>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.
>>2417443Like 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.
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.
>>2417576I.. uhh… I don't think there is one.
>>2417674The "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.
>>2417685You 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."
>>2417688I 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.
>>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 warYeah 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.
>>2417806Good 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.
>>2417832Midwit take.
>>2417830Yeah it's become clear no one wants fascism to be intentionally muddy to define more than liberals themselves.
>>2417862all? 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
>>2417860alright "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)
Unique IPs: 33