/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2417685
>it would have babies divert themselves with the same playthings, men clothed according to the same pattern, all reading the same book and having the same taste for the movies — in other words, it would have everybody desiring a single utilitarian machine. This is in the logic of things, because only in this way can super-capitalism do what it wishes.

he predicted reddit capeshit soylenials

>>2417774
> Then you add crackpot ideas about breeding a super-race and you get the Nazis.
Nazism was just Fascism meets Pan Germanism. Pan Germanism itself isn't inherently bad but at the time they were the precursors to Nazis even right down to the antisemetic focus.

>>2419258
I mean I’d say that’s a bit of residual Marxist analysis coming through, or at least not incompatible with it. Capital accumulates and standardizes shit.

>>2417774
>You can see hostility here to any notion of economic planning. Or the use of rationality in managing an economy. You see this today on the right a lot with the "they're going to make us live in pods and eat the bugs."

It’s something I can’t entirely fault them over. Like the idea of losing ourselves to a system entirely outside of our control, being “standardized” by an outside force, it’s scary. It’s why invasion of the body snatchers resonates so much—or to use a more modern example, it’s also why the western remake of Ghost In The Shell apparently rewrote the ending to be the opposite of the anime movie; the major goes from giving herself up to be something more to saying she’s never gonna give up her individuality in the live action movie.

fascists are the consequence of a society that venerates mediocrity, which is what you get when you hyperdrive alienation.

He was right look at Donald trump he was also right about the word reactionary. Right wingers just react when they get offended.

>>2417510
#2 with the other 3 being superstructural manifestations of the imperial boomerang smacking the base

Every talking point about Fascism was selected by the Fabian/Tavistock assholes who funded the Fascists and gave the Fascists all of their planks and told them Fascists what they were going to do, and it's always "anti-Fascist" to uphold essentially Fascist conceptions of the universe and the political.

It's insane talking to people about Fascism when you have to deprogram them of this and speak of politics as it was understood then and now. But basically, OP is entirely correct. "Capitalism" never was the end all be all or the universal truth. It described the British imperial system in Britain, sort of described other countries, and had nothing to say about the colonial countries that were dominated by slavery and outright exploitation with no domestic market to speak of. The countries of continental Europe were trying to negate "capitalism" before it began, not adhere to an alien organization of society dogmatically.

What you see here is less dogmatic "capitalism' but dogmatic Eugenics and dogmatic belief about what sort of person should be selected to live in the world to come. Fascism emphasized the eugenic interest over any "economic" interest, and the interest of elites to hold the state and negate any democratic inquiry against it. Under Fascism, nothing could exist outside of or against the state, and they meant every word of that.

>>2417443
>>2417477
Capitalism in decay refers to imperialist decline under monopoly conditions and the falling rate of profit. Its describing the transition from progressive to regressive capitalism as market competition leads to consolidation into monopolies that no longer increase productive forces to create more commodities but lives off rent from existing forces of production. Imperialism is driven by the falling rate of profit compelling imperialists to expand into external territory, and fascism is driven by the same aspect but turn inward recouping profits from privitizing public services and imposing austerity by lowering wages and cutting benefits, but under conditions of a weak working class that is not organized enough for a successful revolution, but just enough to threaten protest, which in turn leads to the bourgeoisie implementing an open terroristic dictatorship to enforce their policies. Everything that applies to Germany getting pushed out of Africa and having second rate colonies also applies to Italy. The relative weakness of the Italian bourgeoisie compared to Britain and France is exactly why it went fascist. Italy was also a dominant player in shipbuilding steel textiles explosives and chemicals and had monopolies in these industries that were part of international cartels. Japan was even more agricultural and so was Russia yet they were both imperialist.

>>2417674
>Every leftist take on Fascism is absolutely fucking retarded
>an ACTUAL FUCKING IDEOLOGY
>ideology
>occultist bullshit
>morality
>ideology
>magic
hmmm yes and what is the materialist reason for this mr absolute fucking retard

>>2417774
>That's an oversimplification and a bit egocentric
I agree because its not communism that drives fascism, but the logic of capitalism itself. But you do need an attempted workers revolution that fails. Without that you dont get open terrorism you just get neoliberal austerity and people accept it.

>>2417777
>it's a response to feeling
its a response to the inability to expand extraterritoriality to reset the falling rate of profit, its failed imperialism specifically not just "a warrior class"

>>2417924
see >>2417695

>>2417867
it comes from anticommunism and is the same reason people lump communism and fascism together as authoritarian totalitarianism. the point is to distance fascism from capitalism and obscure the fact that its a natural end point of the logic of the profit motive. it also distances the fascist movements of the 30's and 40's from their funders which were from the same that later fought against it, like ford and standard oil. the difference between "classic" fascism and imperialism is that they did it in europe, the reason its "bad" is because fascism is when you do colonialism to your own citizens. by making fascism exceptional they excuse the exact same crimes under normal capitalism

>>2420407
>>2420394
I don't know enough about Italy or Polish or Hungarian fascism, but I know enough about the German type to state that
>privitizing public services and imposing austerity by lowering wages and cutting benefits
German privatization is not privatization as we think of here in modern western nations, lowered wages were done under price controls although by my calculations they were still underpaid although better than Britain's but they actually got more benefits than before.
If you define "fascism" as the economic policy where the state forces everything to be shit at the behest of the bourgeoisie you'll find it's very difficult and like other definitions of fascism are susceptible to being attached to non fascist regimes like China.
So with that said it's why I have to disparage the 1935 Internationals definition of it as wrong for missing that crucial element.
Yes it's failed imperialism but it can't be any kind of failed imperialism, it has to be one that leaves a unsatisfied material class of warriors.
Without it fascism cannot manifest.

>>2420431
>it has to be one that leaves a unsatisfied material class of warriors.
>Without it fascism cannot manifest.
id say that is like the way without the threat of workers revolution the dictatorship doesn't manifest. the material source is still the falling rate of profit. saying it is directly unsatisfied warriors is really close to saying it is driven by the petit bourgeois. even if the movements or parties are led by the petit bourgeois or warriors its still funded by monopoly capital and driven by profit
>it's very difficult and like other definitions of fascism are susceptible to being attached to non fascist regimes like China.
i think the distinction that it is imperialist is exactly why its not applicable. china doesn't "forces everything to be shit at the behest of the bourgeoisie" nor is its economic policy determined by the falling rate of profit under monopoly conditions

>>2420545
>china doesn't "forces everything to be shit at the behest of the bourgeoisie"
You'd be surprised how many people could twist it that way.
>nor is its economic policy determined by the falling rate of profit under monopoly conditions
Noted but I don't think that falling rate of profit under monopoly is what caused that, failed expansion under imperialism does, which usually does lead to the necessary failed warrior class like in WW1.
I'd also go as far as to say that any rate of profit failure in a non expanding entity if not accompanied by attempted expansion will lack the militarist aspect to want to establish such a society to begin with.

>>2420545
Also
>saying it is directly unsatisfied warriors is really close to saying it is driven by the petit bourgeois. even if the movements or parties are led by the petit bourgeois or warriors its still funded by monopoly capital and driven by profit
Well yes. Even Trotsky said that.
>funded by bourgeoisie
I mean so was everything from the Bolsheviks to ISIS.
I think looking at the post power grab treatments of the bourgeoisie and ownership of land are a bit more important. Closer looks at meetings between "industrialists" in the 30s and such show far more of a hesitant relationship than a direct conspiracy against the proletarian revolution.

Multiple problems I just realized before bed:
I tried to do quick reading on the context that Lenin said fascism is capitalism in decay was.
One problem. No text or written speeches from him saying that exist. It was first cited by Dutt.
I am not going to say Dutt did it to slander fascism, but I know Guerin and others put nonexistent quotes in their official works before. I firmly believe this is due to only being able to get hearsay theough mistranslations. It's probable he heard a story avalanche into that quote.
Meaning that the quote itself might never have existed regardless of why Dutt put it in.
This only leaves post 1935 texts and opinions up for debate.

>>2420588
>Imperialism
I'm not one to define if someone like ᴉuᴉlossnW was more imperialist or colonialist, but thanks for providing context, the problem is that Lenin said that about imperialism not the f word, the more I read into Dutt's "Fascism and Social Revolution" the more moments I see where he cites something without much support or rewrites words entirely.

>>2420594
idr if he cites lenin for that but i just see it as a logical working out of what lenin said applied to new conditions. the same way lenins concept of imperialism is just working out what marx already said about consolidation under competition. lenin wouldn't have had a definition of fascism because fascism didn't exist until imperialist expansion created international conflict after the division of the whole world, lenin already predicts in his arguments against kautsky and ultraimperialism that competing monopolies would come into conflict but he died before one of them could lose and turn inwards, just like marx couldn't have a definition of imperialism but could predict what the dynamics of profit seeking would lead to. we also might have been able to predict the neoliberal turn to austerity as an alternative but couldn't name it until it happened and it couldn't happen until the ussr began to collapse.

i dont think it really matters if he got a citation wrong because the whole chain of analysis naturally falls out of marx's original work on the ltv its just a dialectical transformation of the same dynamics into new conditions

>>2420604
I'm going to read through the 1933 Plenum of the International, because it's got some interesting shit talking between theorists which seemingly gives fascism more credit than they know, but I don't think anyone here is denying that Marxist outlooks to explain fascism must be done.

I do however think the problem is you're defining a wider group of ideologies under a singular economic clause and motivations.
I didn't mention it before but "austerity" if you mean that in the governmental sense cannot apply to Nazi Germany, in fact it was an over bloat of state bureaucracy and waste of resources.
>ultraimperialism that competing monopolies would come into conflict
Hitler did not want this, the UK chose to do it, even with Eisner Hitler was working with a non USSR backed group, the problem is that the UK did this, not Hitler, if Hitler had the option he would suck off every single British man before going to war to compete with them.
If you however mean ww1, the problem is that this is still interlinked with creating a military class.

Again these are initially good points but the more you look into them the more unstable foundations they have.

This is why I have to put military class coming into existence as a requirement, because we haven't really seen fascism come about ever since, nor really beforehand.
It's why I'm not scared of "fascism eating America" or anything, we would need to lose a major war before that, even economic collapse without a war would not lead to it.
It's I think integral to whatever you'd like to call fascist ideologies that no matter how many of them spring up to socialist involvement in capitalist crisis, there needs to be a material class willing to answer the bourgeoisie call to stop it to begin with. It needs to be created before any amount of anti communist or pro bourgeoisie action can be taken.

>>2419527
>It’s something I can’t entirely fault them over. Like the idea of losing ourselves to a system entirely outside of our control, being “standardized” by an outside force, it’s scary. It’s why invasion of the body snatchers resonates so much
An analogy contempotary to the 1920s might be to We by Zamyatin. It depicts a dystopia in which everything is run according to mathematical logic and has totally standardized everybody so they're just numbers, and everybody eats their protein cubes at the exact time on the dot. It's like rational planning going waaaay overboard so people are just cogs. The society is the "single utilitarian machine" that ᴉuᴉlossnW is warning about, and some of the few things that individualize people (like hair) has not been completely wiped out yet, but it's an aspirational goal (they have eliminated most body hair).

Zamyatin was a Bolshevik who had a meltdown and turned against it, don't think he became a fascist though. But there was a whole craze about the machine going on in the 1920s. The plot twist is that fascists loved the machine when they found it useful for them.

(Kind of interesting the Russian Ministry of Culture sponsored a film adaptation of this novel four years ago.)

>>2420614
>a wider group of ideologies
right because ideologies have a material base. different capitalists justify their system in different ways it doesn't make them not capitalist
>I didn't mention it before but "austerity" if you mean that in the governmental sense cannot apply to Nazi Germany
yeah i think austerity is an alternative to fascism when the working class is too weak to fight back. germany did this before fascism but it wasn't enough to save them from the falling profit rate. even successful imperialism is only a temporary bandaid
>the problem is that the UK did this
yeah but thats still competing imperialism and fascism coming from the loser.
>military class coming into existence as a requirement
but why does a military class come into existence? how is it socially and materially reproduced? what are the modes of social production that give rise to this military class?

>It's why I'm not scared of "fascism eating America"
idk it perfectly fits for me, america is full of decaying monopolies and downwardly mobile petty bourgeois shitting their pants about losing their privileged while getting subsumed into these monopolies and the problems scapegoated onto immigrants. they also lost the wars in iraq and afganistan and are losing in ukraine and all those wars are driven by monopoly concerns for expanding extraterritorially. ukraine is particularly obvious as they started that war right after the profits from investing in new fracking technology were exhausted domestically and shell/exxon got contracts in the black sea. its textbook imperialism. the same thing is happening wrt venezuela. when they lose in ukraine they will tighten the screws domestically and cut wages and benefits, which they are already getting a headstart on by cutting medicare and food stamps.

i do agree that there wont be fascism because the working class is not organized or strong enough to credibly threaten the bourgeoisie, so they wont need to become openly terroristic to push through the reforms. if something like dsa started an insurrection and failed then you might get it.

>>2420662
>but why does a military class come into existence?
Major imperialist clashes of ww1, capitalism lays its foundations. It is capitalist imperialism firat and foremost mobilizing a war force against its own competitors rather than inner struggle.
>how is it socially and materially reproduced?
Total war sentiment. Fascisms militatism and continued clash is what leads to it. The continued need for war that Hitler spoke of be it between communism or between asia and the west and the need to conscript.
It is by no means healthy and almost all predicted simulations of such a state end with it having to change by entering its own fascism in decay crisis.
>what are the modes of social production that give rise to this military class?
The state taken there after by the newly appointed class would ensure a temporary reproduction of it.

It's funny you mention Ukraine. I am 100% it and Russia are more likely to fall into fascism for the reasons stated above. If Ukraine holds out they even have Azov being funded. They're 100% more prone to fascism than the USA is.
>idk it perfectly fits for me, america is full of decaying monopolies and downwardly mobile petty bourgeois shitting their pants about losing their privileged while getting subsumed into these monopolies and the problems
American consolidation was higher than ever before prior to Trump entering office. It did not need fascism to do that.
>when they lose in ukraine they will tighten the screws domestically and cut wages and benefits, which they are already getting a headstart on by cutting medicare and food stamps.
Like they did under Biden? Yeah probably.
>i do agree that there wont be fascism because the working class is not organized or strong enough to credibly threaten the bourgeoisie, so they wont need to become openly terroristic to push through the reforms. if something like dsa started an insurrection and failed then you might get it.
There isn't enough war experience or will power even in the face of desperate times in either side to do anything.
That is a lot of what fascism coming about comes down to. The training and dehumanization to make things possible built up from imperialism creating a new monster that is only capable of such violence because it was born in war not immediate decline or bourgeoisie funding per se.

Like I said I'm not scared. We might be looking at a slow decline but America will require losing a major war before anything else.
I would be more afraid of say, Bernie Sanders losing a war against Russia than I would if Trump openly declared martial law for whatever reason because I know historically we have more proof that hypothetical Sanders just opened the doors to fascism more than hypothetical Trump did.

>>2420744
>sentiment…The continued need for war that Hitler spoke of be it between communism or between asia and the west and the need to conscript.
which is driven by the falling rate of profit under monopoly stagnation, not words or sentiment

>That is a lot of what fascism coming about comes down to. The training and dehumanization to make things possible built up from imperialism creating a new monster that is only capable of such violence

i dont really see a material difference between fascism and imperialism. the distinguishing factor is whether the victims are citizens or foreigners

>If Ukraine holds out
they wont. they cant. its not really russia v ukraine its russia v the us and the us cant produce war material because its not profitable because of the monopoly cartel that runs the defense industry. they make high price high tech items that dont work because the profit rate on patents is higher and the nearly negative rate for producing things that actually would win the war. the margins on shells are so low they would have to be subsidized and they wont invest in the factories if they cant guarantee perpetual demand. by the time they break ground on the factories the war would be over.

and thats why i said the war is textbook imperialism, because it was started by the us on behalf of the petroleum monopolies having saturated the domestic market for fracking. the rate of profit is high when you can invest in new productive forces to bring products to market, but when all available territory is at the highest level of development you have to expand externally. thats why they want to develop the black sea.

i didn't say if they lose, i said when they lose. thats why inflation and tariffs and all this insane lashing out at the world. its all balanced on propping up the petrodollar and its literally impossible for them not to do it. the solution is what russia does, nationalize defense for national security and run it for purpose instead of profit. but they wont do that because it would look bad on next quarters earnings.

all of these things are inherent to the internal contradictions of capitalism and how a society that is structured around the private ownership of the means of production for profit leads to consolidation into monopolies and stagnation as technology innovation saturates and the rate of profit falls as the organic composition of capital increase leading to a crisis of overproduction. thats what i mean by "socially and materially reproduced" not ideas or sentiment or one mans word

>>2420824
Driven by the need to expand not falling rate of profit. Hitler could have seized the private economy fully after losing his shit in 1944 after being backstabbed and he wouldn't stop even after that. The brain worms would be too deep and he would use the MIC in Germany to propogate a warrior class.
>i dont really see a material difference between fascism and imperialism
…
>Ukraine Russia stuff
I also won't go into this it is imperialism but fascism is a fallout of imperialism. That is the material difference but I don't think I can change your mind on that.
>all of these things are inherent to the internal contradictions of capitalism and how a society that is structured around the private ownership of the means of production for profit leads to consolidation into monopolies and stagnation as technology innovation saturates and the rate of profit falls as the organic composition of capital increase leading to a crisis of overproduction. thats what i mean by "socially and materially reproduced" not ideas or sentiment or one mans word
You know I see what you mean.
But the thing is all modes of production on some level are still subject to men and their ideas.
Slave economies existed because of this prior to the organization of feudalism.
Despite this if you need a purely economical standpoint fascism reproduces not just by the restructuring of industry to military but also by creating a new order wherein the need to exand is rekindled if only temporarily. It is a even more violent imperialism. Even if you remove the private ownership for profit in such a society the machine itself would be organized to a material imperialist war machine.
I think this part in specific is keeping you from gettinf what I mean the disbelief that outside of capitalisms impurities there would still be such a civilization.

>>2420604
>i dont think it really matters if he got a citation wrong because the whole chain of analysis naturally falls out of marx's original work on the ltv its just a dialectical transformation of the same dynamics into new conditions
This. Dutt's book is good as fuck too.

>>2420863
>But the thing is all modes of production on some level are still subject to men and their ideas.
>Slave economies existed because of this prior to the organization of feudalism.
Slave economies emerged because early agrarian societies were at occasionally at war with remaining hunter gatherers and nomads who would do raids on settlements for free food/women and so eventually agricultural settlements started raiding back and taking remaining nomadic peoples as slaves. Also agricultural settlements created class society by leading to uneven accumulation of wealth between families/clans/tribes due to differences in the terrain being cultivated, etc.

>>2420863
>it is imperialism but fascism is a fallout of imperialism
well i agree with that and that it is a material difference i just think from the perspective of an internationalist there the difference between it happening to citizens or foreigners isn't particularly important. unless you think fascisms violence is on another level from colonialism and imperialism. both are state terrorism

>Driven by the need to expand not falling rate of profit.
but the need to expand is because of profit. like even on the basis of agricultural lebensraum its to produce surplus food to support the population. expansion creates a temporary absolute surplus by virtue of bigger numbers but it doesn't reverse the overall rate. even if its rising in certain sectors the rate of the total economy doesn't go up because finance capital is a merger of bank and industry. from the perspective of finance imperial exploitation is just a profitable investment not a fundamental reversal.

>It is a even more violent imperialism.
i dont really see how work-to-death camps under the nazis is particularly more violent then chopping of workers arms for missing their rubber quota or herding families into strategic hamlets and then dropping napalm on them. ultimately the logic is the same and that is to turn human life into profit because they ran out of other avenues for investment. it just highlights and underlines how labor is the source of value in bold. the real exceptionalism of the nazis was that they did it to white europeans. i guess i agree that its on another level, like how imperialism repeats capitalism at a higher stage, but with a difference of organized systemization, not violence itself. its a difference of scale and quantity not really quality. its still capitalism. i would say imperialism is something like industrialized colonialism, and fascism is when you run out of frontiers and bring that home.

i think the reason this analysis is important is because it suggests the solution. if fascism is the logical conclusion of capitalism then it proves capitalism is a death cult and the only solution is restructuring society towards communism. like if we want to say its just having a warrior class then how to we stop it? how come banning germany from having a military didn't stop the international cartels controlling germany's foreign policy from propping up azov on behalf of exxon even at the detriment of their own citizenry? ok germany isn't fascist again, yet, but is the problem fascism itself or capitalist imperialism?

>>2420886
Slave economies is a complex term because it was placed as the only precursor to feudalism. It was kept even when civilizations kept on with trade and became more advanced.
In that same way fascism is like a pit. It can start one way but not end in another even if it changes.

>>2417774
>You can see hostility here to any notion of economic planning. Or the use of rationality in managing an economy. You see this today on the right a lot with the "they're going to make us live in pods and eat the bugs."

What's crazy is this is the expression of their desire to somehow RETVRN to "TRVE" capitalism:

Rajani Palme Dutt, Fascism and Social Revolution, Chapter 3, Section 1:

<"the endeavour by combination to limit stocks, restrict production, and maintain or raise prices is inherent, not merely in capitalism, but in commodity economy from the beginning. As Adam Smith wrote in his Wealth of Nations: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices." But such a policy appeared to Adam Smith, the original voice of classic capitalism, as an offence against the principles of capitalist production, as "a conspiracy against the public." It has remained for our day that all the capitalist governments of the world should meet together in the World Economic Conference to proclaim, with the combined voice of all the most enlightened, progressive statesmen and all economists, the supreme aim to restrict production and to raise prices. This is a measure of the extreme stage of decay of capitalism."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/dutt/1935/fascism-social-revolution-3.pdf

>>2420894
>unless you think fascisms violence is on another level from colonialism and imperialism. both are state terrorism
Most people generally agree the systemic killing of whatever number of jews or gypsy under Hitler was pretty derranged even by imperialist standards.
>and fascism is when you run out of frontiers and bring that home.
Hitlers ultimate goal was quite literally war with the USSR.
ᴉuᴉlossnWs was war with the previous Roman territories.
Even Austrias was war and defense against Hitler.
I think defining it as inner or outward is misunderstanding the need to kill anything or else it has no purpose mindset fascism has.
>but the need to expand is because of profit. like even on the basis of agricultural lebensraum its to produce surplus food to support the population. expansion creates a temporary absolute surplus by virtue of bigger numbers but it doesn't reverse the overall rate. even if its rising in certain sectors the rate of the total economy doesn't go up because finance capital is a merger of bank and industry. from the perspective of finance imperial exploitation is just a profitable investment not a fundamental reversal.
Even if no profit was to be derived Hitler would still have felt a need for dominance out of feeling threatened by a counter existing influential sphere. I guess you could call it the material need for gain and not exactly the need for expansion of profits and stability, although material stability ensues when you have an armed force needing targets.
But then the capital accumulation would be driven by psychological necessity now rather than direct want for more profit margins.
>if fascism is the logical conclusion of capitalism then it proves capitalism is a death cult and the only solution is restructuring society towards communism. like if we want to say its just having a warrior class then how to we stop it? how come banning germany from having a military didn't stop the international cartels controlling germany's foreign policy from propping up azov on behalf of exxon even at the detriment of their own citizenry? ok germany isn't fascist again, yet, but is the problem fascism itself or capitalist imperialism?
Basically. Capitalism creates fascism and it's sort of a point of no return without killing it.
I think the problem more so is that normalfags can't exactly imagine a non capitalist world so trying to wean them off before mind breaking themselves fascist is hard to do.

>>2420910
>Hitlers ultimate goal was quite literally war with the USSR.
i know thats why i think it was ultimately a project financed by american and british imperialists that backfired. thats why america joined the war so late and their first landing wasn't at normandy but in africa to assist the british in securing the suez and trying to carve baku off from the soviets because oil is the backbone of industry and thats much more important to them than their own people or allies. id have to go through the timeline but even if that was his goal from the beginning the actions didn't start out that way. they turned to fascism after ww1 and getting kicked out of africa. the expansion came later after reconsolidation of domestic industry and disciplining labor to enable for that capability.

>But then the capital accumulation would be driven by psychological necessity now rather than direct want for more profit margins.
even if i want to agree my point is that you change psychology by changing the economic base

<It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness

<Where do correct ideas come from? Do they drop from the skies? No. Are they innate in the mind? No. They come from social practice, and from it alone; they come from three kinds of social practice, the struggle for production, the class struggle and scientific experiment. It is man’s social being that determines his thinking. Once the correct ideas characteristic of the advanced class are grasped by the masses, these ideas turn into a material force which changes society and changes the world.

>>2420921
Hitler could have had all material needs met differently and still would have been in enough autistic rage to invade the USSR.
>project funded by the USA and UK that backfired
Too conspiracy oriented.
If we go by your own thoughts the conditioning for fascists is more of a natural material outcome from becoming a rabid pro capitalist soldier rather than it would be a direct organized anti communist plan.
No offense but it's weird that you reject your own rule for this one idea.

>>2417443
Capitalism isn't constrained by such fake stuff as national borders.

Send in the next reactoid

>>2420927
>No offense but it's weird that you reject your own rule for this one idea.
what rule?

>>2420921
Imagine saving this C-tier garbageman video on your harddrive. Imagine sharing it.

>>2421047
I didn't watch the video last night because the audio sucked but yeah holy shit.
>PMC
>Using Ford as an example
Not the best place to learn from.

>>2421047
>>2421199
Why is he wrong?

>>2421753
1. Professional managerial class isn't exactly a real thing, to even begin to name drop it is like saying "Middle class." Not exactly a thing.
2. Henry Ford is not a robber baron who hired the Pinkertons it seems like he let this name slip because of antisemitism rather than because he was a shining example of industrialists paying to keep workers under control.
He strikes me as highly radlib in his tendencies, not everyone who puts an idea through dialectical materialism is going to be immediately trustworthy, fucking ᴉuᴉlossnW did.
>But what about his main point, his points are stupid fine, but his main idea is still founded in Marx!
I mean I guess but he isn't saying anything we didn't already discuss above he's just repeating the 1933 idea.
Ultimately I just don't like how he's supporting his arguments.

After a quick search the guy is influenced by Foucault.
I don't like him, he strikes me as being a post modernist non Orthodox Marxist willing to adopt capitalist ideas without even noticing it because they were vetted by other academics.

This is an interesting essay. Emphasis mine:

>The German industrialists were faced with almost certain slow strangulation, especially those that relied upon sale in large quantities and had little possibility of sustaining themselves on the weak German market alone, such as coal and steel producers. This meant that they had to act quickly against the tide if they wanted to survive. The same was also the viewpoint of the Prussian militarist clique, which increasingly took the reins of government under ever more rightist regimes. The terms of the Versailles treaty and subsequent disarmament talks held Germany permanently in a relatively weak military strength compared to the British and the French forces, and the loss of Alsace-Lorraine as well as the overseas territories smarted, as did the French occupation of the Ruhr. The militarists were almost all from the Prussian landowner class in the eastern Prussia, so to speak the Polish parts of Germany, and as a result were inclined to protect their landholdings against foreign competition as well as their nation. Strong agricultural tarriffs had protected the position of German large and middle-sized farmers, if not their highly exploited agricultural labor, since the days of Bismarck and the large farmer lobby was very strong on the German right.(16) Things turned quickly rightward: after some major NSDAP victories, Von Schleicher intervened in 1932 on behalf of the military clique to rule essentially in a military dictatorship, be it one with elections. He introduced some work programs and liaised with Hugenberg, representative of the industrial capitalists, and the NSDAP share of the vote dropped. It was however the inability of the different class groupings to unite effectively that made pursuing this course impossible: neither the industrialists, nor the Prussian militarists nor the landowners were willing to cede any power to the other. This led to a cabinet, devised by an intervention from the diplomat Von Papen, in which they all shared power over their respective domains as Ministers, and had the forceful and charismatic Hitler as Chancellor. In this manner, National-Socialism, like any fascist movement, was the result of the bourgeoisie and upper class’ inability to unify and solve their problems by the usual means – precisely their weakness led to the need for a dictatorship to pursue their policy interests on their behalf, and often against the demands of their individual units.

[…]

>– Fifth, there was the central issue of Lebensraum. The excess labor in agriculture and its low standard of production, especially with a dual system of great landowners and lagging middle-sized family farms, gave the impression of great overpopulation in rural areas. This, in turn, was translated by Nazi policy into a need for more land. This was nothing new of itself: the mass emigration of some 40 million Europeans to settler colonies outside Europe in the preceding century was the product both of low wages and of land hunger. In 1933, some 29% of the entire workforce was engaged in agriculture(20); compare this to a country like the Netherlands today, which produces, albeit with significant subsidies, vast excesses for export with an agricultural workforce of a mere 2-3%. Moreover, most of these were agricultural laborers who were quite poor, as well as hard-pressed family farmers, whose infinitely divisible inherited plots became smaller and less profitable as time went on. The end of WWI had seen widespread famine and disease, which killed hundreds of thousands. The population density of Germany was high, especially now that it lacked any overseas colonies, and very unfavorable compared with France or America (or the USSR), meaning it would lag more and more behind and become ever more dependent on imported food. For Hitler c.s., this was a recipe for ‘race death’.(21) The only option was expansion and settlement elsewhere.

>– Sixth, there is the question of race. National-Socialism on the one hand expressed the unified desire for expansion and settlement on the part of both certain sections of heavy industry, in particular the ‘quantitative’ ones like mining and steel, as well as that of the middle and large farmers; on the other, it expressed the logic of colonialism in its most aggressive form, where all was ranked according to a hierarchy of peoples eternally fighting over their living space and exploitable resources, endlessly warring over their settlements, in a race to the death to have one ‘blood’ win over another. This crude medley of social Darwinism, racial ‘science’ and imperialist apologetics was a poisonous concoction brewed out of the ingredients of Victorian thought, and could not have existed without the prior popularity of each of these elements among the bourgeoisie and intelligentsia of the Victorian-era great powers. This includes, of course, anti-semitism and support for ideas of ‘racial purity’. Truly Nazism went further than any other in this regard, but this was more a matter of boldly boiling down the fluffy mass of Victorian imperial justification to its toxic core than a matter of innovation. In his main work Mein Kampf, Hitler immediately connected this entire ideological framework with the concrete and medium term needs of those larger farmers and heavy industry, as well as the revanchism among military circles, in a maneouvre as brilliant as it was diabolical. This meant of course implacable hatred toward those weakening the race on the one hand, such as ‘impure’ groups, and those opposed to the aforementioned classes on the other hand, such as socialists. In fact, the commentators seem to disagree on whether Hitler hated Jews more than Communists, and whether he hated Jews for being Communists or Communists for being Jews; be that as it may, these aspects followed immediately from these ideological elements. Fitting the combination of Lebensraum policy with support for the Nazis’ particular racial ideology, the agricultural areas of the north and east of Germany were the only parts to ever give the NSDAP a full majority in an election.(23)
http://mccaine.org/2010/03/12/what-was-nazi-germany/

>>2421765
The pmc is as "real" as any other class. It has identifiable members, concrete relations to the mop, and variable expressions of class consciousness.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/02/identity-and-the-professional-managerial-class.html

>>2419044
>Fascists did not like liberal societies and their values. They were triumphantly anti-liberal and did not like liberal civilization as such
Bro's been reading his Hobsbawm

>>2419044
>Fascists did not like liberal societies and their values. They were triumphantly anti-liberal and did not like liberal civilization as such
And for those skeptical of this statement one need only consider Engel's definition of "Reactionary Socialists" from his 1847 Principles of Communism which predates the beginnings of the actual Fascist movements by nearly 70 years.

This fits fascism very well. Fascism, especially the National Socialist variety framed itself as an anti-Marxist mass movement, and also a class-collaborative unification on the basis of the nation state. National Socialists accused Marxism of being the "Guardian Angel of Capitalism" but were also anti-liberal because liberalism is the essence of capitalism: its secularism, its separation of church and state, its individualism, its human rights, its trial by jury, its presumption of innocence, its opposition to feudalism, its opposition to patriarchal and agrarian society. Fascists wanted to turn back the clock of liberal capitalist and scientific enlightenment degeneracy, of which they viewed Marxism as a symptom. Hence even to this day you see both Marxists and Fascists accusing each other of being liberal as they try to disown the label. Marxists see Fascists as capitalist reactionaries when really they want to turn back the social clock to before capitalism, a thing which is impossible and suicidal. Fascists see Marxists as essentially a product of and continuation of the liberal enlightenment. Both try to disown the liberals but both are products of a liberal society and can't rid themselves entirely of the stench. Because whatever replaces capitalism will bear the "marks of capital" and you don't have to read Marx's Capital to know that instinctively.

>>2421765
>Henry Ford is not a robber baron who hired the Pinkertons
what? yes he was and yes he did
>he let this name slip because of antisemitism
Ford wasn't Jewish and was famous for antisemitism. He paid to have the Protocols of the Elders of Zion published in English.
>>2421767
>influenced by Foucault.
he studied in France
>he strikes me as being a post modernist non Orthodox Marxist
His entire project is exposing post-modernism and upholding Marxism-Leninism.

sounds like you dont know what the fuck your talking about at all