but where did it actually become state policy of the bourgeoisie? anywhere a socialist revolution was
tried. take examples, germany, italy, yugoslavia, hungary, poland, the baltic states, ukkkraine, bulgaria, greece, etc.
>>2298793>an entire generation of men had been sent out to war, thereby creating a new warrior class which clashes with the failings of capitalismwhile i agree that militarization and 'dehumanization' of society is a faucet of fascism, it's not the whole thing. fascism never questions how production is organized - just introduces death camps into the equation, usually. it most certainly also brings colonialism back to the center, any and all fascist states I listed in my example and understanding of fascism had some form of forced penal labor
>>2299106 it doesn't take into account that what we are seeing is how capitalism usually operates and that we've been lulled into thinking that capitalism is far more humane 'naturally' than it really is. the last couple of generations generation and their kids that grew up in the west believe western cold-war social-democracy is the
natural state of capitalism while (what liberals today like to call) fascism some
extreme state of capitalist society completely disregarding that western social-democracy was social peace offered in lieu of revolution and soviet influence.
anyway. your thesis breaks apart when looking at history. why did not fascism develop in tsarist russia then? was tsarist russia fascistic? russia after all lost war after war. how come communism, and not fascism, developed so massively in tsarist russia? it ties directly to what i am saying: when there is no danger that the bourgeois state may be dismantled by an organized proletariat, there's no need to change state policy.
lenin says something like when is it clearly a crisis? when the old cannot rule in the old way, and the new cannot rule in the new way. well, currently, the old very much rules the same way. sure, everyone is questioning capitalism more and more, but it's still all to confused to reach a tipping point to actually question the state.
>>2299106>as capitalism (or imperialism) enters into crisis, of course the bourgeoisie is going to try to appease the crisis by austerity at home and/or imperialist war abroad. but neither yet constitutes fascist policy. Agreed.
>as long as the bourgeisie can rule in the old way, there's no need to change, even if organizationally, the way a bourgeois state operates. Agreed.
>after a prolonged and organized class struggle and no other option but toppling the bourgeoisie are going to cut), only *then* has the bourgeoisie a reason to 'switch' to fascist policy.I agree that the threat of proletarian dictatorship can light a fire on the bourgeoisie's ass and make them more willing to embrace fascism, but I don't think its fair at all to chalk the Italian bourgeoisie's acceptance of Italian fascism only to the threat of a revolution that existed right after WWI, which was crushed 2 years prior. I think its significant that the Great Depression saw such a widespread fascist upsurge, and I think the wave of proletarian movements that was seen after WWI was not the root cause even if it convinced the wavering bourgeois elements to support it.
In Japan, every last inkling of proletarian agitation was extinguished by 1931. Yet the bourgeoisie still felt the need of unity. The Taisei yokusankai was explicitly founded to "solve" the problem of political disunity that existed even despite the complete lack of any Communist movement in the country. Why was disunity such a big problem? Because they needed unity of the bourgeoisie in order to most effectively wage imperialist war, and to a lesser extent also class war. They might not have been in any risk of getting expropriated under the Red Flag, but they still were in such a crisis that even dissent amongst the bourgeoisie was deemed a threat significant enough that the old bourgeois democratic system was seen as unable to effectively govern.
Japan was primarily a country that got by by selling cheap goods abroad by paying their workers miserable wages. So when the Great Depression hit and people stopped buying their goods, the Japanese bourgeoisie was unable to sell their products. Hence why they conquered new markets in China and the Pacific in order to have access to their raw materials and to dominate their industries. This was not just a gamble that might pay off, might not, it was seen as do-or-die since the Zaibatsu wouldn't be able to survive through the Depression only selling goods abroad to disinterested countries. Either they conquer China or the economic system wouldn't be able to survive. And conquering China, as the Zaibatsu saw it, was a goal difficult enough that it was worth forgoing their favored democratic system if it meant unity of action and hence a larger chance of success.
You're right, its not just crisis; that can just be solved via typical bourgeois means. But I think if the crisis is threatening enough, the bourgeoisie can see in fascism a saving grace. It might not be very common that that happen without a Proletarian movement breathing down their neck but I think its still very possible and has happened historically.
>>2299189no
fascists are liberals
>>2299148>anyway. your thesis breaks apart when looking at history. why did not fascism develop in tsarist russia then? was tsarist russia fascistic? russia after all lost war after war. how come communism, and not fascism, developed so massively in tsarist russia? it ties directly to what i am saying: when there is no danger that the bourgeois state may be dismantled by an organized proletariat, there's no need to change state policy. Right I thought someone would bring this up.
You know it took only a year for the communist revolt to start up and win right?
Lenin, Stalin, and others ironically were not WW1 veterans. They were already revolutionaries.
Ironically they snuffed out fascism that might have come just as a by product of winning the civil war.
>>2299173>I think its significant that the Great Depression saw such a widespread fascist upsurge, and I think the wave of proletarian movements that was seen after WWI was not the root cause even if it convinced the wavering bourgeois elements to support it.I think it was an important factor, and without it, there would've been no fascism, but the fascist reaction wasn't necessarily to communism either, but included communism. It's really a reaction to practically all threats as perceived by the fascists to the social order
and which can be blamed for its breakdown and that happened with the Great Depression.
During that era, that also included rising working class militancy in particular (and also a lot of working-class demands were being granted in the 1920s across in Europe like shorter work days and so forth) but it was that militancy which gave socialists and communists a social base for their political parties. I think communists sometimes get the order of this reversed. You have to remember that communists were still a fairly marginal tendency in much of Europe when the fascists were on the upswing, and Lenin as a big bogeyman for the fascists was more of a symbol than the reality in their own countries. (One of the first politicians ᴉuᴉlossnW had also locked up was a socialist politician, although at that time, early 1920s, the distinctions between the communists and socialists weren't as dogmatically stark as they would later become, although they were diverging.)
I think the stratocracy anon is wrong in emphasis, but another condition was the hardening experience of World War I, and he's not wrong to point out the role of soldiering as an important element of fascism. The war produced a lot of people disgusted with war, but it also produced a lot of Rambos and disgruntled veterans (this has been a huge and recurring problem for modern societies after wars).
>>2299210>Ukraine is 100% getting set up for fascism after the war Azov isn't funded for no reason.It's gonna be a big problem. BTW, we'd be remiss to note that Russia seems to be trying to steer their own Rambos into a glowie front organization called the Russkaya Obshchina (RO).
>>2299215>Lenin, Stalin, and others ironically were not WW1 veterans.yes but the bolsheviks were immensly popular on the front among the soldiers. in the elections for the constituent assembly, they won wherever the majority was soldiers and/or industrial proletariat. what constituted the bolshevik political body in russia was mostly soldiers and industrial workers (during the revolution at least). stalin et al maybe weren't veterans, but they had an understanding of military discipline. hell lenin's whole thing in wistbd is that a party is a militant body. the fascism that came about was an alliance of french and english capital and the disenfranchised aristocracy, capitalists and kulaks.
no, sorry. i don't think this 'psychological' explanation of a disillusioned soldier's fascism holds water. am i yapping for no reason? am i misunderstanding you?
>>2299230>yes but the bolsheviks were immensly popular on the front among the soldiers.That's true but wouldn't that be also due to the conditions in the country? Russia had revolutionary movements for decades before the Bolsheviks, and that was why. There were specifical historical and material conditions that thwarted development and made what the Bolsheviks offering both highly attractive but also – objectively speaking – the only way out for the country's situation. (Also there was a violently reactionary movement in the country too and a resulting civil war but those guys lost for the same reason.)
(Also some video of these RO guys.)
>>2299082>The American, British, and French bourgeoisie had imperial ambitions covering the whole world yet the US, Britain and France were never fascist aside from the Vichy regime.They didn't have ambitions, they were the de-facto world empires and that's why their bourgeoisie didn't have major internal contradictions like the peripheral wannabes like Japan, Germany and Italy did. The weird thing is that Japan eventually got its piece of the cake with Manchuria but still went on a murderous rampage like the semi-feudal religious nutters they kind of were. There was little communist threat in china yet and in the pacific they barely had plans for resource extraction, didn't even form strategic alliances like the germans, they just went in the most identitarian fascistic way possible
>The Taisho era in particular had significant liberal factions. It was never what the Soviets called a "national-democratic state" but still had significant liberal parties. Rikken Minseito was one the largest parties for example.The Emperor and the might of the nation was all that mattered. That's the framework they were allowed to exist in. They weren't liberal in the western sense either and that's fine but if we're taking the european definition of fascism we should take other definitions as well
>And yet they still had their open petty bickering about this or that haute bourgeois concern within their bourgeois democratic stateNowhere near comparable to countries with stronger liberal traditions. In Italy for example the resistance was stronger in the richer traditionally industrial north, not just workers but they also got support from liberal-minded petit bourg. In the US although it wasn't fascist, fascist sympathizers were popping up everywhere at some point and there was a strong liberal anti-authoritarian polity reacting against it. Groups that barely existed in japan due to very different historical developments
>>2299237>Russia had revolutionary movements for decadesright, but it was, for the most part, tied up with the intellectuals. espescially the narodniks. pre-plekhanov organizational tactics were not really interested in mass politics. really only after the brussels congress can you even begin to talk of a mass organization (even then it was, from what i recall, effectively reduced to a tenth during the post-1905. reaction).
the first wave of mass mobilization in bolshevik ranks came about when denekin's troops were approaching moscow (?). my point is, no. the revolutionary movement was in a pretty bad state when in started. what actually made the bolsheviks win was being able to reorganize and lead production for war communism while the white movement (or any other collaborator movement) depended on foreign capital to win. the bolsheviks were able to do this because they had a large underground network of agents among the industrial proletariat. the revolution promised peace at the front, but it actually brought the imperialist war home and why brest litovsk had to happen
what do you think of the black hundreds? fascistic or not? i would say so. if the situtation was radically different, we might have seen black hundreds march on moscow and red flags over rome.
>>2299416We know this is what OP and half the thread is saying.
It's also why I am saying if you're going to put the axis under a umbrella it shouldn't be "fascism" it should be something else like Stratocracy.
>>2298718OP is doing fascist purity testing disguised as nitpicking to be academically correct with every single word he uses.
>Fascism as an ideology was crushedYou can't crush something immaterial.
>by the Soviet UnionCountries are not persons and so do not do anything.
>"Fascism is just capitalism in decay" copium response<only 1920s Italian fascism is fascism and the slightest deviation makes it not fascist copium post>actual philosophy shared by ᴉuᴉlossnW and HitlerFascism is not nazism and nazism is not fascism.
>Fascist "Racism" actually was a rational and logical positionFascists rejected logic and reason in favor of faith, emotion and intuition, philistine.
>rejection of slave moralityComing from a servile little cocksucker like you that's just an insult.
>return to a "hero" idealLook where that got them.
>They are the result of contradictions and class struggle that are unqiue to modern materialist situation.Fascists somehow weren't this, I guess.
>>2299209>>2300301Sources for these two please.
I know Hitler said Stalin was a pure aryan bvll but I've never heard of either of these.
https://www.unpopularfront.news/p/the-last-true-fascist?
The Last True Fascist<Michael Ledeen and the "left-hand path" to American Fascism
>I will give my critics this: One blind spot in my writing on American fascism is an excessive focus on the paleoconservatives. On the one hand, it makes a lot of sense to focus on the paleocon faction: they represent a tradition that self-consciously goes back to the Nazi-sympathizing America First movment, in their ranks include notorious antisemites and others who gravitated to the farther reaches of the right as they grew alienated from the conservative mainstream, they had an open disdain for mass democracy and a highly reactionary and restrictive idea of American society. Some even openly called themselves fascists or ended up as white nationalists and Holocaust deniers. Pat Buchanan, the godfather of the Trumpist right, as Trump, in a very different moment, once said, is a “Hitler Lover.” (Well, maybe not a Hitler lover exactly, but certainly not a Hitler hater—a Hitler-not-minder.) But, on the other hand, as many critics of the fascism discourse on the anti-imperialist left and the “isolationist” right have complained, don’t the warmongering neoconservatives deserve that analogy more? After all, these people led America down a path of frenzied militarism and a war based on a lie. Didn’t they lead some of the most severe attacks on civil liberties? Aren’t we taking their rhetoric about “democracy” too much at face value when we leave them out of the conversation about fascism? (And then there’s the small matter of reflexive support for that angry little genocidal apartheid state in the Middle East.) Some neocons have rediscovered their social democratic roots and exited the Trumpified GOP, but many others find the Republican party a still-friendly home for their belligerency and bloody-mindedness. Unique IPs: 45