[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Not reporting is bourgeois


File: 1754360378491.png (809.77 KB, 640x866, ClipboardImage.png)

 

>fascism is capitalism in decay
>looks at italy
>italy only recently unified
>italy was mainly a agricultural economy
>italy industry was in some ways worse than imperial japa
>nazism, the capitalism in decay one, came way after italian fascism rose to power.
How was italian fascism capitalism in decay? If anything, it feels closer to the process meiji japan went through.

File: 1754362227803.png (455.44 KB, 891x700, hobs.png)

>>2417443
(From the Age of Extremes.) It's not strictly accurate but it wasn't a crazy thing to believe at the time. Don't think the analogies to Meiji Japan are accurate either because fascism aimed at doing mass politics (albeit for counter-revolutionary ends) while the Meiji restoration was more of a top-down project.

What was the origin of the "fascism is capitalism in decay?" Who said that? Was it Dimitrov or Trotsky? Somebody remind me.

You have to be critical of these people, or understand that they were trying to analyze what was going on, but also move people in a particular direction with radical slogans. That said, when I do read them, I can often think "well, it makes sense why they thought that in 1937" in the context of failing economies and collapsing liberal governments. Was it ''the final death knell of the capitalist system' well no because it experienced an economic boom after the war.

>>2417443
Decay is in the ability to control with veiled threats and violence. Switching to naked threats and violence. Fascism rises in direct response to the rise of communism and failure to capture the state.

>>2417443
>>fascism is capitalism in decay
what is it with most mainstream "definitions" of fascism being pants on head vibes-based retardation. like fucking "decay"? really? very scientific!

>nazism, the capitalism in decay one, came way after italian fascism rose to power
why do people keep saying this when it's not true?

Yeah but ᴉuᴉlossnW was originally sponsored by the British, to do entry-ism into the left, because they were shit scared of communism spreading through Europe.

>>2417443
something can be symptomatic of capitalism in decay even if it occurs in one of the more "backwards" countries.

<Fascism is capitalism larping as socialism because it's afraid
<Fascism is the colonial methods of counterrevolutionary oppression brought home to the imperial core
<Fascism is Palingenetic ultranationalism
<Fascism is the rigth wing of social democracy

WHICH IS IT LEFTYPOL?!?!?!?!!

>>2417510
could it be that fascism is all those things at once but at the same time arent. That fascism is a very nuanced ideology that cant be put into one strict category?

File: 1754374147255.jpeg (226 KB, 828x444, IMG_4052.jpeg)

Fascism is when capitalism enters into a crisis form both the falling rate of profit and its demand for growth. Monopoly capital begins to demand new markets and a total free trade system it cannot stop growing . It turns to war or an internal enemy to take their wealth and position and property if they a RW a threat to the ruling class in this case whites . It was Jews in hitlers time or the Latino bourgeoisie that are being gobbled up by the white bourgeoisie now in America .

>>2417467
what's the logic behind your color coded highlighting?

>>2417512
why'd you have to go and make things so complicated

>>2417578
BECAUSE LIFE IS COMPLICATED

>>2417578
I see the way you're acting like you're somebody else gets me frustrated

>>2417443
Like I pointed out in a thread before.
Every leftist take on Fascism is absolutely fucking retarded because the left don't want to actually acknowledge the fact that Fascism was an ACTUAL FUCKING IDEOLOGY WITH ACTUAL FUCKING TENANTS AND GOALS who's adherants were simply sublimated into Liberalism post-WW2, because if the Left acknowledged this fact, it would mean the Left would have to stop calling everything and everyone a Fascist.
The way the left uses "Fascist" is like calling Obama a "Monarchist".
Fascism isn't "Capitalism in decay" it was a retarded futurist ideology born out of Italian Futurism and LARP occultism that largely wanted a perfect future society to act like a "organic body" (people are cells, families are the tissue, the state is the brain, working class the body, capitalists the heart etc) and that if one part was "sick" it would kill the rest of the body, this is also why Fascism hated "others" because they saw them as foreign viruses trying to enter the "body" and make it sick.
Throw on top a hefty amount of influence of occultist bullshit, Christianity was a slave morality, ancient paganism was a hero ideology, we lost our "magic" because of Christian slave bullshit etc and you get all the wacky esoteric elements of Fascism.
Don't have this stuff, it's not Fascism. Fascism isn't Capitalism in decay, it was a fucking cringe LARP movement by Futurist Occultists. I can tell you right now if Alistar Crowley was a politican in the UK, his movement would have just turned out to be a British form of Fascism.


>>2417674
>Futurist Occultists
Futurist occultist syndicalists

File: 1754386971524.jpg (178.94 KB, 742x1100, Benito_Mussolini_colored.jpg)

Figure I'd post ᴉuᴉlossnW writing about Capitalism in Decline.

>After the World War, and because of it, capitalistic enterprise became inflated. Enterprises grew in size from millions to billions. Seen from a distance, this vertical sweep of things appeared as something monstrous, babel-like. Once, the spirit had dominated the material; now it was the material which bent and joined the spirit. Whatever had been physiological was now pathological; all became abnormal.


>At this stage, super-capitalism draws its inspiration and its justification from this Utopian theory: the theory of unlimited consumers. The ideal of super-capitalism would be the standardization of the human race from the cradle to the coffin. Super-capitalism would have all men born of the same length, so that all cradles could be standardized; 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.


>When does capitalistic enterprise cease to be an economic factor? When its size compels it to be a social factor. And that, precisely, is the moment when capitalistic enterprise, finding itself in difficulty, throws itself into the very arms of the State; It is the moment when the intervention of the State begins, rendering itself ever more necessary.


>We are at this point: that, if in all the nations of Europe the State were to go to sleep for twenty-four hours, such an interval would be sufficient to cause a disaster. Now, there is no economic field in which the State is not called upon to intervene. Were we to surrender — just as a matter of hypothesis — to this capitalism of the eleventh hour, we should arrive at State capitalism, which is nothing but State socialism inverted.


He goes on to talk about corporatism and shit but it's the super-capitalism stuff that's kind of interesting. ᴉuᴉlossnW basically imagined future forms of Capitalism increasingly intruding on the human being themself; I think in "Talks With ᴉuᴉlossnW" he kind of harkens back to that idea, like he claims that eventually there's gonna be a single world language, but it'd destroy the cultural treasures (poems and novels and the like) of other languages. The way he tries to present himself is almost like a single individual manipulating one massive machine to keep some "human" element in it.

Posting this mostly 'cause it's an interesting historical piece; just seeing how the figures living through that time talked about it.

I've seen fascism described as socialism turned on it's head. It takes the idea of state capitalism and makes it for the benefit those at top of their idea or meritocracy despite meritocracy not being a thing in reality due to merit being a spook.

>>2417674
who fucking cares what fascists regarded themselves. friedrich ebert, pilsudski, hitler, etc. also regarded themselves as ""socialists"". the far right was populated by ignorant morons and LARPers who were straight up trying to mimic communist methods and style. fascists should analyzed according to their class character and actions, not according to whatever the holy fascist scriptures say

>>2417695
right and communism is when the government does stuff; i dont need to read their literature

>>2417696
trukenuke. Communism is when the gov does welfare or economic planning. Simple as

>>2417696
you seem very worried about seeking validation from right wingers

>>2417708
by wanting to be academic?

>>2417720
Academia declared that the Marxist analysis of Fascism is false and that actually Fascists are motivated by wanting to exterminate minorities instead. Who gives a single fuck what "academia" says in matters of politics and history. What matters are facts and the Marxist explanation for Fascism is the most comprehensive and empirical assessment that can possibly be made.

>>2417722
>dont read primary sources on fascism, read trotsky instead
pure genius 🙄

>>2417723
4/5 screenshots are from a book written by someone who LIVED THROUGH that time period you fucking moron.

Fascism is the decay of the socialist movement that turn into populist nationalism. You see it here.

>>2417748
that's not a primary source you retard

File: 1754395134048.png (109.62 KB, 1597x840, literally you.png)

>>2417752
>DURRRRRR
pic related, it's you.

>>2417576
I.. uhh… I don't think there is one.

>>2417674
The "organic" society / corporatism was also tied up in medieval nostalgia. They recognized that social classes existed but thought they could solve politics and have all the different classes work together. The nostalgia for the middle ages (the retvrn stuff) was big with the non-fascist right at the time as well.

There were a bunch of traditional conservative authoritarians who also existed in Europe like Franco in Spain, and Mannerheim in Finland. Socialists and communists would call them fascists as well (and they were on the same side at times) and they shared some of the same ideas, but there are some differences. The fascists went further than them because they wanted to replace the traditional conservative elites with a new elite born from soldiers. This was not egalitarian, they very much believed the soldiers were better / superior to other people and had earned the right to rule over others. It's a bit like Starship Troopers or something. The fascists also tapped into a broader social base than the church. Hobsbawm wrote that the fascists belonged to the age of mass politics.

I think the selective co-opting of socialist symbols and rhetoric makes more sense in that context. Like, in contrast to the "old right" of the time, which cared not for mass politics, the fascists sought to get people moving – albeit for counter-revolutionary goals – and it just happened that the language of mass politics up to that point had been the language of the left.

>>2417685
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."

>>2417688
I think another way of looking at it is deregulating the economy but intensifying state intervention in every other domain. They wanted bosses to have more power in the firm, not less. At the same time, the state would intervene to discipline people.

Then you add crackpot ideas about breeding a super-race and you get the Nazis.

I'd add another way communists can be misleading about this is to say that fascism is a reaction to communism specifically. That's an oversimplification and a bit egocentric on the part of the communists. What the fascists didn't like is everything they perceived as threatening the social order which included communism but was broader than that. That also (especially) included increasing workers' militancy but it was that which gave communists *and* socialists a political base, not the other way around. The communists were not the biggest tendency on the Italian left when the fascists came to power, and among the first victims of ᴉuᴉlossnW's repressions were socialists. Although on the other hand, there was less of a sharp distinction between socialists and communists then as would develop over time.

I think part of the reason communists say that is because they want to position themselves as the exclusive anti-fascist force. They're trying to say, the fascists really just hate communists, and they want people who don't like the fascists to become communists. But as a matter of record, the communists ended up joining in with alliances and coalitions with non-communist forces to eventually defeat the fascists.

Lenin said this because it popped up during post ww1 in a single sentence and died, it was then misinterpreted and blindly followed by communists after 1935, ignoring the material and historical context.
>If anything, it feels closer to the process meiji japan went through.
Yes on some level it's a response to feeling inadequate specifically after military defeat.
I've always held that fascism can only come about after a warrior class of men is created materially through a major war and then losing that war, if the war is won there is no fascism, any petit bourgeoisie big business funded movements will not be fascism, just populism.
This is the major piece of the puzzle every single leftist theorist was missing.

>>2417777
>I've always held that fascism can only come about after a warrior class of men is created materially through a major war and then losing that war
Yeah I agree that it's an important factor. The frontsoldat (front-line soldier) was a big mythic hero in Nazi propaganda. A majority of the Italian fascists early on were ex-soldiers. World War I took the shine off war for a lot of people, but it also created a lot of Rambos who got something out of it. People can be attracted to uniforms and the notions of masculine discipline and sacrifice, and others also underestimate radical right-wing movements that tap into the brutality of war because it looks so crazy.

It wasn't most people after World War I, but it was definitely a lot of people. A violent, well-organized minority that is willing to use brutality was a powerful asset when deployed by fascist parties in ultra-nationalist strongarm squads. They're people who like to bust heads and can organize a perimeter during a march.

>>2417777
>Yes on some level it's a response to feeling inadequate specifically after military defeat.
I forgot to mention one more thing – the attraction to war and the military among young people who missed out on the war and look up to the Rambos.

fascism was state policy of the bourgeoisie after failed proletarian revolutions in Europe at the time which enforced systemic white violence against the reds
see: Horty in Hungary, Finland, Baltic states, Sanacja in Poland, monarchofascism in yugoslavia

>>2417806
Good point it's clear these guys are all authoritarian anti communist conservatives defending capitalism and land owners yet they're all not lumped in with fascists or Nazis who arguably did all that far less.
Must be due to retarded academia secretly just defining fascism as racism only after America stopped slavery.

>>2417815
Liberal academia doesn't even categorize Japan in the '40s as fascist, they have a completely absurd definition of fascism "Palingenetic ultranationalism" which explains nothing about how they actually organized the state and instead only focuses on the particular rhetorical justifications used in Italy and Germany, thus conveniently being able to label fascism as a problem of dumb ideology and not as a real policy. Thus they ignore the states which were organized in an extremely similar manner but which used different rhetorical justifications since they were different nations in different contexts, such as late 1930s-1940s Japan, Hungary, Sanacja Poland, Zaire, Indonesia under Suharto, Cambodia under Lon Nol, etc.

Fascism is difficult to define because the ideology itself is literally just vibes and aesthetics based. Fascists are retards and the things they believe are incoherent and contradictory.

>>2417832
Midwit take.
>>2417830
Yeah it's become clear no one wants fascism to be intentionally muddy to define more than liberals themselves.

>>2417579
you kill people? smuggle people? sell people? but perhaps here, things can be different.

>>2417847
>Midwit take.
I might be a midwit but I'm right on this


>>2417847
the idea that fascism is whenever an authoritarian, anti-communist state exists is far more midwit, it's not smart, it's not accurate, and it's just idiotic

>>2417854
Define fascism, and for the record no one said it was but define it.

My take is that it springs out of the same concerns amongst the backdrop of massive technological or economical changes that support for Socialism and Communism I think is associated with. But while Socialists and Communists intend to harness these changes for revolution to create a society compatible with the new reality of those changes, Fascism is driven more by fear amongst the proletariat as well as the bourgeoisie and thus all of the different variations of fascism we’ve seen are the result of trying to force the status quo’s (whether that’s capitalism or something more agrarian) existence despite the changes resulting in material conditions no longer being naturally conducive for the hitherto existing socioeconomic system anymore.

>>2417854
>it's not accurate
retard all fascists started out as paramilitaries hired by capitalists to beat and murder socialist trade union organizers

>>2417862
This. Thousands of Communists and Socialists were beaten and murdered years before the first Jew or Gay person entered a gas chamber. Fascists always go after the political Left first. Liberals who deny this are lying through their teeth.

The obsession with defining fascism is cause it's a bad word and it's treated like the coming apocalypse. Like "the mask will come off". It won't. What we already have should be opposed without waiting for it to turn into mid-20th century fascism aesthetically. Repression already happens, camps are already open, genocidal rethoric already is widespread. I don't care about aesthetic or historical conections with past movements.

>>2417862
That's too German centric of a definition and not what I'd agree with but it's certainly better than the denial of it in favor of "Palingenetic ultranationalism"

>>2417863
> Liberals who deny this are lying through their teeth.
many are too retarded to lie. they actually believe what they say.

>>2417674
/thread

Fascism is literally just another bourgeois ideology even if it was a response to the growing anxiety of the German and Italian middle classes. Just look at what fascists had to say about themselves to figure it out instead of academic pseuds like Umberto Eco or some random radlib on Twitter, morons.

>>2417862
all? some certainly did but a far greater of them started in the military or other sections of society and grew into a force capable of wielding power
>>2417860
alright "fascism is an organization of the state, based in nationalism, anti-communism, and a form of reactionary populism, typically highly militaristic, in opposition to the current bourgeois order" now you might not like that last part but it is often true, the greatest opposition towards fascism comes from the left-wing of capital (ie social democrats and the like)

>>2417774
The reason (left)communists assert that fascism was particularly an anti-communist reaction is part of a critique of anti-fascism. If liberals, socialists, etc. were also threatened by fascist movements, then the Popular Front is justified, and communists may perpetually side with capitalism and democracy as a progressive defense against 'reaction'.

>>2417981
Bourgeois national liberation movements are historically progressive and the same logic applies to fascism when the crises of overproduction that are usually pushed out to the periphery are forced back to the center.

>>2417979
>in opposition to the current bourgeois order" now you might not like that last part but it is often true, the greatest opposition towards fascism comes from the left-wing of capital
This only ever happened in Germany, I don't believe any real threatening major reforms elsewhere occurred in Poland, Hungary, or Italy.

>>2418015
in italy that was certainly true, the biggest opponent to the fascists there were the social democrats, in poland and hungary that's a moot point since they had already been oligarchic dictatorships, so no such thing formed, but it was certainly true in the other liberal democracies where fascism was popular in, like france, britain, norway, belgium, etc

>>2418024
and also your point would be stronger if you included pre-axis invasion yugoslavia, which had a fascist party in power, possibly greece as well, and romania but in most instances, fascismm went against the liberals and social democrats, which would form a popular front to protect liberal democracy with communists

File: 1754410345979.png (154.12 KB, 800x811, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2417443
>italy only recently unified
You mean the Kingdom of Italy? When ᴉuᴉlossnW was still struggling for power? See the Italian Social Republic for real fascism.

>>2418033
in fact i actually forgot the best example for my point, tiso's slovakia, it was against the current liberal order, why you might ask? because they were a bunch of ultranationalist priests who hated secularism, and since the liberalism in czechoslovakia was of a secular kind, they replaced the current bourgeois order with a new one, of course this was rendered moot within 7 years but had they won they would have continued it regardless

fascism is anything I don't like
simple as


Unique IPs: 33

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]