Fascism is unironically a more advancement formation compared to liberalism, which makes sense since it was developed later.
Like, it actually resolves the ideological contradictions of liberalism by saying "stop taking your own contradictory bullshit at face value".
Nietzsche was an innovator in this direction.
It's "conscious liberalism" in that it extends bourgeois class consciousness to the mass base of imperialism.
It's irrational and incoherent BECAUSE liberalism is irrational and incoherent, and fascists simply embrace that fact, they embrace irrationality, absurdity, mysticism and hypocrisy consciously
fascists are consciously feels over reals, vibes > all, and liberals have no answer to that because they are stuck in this mode where they faithfully believe in some kind of universality, objectivity, and le science, an objectivity that determines everyone's reality, but then refuse to examine how their notions of objective reality and scientific truth are socially constructed themselves
fascists understand that you can basically "artificially" politicize any issue, even things that are seen as "beyond politics", by tuning into middle class (labor aristocrats, petty bourgs) conscious anxieties and agitpropping them hard enough. liberals have no answer except for bleating "but… the science is settled…. the institutions agree…."
this is how rightoids can manufacture hysteria around some obscure blurb in pokemon lore about how some pokemon species don't have gender by calling it "woke propaganda", and liberals have no answer except saying "but… pokemons are animals and some animals don't have gender either…. it's SCIENCE!"
but science has never been the point, the point is manipulating "what" is seen as scientifically true, and liberals are powerless here because they think the ideology of science is "objective" and that everybody defers to it or should defer to it, while fascists are directly attacking the ideology itself (for their own means). they're actually pointing out liberal hypocrisy to evil ends, by pointing out inconsistencies in how liberal scientific understanding stops short of examining social relations. fascists merely take those social relations and "resolve" the hypocrisy by claiming it also extends to nature, that our current contradictions are just nature itself. social darwinism etc
Liberals love calling out the "hypocrisy" of fascism, but I think the exact opposite is the case.
Fascism is "honest liberalism"
Structurally it's true that fascism is just liberal violence turned inwardly into the imperial core, but in order to do that, you have to develop an ideology that "makes sense" of this inward turn
the logic of this "sense" is that actually, we don't give a fuck about "humanity", "citizenship" or "whiteness", or "europeanness", or whatever other universalizing category, and will simply do whatever is necessary to preserve capital, and will post-hoc justify it with whatever mysticism and ideology necessary
in this sense fascism is a bad negation of nationalism. since fascism is colonial violence turned inwardly, it doesn't really give a fuck that you're part of the same "nation". it will attack whoever is necessary to attack for counterrevolutionary purposes, and then make up reasons and divisions for why those arbitrary delineations within the "nation" are important. anti-semitism is the prime example, but other arbitrary delineations along which it becomes justified to attack "fellow" imperial core "citizens" are clear to see
liberalism presents a juncture. to uphold the logic of capital by any contortions necessary, or to reaffirm human reason. communism is the latter commitment, fascism the former. liberalism hangs in the middle, fretting and vacillating.
Libs dont have an answer to fascism is what you are saying? True
>>2528104Ye.
But there's like philosophical reasons for why that's the case n shit
ᴉuᴉlossnW did conceive of fascism as historically progressive and thereby superseding liberalism (1932):
>Fascism is an historical conception in which man is what he is only in so far as he works with the spiritual process in which he finds himself, in the family or social group, in the nation and in the history in which all nations collaborate. From this follows the great value of tradition, in memories, in language, in customs, in the standards of social life. Outside history man is nothing […] Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State, which is the conscience and universal will of man in his historical existence. It is opposed to classical Liberalism, which arose from the necessity of reacting against absolutism, and which brought its historical purpose to an end when the State was transformed into the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual. And if liberty is to be the attribute of the real man, and not of that abstract puppet envisaged by individualistic Liberalism, Fascism is for liberty. And for the only liberty which can be a real thing, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value,-outside the State. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State, the synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops and gives strength to the whole life of the people.https://constitution.org/1-Corruption/tyr/ᴉuᴉlossnW.htmᴉuᴉlossnW further sees that "corporationism" (corporatism) represents the historical period of production best, over and against capitalism and socialism, which are both based on homo economicus and not the "integral man" of the nation (1933):
<I would mark in the history of capitalism three periods: the dynamic period, the static period and the period of decline. The dynamic period was that from 1830 to 1870 […] But after 1870, this epoch underwent a change […] There began to be agreements, syndicates, corporations, trusts […] What was the result? The end of free competition […] Finally, this capitalistic economy, unified, "trustified," turned toward the State […] 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 […] Today we bury economic liberalism. The corporation plays on the economic terrain just as the Grand Council and the militia play on the political terrain. Corporationism is disciplined economy, and from that comes control, because one cannot imagine a discipline without a director. Corporationism is above socialism and above liberalism. A new synthesis is created. It is a symptomatic fact that the decadence of capitalism coincides with the decadence of socialism. All the Socialist parties of Europe are in fragments […] We have rejected the theory of the economic man, the Liberal theory, and we are, at the same time, emancipated from what we have heard said about work being a business. The economic man does not exist; the integral man, who is political, who is economic, who is religious, who is holy, who is combative, does exist. Today we take again a decisive step on the road of the revolution.https://archive.org/stream/CapitalismAndTheCorporateState/Corporatism_djvu.txtso ᴉuᴉlossnW's "burial" of liberalism is oriented around what he perceives to be historical necessity, or what we might otherwise call historical "progress".
>since fascism is colonial violence turned inwardly
fascism was never really concerned about profits, which was the whole point of a colony. if there were colonial projects whose sole purpose was to ethnically replace the locals with another race, at cost, then you'd be right
>middle classbordiga says that the fascists were largely comprised of members of proletarian movements:
<the intervention movement also embraced some elements of the proletarian movement: revolutionary syndicalists and anarchists. And this grouping also included an individual of particular importance, ᴉuᴉlossnW, the leader of the Socialist Party’s left wing and the director of Avanti. By and large, the middle group did not take part in the fascist movement and was reabsorbed into traditional bourgeois politics. What remained in the fascist movement were the far-right groups plus those from the far left: ex-anarchists, ex-syndicalists, and ex-revolutionary syndicalistshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/bordiga02.htm>>2528113>material analysis doesnt matter because fascists were so uniquely evilgrow up.
>>2528114>grow upI'm right and you didn't acknowledge it. Let's hear a materialist analysis on why
>>2528112Hitler also believed in the idea of liberalism being outdated
He said in 1931:
All of these statements are expressions of a critical position toward
economic liberalism. Hitler believed that unrestricted economic
liberalism had become outdated and had to be replaced by a new
economic system. “We are living in the middle of a turnabout,
which is leading from individualism and economic liberalism to
socialism,” he said to Wagener in June 1930 (Wagener 1978, 353).
>>2528114I guess "labor aristocrat" here should be emphasized over "middle class", in that labor aristocrats are technically core proletarians who benefit from imperialism and colonialism
>>2528120>Hitler also believed in the idea of liberalism being outdatedok but Hitler was a retard.
Seriously, I'd kiss an ItaFash before I'd take anything a NutSac said seriously. And ItaFash believe in dumb idealist shit like spirit.
>>2528130the "spirit" is literally just the concept (begriff)
giovanni gentile was a hegelian, which is also why he theorises freedom in the same way as hegel; as the expression of sovereignty in the state. the difference to be stated however is in hegel's absolute idea of the state being constituted by its objective and subjective factors, while ᴉuᴉlossnW appeals to the executive "personality" of the state alone, against its mediating function. what is "totalitarian" rather than merely "total" is thus this abstact reduction of society into the state, rather than in aristotelian terms, seeing statehood as constitutive and teleological of the household itself. ᴉuᴉlossnW adds this in part (i.e. the individual is realised in the state) but he does not develop this sufficiently, and simply appears to say that the individual is liberated by the state's dominion.
>>2528130hitler was a retard that somehow managed to almost germanize half the planet, maybe you should take what he says seriously. Hitler and ᴉuᴉlossnW didn't even disagree on the economic question lol
Hitler in a June 26, 1935 speech commemorating the 100th annivarsary of the german railway:
>"And secondly, we also see the socialist character of the Reichsbahn in something else. It is a warning about the exclusive claims of the doctrine of private capitalism. It is the living proof that it is very possible to run a nationalized enterprise without private capital tendencies and without private capital management. Because we should never forget, the German Reichsbahn is the biggest company, the largest customer in the whole world. The German Reichsbahn can stand any comparison with the railway companies built up purely on private capital. . . . We see the infinite successes of the capitalistic economic development of the last century, but in the Reichsbahn we also have the convincing proof that it is just as readily possible to build up a company on another basis as a model and example for others. >fascism this
>fascim that
Fascism as a word really lost their meaning and now it's used to thing that people don't like, it's so stupid.
fascism is national syndicalism but more rightwing
>>2528151Yeah, it's stupid, modern day use of the word fascism lost it's value and meaning, now is just a word used by neurotic people at stuff they don't like or agree, mommy don't let me smoke pot in her baseament? Than she's a fascist! Some people said that pumping myself with hormones will make me sick? Then he's a fascist too! Every limit put on the person's behavior and desire is somehow fascist and evil.
and if nobody knows what fascism is how are people going to recognize it when it eventually returns as a farce
>>2528155on the left everything bad is "fascist"
on the right everything bad is "communist"
we're still stuck in world war 2
>>2528162True, both sides have their boogeyman for everything they don't like, it's stupid, but I think the right usually use the word "marxism" or "cultural marxism" for everything they don't like.
>>2528155Just to have a poi t of reference, could you name some of the contemporary things that you would describe as fascist?
Fascism is abandonment of liberal faux univerdality in favor of total modernized mysticism, it's not that hard.
Fascism is futurism, syndicalism, sorelianism, national rebirthism, and class collaborationism combined into one neat italian package
>>2528079>Like, it actually resolves the ideological contradictions of liberalism by saying "stop taking your own contradictory bullshit at face value" … liberalism presents a juncture. to uphold the logic of capital by any contortions necessary, or to reaffirm human reason. communism is the latter commitment, fascism the former. liberalism hangs in the middle, fretting and vacillating.I don't think it "resolves" anything? Fascism promised to resolve the "contradictions" or the fascists said that's what they were doing whenever they forced people to salute their leader, but they're never totally resolved, it's actually the contradictions that drive historical development and social movement, which is why liberalism won in the end. Or it might have been hit the hardest by the contradictions that capital continuously subjected it to, but it was also the most pliable and resilient framework for its expansion.
>>2528231for the record, ᴉuᴉlossnW called both stalin and roosevelt fellow fascists, so to him, history collided toward an intra-fascist conflict.
>>2528178>Fascism is "Sorelianism"You have not read or don't understand Sorel and his thought. Sorelianism and fascism are fundamentally at odds.
>>2528238Fascism was heavily influenced by the sorelian concept of the power of myths. That is why I sad fascism had elements of sorelianism in it
i think what a lot of people forget is how fascism was motivated by overpopulation and the need for resources to feed an expanding nation, and since liberalism seems to have the exact opposite problem, global underpopulation, its hard to imagine what fascisms next ideological footing would be
>>2528244Overpopulation literally does not and has never existed with humans, more humans means
MORE PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY, MORE FOOD, MORE RESOURCES, MORE EVERYTHING >>2528247then why isnt india as productive as china?
>>2528248The INC fucked up land reforms because they’re a liberal party so too many Indians remain subsistence farmers
>>2528247food was always a problem back then and Germany didn't like the fact that GB had blockaded and starved them in the past
>>2528250>too many Indians remain subsistence farmers🤣🤣 oh, so thats the issue with india.
too many farmers.
I'm glad people here are going mask off on their support for ᴉuᴉlossnW but no, it's just liberalism turned on its head. It rejects all the bourgeois enlightenment ideology in favor of national mythology and facade of a great leader, which cannot sustain itself. It does not resemble any form of the Marxist/Hegelian positivism.
>Nietzsche was an innovator in this direction
Yeah, he loved religious fables, racial identity and nationalism. That's totally the gist of Nietzsche's work.
No, that's what you think it is from hearsay, which was born from his Nazi sister taking ownership of his work after his death and publishing will to power with weird Zazi shit injected into it that made it obviously falsified, especially since Nietzsche specifically criticized Wagner's nationalism, which served as the aesthetic foundation for Hitler's ideology, as entirely fake. He wrote an entire book on Wagner, because he knew him personally.
Unique IPs: 19