Study Fascism General

Posting mode: Reply [Return]
NameGWZ3`Bb♹{k☌☑⚶\|[♗57%⚤/sST);mt8⚄Kcae.]♤DV1HoqJ,r+hO$}Q* 2P'nFpMlY(<6=@0x>fI !yR☣^iz~v_Lj&U#⚥Cw:4XN
Options
Subject	Spoiler Image
Comment	*PK♜sM_h/i1a]LQm-^@H~) %b♚f6VcqZ[W0=XNlTYw<`RJ9
Flag
File
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

Anonymous 2023-09-19 (Tue) 06:08:53 No.589457

File: 1695103732763.jpg (159.68 KB, 1080x1420, Mussolini_White_Guard.jpg)

>>589443
This might be the most controversial thing I've written, doubly so because the CCP (CPC? I'm fucking sick of arguing over the acronym) is the CPUSA's fraternal communist party and so I might be biased in its favor.

The thought occurred to me while I was researching Fascism, especially its evolution in the era of the Italian Social Republic, that modern China appears to fit the mold for what an idealized Fascist state should be; on the surface level at least. I don't say that as an insult to our comrades in China, or a pejorative, and I confess I simply might not know enough about how China works to say with 100% certainty. But I think ᴉuᴉlossnW would be proud of China's achievement and point to the similarities between modern China and his conception of Fascism.

Before I go further, let me be clear: Fascism is an extremely adaptable ideology, which is part of what makes it so difficult to pin down. At times ᴉuᴉlossnW claimed Stalin was, in fact, a National Bolshevist or Fascist (he didn't see it as an insult) and he still praised Marx as a great thinker, even when he was a Fascist leader. Supposedly, ethnic Romanian communists captured by the Iron Guard would speak with their captors and the Fascists would remark that they ostensibly agreed on most things other than nationalism. Finally, I've seen modern "classical Fascists" (including a native Italian one) praise Socialists such as Fidel Castro or Che Guevara; in one particularly bizarre instance, one of those "classical Fascists" claimed to have known an old RSI partisan who escaped to South America and even met Che Guevara, supposedly the two respected one another as revolutionaries (take it with a big grain of salt.)

So in saying all that: a fascist is wholly capable of incorporating aspects of socialism into the fascist project, or even respecting the work of socialists on a surface level.

With that said…
Toward the end of ᴉuᴉlossnW's reign, he introduced an economic policy of Socialization which has drawn comparisons to China's State directed economy. I don't know how close to the truth that is, but I've heard numbers like 75% of the economy was brought under state control, even against the wishes of the Nazis. And I think here we see a nugget of Fascism more "true to form". ᴉuᴉlossnW and Nicola Bombacci both argued, as I understand, that the Fascist revolution was a continuous process that didn't end with ᴉuᴉlossnW's seizure of power. Even in power, Il Duce had to struggle to bring disparate factions (the Church, the aristocracy, the capitalists) under his rule. He wasn't indisputably in power.

And so when members of the National Fascist Party and the Monarchy turned on ᴉuᴉlossnW, it was said that the simmering conflict below the surface had finally exploded out into the open. Now ᴉuᴉlossnW wouldn't be restricted by the Monarchy and Capitalist class, his enemies revealed themselves in the open. Of course, Socialization was a failure: the Germans hadn't approved it, the industrialists despised it, and the workers saw it as a sham after decades of Fascism's kowtowing to Capital.

I think that what ᴉuᴉlossnW ultimately wanted would find a tangible expression in China's economy. He saw Fascism as "Practical Marxism" after all, a retreat from what was "possible" toward what was "probable."

Now, I don't think that necessarily means that China is "Fascist". It could be surmised that the a few quirks of history ended up reproducing an economy which ᴉuᴉlossnW would have applauded. It could even be that the stage preceding Socialism bares a striking resemblance toward Fascism, which is to say, the victory of the state over the independent capitalists. If the period of private capital under state direction eventually gives way to greater democracy and control over the allocation of resources by the proles, and at last the withering of the victorious state, then I think its safe to say that China isn't Fascist. However, if the period of China's modern economy is expected to continue in perpetuity, then they might honestly be brushing against Fascism.

Anonymous 2023-09-19 (Tue) 07:13:14 No.589458

>>589457
saved

Anonymous 2023-09-19 (Tue) 08:09:54 No.589459

>>589436
no

Anonymous 2023-09-19 (Tue) 08:11:57 No.589460

>>589441
he modified hegel, his form of it is called 'actual idealism'.

Anonymous 2023-09-19 (Tue) 08:16:13 No.589461

>>589455
Interestingly enough 'action Francaise', the French monarchist restorationists described themselves as syndicalists.

Anonymous 2023-09-19 (Tue) 08:18:15 No.589462

If you really want to understand fascism, learn Italian and have a 5 minute conversation with a taxi driver or a small business owner, especially if their business is a bar or a restaurant.

Anonymous 2023-09-19 (Tue) 08:21:49 No.589463

>>589434
>Where would the PRC be if a critique of Mao as vicious as some critiques of George Washington on here hit the mainstream and spread unabated? It would slowly rot the whole structure of the state.
As someone similarly cynical and pragmatic, I can understand that people are complex enough that they can have huge flaws and still be smart, effective and in certain ways admirable while in other ways despicable.
And that's why I laugh at irrelevant ad hominum jabs and shallow paradoxes ('marx was a racist! che was a homophobe! kropotkin was privileged nobility! vegetarianism was practiced by hitler!') and by people deluding themselves to preserve a myth.
I understand myth is a very powerful concept, but it's something I'd hope diminishes more and more as critical thinking skills and healthy cynicism rise.
>I think one of his students was
irrelevant?

>>589429
I skimmed wiki and it said it's contested, he was definitely critical in some writings but I don't know if that's definitive enough to say he rejected it. I got the (naive) impression that he was more supportive or at least admiring of bolsheviks.

>>589436
>[x] is just [y] with-
stopped reading, go back to twitter

Anonymous 2023-09-19 (Tue) 08:48:46 No.589464

>>589440
One thing you didn't mention in this post that I think is worth emphasising is that Fascism was, in many interpretations, progressive. In fact, the Futurist movement was somewhat tight-knit with it. One of the previous threads had someone commenting on how a modern fascist party policy list was filled with some populist progressive policies. At the very least, it isn't fundamentally incompatible with a lot of 'left-leaning' ideas like environmentalism, anti-racism and various civil liberties.

Anonymous 2023-09-19 (Tue) 09:05:36 No.589465

>>589464
Futurist politics was a mix of everything that was going on during the early '900.
They were in favour of women's right to vote, but also anti-feminist and anti-traditional role of women. Futurism was cool as shit, but it was an artistic movement not a political movement and Marinetti quickly sell out to fascism.

Anonymous 2023-09-19 (Tue) 09:21:21 No.589466

>>589457
>The thought occurred to me while I was researching Fascism, especially its evolution in the era of the Italian Social Republic, that modern China appears to fit the mold for what an idealized Fascist state should be; on the surface level at least. I don't say that as an insult to our comrades in China, or a pejorative, and I confess I simply might not know enough about how China works to say with 100% certainty. But I think ᴉuᴉlossnW would be proud of China's achievement and point to the similarities between modern China and his conception of Fascism.
In ideology and form, rather than result, I assumed Moosy would be most partial to DPRK and Juche.

Anonymous 2023-09-19 (Tue) 09:36:09 No.589467

>>589443
>>589457
I think it's important to emphasise the difference between correlation and causation/status.
The PRC does not have a socialized economy, they have not 'established socialism' and they're well-aware of that. Yet, we call them socialist and they call themselves socialist. Their motivation is to establish (at least) socialism.
Italian fascism might also be considered socialist [in intent], supported by the fact that both ᴉuᴉlossnW and Bombacci praised socialism when their death was inevitabe, even if we think their ideal method of getting there is bullshit that won't work and should be combated. However, despite some ideological similarity, they seek different goals through very different methods.
But Nazism, so-called 'National Socialism', does not have that goal at all, and, well, it basically is Hitler's retardation and little more. They are not socialists in any useful meaning of the term. Even if they both have privatization, one-party, strong law enforcement, nationalism/racial chauvinism, etc., that doesn't make them functionally the same. It does explain the paradoxical praise and respect from anti-communists.

Anonymous 2023-09-19 (Tue) 15:34:11 No.589468

>>589457
>And so when members of the National Fascist Party and the Monarchy turned on ᴉuᴉlossnW, it was said that the simmering conflict below the surface had finally exploded out into the open. Now ᴉuᴉlossnW wouldn't be restricted by the Monarchy and Capitalist class, his enemies revealed themselves in the open.
This is the real crux of the issue though, since what fascist intellectuals had in mind for society and what such a movement is actually capable of achieving are two different things. Fascism always has an eclectic mix of right and left elements, but in this form it can only occupy a certain (mostly petty bourgeois) political niche which at the time was not sufficient to actually take and hold power. It had to expand beyond this petty bourgeois niche if it ever wanted to be more than a passing curiosity, the way the Spanish National Syndicalists (as opposed to Franco's conservatives) were. Maybe there's a world where they choose to expand into the proletariat by becoming more left wing, but historically that simply didn't happen, and they expanded into the ruling class by becoming more right wing. Framing fascism as a retreat away from the possible towards the probable actually makes a lot of sense in this context, since in a country with a powerful Left, where established forms of liberal bourgeois rule are in crisis, its easy to see why cozying up to the ruling class and offering an alternative way of preserving their rule would be the path of least resistance for fascism to take power. Whether ᴉuᴉlossnW continued to hold faith in the supposedly revolutionary character of fascism is ultimately immaterial, because the only fascism that could exist in Italy at the time was decidedly pro-bourgeois and reactionary. It's worth noting that these ideas of fascism as an alternative revolution remained the strongest among fascist parties which were unable to actually take power on their own. You already mentioned the Iron Guard in Romania, but it's important to remember that they always played second fiddle to Antonescu's conservative regime. The same is true of the Arrow Cross in Hungary, JONS in Spain, etc. Even in Italy it was obvious by 1943 that fascism could no longer stand on its own two feet because it had lost the support of the ruling class as you said, and only then did ᴉuᴉlossnW "rediscover" fascism as an alternative socialism. So whatever ideas of alternative may be floating around in the heads of fascist leaders and intellectuals, the practical reality remains that they cannot take and hold power without shedding them.

If you haven't read Robert Paxton's "The Anatomy of Fascism" I would highly recommend it.

Anonymous 2023-09-19 (Tue) 15:55:01 No.589469

>>589468
>>589457
I should also add that we may well be facing a radically different situation today, one that will produce some seriously weird results. As I said before, I think fascism in both Italy and Germany tended towards the right because it was expanding into the only space available to it. Obviously if you're an Italian worker or PSI member in 1919 you have absolutely no need for something like fascism. After all, in this moment it seems in that moment that you're on the cusp of victory, and the already established left wing political machinery is what has brought you to this point. Why would you suddenly reject this in favour of some weird new movement full of right wing tendencies? What are they offering you that the Marxists aren't? What are they actually delivering on that the Marxists aren't?

However from the perspective of the bourgeoisie, the exact opposite is true. The old forms of your rule as failed, liberalism is in shambles, and if you don't find a new way to deal with the Left there's a real chance that they could win a total victory. So along comes some new political movement, which while having leftist elements, is still firmly anti-communist, and most importantly displays no intention to abolish capitalism entirely. Crucially, they are proving to be effective in containing the left, meaning that even if they offer you less than establishment liberalism, they are delivering on more. Obviously you are much more likely to side with such a movement than the workers are, and this movement in turn will have to change to reflect the political coalition that it leads. If that coalition consists of the bourgeoisie and various middle class elements then clearly this means becoming more right wing.

Where things get weird is when you consider how this dynamic may play out in a situation where the left isn't strong, but weak, as in most of the West today. It opens up the prospect of a fascism that veers left instead of right. Unlike in the early 20th century, the political space occupied the left is relatively wide open, while the institutions of establishment liberalism have yet to face any serious threat. In other words, the situation is precisely the reverse. The ruling class has no reason to throw their weight behind a fascist movement because their existing institutions are doing their job, while the established institutions of worker power (mainly unions and socdem parties) are in shambles. This could lead to a situation where right wing populist parties are forced to expand into the proletariat, and become more left wing (at least economically) as a result. What this will look like I can't be sure, and of course it's always possible thay they, like the Spanish fascists, will simply try to remain in their niche and thus remain irrelevant. However if you look closely you can already see the beginnings of this, like with PiS in Poland being more economically leftist than their main opponents, RN in France having practically the same economic platform as FI, etc. Of course the anti-communism inherent in these movements will likely put a limit on how far this can go, but expect to see some weird shit in the coming years.

Anonymous 2023-09-19 (Tue) 22:22:55 No.589470

File: 1695162175141.jpg (92.36 KB, 1024x682, Jobless.jpg)

>>589461
I think I saw a quote from one of the heads of Action Francaise saying something along the lines of "Socialism fits nationalism like a fine glove fits a beautiful hand."

>>589466
I mean I've seen "classical Fascists" praise the DPRK, generally because they rightly pointed out that "South Korea" was an entirely American invention whereas the DPRK was a product of the people themselves.

>>589467
You summarized what I hoped to explain pretty intelligently, thanks. I'm not saying China is Fascist but rather that what Fascism aspired to be, economically and politically, would bear a striking resemblance to what China is currently.

However where ᴉuᴉlossnW made his mistake, as Sabo anon here points out >>589468 was that he fundamentally couldn't upend the power of the Bourgeoisie, even when he was placed into power. The reason Hitler didn't have that same issue, as you say, was precisely because Nazism was an empty doctrine that was content to let the Bourgeoisie run things.

>>589469
>However if you look closely you can already see the beginnings of this, like with PiS in Poland being more economically leftist than their main opponents, RN in France having practically the same economic platform as FI, etc. Of course the anti-communism inherent in these movements will likely put a limit on how far this can go, but expect to see some weird shit in the coming years.

I remember reading an article ages ago that was discussing Marine Le Pen's failures in the previous French election, and what stood out was that (according to the article, at least) she turned down an offer for a "Right Coalition" precisely because it would mean raising the retirement age in France, something deeply unpopular which goes without saying. Of course there was the usual politician jargon of "I want to unite France, not a political tribe within France" but it underlined that the interests of the "right populists" doesn't cohere perfectly to classical liberalism, or at least understands where its bread is buttered and knows it'll collapse if it attempts "neoliberalism but racist."

And its here the Left has a problem parallel to the proto-Fascist Right, which is that we're somewhat pinned on the defense. Basic decency and ideological commitments means the extreme Right can keep pointing towards jobs being shipped overseas and labor migrating toward Western Nations and undercutting wages, of course they blame the foreign laborers themselves for this, but the fact is they have a real winning strategy with riling up depressed workers then pointing to the fact "the Left" keeps saying "No, we won't let you throw all the migrants out" as "proof" we don't care about "our own people."

I hear RN even parades "former Communists" around to show that they're the "real" Party of The Working Class. The Left, I think, is in a nigh-unwinnable situation. Because the supposed conflict between "foreign" workers and "native" workers gives the impression of being irresolvable. It reminds me of this moral dilemma an old professor of mine gave in our ethics class; he said people have a hierarchy of who they value based on closeness, and gave the example of only having enough food to feed your kids or the starving kids next door. A girl raised her hand and awkwardly tried to imply she "saw everyone equally" but he asked her point blank whether she'd let her kids starve to feed her neighbors' kids or not.

She mumbled that she'd feed her kids first.

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 00:28:38 No.589471

File: 1695169718442.png (833.13 KB, 765x1006, 1693954011916-3.png)

>>589457
>>589467
>>589470
I think the only workable and important takeaway here is that Fascism's ideological foundations are so fundamentally opposed- not necessarily separate, but opposed- to Marxism's that, aside from its obvious difficulty of defining and categorizing it, that a Fascist state and a Marxist state can both be functionally identical, and still be distinct types of states, because the way a Fascist Party and a Communist Party arrive at the economic, social, and political mandates they share through very different paths/theories. So I don't see any contradiction in the idea that China can be communist and still appear very fascist.

>>589468
>>589469
So, to simplify, are you seeing Classical Fascism as emerging from the left- specifically the more Marx-skeptical side of the left- and moving to the right, while Modern Fascism emerges from the right and moves to the left? These are very simplistic terms of course, and don't address the complex reasons for either moving as they did, but I'd be inclined to agree. I have to additional points to add.

One, this definition necessarily excludes the retarded /pol/fag racist paleoconservatives. They have little future. Even Nick Fuentes has apparently been ranting about how he hates poor people and wants a 'new aristocracy' (fine, but who the fuck do you think is going to build that? the aristocrats of the Burgerreich are liberal oligarchs who hate you, your ideal base doesn't exist.) Those right movements who are fine with criticizing class and capitalism are more successful, and are also exclusively in Europe. But though they exist as major movements only in Europe doesn't mean they don't have an untapped base in America. Most Americans hate immigration, but they also are very uncomfortable with blaming actual immigrants (to the chagrin of /pol/fags, who wonder why racial hatred is so unproductive, what could it be?!?!). But most Americans are totally ignorant of Latin American politics, and are probably uncomfortable to talk about American Imperialism, and too proud to negotiate mutually beneficial deals with Latin leaders. This attitude extends to their leaders- I'd wager most highly intelligent are inclined to avoid politics, recognizing it for the BS it functionally is. American rightist leaders are incapable of satisfying their base because they don't understand Latin politics and are too high on their own kool-aid of American exceptionalism to not blame individual brown people and recognize the flaws of imperialism. If they could produce even one charismatic leader who brought that to the table, it'd be all fucking over. Thankfully- or maybe not, if you're a red-brown alliance type- people want Trumpian political theater.
But, of course, the left hasn't done anything to help either. The mainstream American left- even the self-described socialists- has been totally corrupted by bourgeois interests, and is neither willing nor able to ever resist capital. Make of that what you will.

Two, if Classical Fascism emerged from the left and evolved (you could even use Darwinian language here, selective pressure) to be more right, while Modern Fascism emerged from the right and evolves to be more left, does that mean this Modern Fascism can really be said to be Fascism at all? Especially if we're excluding Nazis for having no consistent ideology.

Not OP, but I was hoping this thread wouldn't devolve into shitflinging when I first saw it. I'm very glad with how it went, keep it up boys.

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 01:54:13 No.589472

File: 1695174853046-0.jpg (41.33 KB, 302x400, futurism_10.jpg)

File: 1695174853046-1.jfif (16.12 KB, 474x298, habsburg.jfif)

>>589471
>So, to simplify, are you seeing Classical Fascism as emerging from the left- specifically the more Marx-skeptical side of the left- and moving to the right, while Modern Fascism emerges from the right and moves to the left? These are very simplistic terms of course, and don't address the complex reasons for either moving as they did, but I'd be inclined to agree. I have to additional points to add.

This touches on something I'd mentioned in another thread, which was that I think Leftism provides Fascism with some fundamental essence that allows it to survive. I know that sounds really woo-woo and idealistic. Let me use a metaphor to help explain things; when a person is conceived they receive 23 chromosomes from both parents and, ideally, they grow up into a healthy child. If the child is born missing a chromosome or with an extra, it'll suffer from birth defects.

Nazism, to continue the biological metaphor, is like the product of incest. It copied only the surface-level elements of Fascism (Italian Fascists thought Hitler was a reactionary, they ignored the Nazi party for most of its history prior to coming to power) while stewing within the genetic swamp of Right Wing thought, repeating itself over and over and over again. Call it an incestuous dialectic I suppose; ideas born of the same tribe, interbreeding with themselves over and over and over again, getting more extreme and absurd with each iteration.

And like incest, past a certain threshold, the subject's genes get so scrambled that it's ultimately sterile.

What are modern Neo-Nazis doing? They're parading around with Swastikas, throwing up Sieg Heils. What do they want? Well, most of them can't even elaborate a coherent vision, it's all sloganeering ("STAND UP FOR THE WHITE RACE!") detached from any deeper political analysis. They'll giddily screech that "Hitler was right" but never specify about what. Economics? Politics? All they're stating is that they viscerally hate Jews.

That's an important difference between Hitler and ᴉuᴉlossnW. Hitler genuinely despised the Left, and his only policy towards them was mass extermination. The "Left Nazis" were near-entirely annihilated in the Night of Long Knives. This clipped the wings of Nazi political thought; it set boundaries on what they'd ever discuss or argue over. It became an incestuous relationship of Rightists congregating with other Rightists.

By contrast, ᴉuᴉlossnW's most interesting quality was his magnanimity. He's like Caesar in that regard. His Fascism didn't just crush the Left, but invited sectors of it to join the Fascist movement. There was a "Left" wing of Fascism and a "Right" wing. The most striking anecdote I learned was that he put feelers out to see if he couldn't get Sacco and Vanzetti (two Italian-American bank robbers set to be executed by the U.S.) exile in Italy. Now both those men were committed Anarchists. Anarchists had even made assassination attempts on ᴉuᴉlossnW. But there he was trying to save their lives out of some supposed "racial solidarity" or what-have-you. The idea of Hitler doing that is laughable; he was disgusted by the very idea of the alien.

Hitler was an imitator. He'd so lacked creativity that the extent of his "artistic abilities" that he wanted the world to appreciate him for, were just recreations of what he could see in front of him. By contrast, the Futurist movement more associated with Fascist Italy was exciting and new and abstract.

The Right, existing only among the right and indulging only in Right wing thought, becomes sterile. It can't see politics as it is, only the illusion of it. The Left, engaging with politics from the position of being out of power and under siege, can grasp at the true nature of the political and utilize it. It can understand how to appeal to people, how to gain power, how to manage power. Nazis haven't gotten a step beyond:
>March in public
>???
>4th Reich

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 02:05:50 No.589473

>>589472
so far youve talked about nazi germany and fascist italy. What about showa japan and its mixture of ikka kita "socialism", imperial militarism, matsu pan asianism, ishiwaras defense state, manchuko planned economy, sadao arakis spirit and etc.

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 02:27:38 No.589474

>>589473
Strictly speaking, you could argue that Japan was never fascist, depending on how you're using the term. If you just mean "right wing autocracy" then obviously it qualifies. But usually when people are looking at what made German and Italian fascism different from previous forms of right wing autocracy in Europe (e.g. Napoleon III) they emphasize its origins as a middle class mass movement and all the quirks that brought with it (e.g. its populism, pseudo-revolutionary posturing, appropriation of left wing rhetoric, etc.) They distinguish it from established conservatism on this basis, which has its root and origin in landowners and industrualists rather than the petty bourgeoisie. This is why many have argued that Franco shouldn't be considered a fascist. According to this understanding late Imperial Japan wouldn't be labeled as such either. Realistically the distinction is minor, but it can be important in understanding the interactions and differences between the ruling and middle classes.

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 02:44:11 No.589475

>>589473
>>589474
Admittedly I haven't really analyzed Japanese Fascism. As I understand it there was at least one Japanese reporter who analyzed Fiume and became a liaison between Italian and Japanese Fascists, but as for its quirks I'm not entirely sure.

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 02:56:01 No.589476

>>589469
>Where things get weird is when you consider how this dynamic may play out in a situation where the left isn't strong, but weak, as in most of the West today. It opens up the prospect of a fascism that veers left instead of right.
I (admittedly naively) think this is unlikely, even if possible, because I interpret it less as expanding into spare room in the political space and more seeking power through sponsorship. The booj held the power but were losing it, so they needed to invest in a more militant anti-communist movement.
Then again, if the racist and sexist right-booj and neo-fash in the US become a tangible threat to boojie-of-color and progressive-booj, then maybe they will seek to invest in a militant anti-racist, anti-socialist force. A left-fascism that leans into progressive liberalism territory.

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 03:02:32 No.589477

>>589474
I mean a lot of the characteristics that you listed of populism, pseudo-revolutionary posturing, appropriation of left wing and etc did exist in imperial japan. It just instead of existing in the manner of italian fascisms and nazis germany middle class mass movement, instead in imperial japan it existed as a mass movement of lower ranking military officers or soldiers alongside groups that tended to support these officers. (I havent checked the class composition of these two tbh.)
>>589475
thats a shame

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 03:11:43 No.589478

>>589477
and when im saying groups I also refer to the civilian sector. Because the young officers, soldiers and their coup attempts were supported and defended by segments of the japanese population. Supported and defended in a way where they were seen as heroes against certain "evils" that overlap with what the other fascist states targeted. And over time this support didnt disappear but grow during the 1930s while the coups and shit didnt stop until finally being nipped at 1936. There was a sense of mass movement and populism in imperial japan though it was lead by the military.

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 13:30:13 No.589479

Fascism is just as anticapitalist as it is anticommunist

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 13:52:59 No.589480

>>589479
no it's against liberal capitalism not capitalism as such

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 14:15:51 No.589481

>>589479
Nazis coined the term privatization and copied notes from Henry Ford. The Italian fascists pursued “super capitalism”. Shut tf up, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 14:19:46 No.589482

I’ve always thought fascism is a capitalist system which idealizes the order the Soviet Union provided its economy. So the Fascists claim to want to recreate the capitalist fantasy of a country defined through competition between small producers, hence the support in enjoys from the petite bourgeoisie. But since capitalism is already established in the places fascism developed, it translates into the large corporate projects which in turn absorb smaller producers. The little Fuhrers in Germany come to mind.

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 15:20:52 No.589483

File: 1695223252576.png (1.87 MB, 1700x1700, 1689289481292.png)

>>589479
Lol no.

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 16:21:40 No.589484

>>589483
>implying Nazis killed the jewish haute bourgeoisie
They deepthroated the Rothschilds the entire time.

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 18:49:24 No.589485

File: 1695235764345.jpeg (25.83 KB, 731x420, 1686825993834.jpeg)

>>589482
>I’ve always thought fascism is a capitalist system which idealizes the order the Soviet Union provided its economy. So the Fascists claim to want to recreate the capitalist fantasy of a country defined through competition between small producers, hence the support in enjoys from the petite bourgeoisie.

You're pretty close, though I'd offer an alternative explanation. In some of the literature from them I've read, they argued that Europe hadn't had a "true state" since the fall of the Roman Empire. I think that's the "key to the gate" for lack of a better word. They weren't fans of feudalism and tiny, competitive principalities, they were fans of huge empires.

I'm reminded of Chinese history to some extent. Despite long stretches where there was essentially no centralized authority, China as we've come to understand it is virtually inseparable from the State of China. The Ming, Qing, Han, Zhou, Yuan, and other dynasties defined what China is. China is the State, and the State is China. Even when state authority hadn't been known for over a generation, the goal of the competing warlords of China had been to reestablish a singular Chinese authority; until such a time China would be regarded as "disunited" or somehow incomplete. Its a far cry from Europe's own history; after Rome there was no state which could properly claim to be THE European State. Even though some of the nations emerging from Europe formed powerful empires, State authority wasn't absolute, and it's from this collapse in real statism that the Bourgeoisie could emerge as a real force for themselves.

Fascists thought could be seen, therefore, as the dialectics of statism. It regards history not as the history of class struggle, per se, but the history of states attempting to expand themselves in combat against anarchy.

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 19:54:24 No.589486

>>589466
mosley actually was big on the cnt-fai and wrote several times that they should team up with the national syndicalist elements in the falange to overthrow franco

https://www.oswaldmosley.com/the-syndical-revolution/

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 19:59:13 No.589487

>>589486
I think he meant Moosy as in ᴉuᴉlossnW, but didn’t want to set the filter off.

That aside, Oswald Mosley was a real weird one. If I remember right he actually wanted the Black and Tans in Ireland to be put on trial for their crimes against the populace, which didn’t win him allies among Conservatives.

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 20:05:08 No.589488

>>589487
well the founder of the first british fascist group accused mosley multiple times of being a crypto bolshevik, something that was echoed by pro-german elements in his party because they hated that he wasn't pro-hitler enough even though he sold out his own supporters for nazi funding (middle class jews)

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 20:49:40 No.589489

>>589488
>well the founder of the first british fascist group accused mosley multiple times of being a crypto bolshevik, something that was echoed by pro-german elements in his party because they hated that he wasn't pro-hitler enough

The self-defeating Autism of Nazis never ceases to entertain. Something I've noticed about Mosley's writings is that he seems way more interested in politics and economics; the stuff about the Jews seems almost tacked on in a few places. Like I think in "100 Questions Asked and Answered" Mosley devotes maybe two lines to the Jews, one in the preamble saying he took on "the Jewson" and the other when he responds to claims of anti-semitism with some bullshit "we only hate bad Jews."

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 21:05:31 No.589490

File: 1695243930979.png (227.05 KB, 345x575, mr moseby.png)

>>589489
fun fact: when mosley was considered a leftist he and his first wife cynthia mosley were devote socialist and trotskyist sympathizers who tried to get the uk to give trotsky political asylum. eventually mosley and his wife would meet with trotsky, trotsky ended up getting along with cynthia but not so much oswald thinking he was an ambitious aristocrat trotsky also thought cynthia mosley was murdered

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 21:07:39 No.589491

>>589486
>lead a party whose entire thing is about the collective spirit of the state
<hmm these anarchists are based

>>589488
>they hated that he wasn't pro-hitler enough
Hitler went to his damn wedding lmao
But yes, a quick glance makes me think Mosley was more of an Italian Fascism fan, even if his plaform was strongly anti-Semetic and anti-immigration.

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 21:14:31 No.589492

File: 1695244471384-0.png (133.99 KB, 733x852, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1695244471384-1.jpg (46.1 KB, 400x343, jessica.jpg)

>>589490
huh
would never have guessed that

That whole artistocratic circle was weird. If anyone hasn't read about the Mitford sisters yet, give it a shot. Diana Mitford was Mosley's second wife.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitford_family#Mitford_siblings

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 21:35:46 No.589493

>>589491
read the other part, he was pro-nazi for party funding essentially and hitler knew it the wedding gift to mosley from hitler was a signed portrait of himself, apparently he threw it in the trash.

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 22:39:51 No.589494

File: 1695249591433-0.png (840.1 KB, 800x889, Rotha_Beryl_Lintorn-Orman.png)

File: 1695249591433-1.png (123.49 KB, 800x800, Emblem_of_the_British_Fasc….png)

File: 1695249591433-2.jpg (336.09 KB, 745x623, rotha.jpg)

>Rotha Beryl Lintorn Lintorn-Orman (7 February 1895 – 10 March 1935) was the founder of the British Fascisti, the first avowedly fascist movement to appear in British politics.

>Following Lintorn-Orman's war service, she placed an advertisement in the right-wing journal The Patriot seeking anti-communists. This led to the foundation of the British Fascisti (later the British Fascists) in 1923 as a response to the growing strength of the Labour Party, a source of great anxiety for the virulently anti-Communist Lintorn-Orman. She felt Labour was too prone to advocating class conflict and internationalism, two of her pet hates.

>Lintorn-Orman was essentially a Tory by inclination but was driven by a strong anti-communism and attached herself to fascism largely because of her admiration for Benito ᴉuᴉlossnW and what she saw as his action-based style of politics. The party was subject to a number of schisms, such as when the moderates led by R. B. D. Blakeney defected to the Organisation for the Maintenance of Supplies during the 1926 General Strike or when the more radical members resigned to form the National Fascisti, and ultimately lost members to the Imperial Fascist League and the British Union of Fascists when these groups emerged. Lintorn-Orman wanted nothing to do with the BUF as she considered its leader, Oswald Mosley to be a near-communist and was particularly appalled by his former membership in the Labour Party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotha_Lintorn-Orman

Anonymous 2023-09-20 (Wed) 22:45:10 No.589495

>>589494
>Lintorn-Orman wanted nothing to do with the BUF as she considered its leader, Oswald Mosley to be a near-communist and was particularly appalled by his former membership in the Labour Party.
But she was unbothered by ᴉuᴉlossnW's former membership in the PSI?

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 00:25:17 No.589496

>>589494
Looks kinda cute, ngl.

That aside, that she got sidelined by Mosley and the BUF isn't too much of a surprise. This goes back to what I was saying before that Fascism needs a "Left" wing to achieve some amount of success. Just being a more militant version of the Right causes it to quickly spin its wheels.

>>589493
>>589490
>>589491
Honestly it's pretty surprising how reviled Hitler was by some of the original Fascists versus how he came to essentially dominate the movement. He was held in contempt by a huge amount of Italian and even German fascists at the time as "just a reactionary."

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 01:11:59 No.589497

>>589494
Haters will say she's not a girlboss

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 01:26:27 No.589498

File: 1695259587334-0.jpg (7.34 KB, 222x191, Ceci n'est pas une steak.jpg)

File: 1695259587334-1.jpg (13.23 KB, 284x196, yum.jpg)

>>589495
Did she know?

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 01:36:12 No.589499

>>589496
It's an interesting point, that the concept of the [Anglo/US] right as we know it demonizes even classical fascism, in all but name, as socialist. And that rejection from both the booj right and the labour left helps contextualize their pitch - neither right nor left, but a third position. Their best best is to take a seemingly radical-centrist post-liberal pitch to catch those disillusioned by liberal democracy but disturbed by communism and by the unhinged capitalism or the blatant religious and sexual and racist chauvanism of the present right.

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 02:13:01 No.589500

>>589499
I've argued before that a clever Fascist in America would probably be socially moderate, economically left, and racially progressive.

One of the major stumbling blocks that American Nazis have going for them, beyond the fact that Nazism is associated with genocide and violent racism, is that the western world has gotten a lot more diverse. In the case of America, I'd think there's just too many hurdles for them to ever be a credible competitor for power. "White people" make up only 70% of the country, and even then I don't think "white solidarity" is something that could even manifest in the same way that German ethnic chauvinism did. Plenty of white people have friends in minority groups, or their kids are openly gay, or what have you. That makes "RETVRN TO TRADITION" a hard sell on normal whites.

A Fascism that doesn't embrace the worst excesses of the extreme right can maneuver in a way that the Fascism of Nick Fuentes of MAGA Republicans can't.

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 02:21:27 No.589501

>>589500
When we propose the idea of a 'moderate fascist' though we're kind of drifting into the question of what a fascist even is, to me most people I would describe as fascist have little in common with Italian futurism and mostly just the radical right

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 02:50:07 No.589502

File: 1695264607005.png (49.86 KB, 500x514, trump.png)

crosslinking: >>1603605 and >>1603616

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 03:19:54 No.589503

>>589471
>while Modern Fascism emerges from the right and moves to the left?
I don't know if it will move to the left, only that there are possibilities for that to happen which weren't there before. Keep in mind that not all classical fascist movements moved to the right in order to gain power. Some stuck to their eclectic, quasi-leftist origins and remained irrelevant as a result.
>One, this definition necessarily excludes the retarded /pol/fag racist paleoconservatives. They have little future.
I think so, not without reaching that untapped base you mentioned. Ironically the base of a movement like that in the US would probably look a lot like the base of American social democracy, i.e. white middle class workers and petty booj. The issue though is that those white workers don't have the numbers, cultural dominance, or economic leverage they did in FDR's day. In order for any working class coalition to be successful in America, it would need to be multiracial and thus to some degree meaningfully anti-racist. I can't see this lot making such a change. So they have no further room to expand on the right, because the ruling class won't jettison establishment liberalism for these jokers without a good reason (i.e. a strong left). At the same time, America's racialized capitalist structure will likely prevent them from being able to occupy the space on the left, especially with a renewed, non-racist social democratic movement emerging. This leftward expansion I'm talking about definitely seems much more likely in Europe.
>does that mean this Modern Fascism can really be said to be Fascism at all?
It would depend on whether it does end up drifting to the left, and how far. At the moment it hasn't really made that transformation yet. Le Pen's campaign promises are one thing, but actually governing is another. It may be that she would veer right the moment she got into office, ditto for the other right wing parties across Europe. Until that happens I would be comfortable calling it fascism, or putting it in the fascist "genus", since it has very similar class origins and obvious ideological similarities.

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 03:29:23 No.589504

>>589503
>it would need to be multiracial and thus to some degree meaningfully anti-racist
lightskinned hispanics and east asians will just be redefined as white

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 03:34:03 No.589505

>>589504
>lightskinned hispanics and east asians will just be redefined as white
Idk if that will be enough. Also, the middle classes of those groups would have to be cleaved off from the Democrats and mainstream liberalism. Again without a strong left scaring them into it I don't think it's likely. That's another hurdle I forgot to mention: the fact that the white middle class from which such movements spawn is divided between liberalism and right-populism. This roughly mirrors the blue-collar (though not necessarily working class) white-collar divide. A fascist movement in America would definitely need to unite the middle classes in order to be successful. The problem is they're more divided than ever.

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 07:00:23 No.589506

File: 1695279622834-0.jpg (14.6 KB, 640x360, 7Dgmeo3AdKlT_640x360.jpg)

File: 1695279622834-1.jpg (93.65 KB, 964x824, theory.jpg)

>>589471
>>589472
>>589485
I've had a mini realization about this while having this bougtube video in the background;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2-_FTpnMJ0&t=385s
The reason why there's so much difficulty in defining 'fascism' is because discussions on it fail to establish dimensions, with the only establishments being ideological, and ideological gaps are famously resistant to bridging. So, what is fascism?
First, we are going to have to explain how to define 'fascism'- redundant? That's why people don't ask it. But what I really mean is how to before how do; the thing and method before how we define it. So, what do we mean by Fascism? Why does 'fascism is capitalism in decay,' beyond feeling like a smug reddit comeback line, feel so dishonest?
Well, the Marxist, that is, a materialist, consideration would be that fascism is the movement of fascism; it's motivations to its actors to its effects, and next to nothing more.
To the idealist, fascism is the ideology of the founders of fascism and their thoughts, their origins, and their effects- including the movement's motivations/actors/effects.
(Note that idealism contains the materialist; that's just the empiricism showing through. Love Lenin.)
So, what does this mean? Who's right?
Obviously materialism- with the whole empiricism- can be agreed by all to be the correct structure of the analysis. If ideal stacks atop that is where they disagree. We, of course, are used to simply rejecting all the largely useless terms devised by idealism. But that is not what we should do here; because there are two different empirical truths here. One is that fascism is, in the form it actually was, a movement, before it was esoteric theory. Two is that mussolini, Gentile, and the Fascist Intellectuals of the book of the same name, had a set of shared ideas which they recognized as fascism.
Thus, much more can be said about fascism by simply which thing called fascism we are talking about- the movement as it existed, or the theory as it was conceived. Overwhelmingly, we prefer to do the former, more descriptive, class and material analyzing one. The latter, note, is used by idealists, but not so exclusively- they're happy to point out how they were bolstered by corruption and dishonesty, both visible with material, historical evidence.
But only saying the class analysis truth is not the totality of the matter. Because they're idealists, they've internalized the concepts of idealism into their analysis, and also because they have a stockholm relationship with capitalism; they know it's bad, but are too attached to it to let it go. This is what makes fashies seethe so bad in these conversations; they don't LIKE the liberalism, that is, the capitalism which fascism is attached to- and you can argue if it's fully removed or if it's still a polyp on its side, but it IS related- and they are still forced into defending it, arousing much internal conflict. Because they know we aren't saying the totality of truths here; they assume that means we're lying through are teeth, but it's more benign neglect.
This is also where the video from above comes in; capitalism failing to provide meaning leads easiest to fascism. That's the philtoober's conclusion in response to Francis Fukuyama's End of History; we may need to rethink liberal democratic regulated capitalism. This is what fascism being capitalism in decay is saying- it surely got popular because it implies that fascists are just failed capitalists, which is a very fun masturbatory rhetorical tool. But the more correct saying is that fascism is a route through capitalism's failure. That route will, of course, mostly what it actually was. But we can talk about how it was supposed to be too, because if they ever try it again, you'll need to know how it was planned.
The 'they' here is fascist intellectuals, not anyone who can be equivocated with anything we can call fascism. I could've started this by saying more simply there are two things we call fascism. We can call these Ideal Fascisms and Realist Fascisms. They're both wide topics, with Ideo-fascism potentially containing everything from Nicola Bombacci's left-nationalism to Savitri Devi's Hindu Mantic Fascism and Julius Evola's Gigabasedist Superfascism (I suggest we leave the 'how schizo is too schizo' debate for later), and Realo-fascism potentially everything from Stalin to Xi to Vargas to Trump.
Why is this useful? Obviously everything material we can say today comes from an analysis of Real fascism. But that is not necessarily guaranteed to always be the case. Because we are living in a time when capitalism is increasingly clearly failing, we need to be prepared to get the closest theories we have to the truth propelled through anything. Though all fascism as we could maybe describe it (the more moderate side of Real fascism) today is of the one we materialists prefer analyzing, there is nothing stopping a dedicated reader and believer of Theoretical fascism to take a new, economically left leaning, reactionary political force. The Real Fascism as it has been is almost comically opposed to the Neoliberal regime, but as that regime is not the Liberal-Conservative regime of the 20th century, it has become embroiled in that which it's co-opted- Idpol, race and gender spooks. But a movement which appeals to the fear of revolutions social and material, doesn't demand too much thought outside a capitalist realism understanding, and most of all, actually offers material solutions based in a cohesive theory? That will be much more successful, and thus dangerous, than Boomer Trumpists and fat 'National Socialists' from Blogger ever could be.
The only thing holding fascist back was, oddly, that which least often holds back movements, and most often stunts them; the fear of realpolitik- or lack of thereof. Because they were not dogmatists of any prior position while simultaneously being neither radically left nor right, they felt no shame in sacrificing ideals to get ahead- after all, once they won the war and took all the power, they could change things how they saw fit. This, on top of having a complicated relationship with Marxist theory, was, also ironically considering how anti-marxist fascism was, almost tailor-made to frustrate Marxist analysis of fascism. But I hope now to bring the idea that the two distant ideas of what fascism is is now more understandable as a right and a wrong, but as a historical-objective and a theoretical.
I'm not gonna say we should stick to one of course- though we're theorizing here, theory can be about theories and praxes alike. So let's talk about both- so we can know what we're actually talking about, so that we can put it into lay terms. That's the reason why we do this after all- so we can better talk about ideas, and that shouldn't just for people with the leisure time to be educated.

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 07:02:35 No.589507

>>589506
Fuck I am sorry for that hideous wall of text

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 17:47:31 No.589508

>>589506
>>589507
Don't worry, it was an interesting read. I like how you draw a dividing line between Fascism in reality and Fascism as ideal; you raise a good point about how we really need to establish what dimensions of Fascism we're talking about.

Something I'd also consider is that Fascism, it seems to me, expands into realms we don't normally consider when discussing political ideology. Fascism doesn't just focus on ordering the economy and political system, but also interpersonal relationships; almost like a religion in that regard. Replacing greetings with Roman salutes and demanding a certain code of conduct among its members. Its almost religious in a way, like how Muslims greet each other by saying "Peace Be Upon You" (Catholics do something similar, but it's confined to the ritual of Church).

On an unrelated note, I was wondering if any Italian Anons would be willing to help translate some of Nicola Bombacci's works. I think it could be of some historical importance to understand how the man went from being a committed Communist to a Fascist; what analysis he employed, how he thought about Fascism, so on.

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 18:02:19 No.589509

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 20:32:25 No.589510

>>1604149
>>589509
Fair points, I’d forgotten about that. Granted I use Comrade mostly as a title and that’s mostly what I’ve seen from other communists, sort of like how you’d call your uni teachers “professor” or the President as “President Biden.” It’s used in the context of referring to your political allies. By contrast, “Heil Hitler” or “Vive Il Duce” full on replaced the standard greeting in Germany and Italy. It feels like there’s something intrusive about that. Like, if I go shopping or see someone on the street, I usually say howdy, sometimes good afternoon or hello. I couldn’t imagine working in a grocery store and being made to say “Heil Hitler, did you find everything alright today?”

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 20:49:55 No.589511

>>589510
>By contrast, “Heil Hitler” or “Vive Il Duce” full on replaced the standard greeting in Germany and Italy.
Not it didn't, at least in Italy. Not even the roman salute replaced handshakes.

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 21:03:41 No.589512

File: 1695330220989.jpeg (83.44 KB, 943x403, 59189A61-C39A-42DF-947A-B….jpeg)

>get told by classical fascists that their belief is back by actual theory and economics
>finally cave and read their shit
>it’s just the Nordic model but with nationalist/expansionist rhetoric

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 21:47:01 No.589513

>>589506
I think it's important to understand fascism from an idealism perspective as well as a material analysis of how it manifested, because I'd say all of those trying to make it happen are those are most inspired by its [ideal] theory, and they are living in very different material conditions to any fascist regimes, so it will materially manifest differently. In this thread, people are mentioning how it's theoretically likely for fascism to swing in different directions if it were to try and gain power in modern USA.

I mentioned in another thread that my biggest issue is the sloganistic 'Fascism is capitalism in decay' line is that it falsely implies fascism is an inherent component or result of capitalist crisis rather than a distinct, arbitrary movement that was opportunistic enough to be exploited for its militant anti-capitalism. I can see that happening just as easily under a militant social-democracy off-shoot too.

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 21:50:31 No.589514

File: 1695333031366.jpg (16.8 KB, 611x480, :P .jpg)

>>589510
>"Glory to Biden, yo who you voting for in the 2024 election?"

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 21:58:40 No.589515

Why so many text when the only that matters is: A good facist is a dead facist

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 22:36:16 No.589516

>>589515
If you don't understand an enemy, you'll be outmaneuvered by them.

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 22:37:45 No.589517

>>589510
>Granted I use Comrade mostly as a title
I treat it as something more casual than a title or honorific, I don't go around unironically calling people Comrade Smith, but I would say 'hey comrade, good to see you'.

Anonymous 2023-09-21 (Thu) 22:44:59 No.589518

>>589508
>Replacing greetings with Roman salutes and demanding a certain code of conduct among its members. Its almost religious in a way, like how Muslims greet each other by saying "Peace Be Upon You" (Catholics do something similar, but it's confined to the ritual of Church).
This doesn't rebut your idea of it being culty with shit like 'Heil Hitler', but I would say unique greetings and mores are a part of unique culture rather than religion (religions have cultures, and influence cultures, but are different).
I wonder if it's worth discussing Cult of Personality, especially in the context of it not only being associated with fascists.

Anonymous 2023-09-22 (Fri) 02:48:35 No.589519

>>589517
feel like this is the only really appropriate way to do it if you are not part of a strong communist movement that is popular outside of its own ranks, and even then its halfway ironic & only for other communists. not a judgement about CPUSAnon or anyone elses use but without being very casual and half-ironic it just always feel anachronistic and cringe to me

Anonymous 2023-09-22 (Fri) 03:28:47 No.589520

File: 1695353327575.jpg (264.71 KB, 1200x1200, 1691553097881.jpg)

>>589457
>I don't know how close to the truth that is, but I've heard numbers like 75% of the economy was brought under state control, even against the wishes of the Nazis.
Late reply but this got me thinking, if this is true or if the % is close to this, what does this make the Italian Social Republic's economy? Is it a socialist economy? Can it be possible for a fascist country to be socialist economically?

I will immediately lean towards no, that it doesn't make it socialist since socialism isn't just "when the state owns and manages 100% or close to 100% of the economy". I'm not a socialist but I used to consider myself an ML in the past, and what I understood and still consider to be socialism, at least Marxian socialism (lower stage of communism) is an economy where the dominant mode of production is socialist (state-owned, yes, but with an important caveat) where production isn't done for profit but simply for "social needs" (to serve society, to put it that way). I guess that the main reason why I'm making this post is kind of to know what you lads understand Marxian socialism to be and if perhaps this socialism (if it is that) of Italy during the late ᴉuᴉlossnW government can be considered economically non-Marxian socialist. And I get this leads to many different questions, like what is the endgoal of non-Marxian socialism compared to the standard Marxist interpretation of socialism and whatnot.

This derails a bit from the thread topic so that's why I wondered if it makes sense to make a "what is socialism" thread but I understand that may be unnecessary and those type of threads usually lend themselves to be derailed and baited very hard so it might not be worth it.

Anonymous 2023-09-22 (Fri) 03:55:53 No.589521

>>589520
>This derails a bit from the thread topic so that's why I wondered if it makes sense to make a "what is socialism" thread
If you thought 'fascism' was hard to define, enjoy 'socialism'.
A relatively safe definition (albeit one each socialist ideology will consider incomplete) is when the workers control the means of production. I don't have a source but I think it's safe to assume fascism is anti-democratic, in contrast to even M-L and Juche which have at least some elements of democracy within the ruling structure.
Like you said, socialism isn't when the industry is state-owned, there's more to it than that.

I would go as far as to assert that the explicity classical fascist goal of corporatism, combined with their anti-democratic mode of rule, contradicts any useful definition of socialism.
I emphasise 'useful', because I have come across people saying socialism is when things are paid for by tax, and that the US military and highways are peak socialism success. There were people recording 40 distinct definitions of 'socialism' before the second red scare started. So we have to be selective with our definitions.

Anonymous 2023-09-22 (Fri) 04:19:05 No.589522

>>589521
>A relatively safe definition (albeit one each socialist ideology will consider incomplete) is when the workers control the means of production
As you say, this description would probably be considered incomplete to most self-described socialists. That being said though even as a barebones introductory definition I came to really dislike and reject it (I would reject it now too) since it lends itself to be misinterpreted so easily and too often. I would say the situation of how people understand socialism, online at least, is probably more developed and complete now than it was 5-10 years ago. So many people considered socialism to be when the entire economy is ran by coops, and that was definitely facilitated by this definition of socialism.

I'm aware why Marxists use it though (and anarchists too) however I think it's misleading because it may lead people unaware of Marxist terminology and outlook to view it as a far more direct involvement of the average worker into the management and operation of industry and the MoP in general. They probably wouldn't be aware that Marxists see the workers represented through the state, hence why they "own" the MoP; it can be misleading and I know it took me a bit to understand since the state as a bureaucratic apparatus can be diffcult to perceive as representative of the workers as individuals.

Anonymous 2023-09-22 (Fri) 08:37:08 No.589523

>>589420
How do fascists plan economies? Any resources on that matter?

Anonymous 2023-09-22 (Fri) 13:54:48 No.589524

I think American fascism will be very similar to, or will be outright, futurism.

Anonymous 2023-09-22 (Fri) 14:15:59 No.589525

>>589524
You need to develop an artistic culture first before you can have futurism.

Anonymous 2023-09-22 (Fri) 16:02:59 No.589526

>>589504
I disagree with this. I think the importance of/idea of ‘white’ will be dropped altogether. Cultural nationalism is a better unifier than ethnat autism

Anonymous 2023-09-22 (Fri) 16:12:54 No.589527

>>589524
American fascism is radlibism

Anonymous 2023-09-22 (Fri) 20:35:11 No.589528

>>1604861
I wouldn’t really say I underestimate it. A key part of my argument is that the fascist Right is ultimately unable to reproduce itself.

Anonymous 2023-09-22 (Fri) 21:45:48 No.589529

>>589420
Golden thread
Thank you so much OP

Anonymous 2023-09-22 (Fri) 21:48:23 No.589530

>>589464
Yes

Anonymous 2023-09-22 (Fri) 23:43:34 No.589531

>>589527
Pretty much. It's going to be a weird combination of socially progressive and nationalistic, with both characteristics playing off each other.

Anonymous 2023-09-23 (Sat) 00:06:13 No.589532

>>589529
I’m just hoping it can cut down on the amount of questions about Fascism.

Also I’m gonna skim through that Oswald Mosley website and see if I can find anything neat. I’ve noticed that whoever their political cartoonist is, his anti-semitic caricatures look more adorable than repulsive.

Anonymous 2023-09-23 (Sat) 01:06:59 No.589533

Perhaps you could study fascists by look at at what they actually say. https://www.youtube.com/live/IVhwc4ccpzI?si=a-GgZIvTxCtr2u3z

Anonymous 2023-09-23 (Sat) 01:21:10 No.589534

File: 1695432069874.png (293.04 KB, 340x447, ClipboardImage.png)

Thoughts on Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera?

Anonymous 2023-09-23 (Sat) 04:00:32 No.589535

>>589534
I should research him more, but his weird view on race (that Spanish admixture into different racial groups would create a super race) is a decent showcase that Fascism doesn’t necessarily mean weird Nazi racial theory.

Anonymous 2023-09-23 (Sat) 04:12:02 No.589536

>>589535
I didn't know he believed that. I was aware he spoke fondly of mestizaje and the mixed status of most Hispanic Latin Americans but I thought that mostly came from the observation that Spanish colonization of the Americas was much less destructive and more built on cooperation than the colonization of the British or French. But him believing in the la raza cosmica stuff is kind of amusing.

Anonymous 2023-09-23 (Sat) 04:17:11 No.589537

>>589536
Did he actually? You're not confusing him with Jose Vasconcelos? That's funny if true.

Anonymous 2023-09-23 (Sat) 04:18:20 No.589538

>>589536
I have a schizo theory that people living in warmer climates like the Mediterraneans or Middle Easternerd tend to believe in cosmopolitanism and cosmic race stuff while people living in colder climates or insular areas like the N*rds people tend to emphasize racial purity since lack of clean water in these areas means a huge emphasis on purity and phobia of the outside

Anonymous 2023-09-23 (Sat) 04:33:21 No.589539

>>589537
I'm almost certain he believed something of the sort. I'm looking for a particular quote that talks about this but I can't find it, this one is kind of related but the one I'm thinking of is more explicit. All Hispanist-minded figures believe this or something similar so a lot of them hold to similar beliefs.
>>589538
Not unlikely tbh, what's also interesting is that Spain and other Euro countries that also were big colonizers like France and the UK were also sea-adjacent thalassocracies. Lev Gumilyov talks about the sea adjacent people being more cosmopolitan and colonial in that way, in comparison to the landed Eastern Europeans that didn't carry out any colonialism.

Anonymous 2023-09-23 (Sat) 04:33:33 No.589540

File: 1695443613440.png (501.9 KB, 640x406, ClipboardImage.png)

>>589539
forgot quote

Anonymous 2023-09-23 (Sat) 06:01:21 No.589541

>>589534
>>589536
>>589540
VGH… Panhispanic fvtvrism VVHEN

Anonymous 2023-09-23 (Sat) 06:14:27 No.589542

>>589541
With the fully anglosaxonified Spain we have and Latin American countries getting slowly anglosaxonified as well, I don't see it happening any time soon unfortunately.

Anonymous 2023-09-23 (Sat) 06:17:10 No.589543

>>589542
>anglosaxonified
What do you mean by this exactly? I'm guessing you mean cultural/economic lingua franca sphere?

Anonymous 2023-09-23 (Sat) 06:23:21 No.589544

>>589543
Yes, broadly speaking.

Anonymous 2023-09-23 (Sat) 08:49:03 No.589545

>>589538
I was gonna say that maybe the seafaring culture of mediterraneas also contributed, but then I remembered the vikings.

Anonymous 2023-09-23 (Sat) 12:36:40 No.589546

File: 1695472600680.png (5.55 MB, 2033x1149, ClipboardImage.png)

Debunking the "Greatest Story Never Told" documentary :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_9vf64XXJ0

Holocaust denial memes, claims debunked:
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/

Anonymous 2023-09-23 (Sat) 13:59:28 No.589547

>>589420
Finally, the zigger thread 2

Anonymous 2023-09-23 (Sat) 14:08:17 No.589548

>>589420
In my experience with fascists but not their theoretical body of work has led me to this one conclusion:
>Fascism is National Vitalism via the opportunistic use of any political and economic method for the purpose of a nation project. The opportunism is completely strategic and not a corruption or ineptitude, for in their mindset the only economic mode that matters is the one that brings glory or certainty to the welfare of the Nation project. Class collaborationism isn't even a focus to them, it's a side effect of their ways of thinking. This brings into question whether or not National Vitalism is fascism, the answer is no. Liberation movements of minorities are National Vitalistic, so is any revolution that upends the current state of things, there's no proletarian movement that is a completely cosmopolitan matter. Therefore every socialist revolution has within it a National revolution. Not every NatVit is fascist, however every fascist is by necessity NatVit. It's what fundamentally drives them. The National project itself may also not even be their goal. Their goal can be a desired side effect of such project. For example Christo Fascists seek some sort of pious society that is beautiful and unshameful in the eyes of their lord, meaning whatever they seek to build doesn't matter in the end, all that matters is this circumstance.

Anonymous 2023-09-23 (Sat) 17:00:42 No.589549

>>589548
never heard it described like this, i like it

Anonymous 2023-09-23 (Sat) 18:25:21 No.589550

>>589534
>>589540
the falange pre-jose is funny, the JONS actually tried to merge with the CNT but couldn't find common ground on the religious question they were literally fine on everything else, the cnt just really hated the church

Anonymous 2023-09-23 (Sat) 18:55:47 No.589551

>>589460
What's the difference?

Anonymous 2023-09-23 (Sat) 23:35:57 No.589552

>>589551
It’s really complex and can read like philosophical woo woo. But if I can provide at least a little context to it; essentially Gentile’s thought sought to occupy a middle ground between Right Hegelians, who he regarded as overly idealistic, and left Hegelians who he saw as materialist to the point of seeing the universe as almost mechanical. In his own words he saw Marx as a “confused idealist” but didn’t mean that as an insult.

The Crux of “Actual Idealism” is that the only reality we can conceive is perception, which in turn is a product of thought. The highest form of reality is conscious thought in the present moment—think of it like the difference between mindlessly watching television and consciously writing a poem or playing an instrument.

Anyways he wrote a lot of stuff, and if I recall correctly he expands his philosophy to incorporate the nation as a whole, with the Duce or other leader figure acting as the conscious will directing all the individual ones towards a greater goal or task.

Anonymous 2023-09-24 (Sun) 04:30:07 No.589553

>>589481
"Supercapitalism" was seen as evil, irrational, and the inevitable outcome of all capitalism.
"At this stage supercapitalism finds inspiration and justification in the Utopia of unlimited consumption. The ideal of super-capitalism would be the standardisation of mankind, from the cradle to the grave.

Super-capitalism would like all babies to be born the same length so that cradles could be standardized; all children to want the same toys; all men to wear the same uniform, to read the same books, to like the same films; and everyone to crave a so-called labour-saving machine.

This is not a caprice, it is in the logic of things, for only upon such lines can super-capitalism make its plans.

When does the capitalistic enterprise cease to be an economic phenomenon? When its very size turns it into a social phenomenon, and it is precisely at this moment that capitalistic enterprise, finding itself in difficulties, falls like a dead weight into the arms of the State."

Anonymous 2023-09-24 (Sun) 22:14:11 No.589554

So if I can make a request of the thread, would any Anon who knows Italian be able to translate Nicola Bombacci’s “Dove Va La Russia?” (“Where is Russia going?”)

I think it’d be interesting to read, given he was a former communist turned fash trying to speculate about Russia’s in 1944–after Stalingrad turned the tide.

Anonymous 2023-09-24 (Sun) 22:17:30 No.589555

>>589554
Forgot the link, sorry.

https://archive.org/details/NicolaBombacciDoveVaLaRussia/mode/1up

Anonymous 2023-09-24 (Sun) 23:13:08 No.589556

Fascism must be studied, as we should be studying any backwards, regressive and reactionary politics that oppose those of Marxists, Communists in order resist them.

However this thread seems to be focusing on the minutiae, tiny details of particular texts, people and very specific ideology; this is useless.

Instead we should look at the bigger picture of Fascism, the Wider trend, how and why does it come into existence etc…

I find that a fundamental characteristic of Fascism is that it takes place in a fallen, lesser, dwindling, competing or 'ex'/previously existing empire which seeks to expand land or "take back" previous colonies, it's imperialism seemingly thrown to to ground but attempting to get back up from whatever non real perceived Injustice or negative material economic effects etc…

Fascism comes about to resurge and heighten imperialism or "prevent collapse", a result of Capitalism in crisis, the only way being to expand.

Rajani Palme Dutt explains this much better in Fascism and Empire (1935).

The reason why there is a heightened backwardness, reactionary and regressive behaviour in the west is due to economic bleakness similarly in the article of "No Future" or "No Hope" with a looming or current recession and inflation…this includes the ideological apparatus like social media normalizing these views among the youth, by the conservative faction of the owning class, internet con-men or celebs, news media and so on.

As the influence, power or whatever real or perceived 'strength' of previous empires e.g. UK or current e.g. US, fascism will increase, only if progressive and advanced, specifically marxist and communist will it be stopped, even liberal and vaguely left progressive thought is better than fascism so that will lead somewhere better.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/dutt/articles/1935/fascism-empire.pdf

Anonymous 2023-09-24 (Sun) 23:25:38 No.589557

>>589549
What makes it enjoyable? Also I came up with it with no help whatsoever, only experience

Anonymous 2023-09-25 (Mon) 01:17:14 No.589558

File: 1695604633814-0.png (56.21 KB, 863x292, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1695604633814-1.png (237.25 KB, 818x1424, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1695604633814-2.png (203.06 KB, 793x1141, ClipboardImage.png)

Nazi Document on Mass Extermination of Jews in Auschwitz-Birkenau: The Franke-Gricksch Report

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2019/08/nazi-document-on-mass-extermination-of.html

ITS OVER for the deniers

Anonymous 2023-09-25 (Mon) 03:17:35 No.589559

File: 1695611855562.jpeg (504.97 KB, 2560x1259, cultural.jpeg)

Fact: China today is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, a dictatorship of the grand bourgeoisie, a fascist German dictatorship, and a Hitlerite dictatorship.
They are a bunch of rascals worse than Macron.

Anonymous 2023-09-25 (Mon) 03:22:39 No.589560

>>589559
They are NOT worse then Macron by orders of magnitude

Anonymous 2023-09-25 (Mon) 03:54:24 No.589561

File: 1695614064422-0.png (644.87 KB, 1064x867, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1695614064422-1.png (1.41 MB, 1280x720, ClipboardImage.png)

>>589559
I mean they dont even hide it. China doesn't care if you are nazi or communist as long as you are open for business. This has been the policy for a long time now. And yes internally they are proud of the great Chinese nation as they say. I mean west isnt any better they support nazis in Ukraine.

Anonymous 2023-09-27 (Wed) 00:08:29 No.589562

>>589561
My man Xi is looking old…

Anonymous 2023-09-27 (Wed) 00:46:18 No.589563

someone fascism pill me on fascism

Anonymous 2023-09-29 (Fri) 14:03:18 No.589564

>>589546
53 minutes in and this nerd praises british colonialism for 'ending slavery' and repeats porky lines about the holodomor

Anonymous 2023-09-29 (Fri) 14:22:42 No.589565

>>589564
I mean the British were the first western power to end slavery

Anonymous 2023-09-29 (Fri) 16:15:32 No.589566

>>589563
I could hit you in the head with a shovel repeatedly and you'll get roughly the same effect

Anonymous 2023-10-03 (Tue) 20:18:29 No.589567

File: 1696364309114-0.jpg (331.51 KB, 1080x1692, Falange_Quote.jpg)

File: 1696364309114-1.jpg (194.89 KB, 1080x1585, Mussolini_Speech.jpg)

File: 1696364309114-2.jpg (52.57 KB, 418x600, Fascist_Anti_Capitalism.jpg)

>>589563
Figured I could give you some bullet points.

>Fascism is Totalitarian
It should be noted that the term "totalitarian" as I understand it came from critics of ᴉuᴉlossnW's regime, and then he co-opted the term to describe his political movement. It should be noted that ᴉuᴉlossnW saw totalitarianism in a positive light, as opposed to the "muh 1984 surveillance state" of Orwell types.
What ᴉuᴉlossnW meant by "Totalitarian" was that the entirety of the human experience would be based in relation to the State. That the State would direct, organize, and give meaning to all aspects of human life. Proto-Fascists like those in Fiume kind of touch on this specifically, with seeing things like music and the arts as the basis of their state. So it's less "your whole life is directly ruled by the state" and more "the State will vigorously support culture for its own sake."

>Fascism is energized by a unifying collective identity.
While Nationalism is the most common collective identity for Fascism to choose, its entirely possible to have "clerical Fascism" or perhaps "cultural Fascism" supersede it. This Fascism can sometimes be informed by economic class but tends to see class as secondary to a sentimental collective: i.e. "Christians" or "Germans"

>While animated by a collective identity, Fascism sees that identity as needing rejuvenation.
It should be noted that the "decline" seen by Fascists is, in my opinion, a very real thing. But while Communists see decline as an economic thing; which is to say the immiseration brought on by Capitalism, Fascists think in terms of "National Decline" or "Religious Decline" rather than the decline of Capitalism.
I think its important to elaborate here that the liberal argument against Fascism is usually to pretend the decline just isn't happening. This is your Steven Pinker "this is the greatest time to be alive" shit, or your Fukuyama's "End of History." Liberalism doesn't feel the decline, or at least pretends not to. It'll point to rising GDP and think "that means things are good!" without acknowledging the unequal distribution of economic gains. Liberalism makes no distinction between unproductive rent seeking and other forms of economic activity. A Fascist can acknowledge the decline, but it sees things through the lens of the nation and holds that the decline must be fought via revival of patriotic education or a shift in the consciousness of the masses.

>Fascism presents itself as Post-Political.
Despite Fascism often being presented as "on the right" the goal of Fascists is to convince people that there are some politics that are elevated "above" the Left and Right; which is usually the politics of the Nation. A metaphor would be someone attempting to mediate an argument by saying "Hey, hey, we're all friends here. Let's not go at it."
The successful Fascist plays to a collective identity that ostensibly unites Left and Right. In some early Fascist propaganda, you have depictions of them assimilating Socialists into some harmonious collective of the Nation. Hell at times they'd even call themselves "Socialists" to win supporters from the Left.

I believe that might be Fascism's most cunning quality. If you could have a guy, with complete earnestness, tell Socialists he sympathizes with them and their goals but "we need to do right by our countrymen" then it's the Socialists that look unhinged when they fight back.

Revolutions are bloody, terrifying, and dangerous. Fascists can present an "empathetic" front by playing up concerns about the bloodshed necessary to overthrow the Capitalist class. It's also how they successfully defang the Left; they'll take on the less committed and give them work, to show they're "unifying the Nation" while the loyal comrades are then forced into underground work, which the Fascists can point to and say "See? They're criminals. We're just trying to uphold the law!"

Anonymous 2023-10-04 (Wed) 15:53:52 No.589568

File: 1696434832361.jpg (3.76 MB, 4032x3024, image.jpg)

CPUSAnon needs to hand over his reading list
Anyways; this just arrived. Time to dive in.

Anonymous 2023-10-04 (Wed) 16:02:49 No.589569

>>589568
ew

Anonymous 2023-10-04 (Wed) 20:53:46 No.589570

>>589568
>CPUSAnon needs to hand over his reading list

I included some links in the OP, was there something in particular you were wondering about?

Anonymous 2023-10-20 (Fri) 23:43:42 No.589571

>>589523
Did they even do economic planning?

Anonymous 2023-10-21 (Sat) 07:32:50 No.589572

>>589571
>>589523
Sorry I didn't get around to answering this earlier.

From what I've uncovered in my research, Fascism seems to utilize a combination of quotas and nepotism to bring the economy under control. I'm not using nepotism as an explicitly negative thing, but a method Fascists use to curry favor among the middle class is to essentially promote them. Party membership can get you far, especially when certain "enemies of the state" are dispossessed (most notably in Nazi Germany).

I think in an idealized Fascist system, the State takes to the economy in broad strokes. Which is to say, they'll look at swampland and say "This is useless, let's drain it" and assign some figures to drain it by whatever means is the most efficient. Or they'll set a goal ("We should double our population") and provide incentive structures to do it.

I think what's important to consider with Fascism is it prides itself on a kind of "living in the moment" attitude, as well as being "pragmatic." While us on the Left might point to contradictions in Fascist rhetoric or claim they're stealing Socialist ideas to win over the masses, the orthodox Fascists would claim they're just using "whatever works" for their goals. They, ideally, are no more committed to laissez-faire Capitalism as they are to Socialism, and would likely boast that they're just as comfortable ordering the economy planned as they are "letting it do its thing."

In Japan I believe they'd take Japanese Communists and set them towards industrializing Manchuria, as a means of exiling them from the Japanese mainland, developing their economic base, and supposedly instilling "loyalty" in Communists.

So this is all a lot of words to say Fascism doesn't necessarily mean "economic planning" but it doesn't preclude it either.

Anonymous 2023-10-21 (Sat) 09:50:20 No.589573

File: 1697881820869-0.png (141.49 KB, 454x840, hitler agricultural policy.png)

File: 1697881820869-1.png (113.71 KB, 447x725, Illusions.png)

File: 1697881820869-2.png (146.21 KB, 559x833, FascismisCapitalismInDecay.png)

>Believing Fascist manifestos
<Rather than analyzing what they actually did
Cringe thread. Cringe OP.

muh based fascism 2023-10-21 (Sat) 09:51:00 No.589574

File: 1697881860048.jpg (813.84 KB, 2765x1308, National Capitalism.jpg)

Anonymous 2023-10-22 (Sun) 04:46:11 No.589575

>>589573
>do two things
<why are you only doing one thing and not other thing?
Cringe reply. Read thread.

Anonymous 2023-10-23 (Mon) 23:39:59 No.589576

>>589573
>>589574
>reading about the origins of fascism from italy and france
>using nazi germany's program as an example

bad reply.

Anonymous 2023-10-24 (Tue) 00:26:34 No.589577

>>589420
You should add some analyses on top of this. Fascists are known for being dishonest.
>>589509
I don't use comrade to address anyone. It's dated and corny as hell.

Anonymous 2023-10-24 (Tue) 00:29:59 No.589578

Did the bourgeoisie have more or less power over the proletariat after national socialist germany fell?

Anonymous 2023-10-24 (Tue) 00:30:05 No.589579

>>589573
You can analyze both tbh my man. I encourage it.

Part of what compelled me to write the thread was the disconnect between what Fascists claimed to want and the practical reality of what Fascism ended up doing. Something that really stood out to me was that parts of the Fascist movement (usually the Left Fascists) believed Fascism was engaged in a dialectical process, that had to struggle with internal divisions (in Italy’s case, certain capitalists and the royalty) before it could move into its higher stages.

And it’s an interesting enough mental exercise. If we saw a Fascism more in line with its stated aspirations, would it have been a potentially progressive force? Maybe. It’s worth thinking about I think. Understanding what it is and what it could look like makes it easier to fight.

Anonymous 2023-10-24 (Tue) 10:46:08 No.589580

File: 1698144368221-0.png (100.68 KB, 1121x736, Mussolinis Big State.png)

File: 1698144368221-1.png (139.71 KB, 411x800, Mussolini Wage Cuts.png)

File: 1698144368221-2.png (141.5 KB, 456x862, Mussolini Creating More Po….png)

File: 1698144368221-3.png (150.68 KB, 459x871, Mussolini Destroying Agric….png)

>>589576
Ok here's Italy it was the same bullshit.

Anonymous 2023-10-24 (Tue) 16:38:46 No.589581

File: 1698165526506.png (143.05 KB, 1084x1536, musolini-logo-wikipedia-10….png)

I still can believe they chose a bundle of sticks as their symbol as in English its called a faggot. It makes insulting them super easy.

Anonymous 2023-10-24 (Tue) 16:54:54 No.589582

>>589580
So what’s the issue? China’s reduced wages and raised work hours and deregulated themselves but they eventually eradicated poverty and implemented good cultural socialist policies, what’s the difference ?

Anonymous 2023-10-24 (Tue) 17:01:03 No.589583

>>589582
Well afaik about Dengists their main argument is that in China the long term development is still under the guidance of a representative proletariat vanguard operating under democratic centralism, while in Italy development was ultimately guided by a coalition of aristocrats, landowners and the managerial class who provided a bedrock support for the Blackshirts and ultimately undermined any revolutionary potential the fascists can offer

Anonymous 2023-10-24 (Tue) 17:02:22 No.589584

>>589581
yeah but they dont read so they wont understand they are being insulted

Anonymous 2023-10-24 (Tue) 17:21:12 No.589585

File: 1698168072300.png (121.04 KB, 717x701, Nazis being so cucked to p….png)

>>589582
China never let go of state ownership of strategic sectors. You don't see retarded shit like mass privatization of banks or telecommunications. It's very clear that China is operating under a NEP-like economy but when the Fascists got into power (Spain, Italy, Germany, etc.) they immediately started sucking off big business. China can do shit like eliminate entire industries overnight (private tutoring sector) and tell everyone else to fuck off whereas Fascist morons like Hitler allowed private companies to deny war-critical production because
>muh private property
and preservation of capitalist rule was more important than all other considerations.

Anonymous 2023-10-24 (Tue) 17:42:24 No.589586

>>589582
That China actually industrialised.

Anonymous 2023-10-24 (Tue) 18:54:01 No.589587

>>589583
Do you have anything other than adhom attacks? People like jack ma and other developers have done wonders for china and the cpc, it seems you’re more concerned about maintaining your buzzwords while refusing to actually use any facts or evidence in debate

Anonymous 2023-10-24 (Tue) 18:55:26 No.589588

>>589427
sorels idea of myths is actually p cool

Anonymous 2023-10-24 (Tue) 19:12:30 No.589589

>>589586
And Italy industrialized and formed their own colonies to compete with the western Anglo imperialists who had control over most of Africa and the Middle East

Anonymous 2023-10-24 (Tue) 19:32:29 No.589590

>>589589
No, it didn't. All the industries were concentrated in the north while south lagged behind because industrialization went against the interests of the landowners. Italy didn't have the industry to properly wage war and got wrecked.

Anonymous 2023-10-24 (Tue) 21:18:02 No.589591

>>1652113
>Evil doesn't exist everyone is right and wrong in some way depending on perspective and lived experiences

Woah based ThingNoticer finally switched from larping neo nazi to ivy league postmodernist liberal? Damn looks like the culture war is truly over when even the Nazis became infected with wokeness.

Anonymous 2023-10-24 (Tue) 23:52:09 No.589592

>>589591
For as much as they love to throw the term around (namely because Jordan Peterson and Gadd constantly used it) modern Nazis are an extremely post-modern movement. Beyond rampant nihilistic apathy towards genuine evils, their own beliefs are entirely libidinal, the narratives and ideals they claim to hold shifting with whatever emotion they're feeling at the time.

>>589588
Yeah, honestly I find it hard to disagree with; it might be worth more study.

Anonymous 2023-10-25 (Wed) 01:05:39 No.589593

>>589592
I wonder if it could be anything else. Without any real substance to logically anchor their point of view, it's little more than glorified acts and aesthetics.
It may even be more perverted by, for lack of a better term, online dunking and trolling cultures, where getting attention from winning an argument or just making someone annoyed is the only form of power they can attain. Why bother developing a rigorous view when you're emotionally validated by making populist attention-grabbing screeches? Have you seen the absurd signs anti-semites and anti-queers hold up at rallies? "Jews killed 30 million", "Jews are all pedophiles". It's obvious nonsense to 99+% of people, and I think most of them know it. Sartre was generally correct when they said it's pure pathos. Associate a group with greed, pedophilia, aggression, things you already know to be immoral and revolting. It's all about aesthetics and emotions. And that's important when learning to combat them, understanding their obsession with optics and emotion, while ignoring what makes actual fascists successful.
>actual fascists?
Calling a typical neo-nazi a nazi is like calling an Elon Musk fan a billionaire. It's fine for propaganda intents and purposes, call them that all you want, but they don't know the first thing about Nazi ideology beyond 'jews and gays bad, whites stronk'.

Anonymous 2023-10-31 (Tue) 20:58:23 No.589594

File: 1698785903626.jpg (5.51 KB, 225x225, mads.jpg)

>>589593
>I wonder if it could be anything else. Without any real substance to logically anchor their point of view, it's little more than glorified acts and aesthetics. What gets me is a lot of Nazis don't even read their own "theory" for lack of a better term. I mean while Nazism is fairly incoherent on its own, you still had a couple Nazis write books about their "theories" and they agonized over the percentage of Aryan ancestry in different Euro nations. As it stands actual Nazism is boiled down to just hatred and aesthetics like you said.

Anyway, I'm bumping the thread because I've been thinking about Nationalism a bit, or rather trying to understand it. I wonder if perhaps using the label of nationalism as "false consciousness" may be a misnomer. Perhaps a more accurate term would be "primitive" consciousness or "incomplete" consciousness as that passes less of a judgment on it.

My thoughts are mostly in this primordial stage, but I think what's important to class consciousness as we know it is our relationships; both to society, to labor, and to capitalists. It's not merely working or being poor that gives someone class consciousness, but their social involvement within labor. Which is to say, a bunch of people living in the same town, with one or two employers, working across from each other for the same wages, creates an understanding of oneself as belonging to a class and also creates a kind of innate solidarity. Whereas the smallholding peasants that Marx discusses in the 18th Brumaire engage in a different kind of social relationship to their labor, and so their consciousness isn't based on class, exactly, so much as other things: The Church, The Nation, etc.

However, I don't see this form of consciousness as bad in a vacuum. Instead I think it can be argued that humans, as social animals, trend towards collective modes of thinking; tribes, sports teams, politics, fandoms, nations, religions. Even absent what Marxists would view as the "correct" form of collective consciousness (i.e. that of class) people will still drift towards collectivity on their own.

So why the Nation over Class? I would argue that Nationalism is the collectivity of last resort, in a way. It's "in the blood" or "of the soil" in a way. In a crisis situation, when people are alienated from their labor and their environment, they attempt to reforge that collective connection and look towards a commonality between themselves and the world immediately around them. In advanced Capitalist economies, with a robust middle class, then class is disfavored under these circumstances; not because of a conscious choice to disfavor it, or a duplicity inherent in the middle class per se, but because the only bonds they can see existing between themselves and the world are bonds of national fraternity.

It's common enough today for jobs to have discrepancies in wages, and wage diversity becomes only more common the higher one is on the ladder of middle-class careerism. Whereas before you may have had factory workers that all sink or swim together, now you could have three people doing the same job but getting paid three different wages for it. Commuter based infrastructure has done away with people working in the same town where they live. The Bourgeoisie have diversified enough that its even difficult to name capitalists as a class; the guy who runs the factory isn't necessarily the guy who owns the company, and ownership of the company may be less immediately apparent with enough financialization.

When the situation within a country deteriorates enough (usually due to Capitalism) people immediately look to their surroundings to survive. Sure, workers in a factory may attempt to strike for better wages or control over industry, but when your coworkers consist of people who are just trying to earn money to put themselves through college (whereafter they can start their "real" careers) or your neighborhood is a mixture of small business owners, factory workers, investors, and professional tradesmen, then the only thing that comes naturally to the masses is identification based on nation. You parse your suffering through the lens of national suffering; it isn't just one town, it isn't just one state, it's your entire nation. You aren't thinking about worker solidarity because workers aren't all necessarily going out to the same bar, living in the same place, or getting paid the same wage. And when it comes to expanding that solidarity beyond national borders? Forget it. You might be unaware that the crisis of capitalism is global. Failing that, even if you do you can safely assume that the people in neighboring nations are worried about themselves first and foremost; you don't imagine a Mexican worker is spending his time hoping American workers are alright, or vice versa.

Fascism presents itself as a shield against an existing crisis using the language that people understand. It points to Communist internationalism as the be-all and end-all of Communism; which is to say that they'll argue that Communists just want to "give everything away" to some nebulous "others" or are less concerned about the suffering immediately around them in favor of foreign suffering. When Communists oppose nationalism on principled grounds, or the role of the church in society, then Fascist propaganda can successfully portray them as agents of chaos.

In prior Communist revolutions I'm starting to suspect that a tool to their benefit was that even on levels of primitive consciousness, people could rally to them. The Chinese and the Cubans could point to their domination by foreign powers so much so that even if someone didn't see themselves predominantly as a "worker" they would still rally to the Communists out of patriotic sentiment, or their experiences in the social world of the nation would color their ideas of what Communism even is; the Russian veterans returning from the front, which would later forge the Red Army, likely didn't give an ass about the Germans or even like them all that much. But these men may have seen Communism as the means by which they'd overthrow the government dooming the Russian Nation.

I've got a coworker, an older guy who seems fairly right wing but has confessed he finds the MAGA crowd to be terrifyingly obsessed. He tells me last month that he misses the days immediately after 9/11; which while it sounds a little insane, he brings up that people seemed so much more unified back then. He told me a story that people on the street would just go up and talk to you and offer emotional support. The entire nation was in mourning, and people for all their fear and paranoia and grief did what people normally do: they came together, socially.

What ᴉuᴉlossnW's Fascists were extremely successful at doing was driving a wedge between Communists and the wider populace. They'd create this impression that the Leftists had gotten so obsessed with their ideas that they elevated them over the immediate material needs of the people. After 9/11, there were a few people (including at least one notorious Neo-Nazi) who would openly claim "See this? America got what was coming to it." And the thing is that even if you're 100% in the right, even if your argument is sound and your evidence is powerful, you still alienate yourselves from others because you're speaking from what seems like a whole other world. Yeah, America did horrible things in the Middle East, but to the average joe who'd be convinced by Fascist rhetoric: we're still fucking hurting. We still saw thousands of men, women, and children die violently in one of the worst attacks on American soil since Pearl Harbor. People are thinking of their families, and not people thousands of miles away. So even if Leftists are correct, Fascists can still advance their argument.

It's something I'll have to think on more if we want to develop a counterargument. My working hypothesis is that Fascism robbed something from the Left and it'd be to figure out what it is and how to get it back.

Anonymous 2023-11-04 (Sat) 00:32:35 No.589595

I didn't get much from Gottfried's works, The German State on a National and Socialist Foundation is more of a warning for how fascist thought can hide itself behind ideology otherwise acceptable to liberalism more than anything.

Anonymous 2023-11-06 (Mon) 01:27:52 No.589596

File: 1699234072216.jpg (109.38 KB, 680x510, red-black alliance.jpg)

What did Il Douche have to say about the USSR? I wonder if the NEP was ever mentioned, due to its pragmatic collaboration aspects.

Anonymous 2023-11-06 (Mon) 01:31:31 No.589597

>>589596
IIRC ᴉuᴉlossnW claimed that Stalin was doing Fascism in the USSR, Ribbentrop kind of did too.

I think he also compared the Great Purge to his own purging of political enemies, but said that Stalin just had his enemies killed because his Mongol spirit couldn’t understand the poetic irony of making your enemies swallow castor oil. Which was just kind of silly.

Anonymous 2023-11-06 (Mon) 01:41:20 No.589598

>>589596
>>589597
The issue with Fascist socialism really is just how undialectical, anti-revolutionary it is. People whinge about how China is Fascist because they kinda look like what ᴉuᴉlossnW's ideal state would be because they ignore the material state which they're in. China already had a Fascist attempt in Chiang Kai-shek- the ROC """liberalized""" into just another bourgeoise capitalist state, while the Chinese eliminated their bourgeoise and landlord classes. Fascists can talk about how they're doing 'practical Marxism,' because le communist utopia is impossible, but that is literally why Marxism places such an emphasis on praxis. It becomes transparently obvious that Fascism is just a booj cope ideology when they say 'China is doing Fascism!' and then, if you ask why then we shouldn't have a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist revolution, their only real response is 'muh sparrows.'

Anonymous 2023-11-06 (Mon) 02:51:08 No.589599

File: 1699239068605.png (12.12 KB, 645x99, ClipboardImage.png)

>>589594
>What gets me is a lot of Nazis don't even read their own "theory" for lack of a better term.
>I mean while Nazism is fairly incoherent on its own, you still had a couple Nazis write books about their "theories" and they agonized over the percentage of Aryan ancestry in different Euro nations. As it stands actual Nazism is boiled down to just hatred and aesthetics like you said.
As far as the neo-nazis I've been exposed too (imageboard neo-nazis, and journalism from an infiltrator of my country's main neo-nazi org), I think it's demonstrative how the two main reading recommendations I've seen are >read Mein Kampf and >reed seej
Read an autobiography, or a compilation of a couple hundred short essays (most being 1 or 2 pages long) littered with a few contextless quotes from Bakunin, Trotsky, Mao and… Charles Manson. It's very much an open love letter to Manson (mentioned over 200 times), ultimately advocating a shitter attempt at egoism with racism characteristics.
So these books may be good for radicalizing or emboldening the already-racist, and the second might actually help someone see some of the bullshit of booj society if they're lucky (e.g. parts on electoralism, cops), but ultimately they're just not useful as analyses. The movement can radicalize people with hate, but they can't help find the weaknesses in 'The System' or explain what to replace it with.

Anonymous 2023-11-06 (Mon) 06:51:45 No.589600

File: 1699253505643.jpg (68.64 KB, 736x483, kfc-final-2-736x483.jpg)

>>589596
Got back from work and I figured I'd owe you a more in-depth explanation. Granted take everything I write here with a grain of salt.

Quotes from ᴉuᴉlossnW and Stalin
>"Stalin does not resort to castor oil to punish Communist leaders who are so stupid or criminal as still to believe in Communism, Stalin is unable to understand the subtle irony involved in the laxative system of castor oil. He makes a clean sweep by means of systems which were born in the steppes of Genghis Khan … Stalin renders a commendable service to Fascism.”

Admittedly this one comes from what I think is a Trotskyist paper that's supposedly quoting ᴉuᴉlossnW's own paper Popolo d'ltalia, so take it with a grain of salt.

Anyways, in "Talks With ᴉuᴉlossnW" the journalist interviewing him mentioned how he visited an opera house in Moscow and compared it to Rome, he then asked ᴉuᴉlossnW his thoughts on the comparison between both Russian and Italian systems Orange text is the journo, green is ᴉuᴉlossnW:

>"Differences! We have private property, whereas there is none in Russia. We have bitted and bridled capitalism, but the Russians have abolished it. Here,the Party is subordinate to the government; there, matters are the other way about[…] I don't deny the similarities."
<"Before the war," I went on, "you wrote in Avanti: 'Socialism is not an Arcadian and peaceful affair. We do not believe in the sacredness of human life.' Is not that Fascism?"
>"Yes, it is the same thing."
<"You have also written: 'Unless Fascism were a faith, how could it arouse the fire of enthusiasm?' Is not that Communism?"
>He nodded assent, saying, "Such kinships do not trouble me."
<"It follows, then, does it not, that the faith which both you and the Russians demand and find distinguishes your respective systems from all others?"
>"Yes," he said, "and more than that. In negative matters as well we are like each other; both we and the Russians are opposed to the liberals, to the democrats, to parliament."
<"In 1919 or 1920 you wrote that Lenin had freed Russia from the autocracy and you foretold that some day that country would become the most productive in all the world."
>"Is not my prophecy already on the way to being fulfilled?" asked ᴉuᴉlossnW.
(Pages 150-151)

I find Talks With ᴉuᴉlossnW interesting because it's taking place before Germany went Nazi (and the journalist, a liberal Jew, states that Germany didn't have anyone who could live up to the mantle of a Fascist dictator) and is mostly the unedited dialogue between ᴉuᴉlossnW and his interviewer. I suppose to some extent you can see ᴉuᴉlossnW's opinions unedited by his later alliance to Hitler. And it seems like he has a degree of respect for the Russians.

Meanwhile Stalin's own references to ᴉuᴉlossnW, from what I can find, are surprising inasmuch as they seem kind of neutral.

>“…Today everyone, both friend and foe, admits that ours is the only country that can be rightly called the buttress and standard-bearer of the policy of peace throughout the world. Does it need to be proved that this circumstance was bound to increase support and sympathy for the Soviet Union among the European masses? Have you noticed that certain European rulers are endeavouring to build their careers on “friendship” with the Soviet Union, that even such of them as ᴉuᴉlossnW are not averse, on occasion, to “profit” from this “friendship”? This is a direct indication of the very real popularity the Soviet government has won among the broad masses in the capitalist countries…”
(The Results of the Thirteen Congress of the R.C.P.(B.))

>“…The point is that the present-day “democrats” and “pacifists” defeated their bourgeois rivals in the parliamentary elections thanks to their platform of “recognition” of the Soviet Union; that the MacDonalds and Herriots came into power, and can remain in power, thanks, among other things, to their spouting about “friendship with Russia”; that the prestige of these “democrats” and “pacifists” is the reflection of the Soviet government’s prestige among the masses of the people. It is characteristic that even such a notorious “democrat” as ᴉuᴉlossnW often deems it necessary to boast to the workers about his “friendship” with the Soviet government. It is no less characteristic that even such notorious appropriators of other people’s property as the present rulers of Japan do not want to dispense with “friendship” with the Soviet Union. There is no need to mention the colossal prestige that the Soviet government enjoys among the masses of the people in Turkey, Persia, China and India…”
(Concerning the International Situation)

>“…The defeats of the fascist troops on the Soviet-German front and the blows of our Allies at the Italy-German troops have shaken the whole edifice of the fascist bloc, and it is now crumbling before our very eyes. Italy has irrevocably dropped out of the Hitlerite coalition. ᴉuᴉlossnW can change nothing, for he is in actual fact a prisoner of the Germans. Next comes the turn of the other participants of the coalition. Finland, Hungary, Rumania, and the other vassals of Hitler, discouraged by Germany’s military defeats, have now finally lost faith that the outcome of the war will be favourable to them and are anxious to find a way out of the quagmire into which Hitler has dragged them. Now that the time has come to answer for their plundering, Hitler-Germany’s accomplices in plunder, but recently so obedient to their master, are now in search of a favourable moment to creep away unnoticed from the robber band. (Laughter.)…”
(Speech at Celebration Meeting of the Moscow Soviet of Working People’s Deputies and Moscow Party and Public Organizations)

One of the most interesting facets of Stalin's personality is he seems to play his cards pretty close to his chest. Hitler, for example, seemed intensely bipolar on some issues (not aided by his drug use) and could in one moment screech about the evils of Bolshevism and in the next admire Stalin's five year plan. ᴉuᴉlossnW seems a little more level-headed, but still deeply passionate about a handful of subjects. Stalin however has a calculus behind his words. Not entirely declaring one group to be the best of chums or the other mortal enemies.

Anonymous 2023-11-06 (Mon) 07:59:54 No.589601

>>589600
>I find Talks With ᴉuᴉlossnW interesting because it's taking place before Germany went Nazi (and the journalist, a liberal Jew, states that Germany didn't have anyone who could live up to the mantle of a Fascist dictator) and is mostly the unedited dialogue between ᴉuᴉlossnW and his interviewer. I suppose to some extent you can see ᴉuᴉlossnW's opinions unedited by his later alliance to Hitler.
Just started reading some parts, being mostly a conversation it's a nice and easy read.
I've just jumped to a chapter and up to this part:
>“Surely a republican can just as well be a nationalist as a monarchist can be—perhaps better. Are there not plenty of examples ?”
<“But if nationalism be independent of forms, of government, and also of questions of class,then it must also be independent of questions of race. Do you really believe, as some ethnologists contend, that there are still pure races in Europe ? Do you believe that racial unity is a requisite guarantee for vigorous nationalist aspirations ? Are you not exposed to the danger that the apologists of fascism -will (like Professor Blank) talk the same nonsense about the Latin races as northern pedants have talked about the ‘noble blonds,’ and thereby increase rival pugnacities ?”
>[] ᴉuᴉlossnW grew animated, for this is a matter upon which, owing no doubt to the exaggeration of some of the fascists, he feels that he is likely to be misunderstood.
>“Of course there are no pure races left; not even the Jews have kept their blood unmingled. Successful crossings have often promoted the energy and the beauty of a nation. Race! It is a feeling, not a reality; ninety-five per cent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist to-day. Amusingly enough, not one of those who have proclaimed the ‘nobility’ of the Teutonic race was himself a Teuton. Gobineau was a Frenchman; Houston Chamberlain, an Englishman; Woltman, a Jew; Lapouge, another Frenchman. Chamberlain actually declared that Rome was the capital of chaos. No such doctrine will ever find wide acceptance here in Italy. Professor Blank, whom you quoted just now, is a man with more poetic imagination than science in his composition. National pride has no need of the delirium of race.”
<“That is the best argument against anti-semitism,” said I.
Moosy pulling out the '/pol/ isn't white' card over 100 years ago. Ahh, you gotta laugh.

Anonymous 2023-11-06 (Mon) 19:44:09 No.589602

File: 1699299848976.jpg (202.02 KB, 1755x2455, Patsoc_Army_Vet.jpg)

>>589601
>Just started reading some parts, being mostly a conversation it's a nice and easy read.

Honestly I think its one of the better insights into a historical figure's personality. It's not afraid to include the little things; like apparently ᴉuᴉlossnW edited the interviewer's letter for proper grammar/syntax and sent it back to him, or how friendly he was with a couple of handymen that came to work his estate.

From what I've read about Hitler's private personality, he really comes across like the stereotypical "quiet kid" at school. He seemed to me to be a bit socially stunted; like women would remark that he was extremely polite to them, and a lot of the "jokes" he told weren't exactly lowbrow, but weren't anything special either.

Anyways I'm reading a little bit of Oswald Mosley's articles, and a few facts stand out to me; first is that he (funny enough) seems to advocate for a kind of proto-multipolarism:

>"I have long suggested a division of the world into three main spheres of influence to replace the make-belief of a world force in the present United Nations, which by reason of its inherent divisions can never function effectively."
>[…]
>"My original suggestion to secure natural spheres of influence for three power blocs in a realistic equilibrium was the linking of North with South America; of Europe, home and overseas, with Africa; of the Soviet powers with Asia. This logical arrangement is complicated by the split in the Soviet camp. It is primarily the Soviet’s business, but a broker so experienced as Britain should never refuse his good offices if required in the interests of world peace and his own well-being. Whether this unexpected development really offers the prospect of a return in some form of the Russian peoples to Europe, where they belong, cannot yet be seen with certainty, but it is most ardently to be desired; the attempt to promote it is one of the merits of French policy. Will the pull of relationship in the end be stronger than the pull of creed?—Is a synthesis of European policies attainable to the extent of making European union possible throughout our continent? These will rank among the vital questions of history which challenge future statesmanship."

Honestly, Mosley seems like the most under-examined of the Fascist thinkers, in no small part because he was a thinker. He almost acts like a shadowy stand-in to Marx in terms of reshaping a "Utopian" ideology into something more rational and real. Which, again, makes me glad that Neo-Nazis are illiterate because Mosley lays a lot of practical ideological groundwork for Fascists.

Anonymous 2023-11-06 (Mon) 21:24:15 No.589603

>>589602
>Honestly, Mosley seems like the most under-examined of the Fascist thinkers, in no small part because he was a thinker.
He comes from a very different background to, say, Hitler and ᴉuᴉlossnW. I assume by his birth title he was an aristocrat from birth, and he was a sitting member of parliament by 21, serving for about 12 years before making the New Party and then the BUF.

Anonymous 2023-11-06 (Mon) 21:44:18 No.589604

>>589603
I think his background is what makes him interesting and his Fascism worthy of study, I think. If only because Mosley had a pretty promising career prior to his Fascist turn, so I imagine he was driven more by genuine belief than mere cynical opportunism. It might also explain why he agonized over the minutiae of what his Fascist society would look like.

Anonymous 2023-11-08 (Wed) 19:03:40 No.589605

File: 1699470219694.jpg (139.06 KB, 768x940, Mosley.jpg)

Bumping the thread in part to remind people that there's no need to make more threads on Fascism. As an aside, here's an article by Oswald Mosley on Fascist Syndicalism to contribute to more discussion.

The Syndical Revolution
<By Oswald Mosley

>This is an examination of the revolutionary tradition of Syndicalism as an alternative to Socialism which has led in practical effect to the totalitarian regime of Communism on the Continent, and bureaucracy, direction of labour and the denial of freedom in this country. A return to syndical methods of combating capitalism offers new hope of emancipating the British workers and preserving their hard won liberties.

>WELL, now you have had quite a considerable dose of socialism from a Labour Government with a working majority in the House of Commons. What do you really think of it? Has it fulfilled your hopes or are you sadly disappointed? Do you think the nationalization of certain key industries has brought any advantage to the nation or to the workers in those industries? On the other hand can we expect no real progress until all industries are nationalized, as the Communists insist?

>The answers to these questions are becoming ever more clear as the experiment in socialism proceeds. To begin with, the real motive of the British workers in giving their support to a Socialist party was to get rid of the capitalist “boss-class” and thus escape from exploitation. Bitter is their disappointment to find that they have merely exchanged masters. In place of individual “bosses” who were, at least, susceptible to the threat of strikes, they have now one universal “boss” against whom a strike is rapidly becoming regarded as at the least an unpatriotic, if not treasonable, action. Far from getting rid of a privileged “boss-class” of owners, they now find themselves saddled with an army of black-coated, pinstripe-trousered, bureaucrats, many of whom are quartered in the very country houses from which the former “capitalist” owners have been ejected.

>Does this involve any progress for the workers? Many are beginning to doubt it. Nationalization has placed any real control over the conditions of their industry far further beyond their reach than in the “bad old days” when they could often bring effective pressure to bear upon bad employers by strike action. Now grievances have to pass through a cumbersome bureaucratic machine where each department attempts to shelve responsibility for decisions from one clerk to another. Hence the ridiculous “stint” dispute in Durham which could have been settled in a fraction of the time under private ownership without involving dozens of other pits and wasting hundreds of thousands of tons of coal.

<What is Capitalism ? What has gone wrong?
>Can it be that we have all been led astray by a false definition? Is Dr. Joad right, that it does matter what we mean by “Capitalism”? Socialists tell us this means the private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange and all will be well if all these are brought under public ownership by nationalization. But private ownership has existed since time immemorial, yet we only speak of the last two hundred years or so as the “Capitalist Era.” Would it not be more true to say that “Capitalism” is a state of society in which the owners of capital form the ruling class, as they are permitted complete power to use their property to exploit their fellowmen? Is not the evil of our age the power given to wealth to dominate the nation?

>It was not always so. In earlier times the King and his Government ruled the state and no man, however wealthy, could defy the King’s law and the ordinances of his ministers. Indeed, we now realize, despite the version of history taught us at school, that, when King Charles defied Parliament, he was, as he said at his trial, fighting for the freedom of the common people of England against the tyrannous demands of the purse-proud merchants of the City of London. Unfortunately, the national authority of Tudor England was broken on his scaffold, and ever since wealth has gained ever greater power over the people.

>The real enemy If we agree that it is the political power of wealth, in its modern form of capital, which is the enemy enslaving the British people, then we can see at a glance where we have gone wrong. The only escape from such a tyranny is not to transfer wealth from one group to another, but to divest wealth of its political power, and restore the authority of Government to rule in the interests not of the wealthy but of the whole people. Nationalization does not deprive wealth of its political power. Socialists accept the very basic evil against which the workers of Britain have been struggling for generations past.

>They do not challenge the right of the private owner to do what he likes with his own, as Tudor England did by many administrative measures. On the contrary they hold that the only way to avoid the evils of private ownership is to vest all ownership in the State thus giving to the Government all the political power which has long since been conceded to the owners of wealth. As sole owner the Government will thus acquire absolute power.

>Unfortunately, the great majority of the British workers had become so incensed by their exploitation under private enterprise and the inefficiency which led to unemployment, that they sought revenge against their employers in supporting a socialist creed which would expropriate those they had come to regard as their enemies. Now, however, they see the nemesis of attacking “Capitalists” rather than “Capitalism,” for their freedom is rapidly disappearing before the new and far graver tyranny of “State Capitalism” masquerading as “Socialism” which they had only understood in its idealist sense of “Mutual Service.” When they complain that this was not what they had expected, the extremists retort that they must not expect the full benefits of Socialism until the full programme of nationalization has been completed. Grumbling, the workers submit to direction and personal hardship while they await the promised millennium.

<Totalitarian Communism
>What is this millennium? It is no less than the final achievement of the complete totalitarian Communist State which owns all wealth, is the sole employer, and hence, under modern materialist concepts, possesses absolute political power. In Soviet Russia, such a state already exists and it is no coincidence that it has taken the form of the most reactionary and tyrannical government of modern times, threatening its neighbours with oppression and keeping the whole world from peace by its aggressive policy. What else are we to expect when we take all wealth out of the hands of private individuals and vest that vast power in the hands of a small, highly disciplined group of political adventurers?

>We have complained, not without justification, of the aggressive profit seeking of the former “capitalist class” which led to a struggle for power ending in war. How much more must we expect “State-Capitalism” to incorporate all these evils, and exploit the masses in a last desperate bid for world domination?

>The Communist answer is that their administration is a “dictatorship of the proletariat” exercised on behalf of the whole of the people. The whole self-governing instinct of the British people rises in revolt against such hypocrisy. We have not forgotten the White Tsar, Alexander, who after the defeat of Napoleon, united all the forces of reaction in Europe to suppress the democratic ideas of the French Revolution under the Christian banner of the “Holy Alliance.” This new Red Tsar, Stalin, is no less a reactionary when he uses the same methods of military occupation and a secret police under the Marxist banner of the “Communist International.”

>The fact remains that wherever Communism has power the people are deprived of all political and economic rights and must submit to the absolute authority of a small group of “party comrades,” who possess complete power over all property and even over the bodies of those they have enslaved to their omnipotent state.

>Must We Go Back ? Is the whole dream of progress through socialism a mere illusion, which has led the British workers into a hopeless impasse? Have we no alternative but to reel back from the abyss of totalitarianism yawning ahead, and to submit to the restoration of private ownership and all the evils of unrestricted individual capitalism? The Conservatives would like us to think so, but are finding it hard to convince the electors that they must retrace their steps.

>The workers of Britain are not prepared to throw away all their hard won privileges merely because they have been led astray by false social and political theories. They are not so wedded to alien Marxism as to forget all they have gained by the application of British methods of team work and social solidarity. These are assets which can be turned to practical effect under any political or social system. The British people have ever been hard realists rather than woolly idealists, concerned with practical results more than logical systems. This realism may now stand the British worker in good stead.

>Let us go back in history and realize that the real tragedy for the industrial worker was the loss of his tools, in medieval times he began as an apprentice, learned his craft and became in due course a journeyman possessing his own tools, travelling as a free man through the length and breadth of not only his own country but often of the whole of Europe. Wherever he went he was in a position to exercise his craft and maintain himself, until he had acquired sufficient experience to settle down himself as a master-craftsman employing his own apprentices and journeymen. The next step was to take his place as one of the burgesses ruling his own walled town defying the robber barons of the countryside, with every possibility of becoming the burgomaster of a community of craftsmen, such as formed the Hanscatic League and other groups of the free cities of Europe.

>Unhappily wealth in alliance with landowning interests destroyed this healthy development of honest craftsmanship. Soon the worker lost his political powers and even ownership of his tools passed away, as home industries succumbed within living memory to the competition of power driven machinery owned by big capitalists. From a free man controlling his own destiny the worker declined to a mere member of the proletariat dependant upon the capitalist for access to the machines through which alone he could earn his livelihood. This was a major catastrophe to the industrial worker from which socialism offers him no redress, as State ownership of the means of production merely removes the control over the tools of his trade further from his ken. The bureaucratic officials who now direct him to labour are certainly not drawn from the working class, being in fact for the most part the privileged younger sons of the very capitalist-class he has sought to destroy.

<Alternative Revolutionary Creed
>There is, however, no need to despair, for side by side with the teaching of socialist revolution, there has been in Europe a second revolutionary creed calling for a return to the natural system of trade guilds of earlier times. Names as great as those of Engels and Marx are associated with this alternative revolution, and they are the names of true idealistic Europeans and not merely of materialist minded aliens.

>Russia produced Prince Kropotkin and Bakunin who taught the philosophy of natural social co-operation through “Mutual Aid” condemning government and advocating anarcho-syndicalism. Sorrel followed in France with his creed of the “General Strike” by which the workers should recover control over industry and the means of production. Nor was Mazzini slow in Italy to follow a similar course leading ultimately to the idea of the Corporate State to which even the dictator ᴉuᴉlossnW was compelled to give at least lip service.

>Northern Europe may have accepted Socialism which owed much to the co-operation of Bismarck and the Jew Lasalle in Germany; but Southern Europe remained true to Syndicalism which modified the Fascist dictatorships and even fought under anarcho-syndicalist leadership the Communist endeavour to dominate Barcelona during the Spanish civil war. Franco to this day has found it necessary to concede much to the national-syndicalist organizations of his revolutionary allies in the blue-shirted Phalanx.

>We in Britain cannot regard this clash of ideas on the Continent as something beyond our concern, for we too have played our part in its development. Our early leadership in the formation of trade unions and co-operative societies was certainly not socialist in intention, but pure syndicalism in practice. Nor was revolutionary theory lacking even in this land of hard practicality, when such men as Orage, Penty and G.D.H. Cole, developed the ideal of “Guild Socialism” early in the century, which had much in common with the National Syndicalism of Southern Europe in tvpical compromise with the National Socialism of the North which ultimately led to the rise of Hitler in Germany and Stalin in Russia. Indeed, the General Strike of 1926 was a great, if unconscious effort, to achieve the industrial revolution to workers control advocated by Sorrel, and it was only following upon its dramatic failure that the workers drifted towards political action on the Marxist model.

<Reversion to Syndicalism
>Is it too late to revert from Socialism to Syndicalism? We do not believe it. Socialism leads either on the National or International front to one form of tyranny or another – either to a British Hitler or to the universal sway of Stalin. Syndicalism on the other hand can restore the long lost freedom of the British worker by restoring his control over the tools of his craft and the means of his livelihood. The British workers already repudiate Communism, as they realise that national ownership means the end of hard won liberties extorted at great sacrifice from exploiting capitalist employers through loyal comradeship and social solidarity. This is not the time to lay down the weapons of trade union organization, but to demand that the whole trade union movement attains its ultimate objective of effective control over the conditions of employment and the development of industry.

<How is this to be achieved?
>Surely it is time to reverse the whole tendency of working class activity since 1926? We must cease to support the advance of political gangsters, climbing, like Jimmy Thomas, on the backs of the workers to political power, for we now realise we will no more be able to remove them from the saddle than can the Russian people get rid of Joe Stalin and his pals. We must return to industrial trade unionism, holding firmly to the powers we have already won over the conduct and administration of our own industries. There we have something real to show for the efforts of generations of British workers, something we will not lightly barter away for the most rosy-hued theory of national ownership administered by State Capitalists.

>Self-government of Industry Syndicalism is practical business. It means the self-government of industry on the lines of the “working parties” which were so effective a means of increasing pro-duction during the war. It means the abandonment of the mere illusion of political control through corrupt, power-crazed delegates in favour of the effective reality of industrial control through direct contact with the facts of occupational problems.

>Syndicalism is a reality which is in large measure already achieved through working class action to curb capitalist exploitation. Socialism remains a theory without effective result, unless it be carried to that point of Communist slate tyranny which the real British workers abhor. Let us, therefore, as workers give our support to every trend and every political idea which advocates the retention of workers’ control of industry and repudiates bureaucratic direction.

>The British Revolution need not come to a standstill. Conservatism need never again recover power because of the failure of Socialism. All that is needed is a deliberate change in the direction of revolutionary action away from political intrigue back to the normal British method of direct industrial activity. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, especially when new political bosses have the full disposal of available poultry—and we do not only mean Mr. Strachey in this connection. Freedom is too valuable a birthright to sell for such a problematic mess of pottage.

<Central Government
>We are too practical a people to fall into the errors of anarcho-syndicalism. We realise that if we choose the reality of industrial self-government in place of the illusion of political self-government through an effete parliamentary system, there must nevertheless be some central government-authority to safeguard the interests of the nation as a whole and co-ordinate the efforts of the various industries and occupations. While clinging to our fundamental rights to control and ultimately to own the means of our own industrial and occupational livelihood, let us be prepared to concede power to central government to administer national affairs provided such a government submits itself at regular intervals to a vote of the whole people to confirm it in office! Thus may we still progress along the lines of our traditional revolt against capitalism and the rule of wealth.

>Let us be quite clear that there is no short cut to the liquidation of Capitalism. We must aim at the transfer of control over industry from existing financial and absentee shareholding interests to those responsible for the actual conduct of the industry whether in a managerial, technical or operative capacity. This must then be followed up by the liquidation of all mere paper claims upon the industry for interest and profit in no way justified by service. Ultimately all industries must pass not into the ownership of the State but into the hands of those actually engaged in running the industry. In fact, ownership must be for use and not for profit, and every industry must eventually possess its own tools, machinery and other capital as its means of giving service to the national welfare.

<THE END OF CAPITALISM
>This is the syndicalist remedy for Capitalism, and all workers must fit themselves, whatever their capacity, to undertake the responsibility for co-operating in the management and direction of their own industries. This requires a reorientation of Trade Unionism away from politics and back to the original industrial purposes for which they were formed. Only when the workers have fitted themselves to undertake such tasks can they hope to end the rule of Capitalism, either in its individual or state aspect, as the domination of wealth over society. Let the craftsman assert once again his right over the tools of his craft, if not as an individual then as a member of his organized industrial guild, forgetting class prejudices in favour of the loyal co-operation of all factors contributing to the welfare of his industry.

>Finally, let the workers of this country realise in which direction their real well-being lies. Let them give full support to any political movement or tendency which moves in the direction of real syndical values and away from the delusion of socialist theories. Political action to support industrial progress will be necessary; but let us be certain that such political action is honestly directed towards curbing the power of Capitalism not usurping it as a means of tyrannizing over the nation, workers and employers alike. Let us be true to our heritage of industrial struggle and show both Capitalist America and Communist Russia that we have a characteristic British method of setting our own house in order, and achieving a new form of society, in which the worker with hand and with brain will possess the power to protect his own interests and thus serve the national welfare.

FORWARD TO SYNDICAL REVOLUTION

Anonymous 2023-11-10 (Fri) 00:11:56 No.589606

>>1673192
It's an interesting read, thank you.

>You've got it upside down. Fascism only existed as a reaction to the resistance of the organized working class and the communist left.
While that's the orthodox view, I do think back to Victor Serge's conversation with Nicola Bombacci, where Bombacci said that ᴉuᴉlossnW had managed to take the most radical/violent members of the Socialist Party with him when he became a Fascist; they simply didn't have anyone capable of "taking care of" ᴉuᴉlossnW after that.

I think Fascism, at times, defangs the Left not merely by force of arms, but also by subtly undermining groups that possibly would've been Leftists in other circumstances.

Anonymous 2023-11-10 (Fri) 13:27:22 No.589607

>>589605
>Oswald's critique of the USSR is the exact same as the Leftcoms constantly screeching about State Capitalism
holy kek

Anonymous 2023-11-10 (Fri) 18:23:37 No.589608

>>589607
A few of Mosley's positions can seem like working backwards towards certain strains of socialist critique; he advocated higher wages and a shorter work week a lot IIRC.

Anonymous 2023-11-10 (Fri) 18:30:49 No.589609

>>589608
Yeah Mosley could have been a genuine socialist and led Britain to a planned economy too bad he sold out for industrialist money and left his first wife a depressed and broken wreck when she saw he was turning to fascism. Pathetic that an actual and literal aristocrat born into wealth still had more principles than this scumbag.

Anonymous 2023-11-10 (Fri) 21:42:46 No.589610

File: 1699652566515.jpg (53.26 KB, 919x746, Musclecomrade.jpg)

>>1673192
>You've got it upside down.
Hey, you know who else we got upside-down?

Anonymous 2023-11-10 (Fri) 21:44:49 No.589611

>>589609
To be honest, I'm not sure if he sold out so much as he was a true believer. While the narrative of would-be Socialists like Mosley or ᴉuᴉlossnW "selling out" is a useful rhetorical argument, I think if we're doing serious analysis we should entertain the notion they could've been true believers. Even the Devil could believe in his cause. Mosley in particular basically flushed his career down the toilet by going Fash.

>>1674697
I have no idea who this character is but he was getting spammed a ton on social media when the news about Chris-Chan's mom was making the rounds.

Anonymous 2023-11-10 (Fri) 22:12:49 No.589612

>>589611
That's 'Muscleman' from Regular Show, whose catchphrase is making 'my mom' jokes instead of 'your mom' jokes.

Anonymous 2023-11-10 (Fri) 22:16:42 No.589613

>>589611
>>589612
Regular Show is peak american culture

Anonymous 2023-11-10 (Fri) 22:24:57 No.589614

>>589613
Specifically, it's peak 80s Cali culture, with a touch of British comedy like The Mighty Boosh.
Mordecai is a self-insert of the creator in their early 20s, Quintel literally says in the first season commentary something like "Mordecai is exactly me, except I'm not a bird."

>>589611
I do wonder what fascism would be like if not for Hitler, because appeasing Hitler certainly had profound effects on ᴉuᴉlossnW's party and probably had some on Mosley's (I don't know much about them beyond their closeness and the Mitford shit). And, if nothing else, Nazism had massive effects on the idea of fascism, even among its followers in other countries - good fucking luck trying to get anyone but obscure political theory enthusiasts to entertain the idea of a non-racist fascism after the Nazis came to power and 'fascism' became synonymous with 'Nazism'.

Anonymous 2023-11-10 (Fri) 22:58:47 No.589615

>>589614 (me)
>good fucking luck trying to get anyone but obscure political theory enthusiasts to entertain the idea of a non-racist fascism after the Nazis came to power and 'fascism' became synonymous with 'Nazism'.
The closest I can think to a well-known group achieving this is Proud Boys, who even had a black (Afro-Cuban) national leader, but even then they were are largely understood as a white-supremacist and anti-jew organization, and an upper leader went mask off neo-Nazi in late 2020 (before Tarrio was revealed an informant after the Jan 6 incident) and there are confirmed neo-Nazi regional chapters.
In the West (I only specify that because of my naivety of other places), outside of an academic context like this thread, fascism might as well just mean Nazism, and Nazism might as well mean edgy ultra-racism.

Anonymous 2023-11-11 (Sat) 02:43:43 No.589616

>>589614
>I do wonder what fascism would be like if not for Hitler, because appeasing Hitler certainly had profound effects on ᴉuᴉlossnW's party and probably had some on Mosley's (I don't know much about them beyond their closeness and the Mitford shit).

Honestly Nazism’s only “theoretical” contribution to Fascism was the anti-semitism, it’s why Mosley is an interesting point of comparison because his own stances were arguably a bit progressive. Prior to becoming a Fascist he earned the ire of the Right for wanting the Black and Tans arrested for their crimes in Ireland; the anti-semitism arguably came from his base repeatedly pushing him on the subject and wanting to emulate the Nazis more. Even then in his “100 Questions Asked and Answered” he made it a point to claim “aw shucks I don’t hate all Jews, just the ‘bad’ ones!” and I believe it was a point he held fairly consistently.

I think when examining ideology, it’s easy to mistake the forest for the trees. An example of this would be how Rightists would point out the personal bigotries of Marx or Stalin as an indictment of either’s beliefs, as though they weren’t the norm at the time. The racism in Fascism could exist as a manifestation of the times it developed in—which as the Nazis were helpful to remind everyone, was a time where Eugenics and “race science” were still broadly the norm. The League of Nations refused to acknowledge the equality of races, after all. The 20th century, at that time, saw things like disabilities as a social ill and imagined that the eradication of certain disabilities was a goal to strive for, a far cry from the concerns about ableism today.

I bring this up because I’ve researched the treatment of disabled peoples in the USSR—and allegedly while they were taken care of by the state, it wasn’t something people wanted to discuss. Supposedly when asked if the USSR would create a paralympics team back in the day, their representative to the regular Olympics exclaimed there were no disabled people in the country. Obviously there were and are residual social biases that can influence people, in this case a passive regard for the disabled as embarrassing.

The thing is that once you have a strong state that you believe has an obligation towards a social good, what we consider a “social good” is bound to change. An example I discovered while doing research for my novel, I discovered that the medieval attitudes towards heresy was that it was a social malaise, a kind of antisocial disorder. Of course, we’d find the idea of legal proscriptions against heresy barbaric today, but for the people at the time, a king that wouldn’t eradicate heresy would be regarded with suspicion at least. While Mosley “merely” proposed public education about the results of “race mingling” it’s not hard to see how belief that the demographics of a country are a public concern combined with a powerful state can evolve into something like sterilization and genocide under the Nazis. Is it an inevitability? Not necessarily, but it’s a distinct possibility. The revolutionary spirit can lead to excesses, given Fascism claims to be a “revolutionary” ideology it can be subject to the same excesses. The idea of national unity, taken to a revolutionary extreme, could lead to the state attempting to grapple with what it sees as “social ills” at the cost of a lot of people’s lives. The whole time they’d be thinking they’re doing something “good” or at least healthy—“in a generation we won’t have cripples or mental illnesses!” It wouldn’t work, of course, but I imagine that’s the thought process.

Anonymous 2023-11-11 (Sat) 04:49:08 No.589617

>re: the question of whether or not they're sincere
It's ultimately irrelevant, because a modern person inspired by them will probably assume they were, and that modern, relevant person and their followers will therefore be sincere regardless of whether Mosley or Moosey were just being populists.

>>589616
>it’s why Mosley is an interesting point of comparison because his own stances were arguably a bit progressive
Judging from the extract above, Mosley was firmly advocating 'syndicalism with pragmatic nationalism', in a similar way one might consider M-L as socialism with pragmatic nationalism.

If it weren't for their chosen label of fascism and for their absolutely horrible choice of associates and their followers, it would be hard to distinguish them from others who we accept to be leftists. Like you said, his anti-semitism, like arbitrarily emphasising Lassaille was a Jew… well we know that example and worse has been present too in Marx and their contemporary socialists.
(Then again, maybe it shouldn't be considered a 'sign of their time', it's still largely of our time, even if less normal. We still have those following in their footsteps without removing those racial aspects.)

Their explicit rejection of socialism is supplemented with their advocacy of syndicalism, the point being that they were clearly part of a progressive labour movement seeking to remove the dominance of the bourgeois. They appeared to be a Labour member, disenfranchised by the succdem impotence, and repulsed by their view of the USSR as an aggressive state dictatorship over the workers (but, uh, Hitler was fine!).

Anonymous 2023-11-11 (Sat) 06:29:38 No.589618

>>1675088
>>589598

Ah, sorry about that, I saw your post but wasn't sure how to respond. In regards to Fascism being undialectical, I'm not sure if I've studied enough to give a firm answer one way or the other. I've heard some of the more niche "classical Fascists" argue that Fascism engages in a dialectical process and that was, supposedly, what won Nicola Bombacci over to Fascism, but I don't earnestly know. It's partially why I'd like to see more of Bombacci's works translated to see what his thought process going from a ML to a Fash was.

Perhaps Fascism can invoke some different form of dialectical thinking, given how many former Socialists went over to ᴉuᴉlossnW's side it's not like they'd be unfamiliar with it. But I'm not educated enough to answer, I think I might've approached a hypothesis with my claim that Fascists engage in some sort of "dialectics of Statism" but even then I could be shooting in the dark.

Anonymous 2023-11-11 (Sat) 21:07:59 No.589619

>>589443
Except from an economic standpoint, (which in reality is meh) none of the points you brought up that China is fascist in any way.

Anonymous 2023-11-13 (Mon) 00:18:02 No.589620

>>1676132
Looks interesting, I hope it’ll be a curious read. Skimmed the foreword and he really mocks Hitler—honestly it’s surprising how many Italian Fascists opposed allying with the Nazis. I could see a world where ᴉuᴉlossnW could’ve collaborated with the USSR against Hitler if he paid attention to his advisors.

>>1675577
You bring up some decent points, though at the same time I think some of these “orthodox fascists” would be willing to collaborate with socialist projects while subtly working to undermine or twist it from within.

Anonymous 2023-11-13 (Mon) 00:35:15 No.589621

>>589620
>I could see a world where ᴉuᴉlossnW could’ve collaborated with the USSR against Hitler if he paid attention to his advisors.
The geography of the situation would be unfortunate, but it's fun to dream.

Anonymous 2023-11-13 (Mon) 04:14:41 No.589622

File: 1699848881168.png (143.45 KB, 1736x526, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1676544

Anonymous 2023-11-13 (Mon) 06:51:51 No.589623

How likely do people here think a Klan revival would be in America? Personally, I don't think it could be ruled out, considering that the Klan is an endogenous form of American fascism and is arguably the first fascist group in history. I know it sounds ridiculous now but a lot of events today would have sounded ridiculous not that long ago.

Anonymous 2023-11-13 (Mon) 19:19:24 No.589624

File: 1699903164638.jpg (88.05 KB, 848x472, 6680e1e2e5b4d46a2adc35cfef….jpg)

>>589621
It's got all the makings of a wacky Hearts of Iron mod with a cancerous fanbase.

>>1676544
I didn't really have time to respond in-depth as I was at work when I posted that; to elaborate a bit, I think Fascists can prove their willingness to work with MLs by degrees; if I remember right, an ex-Nazi party in West Germany advocated for the Soviets to invade (the quote was something like "If they cross the border I'll point the way to the Rhine") and you've got a few figures like Yockey who promoted a "Red-Brown Alliance". But it should be noted that even when considering these things, this isn't out of the norm for Fascists. The same things we point to as evidence of them being Capitalist stooges could be used by some Capitalists to claim "actually Fascists are Socialists." And I suppose that leads back to the question of how we earnestly try to define Fascism. Because if Fascism has no problem being opportunistic when it comes to economic systems, then does that mean they can be tolerated or approached by degrees? Or does that make them even more dangerous, because they'll openly try to twist whatever project they attach themselves to for their own ends?

It also begs the question what our opposition towards Fascism is based on. If the economic question is irrelevant to what Fascism is, then do we oppose it on social grounds? Should we entertain the notion that if ᴉuᴉlossnW or some other Fascist was earnest enough to approach the USSR as a friend, then we should forgo a popular front with liberals against the Fascists and instead have pursued some kind of "Radical Front" against liberalism?

One of the crises of 21st century Socialism is that the neoliberal age has stagnated but not died. Amidst that stagnation you've got growing blocs of right and left populist movements competing for power, yet neoliberals (despite being a minority) can leverage both sides' hatred and mistrust of the other to maintain their hegemony. This seems to be most acute in France, where apparently old Socialist strongholds have been uprooted by the National Rally. It'd be bizarre, given their poll numbers, to claim that National Rally doesn't have genuine popular support in some sectors or is solely a marionette for the French Bourgeoisie, they can leverage impressive numbers on their own. However, liberals can count on Communists and Socialists to oppose them, which means neoliberalism can continue its stranglehold on France.

I suppose an ethical question we can play around with, is whether in certain cases it can be considered a tactical choice to abstain from fighting Fascists so neoliberalism can die (and the resulting chaos could be leveraged for Socialism) or whether that is too dangerous a gamble to take.

Anonymous 2023-11-13 (Mon) 19:31:38 No.589625

>>589623
modern successful fascists are probably gonna follow in the footsteps of richard spencer where they try to present their ideas as some kind of liberal state that focuses on "racial autonomy" the fascists you should worry about are the ones who cloak their rhetoric in pseudo-science and liberal language about not consenting to being near people of different races and shit like that

Anonymous 2023-11-13 (Mon) 20:09:22 No.589626

>>589623
What makes you label them 'fascist', rather than merely an extreme racist gang?
This is a study thread, so we use the term 'fascist' to refer to a specific ideology.

Anonymous 2023-11-13 (Mon) 20:33:22 No.589627

>>589624
>
One of the crises of 21st century Socialism is that the neoliberal age has stagnated but not died. Amidst that stagnation you've got growing blocs of right and left populist movements competing for power, yet neoliberals (despite being a minority) can leverage both sides' hatred and mistrust of the other to maintain their hegemony. This seems to be most acute in France, where apparently old Socialist strongholds have been uprooted by the National Rally. It'd be bizarre, given their poll numbers, to claim that National Rally doesn't have genuine popular support in some sectors or is solely a marionette for the French Bourgeoisie, they can leverage impressive numbers on their own. However, liberals can count on Communists and Socialists to oppose them, which means neoliberalism can continue its stranglehold on France

For all it's weaknesses, the franco-parisian bourgeoisie manage to perfectly execute the same strategy they used during the Directoire period of the French Revolution : you fabricate a political trap against the Left, then one against the Right, then you let them hate each other while you reign over France. It is working perfectly as it never have been so easy as LFI is a trotskyist-progressist-intersectionnal chimera that will explode the second Mélenchon isn't there anymore and it's very easy to show to the Left that the National Rally is a demonic neonazi party that must be fought, even if meaning giving votes and polical will to the liberal bourgeoisie. This allow to the liberals to win every single election even if they have 20-25% of the votes and are hated by everyone born after 1991. But as you say, there is no good counterstrategy, and 1929-1933's Germany have shown us that it is very possible to loose the battle after eliminating the liberals

Anonymous 2023-11-13 (Mon) 21:24:02 No.589628

File: 1699910641941.jpg (60.81 KB, 550x410, c2575577c52eedb56f802df3b3….jpg)

>>589626
>>589625
>>589623
IIRC there was a snippet from an article going around that said certain segments of the Klan were ditching racism in an attempt to solve their recruiting woes. I think they have elements necessary for a Fascist movement, namely the ritualization of certain practices (cross burning and shit) but I don't really see a future for the KKK.

>>589627
Yeah, I'd say a potential NR and LFI alliance would be a Hail Mary play. It wouldn't even necessarily succeed as I imagine a ton of French Socialists would be disgusted by the idea of working with the NRs and thus refuse to vote in line with their party; hell they'd possibly even schism.

Though I suppose an advantage that Fascists are adroit at leveraging is their opportunism or their conception of "redemption." ᴉuᴉlossnW arguably didn't crack down as hard as Hitler did, at least to some extent. He made a big show of pardoning Anarchists even though some Anarchists tried to kill him. He'd approach Marxists and offer them some limited privileges under his authority. Today, I believe National Rally shoves ex-Communists front and center to say "See? We're the REAL revolutionaries!"

And the thing is, for the Left this is an uphill battle. I hate to say it, but it's much harder to get people to care about someone they see as "alien", and when the Right claims its an either-or choice between "caring for our own people" or "caring for others" then it's simply rational for people to choose the familiar. If faced with two burning houses, we can expect a man to run in to save his own family first. The winning strategy of nationalists is to claim that the Left doesn't even want to save their families at all.

If I can give an anecdote, the other day one of my coworkers approached me. I know him as a fairly moderate right wing guy; he doesn't explicitly say he's a Republican but he's made enough comments that I suspect he is. Anyways, he approached me out of the blue to talk Israel-Palestine, namely because I've made my position on the issue fairly clear and actually radicalized a coworker on it. And he gives me this spiel that goes something like:
>"You know, Israel was gonna do what it has to anyways. I don't know why we have to help."
>"Israel can build its own weapons and defend itself."
>"I can't understand why we're giving all this money to foreign countries."

And in this instance, our politics are nearly aligned but for completely different reasons. I oppose Israel on the grounds of it being a genocidal apartheid state. He opposes it because he sees it as kind of "leeching" off America. He doesn't really care about the massacre in Gaza or the genocide or the Palestinians, if anything I think he probably sympathizes with the average Israeli more, but in this instance he's sick of our taxes going to funding the Israelis. So I chat him up, and I mention how weird it is that whenever we need to maintain roads, build schools, or clean up our environment, we're told we don't have the budget for it… but we can magically conjure up $15 billion for Israel. And he sort of nods along. It's clear he doesn't like the arrangement, and while he might not prioritize building schools or a sustainable environment, it at least seems more rational than throwing billions to the Israelis.

The issue with the populist right is that a lot of their arguments are rational, if unprincipled, to the average voter. Meanwhile the Left has arguments that are principled, but are portrayed as irrational. Think of it like a Bioware RPG; you can have a "good" playthrough where you get lesser rewards and miss out on cool abilities or an "evil" playthrough where you get tons of abilities and rewards, but you're a complete asshole and the game isn't afraid to tell you that you are. Both of these are functionally unrealistic portrayals of morality, but that's the logic I think a lot of people are operating on. "Yeah maybe National Rally is racist, but I lost my job and I know immigration keeps my wages down." Saying "well we have to protect minority communities anyways" is what's amplified by the media, our solution for the guy without a job isn't. Going into long discussions about the nature of imperialism or capitalism doesn't mean much to people who want to get their life together NOW.

Which isn't to say that the Right is incapable of truly intolerable and unpopular social agendas. As we've seen with abortion, it's extremely easy for the Right to overstep. But the difference is what the populace considers to be "us" and what they consider to be "them." Abortion and all the evangelical theocratic shit frustrates the masses, in part because it actually affects them in their day to day. Call it "missing white woman" syndrome, but I don't think voters even in red states like the image of an 11 year old rape victim being forced to carry an infant to term because of pro-lifers. But that empathy starts to degrade the farther someone appears to be from their personal experiences; you can still make people care, in the context of basic humanity, but they likely wont be marching out in the streets or changing their votes because of something they deem "foreign." When you're told that either they can benefit or you can, that there's not enough resources to go around, then a lot of people will form camps and view their fellows with enmity. Someone, they're convinced, has to be sacrificed. You can get Americans to care about trade by discussing how much we've lost from neoliberal trade agreements. But pointing out that Mexican farmers have been devastated by trade too? The most you might get is a cough and some stares; they don't want to hear about how "others" are suffering, let alone if it implies some culpability on their part. They want the economy to get better for them, first and foremost.

Anonymous 2023-11-14 (Tue) 01:20:38 No.589629

>>589628
>Saying "well we have to protect minority communities anyways" is what's amplified by the media, our solution for the guy without a job isn't. Going into long discussions about the nature of imperialism or capitalism doesn't mean much to people who want to get their life together NOW.
A materialist approach to political views must recognize that having the headspace for caring about global or abstract issues from an ethical or moral standpoint is a privilege. The bottom line is, the knowledge of even hundreds of thousands of dead Palestinians and complete annexation would keep very few in the West up at night. Their own child suffering would. That's normal, it's not weird or right-wing or liberal or capitalist.

However, those who understand more about global politics and imperialism can explain why it has local, relevant impacts to the working-class West:
- Their governments are using their taxes to fund war that brings them no benefit, and if anything, increased risk of terrorism. This is at the cost of decreased living costs &etc.
- This is how you get refugees with low financial expectations
- Anything I missed?
So it's no surprise an isolationist nationalist would also see those two points as valid and rational. "Stop bombing hospitals", "building international solidarity" and "fighting imperialism", as an end, is often too abstract or distant to get people to sincerely care beyond 'well that's bad'. But showing how it affects them is key, then you can explain the root causes when they ask 'why the fuck are we spending money on them anyway?'

Anonymous 2023-11-15 (Wed) 00:18:43 No.589630

>>589629
An excellent response, and something I'm happy to say I've seen a few Socialists engage in.

It reminds me that one of the CPUSA's pamphlets got leaked, I forget exactly which one, but it referenced the sanctions on Cuba and had a throwaway line saying "It's not like the Sanctions are doing any good for us, by opening up trade we can benefit our communities and small businesses" or something like that. Which, to be frank, is an uncontroversial statement outside of leftist spaces. Within leftist spaces, people were scoffing that a Communist Party would DARE mention how small business could benefit from trade with Cuba.

I bring that up, because a couple months back I was reading Cigar Aficionado and they posted a similar argument; that the blockade was inhumane and lifting it would benefit everyone. Of course, it also shilled its liberal ideology and made a fuss about how "the Cuban government wouldn't be able to excuse their failures by pointing out the blockade and an upsurge of newly enriched people would get more of them to advocate for their rights" but the point was that they still came out against the embargo. The point about small businesses benefiting reached a broader base than just the Left.

A Party with some real revolutionary potential has to get a broad coalition on board. However this broad coalition doesn't necessarily have to go through the filter of established political parties. In practice, this could manifest in French Communists not necessarily making an Alliance with National Rally, but addressing concerns related to deindustrialization and the impoverishment of French workers. Basically trying to shave off the shakiest party members or at least distance them from partisan resentments.

King Lear 2023-11-15 (Wed) 03:22:31 No.589631

This is an extremely informative thread that has been really enjoyable to read, however, I feel that many Anons here are over complicating and essentially mystifying the definition of Fascism into something quite incomprehensible (this can be quite dangerous, because if we have no clue what it is, we will either dismiss it as “benign” or potentially be duped into joining some ludicrous “Red-Brown” alliance, both of which lead to Communists getting crushed by Reactionaries). In reality, Fascism is really just any ideology which combines the Capitalist mode of production with a One-Party State and/or Military Dictatorship, essentially it is just Bourgeois Dictatorship without the Mask of Liberal Bourgeois Democracy (Liberalism is just Capitalism combined with Multi-Party elections), thus making it one of the two distinctive forms of Bourgeois Dictatorship, as explained in greater detail in this highly informative article from Massline.org http://www.massline.org/Politics/ScottH/Fascism-MLM-Conception.pdf , ✊😜!

Anonymous 2023-11-15 (Wed) 07:22:17 No.589632

>>589506
close

>>589556
nailed it

>>589573
>"This isn't National Socialism, this is simply Capitalism"

The reason fascism is so hard to identify is because we live in fascism. Capitalism already is fascism. Capitalism in decay is what Lenin used to described the highest stage of capitalism, Imperialism. The policies of the US, British, French, Dutch, and Belgian empires in their colonies are exactly the same as Nazi Germany. The difference is that Germany did it to other English speaking white Christian Europeans.

Liberal capitalism has two aspects, expropriative and exploitative. When a country exhausts all potential for expansion within its own borders it transforms from exploitative capitalist relations to expropriative imperialist relations. Initially when setting up a colony there is a period of violence to impose a new order. What we see here is a form of primitive accumulation, the enclosing of the commons and privatization of resources, and the socialization of labor.

The primary purpose of fascism is to discipline labor during a capitalist crisis. The most comprehensive definition under this analysis is "the open terroristic dictatorship of the bourgeoisie." We already see what this looks like with colonialism and imperialist wars. The reason it appears to have so different forms is because the particular policies necessary for disciplining labor depend on the material conditions of a given territory.

Fascism is a word for a special type of imperialism that is turned inwards, when there are no possible avenues for expansion into new territory. Instead you get austerity and the bourgeoisie pushing down on the working class in their own country, suppressing wages, privatizing public resources, breaking up unions, unleashing the police on citizens, and murdering organizers, all to chase the falling rate of profit. Fascism is the other side of the coin that is liberal capitalism. Its called imperialism when its happening to other people and its called fascism when it happens to you. Fascism is imperialism at home.

Anonymous 2023-11-15 (Wed) 07:37:38 No.589633

File: 1700033857838-0.png (497.22 KB, 1000x1000, 20230826100405.png)

File: 1700033857838-1.png (199.95 KB, 2000x3425, Italian_Fascist_Fasces.png)

Leftists ask themselves
>What is Fascism
Let's consult the symbol of Fascism.
The Fasces.
The Fascists adopted this symbol because it is a symbol of the State.
Period.
Besides Gentile's Actual Idealism, Fascism is really straightforward.
Fascism is so simple to understand, really, I think Leftists assume there's more to it.

Anonymous 2023-11-15 (Wed) 09:20:28 No.589634

File: 1700040028423.jpg (63.98 KB, 900x900, green frog-ass hand.jpg)

>>589633
Wow, this explains everything. I have screencapped this post and sent it to professors around the globe, for this upper echelon of analysis stands alone in it's insight and usefulness. This… this is the key to anti-fascism.

Anonymous 2023-11-15 (Wed) 09:53:56 No.589635

>and something I'm happy to say I've seen a few Socialists engage in
This is nice to hear. Unfortunately, I haven't been involved in on-the-ground stuff due to contagious illness until this week so it's uplifting to know that things are going better than the garbage online.

>Which, to be frank, is an uncontroversial statement outside of leftist spaces. Within leftist spaces, people were scoffing that a Communist Party would DARE mention how small business could benefit from trade with Cuba.
With friends like these, who needs feds. I'm seriously considering if orgs should do mandatory rhetoric and agitprop training.
I was trained in a nerdy STEM profession, and while there were many social people, there's an obvious bias. And this is a profession where there can be a lot at stake, simple carelessness or systematic issues have cost lives.
One tutorial, the lecturer says 'this week isn't about the academic stuff. we're going to practice rhetoric. im sure you'll be able to find when something is inadequate and truly needs fixing, but this is worthless if you can't convince untrained managers how important it is.'
And that pointless purity whining about 'they said it would help the petit booj!' just get in the way of pragmatic progress.

>>1678213
>pic
that person deserves 4th prize in an Assad look-alike competition.

Anonymous 2023-11-15 (Wed) 11:27:16 No.589636

>>589633
Faggot.
They stole the name from socialist organizations of the XIX century called "fasci". Everything else came after that.

Anonymous 2023-11-15 (Wed) 14:07:35 No.589637

File: 1700057255508-0.jpg (462.67 KB, 1956x1047, National Capitalism.jpg)

File: 1700057255508-1.png (100.68 KB, 1121x736, Mussolinis Big State.png)

>>589633
>Fascists love the state
then why do they always privatize shit to sell off to business interests? seems like they like to lie about what they are.

Anonymous 2023-11-15 (Wed) 18:46:49 No.589638

File: 1700074009030-0.png (7.86 MB, 2002x3000, 14 nbg.png)

File: 1700074009030-1.png (839.16 KB, 995x826, leviathan.png)

>>589634
>Wow, this explains everything.
Yep, Fascism is totalitarian Statism, basically.

>>589637
Doesn't make Fascism less Statist imo.
Contrary to popular belief, the free market meme isn't an anti-state.
Any State could distribute land / property – that's part of the State's justice.
There's the classical idea of the State: the City or Polis.
For example, Hobbes' Leviathan, there is the corporation of One Person or The People above, the City below. – We've moved beyond Aristotle's notion of the City with Sovereignty, but it's still a useful model.
Like a city divides up portions of land by the general authority, those houses constituting the city (although they are called private) nevertheless are a part of the common weal or common wealth or the city, the same way you'd look at the city from above from a bird's eyes view to see all the houses and people there as part of that political body.
Private property has to thank the State's laws and justice.
The whole business of governance actually starts there, public or private. They train and domesticate people.
By domesticate, I mean domestic like a household.
Jean Bodin says, that the true image of the Commonwealth or State is the household or family well ordered; and that the State or Commonwealth is nothing but the union of many families or households.
We believe the State is no different than the household, but like a great household itself.
This is our conception of the State and what the State is.
Thomas Hobbes notes.
>Which is so evident, that even Cicero, (a passionate defender of Liberty,) in a public pleading, attributes all Propriety to the Law Civil, "Let the Civil Law," says he, "be once abandoned, or but negligently guarded, (not to say oppressed,) and there is nothing, that any man can be sure to receive from his Ancestor, or leave to his Children." And again; "Take away the Civil Law, and no man knows what is his own, and what another man's."
>And the Right of Distribution of Them – The Distribution of the Materials of this Nourishment, is the constitution of Mine, and Thine, and His, that is to say, in one word Propriety; and belongs in all kinds of Commonwealth to the Sovereign power…. And this they well knew of old, who called that Nomos, (that is to say, Distribution,) which we call Law; and defined Justice, by distributing to every man his own.
>All Estates of Land Proceed Originally – From the Arbitrary Distribution of the Sovereign – In this Distribution, the First Law, is for Division of the Land itself: wherein the Sovereign assigns to every man a portion, according as he, and not according to any Subject, or any number of them, shall judge agreeable to Equity, and the Common Good. The Children of Israel, were a Commonwealth in the Wilderness, but wanted the commodities of the Earth, till they were masters of the Land of Promise, which afterward was divided amongst them, not by their own discretion, but by the discretion of Eleazar the Priest, and Joshua their General:
Jean Bodin notes.
>Seems to me without any probable cause, to have divided the Economical government from the Political, and a City from a Family; which can no otherwise be done, than if we should pull the members from the body; or go about to build a City without houses
So from our point of view, public and private doesn't mean state and anti-state: the private estates are well considered to be a part of the State, simply not the public lands, regulated and limited by the State's general authority (the same way that even houses have zoning laws or any other regulations to help them govern).
>Provided that they [the family] are joined together by the legitimate and limited rule of the father.
>I have said "limited," since this fact chiefly distinguishes the Family from the State
>That the latter [The State] has the final and public authority.
>The former [The Family or Household] limited and private rule.
That's what separates our absolutist view from the constitutionalist view: the doctrine of constitutional freemen says that a master cannot rule other masters like a household and that they are freemen. In our view, the State is simple and has absolute / final authority and commands them, unites them under the union of an indivisible and simple sovereignty; in their view, the State is the compound or mixture of these freemen assembled for their common good.
It's slightly nuance, but I believe Fascism is more partial to our political views.

Anonymous 2023-11-15 (Wed) 20:58:54 No.589639

File: 1700081934486-0.png (6.72 MB, 2506x3000, 12 nbg.png)

File: 1700081934486-1.png (232.74 KB, 999x1055, da4aaf_c81605314738462ba6e….png)

That's what distinguishes authright from libright ideologies imo.

When we define the state to be the union of many families – that union is the sovereign power, not the many families in themselves, but the indivisible sovereignty. The stress is on their unity moreso than their complexity or compoundness.

So that's why libright focusing on the doctrine of constitutional freemen and the political divided from economical really focus on decentralization and a limited state (since Aristotle makes something whole to be a composite). The sovereignty and unifying power, however, is simple and that's what makes the many families into a state.

Authright tends to view society and state as of the same strain; but libright tends to separate them like Aristotle does with this doctrine of constitutional freemen. In Leviathan, the City and People are one. In libright ideologies, society apart from the state. It's not merely their concord of these parts or freemen convening together, but rather their union as Hobbes puts it.

Thomas Hobbes:
>The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth

>The error concerning mixed government has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men.

Jean Bodin too:
>No otherwise than Theseus his ship, which although it were an hundred times changed by putting in of new planks, yet still retained the old name. But as a ship, if the keel (which strongly bears up the prow, the poup, the ribs, and tacklings) be taken away, is no longer a ship, but an ill favoured houp of wood; even so a Commonwealth, without a sovereignty of power, which unites in one body all members and families of the same is no more a Commonwealth, neither can by and means long endure. And not to depart from our similitude; as a ship may be quite broken up, or altogether consumed with fire; so may also the people into diverse places dispersed, or be utterly destroyed, the City or state yet standing whole; for it is neither the walls, neither the persons, that makes the city, but the union of the people under the same sovereignty of government.

>Now the sovereign prince is exalted above all his subjects, and exempt out of the rank of them: whose majesty suffers no more division than doth the unity itself, which is not set nor accounted among the numbers, howbeit that they all from it take both their force and power…. being indeed about to become much more happy if they had a sovereign prince, which with his authority and power might (as doth the understanding) reconcile all the parts, and so unite and bind them fast in happiness together.

<For that as of unity depends the union of all numbers, which have no power but from it: so also is one sovereign prince in every Commonweale necessary, from the power of whom all others orderly depend

>Wherefore what the unity is in numbers, the understanding in the powers of the soul, and the center in a circle: so likewise in this world that most mighty king, in unity simple, in nature indivisible, in purity most holy, exalted far above the Fabric of the celestial Spheres, joining this elementary world with the celestiall and intelligible heavens

Similarly, the Fascists look at their symbol the Fasces and don't stress the complexity of the rods, but their unity.

ᴉuᴉlossnW
>For Fascism the State is absolute, the individuals & groups relative.

Giovanni Gentile:
>It must be a will that cannot allow others to limit it. It is, therefore, a sovereign & absolute will. The legitimate will of citizens is that will that corresponds to the will of the State, that organizes itself & manifests itself by the State's central organs

Giovanni Gentile:
>The Fascist State is a sovereign State. Sovereign in fact rather than words. A strong State, which allows no equal or limits, other than the limits it, like any other moral force, imposes on itself.

ᴉuᴉlossnW
>In so far as it is embodied in a State, this higher personality becomes a nation.
>It is not the nation which generates the State
>Rather is it the State which creates the nation, conferring volition and therefore real life on a people made aware of their moral unity.

Giovanni Gentile
>Both Nationalism & Fascism place the State at the foundation–for both, the State is not a consequence, but a beginning.
>For nationalists, the State is conceived as prior to the individual.

Aristotle:
>Further, the State is by nature clearly prior to the family & individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part.

Giovanni Gentile:
>For Fascism, on the other hand, the State and the individual are one, or better, perhaps, "State" & "individual" are terms that are inseparable in a necessary synthesis.

As remarked here in royalism, W.P. Esq:
For he is a Corporation of himself, and has two capacities, (to wit) a Natural Body, in which he may inherit to any of his Ancestors, or purchase Lands to him, and the Heirs of his Body, which he shall retain, although he be afterwards removed from his Royal Estate; and Body Politick, in which he may purchase to him and his Heirs, Kings of England, or to him and his Successors, yet both Bodies make but one individual Body.' Plowden

Hobbes famously makes the State a corporation of one individual person.

Thomas Hobbes
>And though in the charters of subordinate corporations, a corporation be declared to be one person in law, yet the same has not been taken notice of in the body of a commonwealth or city, nor have any of those innumerable writers of politics observed any such union

Giovanni Gentile:
>It is the State that possesses a concrete will & must be considered a person.
>The State, for us, has an absolute moral value–as that moral substance whose function it is to render all other functions valuable.

Thomas Hobbes: Definition of a Commonwealth:
>And in him consisteth the Essence of the Common-wealth; which (to define it,) is "One Person, of whose Acts a great Multitude, by mutuall Covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the Author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their Peace and Common Defence.”

Thomas Hobbes: Generation of a Commonwealth or Leviathan
>The only way to erect such a Common Power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of Forraigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort, as that by their owne industry, and by the fruites of the Earth, they may nourish themselves and live contentedly; is, to conferre all their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their Wills [si, si, si, si], by plurality of voices [si, si, si, si], unto one Will.

This De Jouvenel wrote scathingly–

>Where will it all end? In the destruction of all other command for the benefit of one alone – that of the State. In each man's absolute freedom from every family and social authority, a freedom the price of which is complete submission to the State. In the complete equality as between themselves of all citizens, paid for by their equal abasement before the power of their absolute master – the State. In the disappearance of every constraint which does not emanate from the State, and in denial of every pre-eminence which is not approved by the State. In a word, it ends in the atomization of society, and in the rupture of every private tie linking man and man, whose only bond is their common bondage to the State. The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet: that was their predestined course.

-Bertrand De Jouvenel

<The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet:

Anonymous 2023-11-15 (Wed) 21:21:25 No.589640

File: 1700083284791.jpg (61.06 KB, 627x960, Burger_Illiteracy.jpg)

>>589633
>>589638
I'll say this graceposter, while a lot of people think you're cringe, I can respect the kind of crazy that makes someone an honest-to-God Monarchist in the 21st century.

>>589635
>I was trained in a nerdy STEM profession, and while there were many social people, there's an obvious bias. And this is a profession where there can be a lot at stake, simple carelessness or systematic issues have cost lives.

Funny enough I remember hearing one of my professors tell us (it was some business course, forget what exactly) that if you hire an accountant or engineer, you know you've got a good one if they look you in the eye rather than at their shoes.

In my case, I think I'm a bit of an oddity; I was diagnosed with ASD as a kid and it affected how I saw myself. I don't want to say I became a total sycophant, but I became obsessed with studying the nuances of social interactions for a while. I tried to learn what people wanted to hear, how they thought, and why. There's been a few times when my neurotypical friends are baffled by, like, break ups or people angry at them and I can usually figure out what went wrong just from observation. On the Left, I think there's a lot of tension between "thinkers" and "actors", though that isn't to say the two categories can't overlap. On the one hand, you'd have situations like the pamphlet I described, where seemingly "incorrect positions" are ruthlessly torn apart by people who tout all the theory they've read even though they aren't the intended audience. To some extent it reminds me of theological debates in Catholicism; there was a sketch I remember seeing years back, where it was a recreation of Saint Patrick explaining the Trinity using a clover, except in this case the Irish peasant he was talking to incessantly pointed out how every simplified explanation he gave was some form of ancient heresy that no one but the most nitpicky theologian would pay attention to ("That's PARTIALISM Patrick!") and eventually St. Patrick gets so fed up he goes on this exhaustive definition of the Trinity that you can tell was probably developed by 40+ church fathers who argued with each other for years, like it's a real legalistic definition. And after going off for about a minute on how the trinity works, the Irish guy just says, "Well you could've said that from the start!"

Now, the lesson that we can learn from that is you've got to remember your audience. Which is to say, we shouldn't speak in our own language when talking with the masses. We have to meet them where they're at and talk around it, even if the inexact language of agitprop can constitute a secular heresy. Specificity is necessary in law, but simplicity is the fuel of mass politics. Internal party disputes can be resolved through the specificity of language, but reaching the masses requires a tolerance for inexact terms. "The Rich run the country" makes more sense to people than "The bourgeoisie run the state." I think this extends to a bit of tolerance for elements of the petite-bourgeoisie, at least when it comes to the early stages of organizing. I'd be just as happy to explain to small business owners how lobbying lets corporate behemoths like WalMart march all over them as I'd be to explain to WalMart employees how they're slaving away for people who are exploiting them. If, for example, I were running for office and some random cop explained he liked my healthcare plan and was going to vote for me, I wouldn't go into a long diatribe about how dare a cop think I want his vote, I'll just take the win.

I think that certain figures on the Left can recognize how alienating aspects of the modern Left is, but its easier for them to overcorrect (Haz and Caleb trying to make "Patriotic Socialism" a thing) than it is to be mature and walk a middle ground of practical and principled. You don't want to be a kiss ass, but neither do you want to be needlessly abrasive.

Anonymous 2023-11-15 (Wed) 21:27:29 No.589641

>>589640
disposable products should be outlawed

Anonymous 2023-11-15 (Wed) 21:37:55 No.589642

>>589641
I mean yeah, probably; though that's neither here nor there.

I work with the public, I've seen how genuinely stupid some people can be. The insane questions I get asked. I've seen customers grab refrigerated orange juice and ask me, "Does this work?" Like what the fuck do you even say to that? I was dumbstruck, I had to explain that the orange juice was edible if that what they were asking, and that it was tasty.
>"But does it work?"
When it comes to politics in this country, I've accepted that Communists will need to rethink some strategies and how we speak with people. Because you can have someone who genuinely think corporate control of politics is obscene, lobbying is bad, universal healthcare is a must, and we should stop foreign wars… and they'll vote straight ticket Republican. They'll howl that we got to get rid of "Communists" like Jeff Bezos or what have you. We need to educate people and talk to them in language they understand.

Anonymous 2023-11-16 (Thu) 00:07:26 No.589643

>>589642
>Think corporate control of politics is obscene, lobbying is bad, universal healthcare is a must, and we should stop foreign wars… and they'll vote straight ticket Republican. They'll howl that we got to get rid of "Communists" like Jeff Bezos or what have you. We need to educate people and talk to them in language they understand.

ik this is basically counterintuitive to your earlier post abt not forcing our terms into mass propaganda but when talking politics with republicans I always try to get across THAT WE ARE NOT LIBERALS. In my experience getting across that barrier is the first step to winning them over if it all. Just the knowledge that we hate democrats as much if not more than them is a good start for constructive dialogue. Once I can get across that communists would be more likely to publicly execute Nancy Pelosi and give you control of your workplace than whatever weird ass culture war shit Tucker is accusing libs of than the conversation becomes more positive. I ain't out here radicalizing anyone but I have gotten many republicans to at least put us a tier above the liberals in their own world view.

Anonymous 2023-11-16 (Thu) 02:27:00 No.589644

File: 1700101619919.jpg (316.93 KB, 1238x800, R - 2023-11-15T182326.912.jpg)

I remember seeing a tweet with a screenshot of like an excerpt that basically said that the Nazi's stole the aesthetics of the workers/soviets. I think the example used Nazi Uniforms were modeled after Trotsky's Leatherites. My request would be firstly, if you find the tweet or excerpt of that argument, could you share. But also, what other things did the Nazi's copy from communists. For instance, I believe the roman salute (at least in Spain) was used as a counter the Red Salute the republicans did. And obviously, Nazi Party tried to add socialists and worker to make them appeal to workers.

Anonymous 2023-11-16 (Thu) 02:59:06 No.589645

>>1678752
Society shouldnt collapse because if it does then communism would have failed in a similar way to climate change being prevented by climate activism. Us being proven correct as communists or whatever ideology we are is not worth the failure of preventing civilizational collapse, just as being right about climate change is not worth the failure to prevent worldwide drought conditions forever. Dooming about social collapse or climate change is a worthless endeavor compared to trying to stop them, because when you're dying of thirst in the desert you're not going to be thinking about how happy you are that oil baron fans were wrong in an argument.

Anonymous 2023-11-16 (Thu) 03:36:58 No.589646

>>589644
An obvious one is the name, 'Socialist Workers Party', plus red and black colours.

Anonymous 2023-11-16 (Thu) 03:39:33 No.589647

>>589646 (mi)
Speaking of which:
>ctrl+f 'strasser'
>only 1 result
Now that could get interesting. Move over syndicalism, here's someone who actually fell for the Nationalist, Socialist meme. The most famous of the Nazbol Gang.

Anonymous 2023-11-16 (Thu) 05:09:51 No.589648

File: 1700111391135.png (408.71 KB, 718x597, Screenshot 2023-11-15 2107….png)

>>589644
Found the tweet. Wasn't an excerpt, but just an anecdote. Regardless, I am happy I found it, it was haunting my brain that I couldn't

Anonymous 2023-11-16 (Thu) 05:25:24 No.589649

File: 1700112324579.jpg (298.01 KB, 900x1350, The_Pink_Swastika_cover_(5….jpg)

>>589633
a bundle of sticks is also called a faggot, which further confirms the homofascism theory.

Anonymous 2023-11-16 (Thu) 08:00:47 No.589650

https://redsails.org/really-existing-fascism/

Anonymous 2023-11-16 (Thu) 10:13:46 No.589651

>>589640
>St. Patrick
Sounds like vidrel

Anonymous 2023-11-16 (Thu) 19:01:22 No.589652

File: 1700161282554.jpg (181.82 KB, 800x1085, Italian_Propaganda.jpg)

>>589651
Pretty sure that's the one, yeah.

>>589643
I wouldn't say it's totally counterintuitive. Though explicitly saying "We'll execute X politicians" may come across as unhinged to some people. But I agree it's useful to separate Socialism from modern Liberalism as much as possible. To some extent I think that can be done by acknowledging that liberal politicians are cocksuckers of big business and maybe starting from a position of "anti-corruption" things like banning lobbying, etc.

>>589644
>>589648
I think Hitler said he wanted to use Red for the Nazi Party flag because it was associated with the Socialists and he wanted to take it from them.
Beyond that, I think the Roman salute was a purely Fascist invention. Fascism lionizes romanticism and so having a salute that you believed links you to some ancient civilization is a logical extension of that. I believe Mosley said as much in "100 Questions" that they borrowed the Roman Salute because it was an ancient gesture that'd come to Britain during the time of Roman rule. Gabriele D'Annunzio did something similar, with him and his troops shouting "Eia, eia, eia! Alala!" (Achilles' warcry in the Illiad) whilst doing the Roman salute. Aesthetically, however, I think Fascism takes influences from wildly different sources, not solely Bolshevism.

>>589647
I forget which thread it was, but someone mentioned there were other "NazBol" types besides Strasser. One of which even criticized Strasser and opposed Nazism because he thought it wasn't revolutionary.

Anonymous 2023-11-16 (Thu) 19:59:23 No.589653

>>589420
Thank you for helping us understand fascism-Hitlerism better comrade

Anonymous 2023-11-17 (Fri) 01:27:14 No.589654

>>589648
ngl trotsky is kinda bad in that picture

Anonymous 2023-11-17 (Fri) 02:45:35 No.589655

>>589653
Glad you like it.

Also I figured I'd bump the thread with an essay from an almost comically absurd Fascist (he produces some decent cited works in between "Most Fascist Animes" and "The Modern State of Gundam" I'm not joking)

The Fascist Internationale
<1934. When Fascists United

>Few people are aware that Fascism, despite its nationalistic nature, once had its own version of an "Internationale." This fact sheds light on the universal character of Fascism. James Strachey Barnes wrote a book on this topic called "The Universal Aspects of Fascism." According to Barnes, Fascism is a philosophy that is uniquely adapted to each nation, encompassing its spirit, institutions, and culture. Benito ᴉuᴉlossnW held this view and cautioned foreign politicians against imitating Italian Fascism, as it was a distinct Italian experience. Similarly, Nazi ideologues made similar claims about German National Socialism.

>But what exactly was Universal Fascism? It represented a minority within the Fascist party. Universal Fascism posited that Fascism could only bring about "civilization states" and had a transcendent duty to pursue a universal imperialistic goal. Berto Ricci, a prominent theorist associated with the Fascist party, rejected nationalism, criticized racism, and advocated for the creation of an Internationale. The Comitati d'Azione per l'Universalità di Roma (CAUR) was established in 1933 and held its first congress in Montreux, Switzerland, in 1934.

>The purpose of the CAUR was to promote Fascism and establish a Fascist Internationale. The congress aimed to support the universality of Fascism and establish connections with Fascist parties worldwide. It is important to note that this congress was created partly to counter the influence of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime, as ᴉuᴉlossnW felt Italy's dominance in Europe was being challenged.

>The CAUR did not receive official support from the Fascist party, nor did it have any official representatives within it. Nevertheless, its first congress saw the participation of leaders and figures from various Fascist groups across Europe, including Ion Mota of the Iron Guard, Eoin O'Duffy of the Irish Blueshirts, and Gimenez Caballero, a Spanish Falangist thinker, among others from Austria, Netherlands, Greece, France, Portugal, and more.

>The exclusion of members from the NSDAP (Nazi Party) from the congress was further evidence of Italy's attempt to counter Nazi influence. This decision was influenced by diplomatic disputes related to the assassination of the Austrian fascist chancellor, Engelbert Dollfuss, by Nazi agents. ᴉuᴉlossnW also refrained from sending any official representatives from the Fascist party to the meeting, wanting to gauge its potential before lending official support.

>Ramiro Ledesma Ramos approved Caballero to represent the Falange, which created an internal disagreement with José. José Antonio Primo de Rivera permitted members of the Falange to attend but emphasized:

<“Falange Espanola de las J.O.N.S. is not a Fascist movement.”
— Nick W. Greger, Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera: The Foundations of The Spanish Phalanx

>Despite José's bewildering statements, the Italians still categorized the Falange as Fascist and invited them to the conference. However, notable absences included Austrian leader Ernst Rüdiger Starhemberg and representatives from the British Union of Fascists.

>During the Montreux conference, various topics such as racism, goals, and anti-Semitism were discussed, leading to conflicts and no definitive answers on certain core issues. The conference began with serious conflicts between participants, including a clash between Eugenio Coselschi, acting as President of the Conference, and Vidkun Quisling.

<Quisling provocatively stated, "Why don't we talk about the Universality of Berlin? Adolf Hitler is just as much an exponent of Fascism as Benito ᴉuᴉlossnW!"
<Coselschi responded by asserting, "Rome stands, throughout all history, for the Ideal State: authority created by Roman Law!"
— International: Pax Romanizing Monday, Dec. 31, 1934 [https://web.archive.org/web/20101125075603/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,754480,00.html]

>This exchange ignited a total squabble at the conference. Ion Mota raised the topic of anti-Semitism, leading to an ambivalent statement in the Italian line regarding the Jewish Question. The congress declared that the Jewish question should not result in a universal campaign of hate against Jews.

>However, Mota successfully obtained recognition of the Jewish problem as a "state within the state" and an internationalist revolutionary minority, which led to the decision to combat it.

<"Considering that in many places certain groups of Jews are installed in conquered countries, exercising in an open and occult manner an influence injurious to the material and moral interests of the country which harbors them, constituting a sort of state within a state, profiting by all benefits and refusing all duties, considering that they have furnished and are inclined to furnish, elements conducive to international revolution which would be destructive to the idea of patriotism and Christian civilisation, the Conference denounces the nefarious action of these elements and is ready to combat them."
— International: Pax Romanizing Monday, Dec. 31, 1934 [https://web.archive.org/web/20101125075603/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,754480,00.html]

>Moţa's goal of displaying support for German Nazism was partially achieved through a compromised motion at the conference. In 1935, another conference took place in Montreux, where heated arguments ensued among the participants. One notable tendency within the CAUR meetings was the Italian attempt to criticize racism and reject Nordicist ideas associated with the NSDAP. Eugenio Coselschi criticized Alfred Rosenberg's Myth of The 20th Century and erroneously equated it with Nazi doctrine, leading to confrontations among conference participants, notably the Iron Guard and Greek National Socialists, who vocally supported Nazism.

>Contrary to popular belief, José Antionio Primo de Rivera did not attend the second conference. Ultimately, the CAUR failed to establish a commonly agreed definition of "fascism" or unite major fascist parties into a single international movement controlled by Italy. Instead, it can be seen as a form of pro-ᴉuᴉlossnW propaganda and a failed attempt by ᴉuᴉlossnW to undermine Hitler's influence.

>As the Italian and German regimes drew closer, the battle for influence was lost. ᴉuᴉlossnW became increasingly influenced by Hitler, publicly expressing greater similarity between their systems by 1936. ᴉuᴉlossnW's own racism and anti-Semitism became more prominent, and support for racially conscious ideals within Fascist intellectual doctrine grew more mainstream. This ultimately led to the emergence of the Axis New Order, as highlighted in Benjamin G. Martin's The Nazi-Fascist New Order For European Culture.

>During the 1930s, Germany reached out to like-minded foreign jurists, resulting in the establishment of an international legal institution known as the "International Law Chamber" in 1939. This organization, officially founded in 1941, aimed to gather jurists from across Europe within a transnational network that rejected the liberal and universalist principles of international law. Instead, it promoted a regional European, anti-liberal, and corporatist vision of legal order through intellectual exchanges. This shift towards internationalism in the 1940s reflected the global spread of a genuine fascist corporatist structure, as described in Roger Griffin's palingenetic model.

>The Axis powers also formed various international organizations under larger umbrellas, such as the "German-Iranian Chamber of Commerce," which included Japan, China, India, and the colonies of occupied states, but largely excluded the Soviet Union. Vichy France was explicitly mentioned as a member of the "International Union of Telecommunications" in Geneva, alongside the European powers that had signed the tripartite pact. These initiatives laid the foundation for a new Europe under the leadership of Italy and Germany, with strong ties to Japan's sphere of influence in Asia. Nazi and Italian jurists utilized networks to pursue legal integration among the allied and conquered states.

>Further evidence of this internationalist structure can be found in the numerous international organizations established by the Waffen SS during the war, such as the Red Swastika Society, which resembled the Red Cross. These international gatherings and institutions shed light on the overarching internationalist framework and the significance of an international order that the Axis powers deemed essential for their implementation of global governance. This Axis-promoted internationalism was evolving into a model resembling a United Europe, akin to a fascist European Union or a United States of Europe.

>The concept of "Large Spaces" by Carl Schmitt played a pivotal role in the shift of Fascism from nationalism to the idea of civilizational states. However, it is important to note that Hitler himself was the originator of this concept, as highlighted by Brendan Simms, the foremost biographer of Hitler's intellectual influence.

<“Hitler’s idea of a German Monroe Doctrine–which he had first mentioned more than a decade earlier [in 1923]–was picked up by the lawyer Carl Schmitt, who elaborated it into an entire theory of ‘large spaces.”
— Brendan Simms, Hitler: A Global Biography

>Leon Degrelle famously proclaimed that a European civilizational state should span from the Northern Sea to Vladivostok, emphasizing the autonomous and ontologically prior nature of German Lebensraum and Italian Romanita. This concept serves as a "pre-concept" where civilization takes precedence over the ethnos or nation, signifying the objective nature of Fascist internationalism. By actualizing this civilizational outlook through the "pre-concept," Fascism sought to become active participants on the global stage. The spatial manifestation of this idea is referred to as the "Large Space," with each civilization possessing its own unique dasein, such as Italian exceptionalism or völkisch ideology, ultimately contributing to the overall Fascist civilizational framework.

>The influence of this international civilizational concept persisted beyond the war and continues to be relevant today. One notable exploration of this concept can be found in Oswald Mosley's Work Concept of a United Europe: A Contribution to The Study of Pan-European Nationalism by Jakub Drábik. Additionally, the legacies of Jean-François Thiriart's Jeune Europe and Francis Parker Yockey's European Liberation Front also demonstrate the ongoing connections to the network of former Waffen SS officers, who organized through the publication Nation Europa.

https://fascio.substack.com/p/the-fascist-international-congress

The dude also has an article questioning if Fidel could be considered a Fascist, I'll probably read that next. I suppose his obsession with Gundam (a show I also deeply love) stands as a comical contrast to the heinousness of supporting Fascism in the 21st century.

Anonymous 2023-11-18 (Sat) 01:41:08 No.589656

>>589655
Reading through the Castro article right now and it’s fucking wild, brought receipts including pics. I’ll post the article with highlights on here when I get off work. It’s definitely a trip and I think needs to be analyzed in depth.

Anonymous 2023-11-18 (Sat) 06:46:20 No.589657

File: 1700289980244-0.jpg (28.36 KB, 620x283, Falange_With_Soviets.jpg)

File: 1700289980244-1.jpg (73.51 KB, 760x517, Casapound_Castro.jpg)

>>589656
As promised, some highlights from the Castro Article:

>Fidel Castro's formative years as a student played a crucial role in shaping his life and work, particularly his revolutionary ideals. He attended the School of Belen, where he received guidance from Spanish Jesuit Armando Llorente, who had a close relationship with Castro. Another mentor, Father Alberto de Castro, also influenced him. Both mentors admired Franco's Spain and the Falangist ideology, instilling in Castro a passion for their cause and for Hispanidad, a movement that criticized Anglo-Saxon values and admired Spanish values.
…
>Similarly, [Castro's] nationalism was influenced by his Jesuit mentor, Llorente, who revealed in an interview in Miami that Castro had a profound interest in fascist leaders such as ᴉuᴉlossnW, Hitler, and José Antonio Primo de Rivera. The Falangist doctrine was actively promoted in the school environment, as confirmed by Llorente.
<“He had many heroes during his boyhood and youth… Lenin, Hitler, Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera… ᴉuᴉlossnW… Perón… He knew the speeches of Jose Antonio by memory .. He knew ‘Mein Kampf’ and also Lenin’s ‘What is to be Done?’.”
-— Huge Thomas, Cuba: The Pursuit of Freedom
…
>Castro openly acknowledged the impact of Falangism and its founder, José Antonio Primo de Rivera, on his own beliefs and perspectives. In fact, Castro held a prominent position within the Orthodox party, which was a National Syndicalist group inspired by the Falange. This indicates that Castro's Cuban Revolution was influenced by the Falange, and initially, he intended to run as an Orthodox party candidate for the Cuban parliament before Batista's coup.
>In December 1958, when Llorente visited Castro in Sierra Maestra, he raised concerns about Castro's involvement in socialist revolutionary movements. In response, Castro stated:
<“Father, from where am I supposed to take up communism if my father is more of a Francoist than yourself?”
— Fidel Castro, quoted in Agencia EFE by Andrea Virga
…
>Given this cultural context, it is not surprising that Ernesto Che Guevara received a warm reception during his brief visit to Madrid in 1959. He was only advised to avoid meeting with the regime's opposition. During his visit, he met with journalist Antonio Dominguez Olano and a young journalist named Cesar Lucas. Olano presented Guevara with a copy of the Selected Works of the Falangist intellectual José Antonio Primo de Rivera, which was dedicated to both Che and Castro. This copy can still be found today in the museum established in Che's home in Havana.
…
>After the death of Francisco Franco in 1975, Fidel Castro declared three days of mourning in Cuba, although he ensured that this went unnoticed by the press. It was an official decree signed by the Cuban president. Subsequently, a delegation from the Spanish Authentic Falange (FEA) was sent to the XI World Festival of Youth and Students in 1978.
>[…]
>The group embarked on the Soviet cruiser Leonid Sobinov from the main port of Lisbon, which served as the direct sea route between Spain and Cuba. Falangist designer Javier Gonzalez Alberdi from Murcia also managed to stow away on the ship but was eventually discovered.
>There were some minor scuffles on board, and it is quite remarkable to envision a scenario where young Falangists engaged in fistfights with Titoists from Yugoslavia and militants of the Italian Communist Party while en route to Cuba. Some Communists were taken aback, and one Chilean exile commented in horror:
<"The Italians have brought in the extreme anarchist left, the French, the Trotskyists… but the fact is that the Spanish have brought in the Falangists!"
— Chilean communist quoted in Falangistas contra el Caudillo by Gustavo Morales
>One night, the communist crew on the ship decided to sing "The Internationale," and the Falangists, uniformed in blue shirts with the Falange's symbol on their chests, joined in. Soon, they began singing the emblematic "Cara al Sol" and raising their left arm in a Roman salute. Gustavo Morales, their young leader who was only 19 years old, tells us of his encounter with Castro:
<“Morales affirms that the treatment with Fidel went beyond cordiality and that the dictator, 'with an overwhelming personality, you like him, he takes you wherever he wants', he stopped them as he passed and said: ‘Comrades, I know what you are up to'. Then he told them something about the library of the House of the Heroic Guerrilla Fighter and its relation to certain readings. Morales headed there before setting sail back to Spain and found ‘the complete works of José Antonio, the cheap edition, the one with José Antonio's death mask on the cover, I open it and put, from Antonio de Olano to his friend Fidel Castro, September 1958, and the seal of the José Antonio Circles'.”
— Miguel Madueño Álvarez, Luis Velasco Martínez, and José Manuel Azcona, Canamisas azules en Hispanoamérica (1936-1978) Organización política y prosopografía del falangismo en Ultrama

https://fascio.substack.com/p/fidel-castro-fascist-or-not

The whole essay is rather large and I don't want to go over all of it, but the image of Falangists of all people boarding a Soviet ship and praising Castro is too bizarre not to bring up. I disagree with the essay's main assertion that Fidel was a "secret Fascist" but I think it can be argued that there are occasions where Nationalists and Marxists find their goals aligned.

Anonymous 2023-11-18 (Sat) 07:38:32 No.589658

>>589657
Fascism desperately lacks two things: intellectuals and heroes. The reason fascists in Italy tried to steal Che Guevara from us is because they lack heroes. You can argue this is dumb, but it actually makes perfect sense for them.

Anonymous 2023-11-18 (Sat) 23:41:50 No.589659

>>589658
To be fair, the Falange has Jose Antonio as their martyred hero figure, and the purpose of this thread is to engage, in part, with certain intellectual strains of Fascism. It’s important not to underestimate our opponents.

Anonymous 2023-11-19 (Sun) 06:48:42 No.589660

>>1681408
>Drops into random thread like a schizo
>Starts ranting about normalfags and The Simpsons like a 4chan addict
touch grass

Anonymous 2023-11-19 (Sun) 07:03:19 No.589661

File: 1700377399558.jpg (80.5 KB, 700x700, Joker Cringe.jpg)

>>589660

Anonymous 2023-11-19 (Sun) 20:58:28 No.589662

File: 1700427508802-0.jfif (51.27 KB, 664x766, Mosley.jfif)

File: 1700427508802-1.png (136.96 KB, 450x654, 1537653824468.png)

With the recent controversy about Israel, I thought it'd be funny to share this short blurb from Mosley.

What is your attitude towards Israel?
>I adhere to the policy of a Jewish national home, which I suggested in The Alternative as follows:-

>“For over two thousand years the Jews have asked for a national home, and sought again to become a nation …. To this end I propose the partition of Palestine and the placing of Jerusalem under a super-national authority which will afford Christian, Arab and Jew impartial access to their Holy Places. It is plain that even the whole of Palestine would not afford an adequate home to the Jewish population, even if it all were available without outrage of justice in the treatment of the Arabs. Such statesmanship would, therefore, in any case, be confronted with the problem of finding additional living room for the Jews. It is, naturally, desirable to provide such accommodation as near as possible to the Home Land of Palestine. But this consideration is not now so pressing in view of the rapid facilities for travel provided by modern transport…. No insuperable difficulty should be encountered, therefore, even if the main bulk of the Jewish population had to live at some distance from the traditional national home. Palestine would remain a home to them in the same sense that the Dominions regard England as home.” And I have emphasised repeatedly that this entire problem must be solved in a manner that humanity, as a whole, will approve.

>Unfortunately, comprehensive settlements, which combine morality with foresight, are not customary in the world of the old parties, and the Jewish state of Israel was born amid the savage brutality which occurs when such governments yield to force what they refuse to reason. The consequence has been a legacy of cumulative hatred, perpetuated by western incompetence and aggravated by Soviet arms-dealing. But we still seek a progressive and peaceful solution for the future.

>First, we must eliminate all possibility of another armed conflict in that area, especially in view of the increasing availability of atomic weapons. We should make it clear that we shall not permit any Arabs to cut two million Jewish throats. And equally we cannot allow aggressive expansion of the Israelis into neighbouring lands; they already have a million dispossessed Arabs on their conscience and our hands. It is quite possible to keep order in these easily accessible regions, without plunging about in the minor military operations that have previously disgraced a British government, slow to defend the interests of our own people but hysterically eager to act on behalf of others.

>A united Europe, co-operating with a friendly and helpful America, would have little difficulty in developing new lands and organising any required sorting out of populations. Large-scale migration may well be inevitable, if friction between various unsuitable peoples is not to degenerate into chaos and bloodshed; this has become pressing in Africa. As I wrote in The European in December 1953: “There is plenty of room for both Jews and Arabs in the great area of the middle-East; all that is lacking is union, will and energy to accomplish the task. Whatever policy emerges must be based on reason, justice and the consent of the leading minds in both the Jewish and Arab peoples; all parties and opinions have behind them errors in this sphere which must never be repeated. Let us never again clash with the conscience of the world.”

<A literal Fascist has a more moderate view on Israel than most American politicians

Anonymous 2023-11-20 (Mon) 07:03:50 No.589663

>>589420
This is my take on fascism. Don't know if it is agreeable or even a Marxist analysis:
>Fascism is National Vitalism via the opportunistic use of any political and economic method for the purpose of a nation project. The opportunism is completely strategic and not a corruption or ineptitude, for in their mindset the only economic mode that matters is the one that brings glory or certainty to the welfare of the Nation project. Class collaborationism isn't even a focus to them, it's a side effect of their ways of thinking. This brings into question whether or not National Vitalism is fascism, the answer is no. Liberation movements of minorities are National Vitalistic, so is any revolution that upends the current state of things, there's no proletarian movement that is a completely cosmopolitan matter. Therefore every socialist revolution has within it a National revolution. Not every NatVit is fascist, however every fascist is by necessity NatVit. It's what fundamentally drives them. The National project itself may also not even be their goal. Their goal can be a desired side effect of such project. For example Christo Fascists seek some sort of pious society that is beautiful and unshameful in the eyes of their lord, meaning whatever they seek to build doesn't matter in the end, all that matters is this circumstance.

Anonymous 2023-11-20 (Mon) 12:04:29 No.589664

>>589663
>For example Christo Fascists seek some sort of pious society
There's a difference between Integralism and Fascism.

Fascism is all about the State.

Integralism is about the Church.

Anonymous 2023-11-20 (Mon) 14:23:50 No.589665

>>589664
It doesn't matter is what I meant. The point is to jury rig a powerful organization that produces an idealized goal.
In many respects the fascists aren't that much different from the Ultraleft or the current Right communists

Anonymous 2023-11-20 (Mon) 20:10:44 No.589666

>>589664
>>589665
Personally, I think integralism can be classified as a subideology of Fascism.

>>589663
Did you post this take somewhere before? It seems familiar. I think your view aligns pretty well with a more coherent definition of Fascism.

I've got to get ready for work, but I intend to read Mosley's "The Philosophy of Fascism" next. It's a short essay, and you might find it can cohere to your own definition.

https://www.oswaldmosley.com/the-philosophy-of-fascism/

Anonymous 2023-11-20 (Mon) 23:20:52 No.589667

File: 1700522452245-0.jpg (284.31 KB, 2058x1292, F4dVrwzXUAAwMgS.jpg)

File: 1700522452245-1.mp4 (5.68 MB, 640x360, Lied der Jugend - Anthem o….mp4)

File: 1700522452245-2.mp4 (34.18 MB, 640x360, Heldenkanzler - Animated s….mp4)

>>589666
Integralists aren't too cozy with Fascist totalitarianism.

You could argue that Integralists want to use the State or integrate the State to the Church, with the full force of the State. Yet Integralists regard the State as the secular or temporal domain and wouldn't want to stress the "moral integrity" of the State to the same extent as the Church, neither concede this much to the State.

It's true ᴉuᴉlossnW and Gentile say that Fascism doesn't want a cult of reason or religion of its own, but in many respects political ideology has become a second religion like Bossuet refers to as Tertullian calls "the religion of the second majesty" which for all intents and purposes Fascists consider the State primary, but doesn't deny an absolute value or divinity.

ᴉuᴉlossnW:
>Rather is it the State which creates the nation, conferring volition and therefore real life on a people made aware of their moral unity.

ᴉuᴉlossnW
>The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.
>Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, & the Fascist State – a synthesis & unit inclusive of all values.

Giovanni Gentile:
>The first point, therefore, that must be established in a definition of Fascism, is the totalitarian character of its doctrine, which concerns itself not only with political order and direction of the nation, but with its will, thought and sentiment.

Giovanni Gentile:
>A conception of integral politics, a notion of politics which does not distinguish itself from morality, from religion, or from every conception of life that does not conceive itself distinct & abstracted from all other fundamental interests of the human spirit

ᴉuᴉlossnW:
>The State guarantees internal & external safety of the country, but it safeguards & transmits the spirit of the people, in language, its customs, its faith.
>Transcending the individual's brief spell of life, the State stands for the immanent conscience of the nation.

Giovanni Gentile:
>Morality & religion, essential elements in every consciousness, must be there, but they must be subordinated to the laws of the State, fused in it, absorbed in it.

ᴉuᴉlossnW:
>The Fascist conception of life is a religious one, in which man is viewed in his immanent relation to a higher law, endowed with an objective will transcending the individual & raising him to conscious membership of a spiritual society.

Giovanni Gentile:
>Thus, its formation is a product of the consciousness of each individual, & thus of the masses, in which the power of the State consists.
>That explains the necessity of the Fascist Party & propaganda and of education to foster the political & moral ideals of Fascism.

Giovanni Gentile:
>To be a Catholic meant to live in the Church & under its discipline. Therefore, it was a necessity for the Fascist State to recognize the religious authority of the Church; a political necessity, a political recognition, with respect to the realization of the State itself.
>The ecclesiastical politics of the Italian State must resolve the problem of maintaining its sovereignty, intact & absolute, even before the Church, without casting itself athwart the Catholic consciousness of Italians, nor Church that consciousness is subordinated.
>It's a grave problem, as the transcendent conception that rules Catholicism contradicts the immanentist character of the political conception of Fascism.
>Far from being a negation of liberalism & democracy, Fascism aspires to be a perfection of liberalism & democracy.

ᴉuᴉlossnW:
>We do not desire to turn back; Fascism has not chosen De Maistre for its high priest. Absolute monarchy has been and can never return, any more than blind acceptance of ecclesiastical authority.
>So too the privileges of the feudal system 'have been,' and the division of society into castes impenetrable from outside, and with no intercommunication among themselves

Integralists would have problems with all the above. They want the Church to be the compass for the State.

They'd probably be outraged at ᴉuᴉlossnW putting his persona in front of this cathedral in Milan. That's Leviathan-esque and too borderline for them.

Fascism differs from Integralism because it believes ultramontanist hierarchy and clericalism and absolute monarchy is distasteful for the modern world and anachronistic. The way Fascists do things is they rehash and try to re-introduce this order: so, these aforementioned things are unpopular, and the order of a strong clergy weakened, the Fascist decides to embrace an immanentism and totalitarianism to make it more palatable for modern minds. So absolute monarchy is unpalatable and anarchronistic, the Fascist introduces the Leader principle, etc.

It's a slight difference between the conservative nationalists and dictatorships to this extent, but it's true they borrow elements from Fascism. Christianity itself borrows elements of political thinking for the Church, like Paul says in Corinthians:
>For also the body is not one member, but many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body," not on account of this is it not of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body," not on account of this is it not of the body. If all the body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If all were hearing, where would be the sense of smell?

>But now God has arranged the members, each one of them in the body, as He desired. And if all were one member, where would be the body? But now indeed, there are many members, but one body.

>Now the eye is not able to say to the hand, "I have no need of you." Or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." But much rather, those members of the body seeming to be weaker are necessary, and those of the body we think to be less honorable, these we bestow abundant honor. And our unpresentable parts have more abundant decorum, but our presentable parts have no need.

>But God has composed the body, having given more abundant honor to the parts being deficient, that there should be no division in the body, but the members should have the same concern for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.

Christianity has political thinking in part due to Hellenization: compare St. Paul to Aristotle in Politics. Although Christianity (sometimes low church, sometimes high church) looks at politics as merely secular, there's a lot of influence of political thinking within the Church itself.

Aristotle:
>Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part; for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand, except in the equivocal sense, as we might speak of a stone hand; for when destroyed the hand will be no better than that.

There's that painting of Aristotle showing his hand and fingers spread out, and Plato pointing up with an individual finger.

Fascist corporatism has influence from Aristotle and Hobbes (two contrary philosophers; Hobbes dissed Aristotle a lot). It's important to remember that corporatism in Fascism refers to the corporeal body and body-politic. I'd say moreso Hobbes than Aristotle in some respects seems influential to Fascist corporatism. With Aristotle, both libertarians and statists tend to cherrypick and find things contrary to one another (i.e. the freemen for libertarians; the importance of the state for statists). Hobbes and the Hegelian influence come in handy for Fascism's statism.

For this reason, Fascism and statist ideologies stress class collaboration rather than class conflict with its corporatism. These parts of the body-politic or members cannot fight and say they have no need of each other.

Fascists and Integralists have this in common with thinking: Fascists highly regard the body-politic as corporation of one person or State as Integralists the body of Christ or Church.

I'll concede it's true with Engelbert Dollfuss. He was backed and supported by ᴉuᴉlossnW.

Anonymous 2023-11-20 (Mon) 23:33:10 No.589668

>>589667
Plato and Aristotle are two philosophers who considered the political question:
Plato's The Republic and Statesman and Laws and Aristotle's Politics.
Highly influential for questions of the State regardless and influential on Fascism to each extent.
Like absolute monarchy takes its idea of political and economical being no different with Plato, I think the same could be said for Fascism in how the State is viewed.
I probably sound like a brainlet thinking which is more influential, Plato or Aristotle, lol – can't forget to mention Plato also, let alone Hegel's influence on Gentile

Anonymous 2023-11-20 (Mon) 23:39:31 No.589669

Corporatist views for Politics is pretty common and also I believe Plato makes mention of all members rejoicing like St. Paul does for their notion of common good*

Anonymous 2023-11-21 (Tue) 02:54:52 No.589670

Hugo Chavez, The Social Fascist of Venezuela
Hugo Chavez, in order to serve imperialism more and better, disguised himself as a revolutionary. He used aggressive language against Yankee imperialism, making it appear that he was opposed to it.
→ https://redlibrary.xyz/works/misc/hugo_chavez_the_social_fascist_of_venezuela.pdf

Anonymous 2023-11-21 (Tue) 03:19:39 No.589671

>>589670
Haven’t read the article yet, but I’m not sure if I’d term Hugo Chavez a fascist. And if he was it raises the question if the goals of both sides are necessarily at odds.

Anonymous 2023-11-22 (Wed) 04:23:45 No.589672

File: 1700627025183.jpg (105.64 KB, 680x629, F_exRoCX0AAp8-Q.jpg)

Anonymous 2023-11-22 (Wed) 19:58:03 No.589673

>>589672
>Fascism, in fact, is no peculiar, independent doctrine and system arising in opposition to existing capitalist society.

Ehh it depends. For this thread at least I don't want to simply claim Fascism is just Capitalism when it has a dictatorship, or an ultra-conservative dictatorship, or what have you. Fascist movements do have "Left" wings as well, as the early Fascist workers unions in Italy genuinely threatened sectors of the Bourgeoisie before it was broken up, and the process of Socialization in the Italian Social Republic can be seen as a turn to the Fascist Left (it was partially conceived by a former Communist turned Fascist).

Anonymous 2023-11-22 (Wed) 20:06:43 No.589674

File: 1700683603438.png (9.81 KB, 719x114, Hitler trying to piss off ….png)

>>589673
>Fascism is just Capitalism when it has a dictatorship, or an ultra-conservative dictatorship, or what have you.
that's literally it.
no other explanation is needed.
even Hitler himself admitted it in Mein Kampf.

Anonymous 2023-11-22 (Wed) 20:07:05 No.589675

>>589673
For simplification, the whole "fascism is capitalism in decline" thing can be read straight from mussolini's understanding of corporatism, that corporatism is the most advanced stage of capitalism, following from early liberalism and free markets to trusts and state syntheses with big business. ᴉuᴉlossnW doesnt obscure this fact though, he just sees it as the progress of production reconciling itself with the public state (then gentile comes in with all of his spiritualism).
I wouldnt say its anticapitalist, but is antiliberal and pro-corporate, where corporations are simply seen as the most efficient forms of organisation.
This doesnt then mean international profits dominate (as we know from italty's survival of the great depression), but a strong national imperative within it.
Corporations also tie in with mussolini's and the futurist's war economy. I would say the military-industrial complex is a good vision for a fascist architecture - war as good business.

Anonymous 2023-11-22 (Wed) 20:13:14 No.589676

File: 1700683994656.png (181.72 KB, 812x847, Italian Social Republic.png)

>>589673
>Italian Social Republic
I hate these fucking Third Way/Position retards who have never cracked open a history book in their entire lives and done any basic research but instead choose to gargle cum from their favorite leaders harder than Americans sucking off Lockheed Martin and other weapons manufacturers.

Anonymous 2023-11-22 (Wed) 20:20:54 No.589677

File: 1700684453942.png (185.25 KB, 838x906, Mussolinis Bullshit.png)

>>589676
To recap:
Fascists often make "left" or demagogic promises they have no intention of keeping, just like all politicians. When they get into power they reveal their true colors and start bowing and kneeling to oligarchs and the capitalist aristocracy and the conservative establishment of their respective countries.

There is no and there never has been a corporatist "Third Position". Only a brutalized and aggressive version of Capitalism that has mutated, cancer-like, into a repressive apparatus based off a fear of socialist revolution. There are zero examples of any fascist movement, having taken power, giving concessions to workers. Workers under Hitler had to deal with a lower wage share of GDP than the Weimar fucking Republic. Workers under ᴉuᴉlossnW had to suffer immense wage cuts as well. Franco in Spain re-instituted serfdom and actual peasant slavery to the large landowners. Pinochet's economic team sold everything off to multinational corporations.

Everywhere it's been tried Fascism has done nothing but make workers more miserable, empower the conservative establishment, and in more recent times, make a country get on its knees for America and Wall St.

Fascism is a joke. The only reason to study it is to point out this joke and deception so that other workers are not taken in by the false promises and bullshit.

Anonymous 2023-11-22 (Wed) 21:22:40 No.589678

File: 1700688160176.jpg (73.03 KB, 659x484, 3b0b54efa2aad291f2a15452de….jpg)

>>589677
>Workers under Hitler had to deal with a lower wage share of GDP than the Weimar fucking Republic.
pic related, I guess.

Anonymous 2023-11-22 (Wed) 21:42:38 No.589679

>>589674
<taking Hitler's opinion
Hitler was politically retarded, even if they could navigate it socially with skill. Even Moosey thought they were insane.
In an academic context like this, Nazism (what Hitler is referring to) should be considered distinct from Fascism. If ᴉuᴉlossnW or Mosley were in the NSDAP, there's a good chance they would have been Rohm'd. Grouping Nazism and Fascism in an academic context is about as pointless as grouping Nazism and M-L. Pure rhetoric (which doesn't mean you should never do it!)
Anyone can spot a Nazi spewing garbage a mile off, the national syndicalist-derived Fascism is far more insidious.

>>589675
>I wouldnt say its anticapitalist, but is antiliberal and pro-corporate, where corporations are simply seen as the most efficient forms of organisation.
Which type of corporation do you mean? It has a very different definition in classical fascist writing.

Anonymous 2023-11-22 (Wed) 23:23:06 No.589680

>>589674
As the anon here ( >>589679 ) said, for the purpose of study we're contrasting Nazism from regular Fascism.

>>589676
>>589677
So some broad points, while I think it can be undoubtedly said that ᴉuᴉlossnW mismanaged Italy's economy, he did bring something close to 3/4ths of it under state control. As for concessions to the workers under Fascism, I believe Juan Peron oversaw a general increase in wages under his regime and it's partially why "Peronism" has become a mainstay of Argentinian politics, granted he also purged the Peronist Left towards the end.

Peron was partially an inspiration for this thread, because under the circumstances of these Fascist-corporatists taking power against the backdrop of a comprador bourgeoisie (and I think it's pretty clear that Fascism was the major inspiration for Peron's ideology) we have to question the nature of Fascism. If we concede that, at times, a popular front with the Bourgeoisie is necessary for the defeat of Fascist ideology, then can circumstances arise in which the inverse is true as well? I believe it was the WTO protests shortly before 9/11 that saw a diverse coalition of support ranging from Pat Buchanan's Paleocons to Greens to Anarchists. While not a formalized alliance, it showed that dissidents on the Right can arrive at conclusions that aren't contradictory to those on the Left. I'm not advocating to actively pursue alliance, so much as trying to arrive at a sober analysis of the facts.

Anonymous 2023-11-22 (Wed) 23:32:36 No.589681

>>589678
This is normal. A reduction in variable capital and increase in constant capital is inevitable when the accumulation and productive forces develop.

Anonymous 2023-11-22 (Wed) 23:59:16 No.589682

>>589681
Would you care to elaborate more? Assuming you aren't being facetious.

Anonymous 2023-11-23 (Thu) 00:27:19 No.589683

>>589680
>he did bring something close to 3/4ths of it under state control
who controlled the state? I don't think you can call it 'left' if corporate board members are given unelected ministry positions. same if only a certain part of the population gets the vote. also same when elections are rigged(united states).

>>589680
>I believe Juan Peron oversaw a general increase in wages
wages for who? this is actually one of the key parts of fascist psychology going back to rome. the fasces symbolizes state authority(the axe) as a group(bundle of sticks). it says people are stronger together but defines people as an ingroup against an outgroup, where communism says people are stronger together fullstop. its ultimately why fascism is a self contradicting death cult, and why people think social democratic imperialism or apartheid states with free healthcare are "left", because the fact that these social advances are dependent on external exploitation. its like people going to a white enclave in a country that practices slavery and extolling the virtues of their beautiful buildings and productive capacity while on the other side of the wall there are slums. its not progress to build a gold house on top of bones.

Anonymous 2023-11-23 (Thu) 00:30:14 No.589684

Firstly, it is not true that fascism is only the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc. It would therefore be a mistake to think that “pacifism” signifies the liquidation of fascism. In the present situation, “pacifism” is the strengthening of fascism with its moderate, Social-Democratic wing pushed into the forefront.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/09/20.htm

Anonymous 2023-11-23 (Thu) 01:01:11 No.589685

>>589682
Germany's forces of production were lowly because the treaty of Versailles (imperialism). The nazis increased productive forces and wage share of gdp went down. This is normal because as productive forces develop, technology and infrastructure costs increases and human capital loses mass, value, and cost.

The nazis decrease of wage share of gdp is indicative of development of productive forces and decrease in socially necessary labor time.

The Weimar Republic was subject to unequal development from the treaty of Versailles and exploited by United Kingdom, France, and the United States. The national socialist party cast off this unequal development.

The decrease in wage share is indicative in development of productive forces.

Anonymous 2023-11-23 (Thu) 01:23:59 No.589686

>>589683
>wages for who?

Just quoting Wikipedia here so take with a grain of salt, but:

>Employers were forced to improve working conditions and to provide severance pay and accident compensation, the conditions under which workers could be dismissed were restricted, a system of labour courts to handle the grievances of workers was established, the working day was reduced in various industries, and paid holidays/vacations were generalised to the entire workforce. Perón also passed a law providing minimum wages, maximum hours and vacations for rural workers, froze rural rents, presided over a large increase in rural wages, and helped lumber, wine, sugar and migrant workers organize themselves. From 1943 to 1946, real wages grew by only 4%, but in 1945 Perón established two new institutions that would later increase wages: the “aguinaldo” (a bonus that provided each worker with a lump sum at the end of the year amounting to one-twelfth of the annual wage) and the National Institute of Compensation, which implemented a minimum wage and collected data on living standards, prices, and wages.[17] Leveraging his authority on behalf of striking abattoir workers and the right to unionise, Perón became increasingly thought of as presidential material.[18]

[…]

>In his first two years in office, Perón nationalized the Central Bank and paid off its billion-dollar debt to the Bank of England; nationalized the railways (mostly owned by British and French companies), merchant marine, universities, public utilities, public transport (then, mostly tramways); and, probably most significantly, created a single purchaser for the nation's mostly export-oriented grains and oilseeds, the Institute for the Promotion of Trade (IAPI). The IAPI wrested control of Argentina's famed grain export sector from entrenched conglomerates such as Bunge y Born; but when commodity prices fell after 1948, it began shortchanging growers.[5] IAPI profits were used to fund welfare projects, while internal demand was encouraged by large wage increases given to workers;[16] average real wages rose by about 35% from 1945 to 1949,[26] while during that same period, labour's share of national income rose from 40% to 49%.[27]

Now whether Peron's wage increase came at the cost of some other group of proles, I genuinely can't say. Admittedly most of my knowledge of Latin Americas History is spotty and focused more on U.S. interventions. However in this circumstance it seems Peron was a fairly progressive force for proletarian Argentines.

>who controlled the state? I don't think you can call it 'left' if corporate board members are given unelected ministry positions. same if only a certain part of the population gets the vote. also same when elections are rigged(united states).

A fair enough counterpoint I'll concede; though I imagine Fascists themselves would argue that the State exists above the bourgeoisie rather than under them. Still, an aspect of Fascism (one the Nazis are probably the most notorious for utilizing) is a degree of Nepotism. And I think that's what gives it such an appeal among the middle class; it's also something that I notice is absent from a lot of analysis.

Joining a Fascist Party as a member of the middle class could result in an immediate elevation of your career. I think this is in part why Heidegger became a Nazi as it opened up more opportunities for his career. Of course, this also runs the risk of enterprises being managed by idiots who have no business being there, yet at the same time I think this provides a comfortable safety net for the middle class in a period of "elite overproduction." And it's something that I think modern Fascists could use to immense effect.

I consider the modern situation in America, where you've got tons of young, degreed people who can recognize a kind of antagonism between themselves and the older management. Which is to say, the only way they can move up is seemingly by climbing the corporate ladder, but rungs of that ladder are already occupied by Boomers or others that "got there first." What the Nazis could leverage was forcibly unemploying Jews and then handing their positions over to members of the Nazi party. And even if someone joins for entirely self-interested reasons, I think there's a psychological mechanism that instills a deeper loyalty to the Party in someone's subconscious. Like, they can think "Wow! The Fascists got me this fancy job! I'm earning more, life is great!" And then there's all this extra stuff that comes along with it, I suppose you can call it "icing on the cake" as it were. Suddenly there are rallies, there are these armbands they wear constantly, they've gone from being a bored and underpaid intern to someone "important" and they're participating in maybe the first real mass movement they've experienced, well, ever. It's not hard to see how that could seduce people, and pretty soon even a guy who was just doing the stupid salute because he "had to" would be shouting it with gusto; his life just took a 180 turn and the Party Life has become the predominant form of social interaction.

We should analyze this aspect I think. And if possible see if some of these techniques can't be mimicked.

>>589685
I've read good portions of Capital, but I'll hope you'll forgive me if the minutiae of economics isn't my strong suit. So essentially you're arguing that the decrease in wages as a share of GDP is actually a sign of developing industry, because when productive forces are underdeveloped you need more labor power to accomplish certain tasks; for example a system where goods are delivered by horse and wagon would result in wages having a higher share of GDP as more labor is necessary to deliver goods; meanwhile if those horses and wagons are supplanted by a truck driver who can deliver more goods and faster (let's say making a handful of wagon drivers redundant) then wages share of GDP is decreased because you're more dependent on purchasing trucks and rebuilding roads over paying these independent contractors with their own horse and wagon.

Did I get that right or am I totally off the mark here?

Anonymous 2023-11-23 (Thu) 21:01:58 No.589687

File: 1700773317995.jpeg (192.83 KB, 750x1175, Primo_De_Rivera.jpeg)

Kind of tangentially related, but the first episode of Matt Christman's series on the Spanish Civil War is out on Patreon. I'm intrigued to hear if he'll touch on Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera and the Spanish Falange, and if he does I'll probably download the episode and post it here.

Anonymous 2023-11-23 (Thu) 23:31:12 No.589688

>>589666
I am
>>589663
Yeah i posted this in the previous thread about fascism. A singular anon responded to it. Positively

Anonymous 2023-11-24 (Fri) 00:38:26 No.589689

>>589688
I’m curious how you would personally describe National Vitalism. I know Fascism makes a big deal about the “rejuvenation of the nation” but I would say such a position isn’t inherently bad depending on what one sees as the problems that require “rejuvenating”

After all I don’t think it can be argued that Mao didn’t rejuvenate China after a century of humiliation.

Anonymous 2023-11-26 (Sun) 12:18:34 No.589690

File: 1701001114189.png (77.04 KB, 1464x231, 71c72b0f9878926f4bee046ae9….png)

Anonymous 2023-11-26 (Sun) 20:17:45 No.589691

File: 1701029865188.jfif (50.5 KB, 400x476, Montreux Conference.jfif)

Figure I'd try to steer discussion on the thread by discussing the 1934 Montreux Fascist Conference. It's an interesting, often overlooked bit of history in the study of Fascism, and could possibly seen as one of the most significant ideological grappling that Fascism faced. While the conference was, ultimately, a failure, it attempted to tackle a few major points.
>1. Provide a coherent definition of "Universal Fascism"
>2. Differentiate Fascism from Nazism and ultimately isolate it from the global Fascist movement
>3. Provide a network and subsidies for Fascist movements to access across the world

The failure of the conference was, in part, an ideological coup for the Nazis. It can serve as a useful historical delineation at which point the orbit of Fascism went from the Italian Fascists in Rome to the Nazis in Berlin. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding in-depth work on the conference, so any Anons with English language sources would be much appreciated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_Montreux_Fascist_conference

https://edoc.unibas.ch/53511/1/fascist_internationalism.pdf

As it stands, even having a transcript of the debates would be an interesting read, if only to understand the thought process of various Fascist organizations.

Anonymous 2023-11-26 (Sun) 20:32:26 No.589692

>>589690
I mean ᴉuᴉlossnW could have avoided that fate by simply not joining the war. He could easily have ruled for decades afterward like Franco and Salazar if he had just not rocked the boat and promised the British, French and Americans a semi-competent and investment-friendly anticommunist regime in Italy.

Anonymous 2023-11-26 (Sun) 21:18:51 No.589693

>>589692
He tried to avoid going to war when Germany declared war on Poland by requesting a quantity of molybdenum (and other materials) that was superior to the world's production at that time. Backstabbing France just to sit at the winner's table (his words) was too much of a good opportunity.

Anonymous 2023-11-26 (Sun) 22:04:53 No.589694

>>589692
>>589693
Yknow ᴉuᴉlossnW allying with Hitler against the wishes of some of his closest advisors (most notably Balbo) is one of those historical mysteries I wasn’t too sure about. It’s not like he had a special affinity for Hitler in the beginning (he referred to him as a clown IIRC)

If I had to guess why, I think a partial reason would be Machiavelli. He made “The Prince” mandatory literature in the Fascist Party if I remember right, and I believe Machiavelli argued that you should ally with medium and smaller powers as opposed to big powers, as they’ll be forced to treat you as an equal and would be more grateful for your support (as well as avoiding big states snowballing until they can run roughshod over you)

From the perspective of European politics at the time, Germany could appear as a rising medium power.

Anonymous 2023-11-27 (Mon) 07:17:04 No.589695

>>589694
I think the main reason is simpler: he wanted to pursue an aggressive policy, and the only way to do this was to attack France and UK. Irredentists claimed Corsica, parts of Savoy and Nice, Malta. Pre-fascism nationalists wanted Tunisia. Egypt would have been useful to connect Libya and East Africa. Crete and Cyprus would have helped control the Mediterranean (Germans were surprised when ᴉuᴉlossnW renounced to claim them after the fall of France).

Anonymous 2023-11-28 (Tue) 06:46:43 No.589696

File: 1701154002868.jpg (30.96 KB, 620x348, Mosley Blackshirts.jpg)

I recently stumbled upon a factoid that Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts supposedly defended English Farmers from bailiffs demanding they pay a tithe to the Church of England.

I was wondering if any Brit Anons could offer some insight into that. Wikipedia uses scare quotes around the term "protect" but doesn't really elaborate on why. Personally I didn't even know farmers still had to pay a tithe to the church in the 20th century.

Anonymous 2023-11-28 (Tue) 07:45:11 No.589697

>>589696
Every once in a while, I learn that England still has some sort of medieval law still in place. For example, the crown still makes money off people who died without an heir and a last will.

Anonymous 2023-11-28 (Tue) 08:15:27 No.589698

>>589697
>Every once in a while, I learn that England still has some sort of medieval law still in place. For example, the crown still makes money off people who died without an heir and a last will.

Jesus fucking Christ. Makes you glad that we metaphorically moved out of the house before that.

That aside I really hope I can get an answer on this tithing thing. If the blackshirts actually defended English farmers from a bizarre feudal law, then credit where it's due I guess.

Anonymous 2023-11-28 (Tue) 08:19:26 No.589699

>>589694
Lol ᴉuᴉlossnW viewing Germany as the "medium" power when Germany was far more industrialized and bigger than most European countries (even after losing the war) anyone with a brain should've realized that Italy would've been the one ending as a junior partner to the NS Regime

Anonymous 2023-11-28 (Tue) 09:40:45 No.589700

File: 1701164445592.jpg (253.73 KB, 1608x912, kingsremembrancer.jpg)

>>589698
theres lot of relics of weird feudal remnants in England. like in this video cockshott explains how when a ship is built for the Royal Navy, the money is given by the king's remembrance. I doubt most people have even heard of this officer.

Anonymous 2023-11-28 (Tue) 12:41:24 No.589701

File: 1701175284396.jpg (132.29 KB, 1200x630, vladimir-lenin-quote-lbp1g….jpg)

if fascism is state capitalism and lenin said that state capitalism is more progressive why isnt fascism more progressive than liberalism?

Anonymous 2023-11-28 (Tue) 14:01:06 No.589702

>>589701
Lenin's use of state capitalism does not mention fascism, fascism is not state capitalism. Read the source text, ""Left wing" childishness" and you'll find he doesn't mention it.
>>589691
>.No delegate showed up to represent Adolf Hitler. Moreover, two of II Duce's most ardent foreign disciples, Austria's Prince Ernst Rüdiger von Starhemberg and Britain's Sir Oswald Mosley, also stayed away. At Fascist Headquarters in Rome hangs a full-length portrait of Sir Oswald — the only foreign Fascist so honored.
BAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
AAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Fucking clowns, even the so called original fascists couldn't define themselves properly.

Anonymous 2023-11-28 (Tue) 16:20:18 No.589703

File: 1701188418193.jpg (25.65 KB, 512x368, 52f18f4ab147dd628b35ba8b74….jpg)

>ask someone to define fascism
>they link you to that fucking umberto eco essay

Anonymous 2023-11-28 (Tue) 19:48:42 No.589704

File: 1701200922563.mp4 (31.19 MB, 1280x720, nuremburgexerpt.mp4)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyJTv_qLqsI

ECONOMY OF NAZI GERMANY: KRUPP

Joint stock company "Friedrich Krupp" - a private forge of the German military machine. What the company did during the Weimar Republic. How Gustav Krupp and other Ruhr magnates helped the Nazis seize power. What is the corporate state and what economic policies were carried out by the Nazis. Business, the Third Reich, and preparations for war - when the Second world war really began. As Krupp's men plundered Europe. What was happening in private concentration camps during the war and how they differed from SS camps. What punishment was given to criminals.

00:00 - Prologue. Hitler did it
05:06 - Chapter 1. The Krupp Empire
14:34 - Chapter 2. The First World War
23:30 - Chapter 3. The Treaty of Versailles
37:00 - Chapter 4. The Ruhr
01:02:34 - Chapter 5. Enslaving the Nation
01:10:16 - Chapter 6. The Corporate state
01:27:24 - Chapter 7. The Busine-SS
01:36:21 - Chapter 8. The German Sword of War
01:42:48 - Chapter 9. The Robbery of Europe
01:54:18 - Chapter 10. Just Business
02:09:11 - Chapter 11. Extreme Necessity
02:18:28 - Chapter Last. Crime and the punishment

modern historians tend to attribute all the blame for the nazi nightmare in the second world war to a single person hitler people are told that hitler trampled on the constitution and destroyed democracy tore the peace treaty of versailles to shreds created the all-destroying vermont from scratch and sent millions of unquestionably obeying soldiers to their deaths not only without anyone's help but also against the resistance of a legion of enemies from the camp of the capitalists in other words that it was him and only him who was the driving force of events and no one was behind him that there were no businessmen who made money from the war and that there were no war criminals at the highest positions they rant about the racism of just one hitler about the party of just one hitler about the terror of just one hitler about the robbery of just one hitler and about the war of just one hitler they depict the elimination of unemployment construction of roads and clean streets the handiwork of the alleged mystery man who is a vegetarian and yet monstrously cruel more than anything loved pets but also ordered millions of people to be gassed such pseudo-scientific research about the soul of the nazi leader pursues one goal to transfer problems from the social plane to the psychological plane in order to then rehabilitate the socio-economic system that gave rise to all the horrors of fascism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyJTv_qLqsI

Anonymous 2023-11-28 (Tue) 19:54:14 No.589705

File: 1701201253776.jpg (40.48 KB, 416x416, Fasces.jpg)

>>589701
It's an important question to ask, I think. When we seek to define what makes Fascism bad it's because it has historically existed as a response to rising communist sentiment. It co-opts revolutionary aesthetics to kill revolutionary momentum. However, in circumstances where there simply isn't a powerful revolutionary party for one reason or another, can it honestly be said that a corporatist economic structure would be a step backwards from neoliberalism? And under such circumstances would the "Left Wing of Fascism" be a progressive force?

>>589702
>Lenin's use of state capitalism does not mention fascism, fascism is not state capitalism. Read the source text, ""Left wing" childishness" and you'll find he doesn't mention it.

To be fair, Left Wing Communism was written a year before the National Fascist Party was officially founded. By the time Fascism could become a significant political force, Lenin's health was failing and he'd have a great deal of trouble trying to speak, let alone offer a critique of Fascism.

I think this is why it's exceptionally important that we find some Italian Anon who'd be willing to translate some of Niccola Bombacci's works into English. The guy could have some genuinely important insight given he'd have witnessed the birth of the soviet union and the Italian Communist Party as well as the rise and fall of Fascism.

Anonymous 2023-11-28 (Tue) 23:00:44 No.589706

File: 1701212443943.png (35.89 KB, 500x250, Oekaki.png)

>>589705
it's a gun how did i never see this..

Anonymous 2023-11-30 (Thu) 01:48:38 No.589707

File: 1701308917604-0.jpg (42.57 KB, 416x416, Fasces Revealed.jpg)

File: 1701308917604-1.jpg (30.36 KB, 474x474, Hammer and Sickle Revealed.jpg)

File: 1701308917604-2.jfif (19.03 KB, 474x266, They Live.jfif)

>>589706
If you think that's wild…

Anyways, here's an obscure bit of Fascist history to get people talking again. In 1977 various Fascist Orgs in Europe created summer camps to appeal to the youth. The name of these camps?

"Hobbit Camps"

You might be wondering if that's a weird coincidence. A trick of language. But no, they were literally named after Tolkien's halflings.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/hobbit-camps-fascism-italy

Now Tolkien loathed allegory and essentially wrote a letter to the Nazis telling them to knock it off and that they were destroying the nobility of old Germanic stories. Still, his stories have been accused of promoting reactionary ideology and his critics chose to read allegory in them. Unsurprisingly, the Right Wing co-opted it and essentially said, "Yes, this IS about Fascism. And it's heckin' based!"

>The fucking Orcs vs Humans shit has been lionized by Fascists for as long as there were Orcs in the popular consciousness.

Anonymous 2023-11-30 (Thu) 08:27:45 No.589708

>>589707
Fascists severely lack literature and intellectuals with wide appeal.
>D'Annunzio
Boring as shit. He's more interesting as a historical character than a writer. His protagonists are always self-absorbed egoists, completely unrelatable for the average person. Also, in Italian school, the only thing students read about him during literature lessons is a poem about rain in a pinewood.
>Gentile
Intellectual academic, not someone you'd read to relax after work.
>Evola
Super-elitist. The only people interested in him are weirdos and academics (also weirdos). Also, his works about religions aren't relevant any more.
>Pirandello.
Extremely good writer, wide popular appeal, studied in school and a card-carrying fascist. Yet none of his novels or theatrical works can be considered "fascist".
>Liala
Real name: Amalia Liana Negretti Odescalchi, I think she was the most successful writer of the fascist era. A noblewoman who started writing romance novels about brave and good-looking military officers after her lover (a seaplane pilot) died in a crash. She kept writing until her death in 1995. Not a fascist intellectual, just fascist adjacent, I'd say.

I could write a few more, but my point remains: not even fascists want to read fascist writers, so in the '70s they started looking for a writer they could appropriate, and they chose Tolkien, why? In part, it's because elitist left-wing intellectuals frowned upon fantasy literature and other expressions of popular culture (such as comics). Nowadays, they're too busy to write about the need to genocide Palestinians or why it's so important to stop working class kids from studying humanities to care about Tolkien or realize why the most important Italian comic artist is a working-class man born in the outskirts of Rome. There's something ironic about fascists appropriating an anglo writer that rejected nazi theories of race and apartheid because they couldn't produce anything better. They blame it on "communist hegemony in culture", but now they control both RAI and cultural funds for movies and yet, they still can't do shit with it because they're basically unable to produce art. A bit sad given how Futurism anticipated fascism in some aspects, and it was such a vibrant and interesting artistic movement.

Anonymous 2023-11-30 (Thu) 09:37:22 No.589709

File: 1701337041778-0.png (147.07 KB, 550x616, Grace cropped.png)

File: 1701337041778-1.jpg (191.7 KB, 1280x720, dog chernobyl1280x720.jpg)

>>589707
>the Right Wing co-opted it and essentially said, "Yes, this IS about Fascism. And it's heckin' based!"
At most, they're as Von Hallerists would joke about themselves, racist liberals.

>his stories have been accused of promoting reactionary ideology
I presume Tolkien would be right libertarian leaning (Anglo) moderated by his Catholicism.

The Hobbits and the Shire are said to be his city on a hill – what I see are pastoralist vibes with right libertarian sentiment in terms of politics.

>>589708
>not even fascists want to read fascist writers
Maybe b/c they're not really fascists.
The only reason Fascism is semi-relevant is leftists keep pulling up the Fascist boogeyman.
Classical Italian Fascism the ideology is hecka dead and irrelevant now.
You'll never see rightwingers embracing such statist views again, esp. nowadays.
In the Anglosphere in particular (US, Britain, Canada, Australia), that kind of statism / totalitarianism had long been shunned and clashes with the libertarian values they have. It's fundamentally at odds with their Anglo values which cherishes the idea of freemen and constitutionalism. Classical Italian Fascism noted this & the incompatibilities. (For the Germans too, btw).

>they chose Tolkien
Tolkien is overrated.
His legacy is as a pop culture icon & a writer for the high fantasy genre.
Tolkien has very little to offer politically speaking.
I don't say this out of spite for Tolkien, but politics isn't his forte imo.

Anonymous 2023-11-30 (Thu) 10:15:46 No.589710

File: 1701339345862-0.png (147.37 KB, 609x330, w1_jpg.png)

File: 1701339345862-1.jpg (70.44 KB, 960x540, 58246609_905.jpg)

File: 1701339345862-2.png (479.13 KB, 705x529, 59d6f6ee351ccf7a1a8b8b3a.png)

If conservatism is the new punk rock, nazi imagery is that on steroids.

The reason Nazi ideology is a cool counter culture is not the fault of fascists or nazis.

It's the fault of contemporary pop culture making them look evil in a good way.

I'm not sure this is deliberately done or it's supposed to scare people away.

Nobody talks about how the cool edgy factor and the overtly evil portray in pop culture adds to their appeal. I'm surprised /leftypol/ doesn't talk about this pop culture phenomenon. There's so much media that does this. It ramps it up so hard it plays into the hands of making nazi imagery look cool.

A true damnatio memoriae condemns the idea or memory of something into irrelevance to be forgotten: but the West and leftists in particular keeps reviving their memory whether they like it or not.

Anonymous 2023-11-30 (Thu) 10:24:52 No.589711

>>589710
You're not wrong, the problem is counter culture doesn't mean good it just means against them.
Pedophilia or mass murder idols can be just as much of a counter culture by that same definition.

Anonymous 2023-11-30 (Thu) 12:52:15 No.589712

>>589701
>why isnt [non-nazi] fascism more progressive than liberalism?
Who said it wasn't? I'd say it is, albeit a corporatist retrofag progressivism worth combating to the death.

Anonymous 2023-11-30 (Thu) 13:00:00 No.589713

>>589709
>You'll never see rightwingers embracing such statist views again, esp. nowadays.
In the Anglosphere in particular (US, Britain, Canada, Australia), that kind of statism / totalitarianism had long been shunned and clashes with the libertarian values they have
I have some strong objection about this. Yes Anglo "values" (or lack thereof) traditionally opposes absolutism, but Italians weren't big fan of absolutism either. I'm sure you know that Italy was heavily decentralized for centuries; really the emergence of the Fascist state can't be ascribed to cultural compatibility but more to the material reality of having one gazillion wounder war veterans necessitating a huge welfare state and massive urbanization leading to growth of popular politics

Anonymous 2023-11-30 (Thu) 13:12:58 No.589714

>>589705
>I think this is why it's exceptionally important that we find some Italian Anon who'd be willing to translate some of Niccola Bombacci's works into English.
I don't know if we have any, and I don't know if anyone would be willing to do a whole (fascist) book for free, even on a fascist imageboard. Might end up needing to commission it.

Anonymous 2023-11-30 (Thu) 15:16:54 No.589715

File: 1701357413681-0.png (710.98 KB, 1500x1500, grace 15 kitto.png)

File: 1701357413681-1.jpg (2.62 MB, 3853x5001, Cosimo_I_de'_Medici_in_arm….jpg)

File: 1701357413681-2.jpg (80.96 KB, 813x1024, Ferdinand_II_of_Bourbon-Tw….jpg)

File: 1701357413681-3.jpg (214.28 KB, 800x1081, Andrea_Doria_as_Neptune.jpg)

File: 1701357413681-4.jpg (1.38 MB, 2887x1881, palazzo_del_principe_Doria….jpg)

>>589713
>I'm sure you know that Italy was heavily decentralized for centuries
Right, but that doesn't really detract at all from absolutism itself either, silly goose.
This retarded meme of having many petty kingdoms or small states = libertarian paradise needs to die in a pit somewhere. It's a dumb libertarian meme in general. A city-state or petty kingdom could be just as authoritarian or despotic as a big state, if not worse sometimes. And there are numerous examples of this, most famously Singapore and the United Arab Emirates and Brunei and Paraguay (in the past). And in the past, so also was Genoa under Andrea Doria or Cosimo I de' Medici ruled Tuscany.
Let's not forget the Kingdom of Two Sicilies under the Bourbons. And Carlo Felice of Piedmont-Sardinia. Technically Korea is "decentralized" meme but I wouldn't say either Korea became much freer with DPRK being a militarized state and South Korea under the Parks.
I've read testimony about how Andrea Doria was a very heavy-handed ruler.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Doria
>He refused offers to take the lordship of Genoa and even the dogeship, but accepted the position of "perpetual censor", and exercised predominant influence in the councils of the republic until his death.
>The title "censor" in this context was modelled on its meaning in the Roman Republic, i.e., a highly respected senior public official (see Roman censor), rather than its modern meaning having to do with censorship.
>He was given two palaces, many privileges, and the title of Liberator et Pater Patriae (Liberator and Father of His Country).

Thomas Bayly in the 1600s gives an account of Andrea Doria.
>He came out of them under the name of Andreas Dory, a Genoese; this famous Andreas Dory was a zealous Commonwealths-man, and one of the new Gentlemen, as they call'd them∣selves, (for you must understand, that when these States-men had shook off the yoke of Sovereignty, they expelled all their Gentry or Nobility; which no sooner done, but they made a new Gen∣try or Nobility amongst themselves) and being a deserving man, the Emperour Charles the Great, will'd this Andreas Dory to ask and have what he desired of all that he had Conquered:

>He [Andrea Doria] asked Genoa, the Emperour gave it him, to do with it what he pleased, he gave it, the Citizens, together with all their liberties, and former Freedoms, upon this condition, That they shall recall the old Gentry in again, and settle them again in all their rights and privileges, which being assented unto, Genoa became a Free-state again

>But behold the Freedom, or rather power and bonds of love and gratitude, neither the old or new Gentry, nor the Common people, would allow of anything that was said or to be done, but what this Dory should command or say:

>For was there a more absolute and powerful Monarch upon the earth than he; and whilist he lived he did continue so, because people would obey

>Yet still it must be a Free-state, because Libertas was written over the Senate-House, and City-Gates, but neither within their Senate, or their Walls, was there ever such Tyranny over the common people

Then Thomas Bayly adds.
>Gulling the people into a sottish belief, that they are not suppressed by one hand, because it hath many fingers

Anonymous 2023-11-30 (Thu) 15:23:00 No.589716

>>589713
I'm not sure why you're replying seriously to a drooling retard, but
>I'm sure you know that Italy was heavily decentralized for centuries
This is true, but Italy had no liberal tradition unlike UK or US. There weren't the material conditions for that. Even today, liberalism is a joke: the two biggest liberal think-thank in Italy receive public funds (that they try to hide ;) ) and are made up of public servants (mostly economy professors). The biggest liberal newspaper survives thanks to public funds because no one reads it (fun fact: it was founded by a literal CIA glowie!). The most important liberal party hide their economic views because most people are disgusted by them. Yeah, Berlusconi wanted to do a "liberal revolution" in Italy, but he definitely wasn't a liberal lmao.
>really the emergence of the Fascist state can't be ascribed to cultural compatibility but more to the material reality of having one gazillion wounder war veterans necessitating a huge welfare state and massive urbanization leading to growth of popular politics
And also because of a combination of:
>weak state structure (same for weimar Germany and Japan)
>dominance of landowners in the south, who supported fascism against the peasantry
>Weak constitution that gave eccessive decisional power to the king
>lack of liberal tradition due Savoy's centralization policy

Anonymous 2023-11-30 (Thu) 15:24:16 No.589717

>>589714
I could try to translate something, as long as it's not too long

Anonymous 2023-11-30 (Thu) 16:03:49 No.589718

File: 1701360228702-0.png (79.35 KB, 227x263, 5519205709215970152795279.png)

File: 1701360228702-1.png (85.18 KB, 560x315, snarling-dog.png)

>>589716
>I'm not sure why you're replying seriously to a drooling retard
Idk what ur talking about I aptly described Fascism in this thread.
The anons peering into Fascism as something "deeper" than totalitarian statism are midwits who refuse to call a spade a spade.

Anonymous 2023-11-30 (Thu) 21:01:19 No.589719

File: 1701378078839-0.jpg (230.87 KB, 1280x720, Blops Berlin.jpg)

File: 1701378078839-1.jpg (677.53 KB, 1246x702, Wolfenstein.jpg)

>>589710
>Nobody talks about how the cool edgy factor and the overtly evil portray in pop culture adds to their appeal. I'm surprised /leftypol/ doesn't talk about this pop culture phenomenon. There's so much media that does this. It ramps it up so hard it plays into the hands of making nazi imagery look cool.

I kind of touched on this before but it's worth mentioning again. I can't remember where I had this conversation, maybe it was on /leftypol/ or maybe some other board, but the long and short of it was that a Nazi came into the thread with some ridiculous argument about why Nazism is superior to Communism. It was basically, if you look at media where the Nazis conquer the world (Wolfenstein, Man in The High Castle) everything looks super technologically advanced and clean and cool. If you look at media about the USSR, it's all dilapidated and depressing and drab. It was a bizarre argument but it lead me to an interesting conclusion.

Namely, the fact the Nazis were so explicitly evil allows you a degree of liberty in how their society is portrayed. They can build these huge monuments, have a nigh-unbeatable army, and it's just presumed that people will side against them because of the explicit racism of the Nazi project, but if you don't feel unnerved by that racism, all you're seeing is the cool shit. If you're the kind of person who thinks "Well nothing bad would happen to me under Nazi rule" then you can look at Wolfenstein's depiction of America under Nazi occupation and think "Damn, that looks like a great place to live!"

The issue with Communism and the USSR explicitly is that it isn't de facto evil. There's nothing in the Communist ideal that would horrify a normal person. Mass genocide isn't an irremovable aspect of the ideology. Almost always the mass deaths attributed to Communism is chalked up to "incompetence" rather than active malevolence. Zizek had a decent point on this where people imprisoned in the Gulags were supposedly made to send Stalin happy birthday wishes, whereas such a thing would be comically stupid if expected of the Jews. This is because at its root, the goal of putting Jews in camps was to exterminate them. The goal of putting reactionaries in Gulags is to keep them from harming society, and perhaps eventually rehabilitate them.

So if you're making media in a Capitalist state, the last thing you can do is portray the Communist society as "cool." Because there's nothing morally abhorrent about it to counterbalance things. What would a writer rely on? "But what about freeeeeedum?" I mean most people would recognize they don't feel all that free right now. Some awful things forced upon the rich? You're expecting empathy for a group of people mostly segregated from society, and whose status isn't imprinted on their skin like another race. If you had Communism, and it's portrayed with the clean streets, the wunderwaffe, and the monuments attributed to Nazis like in Wolfenstein, why the fuck would you want to "fight back" against that? For the right to vote for a shitty Politician every 4 years? For the right to start a business? The latter isn't worth losing your life over, the former reminds me of the old adage that a perfect democracy where everyone is satisfied would inevitably look like a dictatorship. If the politburo can build all these cool monuments, feed everyone, and keep the streets safe and prosperous, then what does voting even matter? You wouldn't vote for anyone else.

All portrayals of Communism, if it's not an explicit endorsement of it, has to portray it as drab and depressing and fundamentally colorless. Otherwise the good guys and bad guys will be confused for one another.

Anonymous 2023-11-30 (Thu) 21:56:54 No.589720

>>589719
>the former reminds me of the old adage that a perfect democracy where everyone is satisfied would inevitably look like a dictatorship. If the politburo can build all these cool monuments, feed everyone, and keep the streets safe and prosperous, then what does voting even matter? You wouldn't vote for anyone else.
The value in democracy is the ability for the citizens to remove a leader, even if they choose not to. Of course, to a westerner, if we saw an enemy country voting in the same leader four times in a row we would call it a sham election of a dictatorship.

Anonymous 2023-12-02 (Sat) 02:07:13 No.589721

Posting here cause, fuck it, people are still asking for definitions of Fascism and I might as well have a bit of humor.

I think to some extent there’s a highly idealistic characteristic within Fascism that makes a coherent definition difficult. An example, consider the scholarly analysis of Christianity—specifically the early Church. Today we may call the various interpretations of Christianity at the time “heresies” but that term is loaded. For a period of time “Arianism” was less a heresy so much as another interpretation of Christianity, and determining what “the early church” even was implies a kind of unity and coherence to a confusing process. We can recognize that what we call “THE Church” eventually existed, but the point where a Jewish sect ended and a coherent Christian Church with unified dogma started is near impossible to tell. The Gnostic sects has wildly different interpretations from other formulations of Christianity, nevertheless we can accept that some kind of “Christianity” existed at the time.

Fascism can lead to wildly different interpretations. While we can mock the Fascists for their failure to come up with a definition of Universal Fascism in 1934, the council of Nicaea and other early Church debates were just as heated and fractious; the tiniest minutiae was hotly debated and battled over (“Filioque” for example)

So if we can accept that Christianity is a thing that exists, we can accept Fascism is. If we can accept that wildly different interpretations of Christianity exists, we can accept that Fascism can mutate into wildly different forms whilst still maintaining itself as Fascist.

There are a few traits of Fascist movements that, I believe, form a commonality in most strains of it. Firstly, you have immediacy and action. Second: collective Unity and Sublimation of the ego to the group. Thirdly, a sense of active group consciousness which manifests in a singular figure to direct the whole collective. I think all these parts mutually reinforce one another and form the basis of what can be called Universal Fascism.

In regards to immediacy and action, I think this is something Fascists will confess to themselves. I’ve met plenty of older socialists who confess that they’ll never see socialism, they’re just laying the bricks for the next generation. It’s a noble notion, but one Fascists abhor. The fascist revolution isn’t tomorrow, it’s today. You aren’t signing up for a project that culminates in your life being spent laying bricks, you believe you’ll see Fascism in your lifetime.

Similarly, the sense of action plays into Fascism’s “leader principle.” Parliaments merely slow down the culmination of the Fascist revolution. Honestly I think you see the seed of this idea today with the recent rise of populism. People don’t understand that the safeguards of parliamentary democracy means “their guy” can’t just do whatever the fuck he wants. When people want a president I think there’s an unspoken desire for them to rule like a dictator—as if Biden or Trump could just order the creation of universal healthcare regardless of what congress does.

Secondly, Unity and Sublimation of the ego. This typically takes the form of ultranationalism but I would argue that’s mostly a European phenomenon and in the Middle East, Islam could supersede the nation. What this means is that Fascism can take the form of whatever the broadest possible collective identity is.

What this means is that strains of Fascism can be benign on issues of race or religion. I suspect the “true” face of Modern American Fascism could be a kind of “civic” Fascism that would eschew race (a dying dogma as is) in favor of absolute loyalty to a new American Project. A belief that you could have this powerful technocratic state that could smooth over race relations and “stop the chaos.”

And importantly, Fascism demands a personal sublimation as well. The emphasis on big marches and rallies is to show a kind of collective discipline and reaffirm the existence of a collective whole. Everyone marching together, or everyone wearing a symbol or uniform, it’s a statement: “we’re one, we exist, we’re an entity when United.”

Finally you got one dominant leader figure to give the collective an appearance of an active consciousness. This might be a bit confusing, but I’d say that for a good portion of people, we get this impression that the state is basically on autopilot. We’re marching towards climate catastrophe with no one able to control this great beast. No one is in charge and consequently no one feels responsible. Ditto for Gaza. You’ve got Obama getting on a podcast saying “Uhh actually we’re all responsible for Genocide.” And we think “okay I don’t want to be responsible for genocide so how do I stop it?!” And the answer is: you can’t. The plane is on autopilot.

ᴉuᴉlossnW has a really great quote in “Talks with ᴉuᴉlossnW” where the reporter interviewing him makes a comment about how he could write a book talking about the benefits of a dictatorship, and he responds that a dictatorship at least means you can have someone capable of stopping the machine of state to avoid disaster. He prevents dictatorship as the emergency breaks of a system incapable of stopping itself.

And it’s an interesting position to take. One thing a dictator can’t hide behind is “well we’re ALL responsible!!!” And while the threat of dictatorship is portrayed as overreach, we’ve seen plenty of tyrannies emerge from ostensibly liberal systems—the patriot act, for example. The lack of anyone to hold accountable for it means the lack of any way to discipline the system. Hence this crisis we’re sleep walking towards can at least be named and fought. You’re not seeing passionate movements gelded by an intractable bureaucracy.

I think all these traits taken together make Fascism.

Anonymous 2023-12-02 (Sat) 04:39:57 No.589722

>>589719
>>589710
this is actually one reason why I really like how fascism is portrayed in The Man in the High Castle – the book, not the TV show. because in the book, it's not portrayed as some alluringly hyper-advanced and competent but "evil" "totalitarian" state. it's instead portrayed exactly as fascism in practice would have played out if the Axis had won the war, where they incidentally have some advanced technologies like rockets (because Germany happened to have a lot of smart scientists) but the Reich is also basically falling apart and there are tensions between it and Imperial Japan.

it really opened my eyes to how much mainstream media portrayals of the Nazis are complicit in enabling fascism, because it's always ahistorical comic book villain shit that ignores how the Nazis were actually mostly opportunistic incompetent sociopaths, incels, drug addicts, and failsons. just like real-life fascists today, and just as was the state of Italy, Germany, and Japan in general of being states that failed to acquire their own colonies.

Anonymous 2023-12-02 (Sat) 06:25:43 No.589723

>>589722
Comic book villain shit is a great way to describe it. Like a capeshit, a huge portion of "anti-Nazi" media is mostly spectacle. It's some American GI fighting Nazi Spider Mechs or whatever. Spectacle might work against a backdrop of relative prosperity and stability, but when you feel like your whole world is decaying and you don't know what to do, then having the Nazis portrayed as these evil geniuses that could build space stations shaped like Swastikas might make you think "God what I wouldn't give for government with half that competence."

Meanwhile, I can only think of Red Alert as inadvertent Soviet propaganda. I wouldn't count Atomic Heart because Russkies made it tinged with nostalgia for a bygone era. Meanwhile the rest of Western media portrays the USSR as savagely cruel, stupid, and incompetent. It provides a little insulation from Communist ideas because no one is looking at it like "Man I wish I could live that life!"

Anonymous 2023-12-03 (Sun) 21:12:10 No.589724

File: 1701637930524.jfif (53.15 KB, 580x497, Jarrow.jfif)

Fuck it, bumping with more Mosley. Guy was a prodigious writer, what can I say?

Unemployment, Public Works, the Trade Unions
>The other sphere in which the government must give a decisive lead is in the organisation of public works on a great scale. In an island or even a continental economy overheating, with the result of inflation, can occur in a condition of full employment. On the other hand, to maintain a large pool of unemployment is inhuman and disastrous to the general morale. The answer to this dilemma of the present system is to avoid overheating and inflation by the restraints of credit policy, while taking up the consequent slack of unemployment in public works. No man should be unemployed, and work should be available to all on a reasonable standard of life in a large public works programme, but there should be sufficient differential to provide incentive to return as soon as possible to normal employment; re-training and re-deployment of labour schemes should always accompany a public works system.

>Public works should now be in active preparation in all Western countries to replace in due time the distortions of the economy of the Western world, which are initially caused by the semi-wartime basis of America. When peace finally breaks out, we should be ready with the constructive works of peace to replace the destructive works of America’s small wars and the concomitant arms race.

>The world inflationary movement, resting largely on America’s deficit financing of its wars and arms, can at any time come abruptly to an end, either through peace or the objections of other nations to this financial process. So far, armament race and minor wars have taken up the slack of unemployment which would normally represent the difference between modern industrial potential and effective market demand. This has only been done by distorting the economy and aggravating the eventual problem of peace. To maintain full employment in a real period of peace only two methods are available—inflation, or public works on a great scale. We have already seen the results of inflation in an overheated economy leading to over-full employment, and wages chasing prices in a vicious spiral whose end must be a crash.

>The only alternative is a stable price level maintained by a strong credit policy, with the resultant unemployment taken up in public works. The economic effect of public works in dealing with unemployment can be the same as the armament boom, without the disastrous exaggeration of deficit financing. Yet the difference in national, or I hope continental, well-being can be vital. The public works of peace can be integrated in general economic policy and can serve it rather than distort it. State action can prepare the way in works too large for private enterprise, and can thus assist rather than impede it. Such public works of peace in terms of unemployment policy can replace abnormal armament demand, can build rather than damage the economy, can benefit the nation and reduce the menace to mankind.

>In theory there is no insuperable difficulty confronting a massive transfer of production from the destructive purposes of war, or the distortions of near-war, to the constructive and beneficent purposes of peace. Indeed it is now emphasised in America that great social programmes, like the rebuilding of the slums which are largely responsible for their racial problem, only await the release of resources by the outbreak of peace. In practice, however, the present system and its operators find much more difficulty in doing things in a big way in peace than in war; money is more readily available for madness than for sanity. It remains to be seen whether the vast works necessary, either to take up the slack of production consequent on peace, or to meet the social problem, can be produced by the present system and its personnel. Is it possible without some change in the structure of government and prevailing statesmanship? Will the transfer begin and end with the substitution of a temporary euphoria on Wall Street for the previous slumps on ‘peace scares’?

>The fundamental dilemma of the system is that any continuance of the arms race in all the spheres which science is now revealing will be too great a strain for any economy to withstand, while even the partial cessation of the race will create a need for public works on so great a scale that present political thinking and action will never face it. Certainly, intelligent expenditure on developing the scientific revolution for the further and beneficent purposes of humanity could at this stage rapidly replace the organised idiocy of the arms race. Will this be done by men who appear to be scarcely aware of what is happening? The early future can summon both new ways and new men.

>These problems can be overcome, and with them will be banished the haunting fear of unemployment. There is no such waste of wealth and the human spirit as unemployment. It is avoidable, and in a continental economy easily avoidable; it is simply a question of the mechanics of economics which mind and will can master. When demand flags, the market falters and unemployment follows, but we should remember there is no ‘natural’ limit to demand; the only limitation is the failure of our intelligence and will.

>It sounded fantastic long ago in the House of Commons when a wise Labour leader of clear mind and calm character, J. R. Clynes, said there is no limit to real demand until every street in our cities looks like the front of the Doge’s Palace at Venice; and not even then. He was quite right, there is no limit to demand, only to our power to produce, and then to organise distribution. Certainly, there is no limit to demand while the slums disgrace our main cities and young married couples have to live with their parents for lack of accommodation.

>For years I have urged a national housing programme like an operation of war; the phrase was picked up and used long after as what is called a gimmick in contemporary politics; yet nothing was done about it. I meant it, and it can be done. It entails cutting right through the whole rigmarole of present local authority procedure and building houses by the same methods as shells, airplanes and mulberry harbours were produced, in time of war. The restrictions of the present system and the timidity of politicians alone impede it; these inhibitions must be overcome.

>It will be apparent to the reader that many of the policies I have so long advocated clash with present thinking and with vested interest. Particularly the direct intervention of government in questions of wages and prices is resisted in the mistaken belief that it threatens the position of the trade unions. When eleven years after my initial suggestion one of the ablest intellects in a Labour Government began to see ‘new patterns’ of economic policy in the possible intervention of government in wages and prices, a precipitate retreat followed in face of trade union opposition; the present hesitant application of any such policy is entirely negative; never positive in a readjustment of all rewards.

>Trade union traditions in bitter memory of the past tend to slow the pace of the fast to that of the slow; dark shadows of unemployment and the unprotected worker still haunt the bright prospects of a scientific age. Not only my advocacy for the past eleven years of economic leadership by government through the wage-price mechanism, but also my still longer insistence on payment by results in all spheres and ranks of industry and my new proposals for the provision of incentive through the fiscal system, are liable to collide at present not with reason but with industrial atavism.

<Reduction of government expenditure

>Yet I am no enemy of trade unionism, never have been and never will be. On the contrary, I can see an even bigger part for it in the modern world; for instance in securing a better method of administration. Reduction of wasteful expenditure is essential if our economy is not to founder in a sea of all-engulfing taxation. Present bureaucracy in the necessary and desirable welfare state should be largely replaced by the administration of trade unions and employers’ federations, and much of the operation of the welfare state should be made genuinely contributory. People should no longer be mulcted to pay for benefits they do not want, but only charged for the benefits they desire. Such a system would immediately bring to an end the blatant scandal of present practices. Large economies in this sphere can be added to the considerable saving effected by cutting down unnecessary external commitments through policies already described. Further general economies can be secured either by the attachment to each department of a watchdog responsible to higher authority, or by the rationing of departments. Taxation must be drastically reduced by the cutting of expenditure as well as transferred from the direct to the indirect method.

>Nothing is more important to our present situation than the strenuous reduction of inflated expenditure and the elimination of waste. There is no doubt that swollen government expenditure coupled with a lax credit policy is the prime cause of inflation. Trade unions are blamed because wages are continually chasing a rise of price caused by government policy. Their members do not suffer so much as people with fixed incomes, or as many highly skilled people who have no trade union to look after them. Yet all workers, and the whole nation, suffer in some degree from inflation and the continual rise of prices. Government expenditure must be severely reduced until greater production for the larger market of Europe will enable us to pay for many desirable things we cannot now afford. The present burden will eventually be lifted by the larger turnover available for taxation through this increase of production and of real wealth. It will be easier to secure agreement for the policies of expansion than for those of contraction. Trade unionism can then play not a lesser but a larger part in the developments which greater policies make possible.

>A world of many new possibilities presents trade unionism with an invitation and a challenge to move from the present to the future. There is no limit to trade union activity except taking over the government of the country; yet when they forbid government to intervene in questions of wages and prices this is precisely what they are doing. The function of government in the modern world must be chiefly economic, and the main question in modern economics is the matter of wages and prices. If government cannot enter this sphere of wages and prices it ceases to be a government. If trade unionism stops a government doing the job which the people have elected it to do, a showdown in the end is inevitable and will have to be faced. The will to face such a sad situation should always be present, though I hope and believe it can be avoided, with the aid of clear thought and good will.

Anonymous 2023-12-03 (Sun) 21:33:07 No.589725

File: 1701639186963.png (1.18 MB, 900x661, ClipboardImage.png)

>>589722
>>589723
Is it bad that this is the reason I like communism too?

Anonymous 2023-12-03 (Sun) 21:48:51 No.589726

>>589725
I mean you’re self aware of it at least. So it isn’t too bad at least.

Anonymous 2023-12-04 (Mon) 08:09:49 No.589727

File: 1701677388824.jpg (120.35 KB, 1280x720, mpv-shot0001.jpg)

new history just dropped

Anonymous 2023-12-04 (Mon) 20:32:51 No.589728

File: 1701721971443.jpg (75.89 KB, 950x708, 84b741b49171d548a30ccdd631….jpg)

>>589727
So a funny story I stumbled upon was that Rohm's homosexuality was revealed to the German press by an angry former member of the NSDAP. It caused a huge stir in the Nazi party and prompted Hitler to publicly state that what a Nazi does in their private life was their own business.

Now, while it was a wholly political decision that left Rohm without any allies other than Hitler, it's still hilarious that for one brief moment, Adolf fucking Hitler was telling people that it didn't matter if you were gay.

Moving on from that, analyzing the factions of the Nazi Party Hitler purged could be interesting, and I believe it showcases the fundamentally different characteristics of various Fascist-adjacent movements. Hitler dealt with the Left faction of the NSDAP by murdering them all and I think it betrays a personal opportunism in Hitler's character. Whereas ᴉuᴉlossnW, it seems, played games and tried to balance different interests. Some Socialists he'd hope to win over with bureaucratic jobs and charismatic appeals, others he jailed, but the Fascist left was allowed to experiment by degrees, with ᴉuᴉlossnW attempting to claim the fascist regime would grow "more radical" with time.

Anonymous 2023-12-05 (Tue) 18:46:06 No.589729

Anyone here familiar with the Third Wave experiment? I knew the broad strokes but it seems like there's more to it than I originally thought.

For those who don't know.
>A Teacher in California had trouble explaining to his students how the Nazis came to power

<Incidentally the Teacher had ties to the Black Panthers and SDS

>Decides to start what was originally gonna be a one day social experiment

>Gets into class, writes "Strength Through Discipline" on the chalkboard. Rearranges seating and makes the students practice some rigid discipline; whenever they had a to ask or answer questions they had to physically stand up, refer to him as "Mr. Jones" at all times, and keep their response limited to 3 words or less.

>He decides to keep the experiment going and writes "Strength Through Community" and calls his movement 'The Third Wave', he creates some bullshit salute and gives out assignments: recruit your friends, design flags, stop non-members from entering the class

>Day 3: the experiment begins to grow out of control. Students from across the school join the class out of interest in the "Third Wave" movement. Students were given membership cards and Jones instructed them on how to initiate new members, he told 3 students to report to him when other members didn't abide by the rules
<Fucking 20 students volunteered to report on others
<A student volunteered to be his goddamn bodyguard
<Membership swelled to 200 students by the end of the day.

>Day 4, he decides to terminate the experiment. Tells his students that "The Third Wave" is actually a national movement and that they had a presidential candidate they'll announce at a rally the next day. He then banishes 3 students to the library and forbade them from joining the rally to express the importance of loyalty to the movement's precepts

>Final Day: Students attending the rally were greeted with a blank screen. Jones then explained that their experiment showed how the Nazis quickly came to power and then broadcast a documentary about Nazi Germany.

To be frank, as horrifying as it is, I'm somewhat impressed he managed to build a 200 person strong social movement in three days. No idea if it would have had any longevity, but it seems like Fascism can tickle something in peoples' psyches that gets them all in on a project. He took a bunch of highschool students and in three days they're practically singing "Tomorrow Belongs to Me" and are ready to goosestep us into Fascism.

Anonymous 2023-12-05 (Tue) 19:05:19 No.589730

File: 1701803119613.png (194.44 KB, 1263x635, ClipboardImage.png)

>>589728
the history of homosexuality in the early Nazi Party (mainly the SA) is actually a really fascinating topic that is unfortunately somewhat muddled by Christofascist conspiracy theories about the Nazis all being gay (see The Pink Triangle). it was absolutely a thing in the SA, and this is pretty well documented, that there was a weird amount of male homosexuality/homoeroticism going on there that later forced the Nazis to explicitly suppress homosexuality. the image you posted even relates to this very interesting phenomenon where I obviously don't think all gay men are Nazis or anything, but there is also a very strong current in the Nazi unconscious of male homoeroticism. usually, but not always, it's repressed.

always makes me think of this Adorno aphorism from Minima Moralia

Anonymous 2023-12-05 (Tue) 19:14:54 No.589731

>>589730
There's a fine between contempt for femininity (weakness) and homosexuality.

Anonymous 2023-12-05 (Tue) 19:50:08 No.589732

>>589729
Devil's advocate: authority in schools is very real, the hierarchy of student and teacher is powerful. Most students, I'd assume, wouldn't risk reporting the teacher if they thought it was stricter than usual or kind of weird.
If you haven't already, it could also be worth looking into Stanford prison Experiment (prisoner/guard roleplay that very quickly became extremely abusive) and Milgram experiment (among other things, demonstrated typical citizens were ready to slaughter others provided sheltering from the brutality and that an apparent authority was responsible or pressuring them). And also cults in general.

Anonymous 2023-12-05 (Tue) 19:53:19 No.589733

File: 1701805999580.jpg (19.12 KB, 507x921, future_pol_poster.jpg)

>>589730
>>589731

This is gonna be a Freudian doozy here but it seems like there are elements of homoeroticism in Fascism in general. You've got Mishima and his harem of gym boys. You've got modern nazis (I think you can see a few on the Right Wing Cringe thread) with fbi.govs full of "Trans NatSocs" or whatever. And there's Rohm too.

Honestly just taking a stab in the dark here, but Fascism tends to emphasize personal fitness (or at least the aesthetics of personal fitness) and male strength and frequent exercise can raise testosterone levels, while losing weight apparently can increase libido. Plus, I think males in general can endure greater loneliness and so Fascist orgs offer a sense of belonging and male friendship. If you go from feeling lonely and alienated to having a group of brothers who have your back, then that sudden experience of affection and bonding could gradually give way to attraction, sexual or otherwise.

Speaking personally, and this is going to sound embarrassing, I've experienced something similar after long periods with a steady diet/exercise routine. I joked with a buddy that after a couple weeks of jogging and push-ups I'm getting obtrusive thoughts of femboys and fascists.

Anonymous 2023-12-05 (Tue) 19:59:48 No.589734

File: 1701806388084.png (63.22 KB, 898x470, le green words.png)

>>589733
I'm no psychologist, nor expert on sexuality, so I won't make hypotheses but I should point out /fit/ has always been famous for being a gay board.
>homoeroticism
At the very least, glorification of common traits.

Anonymous 2023-12-05 (Tue) 20:05:39 No.589735

>>589733
Speaking of schrodinger from hellsing, the nazis depicted in that anime seemed pretty accepting of a wide variety of people as long as they went along with the plan of trying to destroy britain. They had a cat femboy, a fat fuhrer, a heavily tattooed mentally ill woman, a werewolf and that guy who uses decks of cards as weapons.

Anonymous 2023-12-05 (Tue) 20:58:27 No.589736

File: 1701809905630.pdf (325.49 KB, 180x255, [Patterns of Prejudice 200….pdf)

I haven't read much of this so far, although it seems like an interesting analysis of the modern neo-nazi landscape, where many small decentralized groups, each with negligible membership, network to provide significant effect.
From slime mould to rhizome: an introduction to the groupuscular right (2003)
>he depicts the gamut of the post-war extreme right as stretching from highly conspicuous, signifi- cant parties such as the Movimento Sociale Italiana (MSI), which at times make impressive inroads into the legitimate space of democratic politics, to a zone that ‘seethes’ with a ‘profusion of groupuscules far too numerous to mention—and mostly too tiny to be worth mentioning’, some of them ‘psychotically violent’. Yet, no matter how invisible they are in the world of conventional politics and political analysis, the special issue of Pattern of Prejudice dedicated to case studies of the groupuscular right, in conjunction with this article, which sets out to provide a generic conceptual framework for them, will hopefully contribute to a minor ‘paradigm shift’ in the way they are perceived. If such a shift were to take place, scholars would be much less likely to treat all formations of the extreme right that have numerically negligible memberships as abortive mass movements and hence of minimal significance or concern.

Anonymous 2023-12-05 (Tue) 21:15:14 No.589737

>>589732
>Stanford prison Experiment
isn't that the one that proved wealthy college kids are psychos

Anonymous 2023-12-05 (Tue) 21:55:18 No.589738

>>589733
It's not exclusive to fascism, just take a look back in history: every society in which an aristocratic or warrior class had a cultural contempt for the feminine (associated with trickery, vanity, weakness, jealousy…) and an exaltation of masculine qualities (physical and mental strength, honesty, bravery…) produced some sort of accepted or ritualized male homosexuality. Sexism doesn't necessarily turn into misogyny, and misogyny doesn't necessarily turn you gay, but I think that if someone despise the feminine and despises women while exalting male qualities…Well, maybe they should read forbidden colours by Mishima.

Anonymous 2023-12-05 (Tue) 21:56:41 No.589739

>>589737
I've actually heard that the experiment is being critically reexamined because the guy in charge of it deliberately biased the experiment to get the results he wanted, like yelling at "prison guards" that didn't abuse the "prisoners" and shit.

Anonymous 2023-12-05 (Tue) 22:06:47 No.589740

File: 1701814006811.jpg (239.09 KB, 1024x1024, 1696452593495946.jpg)

>>589420
So is there are book recommendation list or is it all just few page pahmlets or low autism score bullshit like mein kampf? ᴉuᴉlossnW himself seems like a mediocre creature navigating the 1920's Italian political landscape. If fascism needs to be defined in black and white then its the most authoritarian form of capitalism.

Anonymous 2023-12-05 (Tue) 22:18:43 No.589741

>>589740
"Fascism, 100 Questions Asked and Answered" and "Fascism for The Million" by Oswald Mosley are decent insights into his particular brand of Fascism and how he sees the state being organized. I believe in the latter book he mostly talks about the economics of his proposed Fascist state.

Talks With ᴉuᴉlossnW is, at the very least, an extremely interesting insight into ᴉuᴉlossnW personally. It's essentially a series of interviews conducted with him by a liberal German journalist where he has a chance to expound on his views and reveal a bit of himself.

Anonymous 2023-12-05 (Tue) 22:29:00 No.589742

>>589689
National vitalism, although a scary name, is merely the impetus to reshape, reform, reconstruct or build anew one's Nation and or National State. This distinction is important since social movements can redefine the fundamentals of a culture without ever acquiring direct State/Economic power via memetics. There's no real singular reason to engage in NatVit, the Furries, for example, are NatVit. They want a society that accepts their weird ass nonsense and they hold significant social power through their capability of pretty much existing in any position of society, although this is mostly accidental.

Anonymous 2023-12-05 (Tue) 22:57:55 No.589743

File: 1701817075031.png (156.8 KB, 314x373, 1574451702790.png)

>>589742
>There's no real singular reason to engage in NatVit, the Furries, for example, are NatVit. They want a society that accepts their weird ass nonsense and they hold significant social power through their capability of pretty much existing in any position of society, although this is mostly accidental.

Interesting interpretation you got there

Anonymous 2023-12-05 (Tue) 23:47:36 No.589744

>>589742
Most furries just go anarchist for this, identifying that NatVit-ism is a retarded approach.

Anonymous 2023-12-06 (Wed) 00:20:34 No.589745

>>589744
My point is that NatVit isn't exactly an ideology one acquires but a condition one takes when engaging with social movements. BLM for example is NatVit, so are the Incels and whatnot. NatVit is extremely mundane, this is due to the fact that we all live in Nation States. Where nationally based collective projects are the norm.
>>589743
The best example is usually the most absurd you have. Since it gives the best contrast. The point is that NatVit is a piece of current normality that gives the fascist an impetus to move. Fascists are idiotic when I comes to fully analyzing the basis of society, the fundamental to them are as organic as trees are to forests. Organics are the most important thing to the fascist, it's one of the most defining things that differentiates the fascist from the average reactionary conservative

Anonymous 2023-12-06 (Wed) 01:58:16 No.589746

>>589745
Wouldn’t the mutability of your definition of National Vitalism make it somewhat useless? I don’t mean that as an insult, but if so many groups can fall under the NatVit umbrella I think you’d have an easier time counting which groups don’t.

Anonymous 2023-12-06 (Wed) 07:13:11 No.589747

>>589671
>Haven’t read the article yet, but I’m not sure if I’d term Hugo Chavez a fascist. And if he was it raises the question if the goals of both sides are necessarily at odds.
It more or less just about how Chavez's party has turned into a state that does what the tankie anon says fascists do, just instead of saying it's a 'different' type of socialism, he said it was normal socialism. I don't know if that means calling Chavez a fascist in particular though, and certainly not the infight-bait that such an accusation invites to any of his defenders. But as I said above, many modern fascists point to Socialism with Chinese Characteristics as an example of their ideas about society being economic successful- rather than sticking to syndicalism or corporatism (which I don't see as really any different fundamentally) they do embrace an actual serious national/fascist socialism. But there is clearly something more to it, because while we praise the PRC for achieving success under a dictatorship of the proletariat, they're utterly indifferent to further progression, or, carrying more philosophical weight, doubt that such a transition to socialism after the defeat of global capitalism is even possible. These are the most concrete matters about these things that we can be talking about. Not to dog on your Mosley posts.
>>589676
>>589677
I think this is the exact wrong position to take. Ignoring the fact that Franco and Pinochet never espoused fascist beliefs, your stance on this is entirely descriptive, actively resisting proscription- the point however it so change it!
The purpose of this thread is not to observe what these fascist states actually did with their economic policy. We know what they did. It's why Pinochet and Franco can belong to the historical category fascism, because their movements did the same things. There need be no thread on this; you can simply look at the data and see the actual history of their economies. Sometimes they did better, sometimes worse, but all can be described as capitalist dictatorships supported by incendiary populism.
The issue is that there are still texts of political theory which calls itself fascism. This fascism though is different from the actual reality as it happened, but that doesn't mean the relevance of these texts are forever combined to the history books. There is no certainty about the future, none at all, and there could easily be a resurgence of discontents inspired by these texts. If anyone (it doesn't even have to be them who does) points them out- does that mean we can just magically call them fascists, and thus write them off as capitalists no different from the rest? No, obviously not. Obviously there is going to be fascists saying 'according to fascism, fascism isn't capitalism,' and Marxists saying 'according to materialism, fascism is capitalism.' This doesn't directly does absolutely nothing. The ability to talk with greater nuance actually does.

Anonymous 2023-12-06 (Wed) 23:28:17 No.589748

>>589747
>But as I said above, many modern fascists point to Socialism with Chinese Characteristics as an example of their ideas about society being economic successful- rather than sticking to syndicalism or corporatism (which I don't see as really any different fundamentally) they do embrace an actual serious national/fascist socialism.

Y'know what's interesting is I've seen examples of Fascists running for Italy explicitly on a corporatist platform, which was portrayed as people being given more official representation; I think they used youth sports clubs having a say in public policy related to sports, but I'm going off of memory.

The point being in a vacuum can we truly say such a position is bad? When it's stripped of its status as a competitor to Socialism I'd personally say that the corporatist position seems a little more humane than neoliberal capitalism.

>The issue is that there are still texts of political theory which calls itself fascism. This fascism though is different from the actual reality as it happened, but that doesn't mean the relevance of these texts are forever combined to the history books. There is no certainty about the future, none at all, and there could easily be a resurgence of discontents inspired by these texts.

I think what's also important to consider is that people don't act mechanically, not even Fascists, and they can look at the history of their movements themselves. Fascism isn't dead with the defeat of Axis anymore than Communism with the collapse of the USSR; the ideology lives on and can evolve despite the collapse of the state. Hell, even immediately after WW2 certain notorious Fascists were trying to reorganize themselves and network a wider movement, and the thing with any ideology is that it'll morph and change. The successful ones balance principles with adaptability.

I keep going back to the Church in my example because it's one of the largest and longest-lasting institutions promoting its own ideology in history. Elements of Church history parallel elements of ideological history. The Church experienced so much success because, at times, it could readily adapt to different circumstances. When the Protestant Reformation came around it schismed the church, but didn't destroy it. When secularism and militant atheism emerged from the French Revolution, it schismed the Church but didn't break it. Ideological struggles aren't these mechanic things and we have to accept that adherents to an institution who don't want it to be destroyed will adapt if they have to. The Protestants reform and the Church hosts a counter-reformation. The secularists try to start a "Cult of Reason" and the Church unites Counter-Revolutionaries. When Liberalism became too big to ever truly be quashed, the Church began an arduous process of reform: modernize the Mass, clean up the "medieval" image, speak to the youth, etc. Parry and Riposte.

So let's say for whatever reason you have an ideologically committed Fascist. Their still a living breathing person theorizing about their ideology. Maybe they imagine the project didn't work because ᴉuᴉlossnW/Hitler didn't crush the big bourgeoisie and now want to emphasize that "Second Revolution" that Rohm was talking about. Or maybe they recognize that you can't get anywhere as an open racist today. So they exchange racist rhetoric for talk about national unity (didn't certain chapters of the Klan do that recently?) and how "we're all in this together." Or maybe they talk a more environmentalist streak.

We shouldn't think of the Fascist in terms of unchanging stereotypes, because that's how they get the surprise on people. Shit here's a special report on Italian Fascists from Casapound literally running foodbank and medical checkups.

It's entirely possible in the coming years that we'll see the birth of some "great Fascist intellectual" who gives the movement a new shot in the arm, akin to the Jesuits for Catholicism, and we've got to prepare for it.

Anonymous 2023-12-07 (Thu) 03:29:11 No.589749

>>589748
Reminder that nothing matters in a vacuum.
>I think they used youth sports clubs having a say in public policy related to sports, but I'm going off of memory.
There are certainly pros to technocracy or the syndi/corpo idea of organizations having an elevated platform in decisions. For sure, and comparing to something as horrible as neoliberalism's representative democracy, I'd say it's far better (notice, I didn't use the word 'good' - it's a pointless word).
There might be valid notes to take there, but corporatism as a class collaboration is when it really fails, where the state mediates the balance of capitalist and worker interests… if they're not going to let workers exercise their power like striking and isn't going to remove shitty capitalists, then there won't be a balance.

Anonymous 2023-12-07 (Thu) 04:10:59 No.589750

>>589748
>The point being in a vacuum can we truly say such a position is bad? When it's stripped of its status as a competitor to Socialism I'd personally say that the corporatist position seems a little more humane than neoliberal capitalism.
I'd agree on the latter but not the former. There is no such thing as a political position 'in a vacuum,' ones' position is either directly connected to reality, or they are insane. Economic third positionism (Corporatism, distributism, syndicalism) is only really analyzable as 'good' or 'bad' for Marxist socialism inasmuch as they are willing to help defeat capital, rather than make some abstract proclamation about the correct doctrine in dealing with differences in opinion. It depends on the situation, the relationships with capital, and the position of us socialists. This was like that discussion in the China thread about the PRC funding the AfD in Germany, and the (imo false) comparison with Molotov-Ribbentrop.

>>589749
This reminds me, I think it was Hillaire Belloc, a distributist, who once was debating with a succdem. The succdem, assuming the reason he didn't like Marxist socialism was opposition to violent revolution, pointed out that to achieve an actual state where the means of production are distributed to all, a revolution as, if not more, violent and authoritarian than the one in Russia would be required. Belloc basically replied 'yeah who the fuck cares liberal?'

I also mentioned this earlier in the thread; despite plenty of modern fascists praising the PRC, plenty also claim to hate violent socialist revolution. But clearly if you like ᴉuᴉlossnW, but wish he made a state like modern China- which is only itself by its incredibly violent revolution- you contradict yourself. What with that huh bud?

Back to you, CPUSAnon- I agree with all the rest of your post's points. Obviously if some fascists give a homeless man his first hot meal and dry place to sleep in days, and tells him 'we are all brothers in The Nation, we will never abandon you, long live fascism,' he isn't going to give a shit if you go up to him and well ackshually about the economic policies of Italy 90 years ago. This brings us back to the question of what the purpose of this thread is- are we just developing better language with which to describe the phenomena of fascism, both in the past and today? Or are we also going to talk about how to actually handle dialogue with non-/pol/sperg fascists? Is it just to describe the world, or to change it? And if so- how?

Anonymous 2023-12-07 (Thu) 04:28:28 No.589751

File: 1701923308817.jpg (13.1 KB, 300x257, EoRZomaVoAEX3vq.jpg)

>>1697690
Almost all neo nazis and neo fascists after 1966 are nonwhite and gradually more and more lgbt for some reason, don't question it.
Just don't there's a million and one demographic contradictions in nazi and fascist history, and if you try to rationalize it you will go insane.

Anonymous 2023-12-07 (Thu) 04:33:17 No.589752

>>589733
Interesting video that goes into some Freudian aspects.

>Capitalism relies on a basic fantasy structure that leads to intrinsic disappointment. This requires someone to blame for the disappointment, which ends up supporting a fascistic move that identifies an enemy responsible for the failure to attain what the capitalist fantasy promises.

Anonymous 2023-12-07 (Thu) 07:29:59 No.589753

>>589748
>Shit here's a special report on Italian Fascists from Casapound literally running foodbank and medical checkups.
Wow, impressive the amount of things you can do with drug money.

Anonymous 2023-12-07 (Thu) 15:39:19 No.589754

>>589740
I HATE AI IMAGES SO MUCH
I HATE LOOKING AT AN IMAGE THAT APPARENTLY LOOKS COOL UNTIL I SEE THE MELTING FACES IN THE BACKGROUND AND A MAN FUSING WITH A TANK IN THE CORNER.
IT FEELS LIKE BITING INTO A DELICIOUS LOOKING HAMBURGER BUT IT'S JUST GREY SLUDGE INSIDE LIKE THAT ONE EPISODE OF SPONGEBOB
FUCK THIS SHIT AAAAAAAAAA

Anonymous 2023-12-09 (Sat) 14:15:50 No.589755

>>589746
That's the thing. NatVit is mundane but act ls completely different under various circumstances. Under fascism NatVit IS the main course, the impetus to act. Whilst in any other movement it exists as a result of simply existing. Fascism takes this mundane aspect of national statehood and turns it into an idol for either a personalistic and or collectivistic purposes

Anonymous 2023-12-09 (Sat) 14:48:13 No.589756

>>589754
Anon there are no melting faces, that is not ai, you are becoming schizophrenic and having a psychosis induced mental break, to stop it do trepanning, there is a rat demon inside your brain controlling you, use a wine opener to drill into your skull and dig it out.

Anonymous 2023-12-16 (Sat) 03:53:26 No.589757

The ongoing debate over the precise definition of fascism has frequently obscured the fact that the nature and function of definitions differ significantly depending on the epistemology employed, meaning the overall framework of knowledge and truth. For historical materialists, concepts like fascism are sites of class struggle rather than quasi metaphysical entities with fixed properties. The search for a universally acceptable definition of a generic concept of fascism is therefore quixotic. This is not, however, because concepts are relative in a purely subjectivist sense, meaning that everyone simply has their own, idiosyncratic definition of such notions. It is that they are relational in a concrete, material sense: they are objectively situated in class struggles.

It is bourgeois ideology that presumes the existence of a universal epistemology outside of class struggle. It acts as if there was only one concept of each social phenomenon, which corresponds of course to the bourgeois understanding of the phenomenon in question. What this ultimately means, from a materialist perspective, is that the bourgeois ideology inherent in the very idea of a universal epistemology is itself part of class struggle insofar as it surreptitiously endeavors to disappear all rival epistemologies.

If we dig deeper into the differences between these two epistemologies, which are rival accounts of the very function of concepts and their definitions, we see that materialists—in stark contrast to the idealism of bourgeois ideology—understand ideas to be practical tools of analysis that allow for different levels of abstraction, and whose use-value depends on their ability to map material situations whose complexity surpasses their own. Within this framework, the goal is not to define the essence of a social phenomenon like fascism in a manner that could be universally accepted by bourgeois social science, but rather to develop a working definition in two senses. On the one hand, this is a definition that works because it has a practical use-value: it provides a coherent outline of a complex field of material forces and can help orient us in a world of struggle. On the other hand, such a definition is understood to be heuristic and open to further elaboration because Marxists recognize that they are subjectively situated in objective sociohistorical processes, and that changes in perspective and scale might require modifying it.

ᴉuᴉlossnW and his ilk used mass communications and propaganda to slowly but surely mobilize sectors of civil society—and particularly the petty-bourgeoisie—with the backing of big industrial capitalists, around a nationalist and colonial ideology of ‘radical’ transformation in order to crush the workers movement and launch wars of conquest. At this level of analysis, fascism is practically speaking, in the words of Michael Parenti, “nothing more than a final solution to the class struggle, the totalistic submergence and exploitation of democratic forces for the benefit and profit of higher financial circles. Fascism is a false revolution.”

This conjunctural analysis is, of course, markedly distinct from liberal accounts of fascism, which tend to focus on surface phenomena and superstructural elements that are severed from any scientific consideration of international political economy and class warfare. If it be a politics of hate, a logic of ‘us and them,’ a rejection of parliamentary democracy, a question of aberrant personalities, a dismissal of science, or other such characteristics, the liberal approach to fascism is preoccupied with epiphenomenal traits at the expense of the social totality. It is the latter, however, that gives these traits—when they do in fact exist in some form or other—their precise meaning and function. It is worth recalling, in this regard, as Martin Kitchen pointed out, that “all capitalist-countries produced fascist movements after the crash in 1929.”

If the bourgeois concept of fascism obscures the social totality of the conjuncture within which European fascism historically emerged under that name, it casts an even longer shadow over the structural and the systemic dimensions of fascism as a practice. As we shall see in the case of George Jackson, Marxists have insisted on the importance of inscribing the conjunctural analysis of European fascism within a structural framework in order to reveal the forms of fascism operative within conjunctures where liberal theorists often claim they either do not exist at all or they are somehow less severe. The interwar period in the United States, for instance, when compared to what was going on in Italy and Germany, reveals striking structural similarities.

Finally, the broadest scale of analysis, which appears to be invisible to liberals, is the capitalist world system. As historical materialists like Aimé Césaire and Domenico Losurdo have argued, the barbarism of the Nazis should be understood as a specific manifestation of the long and deep history of colonial butchery, which has brought capitalism to every corner of the globe. If there is something exceptional about Nazism, Césaire claimed, it is that concentration camps were being built in Europe instead of in the colonies.

The bourgeois concept of fascism seeks to singularize it as an idiosyncratic phenomenon, which is largely or entirely superstructural, in order to foreclose any examination of its ubiquitous presence within the history of the capitalist world order. In contrast, the historical materialist approach proposes a multi-scalar analysis of the social totality in order to demonstrate how the conjunctural specificity of interwar European fascism can best be understood as nested within a structural phase of capitalist class warfare, and ultimately within the systemic history of capital, which came into the world—in the words used by Karl Marx to describe primitive accumulation—“dripping from head to toe, from every pore, with blood and dirt.”

George Jackson stalwartly rejected the ideological particularization of fascism and pointed out all of the structural similarities between European fascism and repression in the United States. Unsurprisingly, a liberal critic once proclaimed that the U.S. was not fascist simply because Jackson said it was, thereby dismissing out of hand his structural analysis as simply a subjective opinion (a classic case of liberal projection). Jackson’s argument, however, was not reducible to an ex cathedra pronouncement but was instead based on a careful, materialist comparison between the situation in the United States and the one in Europe. “We are being repressed now,” he wrote. “Courts that dispense no justice and concentration camps are already in existence. There are more secret police in this country than in all others combined—so many that they constitute a whole new class that has attached itself to the power complex. Repression is here.”

When Jackson refers to the U.S. as “the Fourth Reich” and compares American prisons to Dachau and Buchenwald, he is obviously breaking with the exceptionalist protocol that drives the Holocaust industry by elevating European fascism to the singular status of the incomparable. And yet, what he is in effect doing in his analyses of the U.S. is that he is simply rejecting the a-scientific approach to fascism described above, which emphasizes idiosyncrasies in order to obscure structural relations.

The new corporate state [in the U.S.] has fought its way through crisis after crisis, established its ruling elites in every important institution, formed its partnership with labor through its elites, erected the most massive network of protective agencies replete with spies, technical and animal, to be found in any police state in the world. The violence of the ruling class of this country in the long process of its trend toward authoritarianism and its last and highest stage, fascism, cannot be rivaled in its excesses by any other nation on earth today or in history.

Those who would dismiss this as hyperbole, thereby refusing to even engage in historical comparisons, simply reveal one of the most insidious consequences of the ideology of fascist exceptionalism: any materialist analysis of comparable situations is a priori verboten.

Rather than recoiling in horror from the term fascism, which has been ideologically reserved for a few, now distant, historical anomalies, or what George Seldes called “faraway fascism,” Jackson draws the most logical conclusion from the point of view of historical materialist analysis: what’s happening before his eyes in the United States is an intensification and globalization of what transpired, under slightly different conditions, in Italy and Germany. In fact, he directly identifies the driving forces behind the perception management that attempts to blind us to American fascism as themselves being a cultural product of this very same fascism.

Moreover, Jackson, like other Marxist-Leninists, identifies the nucleus of fascism in “an economic rearrangement”: “It is international capitalism’s response to the challenge of international scientific socialism.” Its nationalistic garb, he rightly insists, should not distract us from its international ambitions and its colonial drive: “At its core, fascism is capitalistic and capitalism is international. Beneath its nationalist ideological trappings, fascism is always ultimately an international movement.”

The materialist approach to fascism refuses the blinders imposed by the perception management inherent in the bourgeois concept, and it clearly identifies the ideological double gesture of capitalist rule: it overinflates and even universalizes its purportedly positive traits, constructing a mythological history of so-called Western democracy, and it erases or particularizes its negative characteristics by making fascism into an idiosyncratic anomaly. By beginning the other way around, historical materialism examines how actually existing capitalism relies on two modes of governance that function according to the deceptive logic of the good cop / bad cop interrogation tactic: wherever and whenever the good cop is not able to inveigle people into playing by the rules of the capitalist game, the bad cop of fascism is always lurking in the shadows to get the job done by any means necessary. If the latter’s stick appears to be an aberration when compared to the carrot of the good cop, this is only because one has been hoodwinked into believing in the false antagonism between them, which dissimulates the fundamental fact that they are working together toward a common goal. While it is certainly true, from a tactical organizing perspective, that dealing with the histrionics of the good cop is usually far preferable to the barefaced barbarism of the bad cop, it is strategically of the upmost importance to identify them for what they are: partners in capitalist crime.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/12/fascism-now-you-see-it-now-you-dont/

Anonymous 2023-12-20 (Wed) 02:26:48 No.589758

File: 1703039207946-0.jpeg (406.12 KB, 828x839, IMG_7105.jpeg)

File: 1703039207946-1.jpeg (676.05 KB, 828x981, IMG_7106.jpeg)

File: 1703039207946-2.jpeg (810.67 KB, 828x1190, IMG_7107.jpeg)

File: 1703039207946-3.jpeg (431.82 KB, 828x657, IMG_7108.jpeg)

File: 1703039207946-4.jpeg (860.51 KB, 828x1255, IMG_7109.jpeg)

>>589435
Facts

Anonymous 2023-12-22 (Fri) 17:13:24 No.589759

>>589460
didnt hegel himself call his philosophy objective idealism (in his lectures on the philosophy of history i think)

Anonymous 2023-12-22 (Fri) 17:50:24 No.589760

The best places to learn what fascism is are from its own thinkers - not because they're received wisdom from on high that you can't question, but because studying them in their own words tells much more than insinuations from the people who were tasked with rehabilitating the core interests within fascism. I see you started in the right place, at least.
Since many of them are responding to Marx and the classical liberals that would be a good place to go next.
You could read the liberal elitists to see what was contemporaneous with fascism among liberal intellectauls, many of them somewhat favorable.

But to really get "why fascism worked" doesn't require a uniquely fascist source. A lot of what the fascists and Nazis do are things that became normal, but were given a turn by German and continental philosophy to suggest they were oppositional to plans imposed worldwide from the imperial core. I think if you understand the mechanisms of propaganda, public opinion manipulation, scientific management, and political elitism, you learn a lot about why this works. There's a lot to read. I kept a couple of books that are worth reading, not because they explain "fascism" but because they explain management and politics generally and apply regardless of ideology, from the perspective of elitists and the interests of the political class.

To answer the question about whether anyone is "fascist" - not really, unless they overtly make links to the fascist past. Not everyone in the world has the same stigma about fascism that exists in European society, and the way Americans saw Nazism was different due to mass lying and peculiarities of American mind control. America could never be "fascist" in that sense, because fascism implied a level of social cohesion and compulsion that is profoundly un-American. Every effort to make Americans like fascism runs into the ugliness of the fascist spirit, and there are partisans who try a lot. The core of fascism instead found more effective inroads through the occult and the secret societies - the same societies that pushed the fascists into motion, and if you understood the Nazis origins, secret societies, occultism, and mysticism were dominant and repeated ad nauseum. It's why you have basically Nazi ideas reproduced in science fiction to this day, and it's all seen as totally innocuous even though it's an exact match for Nazi race-theories.

About the only thing you can say is really "fascist" in the same sense is what's happening now, which is very clearly inspired by the Nazi example, and it's centered among European aristocrats telling us about "European values". The fascist plan for the United States was always to destroy the country, leave it a plantation as God intended, and loot everything of value. Anyone who aided and abetted that is an asshole, but it's done now.

The ideas that inspired Nazism, though, and the interests at work which really cared about the project, kept right on after the war and never stopped. This imageboard bans talk of the word that references what this is because they're all influencers and fags and start the shrieking, which is why this thread will probably be derailed. They always do it.

For modern scholarship on the matter, it's more helpful to understand the history of Germany generally than the history of fascist ideas. That often means reading some insufferable sources from German generals trying to cover their ass and de-bullshitting it, but you don't really get why Nazism worked without understanding the German project. It's one reason they put scare words around Mein Kampf. Even though it's pretty boring stuff and not necessary, it was the German reading public's first introduction to Hitler's theories since books are how people studied things and he had only been active for a few years. Very often in this discourse, Germany is treated as a fact of existence like it was always there, but Germany was a young "country" and rife with turmoil, placed in a position geopolitically where it was not defensible. If history turned out right, Germany's existence would have been aborted after 1918, and so when they say how bad Versailles was, in my view it wasn't bad enough. The country should have been dismantled then and there and replaced with a puppet government, and Hitler's fags could have been put down like dogs. The reasons why Nazism was encouraged were not defensive, but offensive, towards aims of the interests that were at the core of the Nazi Party.

You could reconstruct history for yourselves as I did, but it's not hard to see that eugenics was dominant as a global movement and pushed everyone to war - just as they did for the first world war. To look deeper into those causes is when you really go down the rabbit hole and see what really motivates this empire and what sits atop it, and those who look too deep and find particular persons risk their lives. But, there are scattered references of what the conspirators really wanted, or at least some of them, and it wasn't about reacting to events or believing anything in modernity was desirable as-is. Eventually, the truth comes out, and since 2020 more people have broken off because they're kicked out and depart saying it's all a lie.

Anonymous 2023-12-22 (Fri) 20:39:30 No.589761

File: 1703277569882-0.jpeg (225.4 KB, 1080x2004, Smartest Neolib.jpeg)

File: 1703277569882-1.jpg (208.11 KB, 1024x558, juan_peron_cc_img.jpg)

Figured I'd post some humor here to balance out the excellent effortposts. I'll try to respond with my own later, been fairly distracted lately.

Anonymous 2023-12-23 (Sat) 01:31:52 No.589762

>>589761
So anyways, I want to talk Peron for a minute because he was in part an inspiration for this thread. Firstly I think it’s undeniable that he was inspired by Fascism, but nevertheless it’s still understood that he offered some real material benefits to Argentina’s workers. With Milei trying to go full Yeltsin shock therapy, I think it’s a decent time to examine Juan Peron.

Earlier I was reading a scholarly article that acknowledged both Peron’s popularity as well as his “authoritarian” measures, and there was an intriguing tension in it because it acknowledged Peron came to power electorally and he had genuine support among elements of the working/lower classes, but it also decried his “authoritarian” measures and exclaimed he was “undemocratic” which I think begs the question of how we should see democracy.

If a democracy results in the majority of the populace, the working poor, cast aside and abused while an aristocratic rich live large, how can we call it democracy? Is a mere counting of heads enough to declare it a democracy? Simultaneously, if Peron’s reforms were popular and yet he still resorted to Fascist tactics to enact them, is that “less democratic” than the old system which impoverished working argentines? Milei came to power electorally, but right now he’s resorting to strong arm tactics to crush protests. While I’m not too familiar with Argentina’s political history, what does it say when you’ve got elected politicians that immiserate the public and strongmen that enrich it?

And that article I read went on about how Peron was essentially bribing his constituents into voting for him by… enacting popular legislation; “Yeah he passed women’s sufferage, but that was just to improve his political chances! Yeah he gave workers more days off and raised their wages, but that was just so they would vote for him!” And it’s one of those things where it’s like, yeah, if a guy raised my wage and gave me more time off I would vote for him too. What’s the alternative? Voting for the guy who promises not to do that because…? If that’s a bribe, then consider me bribed. Are we supposed to believe that prior administrations governed based off some scientific principles or something? That we were getting paid low wages for any reason other than that the rich wanted us to?

Additionally, Peron at the very least seems to have given lower class Argentines a sense of pride; he reclaimed the phrase “shirtless ones” from the rich and used it as something to be proud of.

While the left Peronists were eventually purged, the question remains whether some state capitalist strongman is more able to meet the needs of a large populace than bourgeois parliaments. And then another question can be asked: whether it’d be an easier time to transition from state capitalism to socialism under such circumstances than from bourgeois republics.

Anonymous 2023-12-23 (Sat) 04:14:35 No.589763

the more i read about mercantalist britain, the more I see fascism may have been descended from that.

Anonymous 2023-12-23 (Sat) 21:25:23 No.589764

>>589763
To be honest I don't know that we can claim any particular movement or idea as the "root" of Fascism or "Proto-Fascism". Revolutionary Syndicalism and Sorelianism played a role, but I think that Fascism takes from and is inspired by too many sources; it's no surprise it'd have mercantile elements too. I suspect Fascism could be described as a "vibe", as abstract as that definition is. I'm reminded of a debate between the widely acclaimed speaker, writer, journalist, and political analyst Caleb Maupin and Cultured Thug (fairly literate as far as Fascists go) where they both approved of Gaddafi's Libya and Maupin stumbled over why a Fascist would like Gadaffi.

I think maybe the answer lies in Fascism's frequent referral to the "Organic Nation" or the idea of the Nation as "a body". And it might betray a kind of unique view of national politics. A Communist sees America's relationship with Israel in intellectual terms: imperialism, capitalism, so on. But to a Fascist it might be a deeply personal terms. It doesn't matter to a Fascist whether Israel is a "smart investment" because to them the nation is a living, breathing thing, and we're spending billions of dollars to prop up this psychotic Israeli state, and what are the actual people of America getting out of it? I think this is where you get a kind of Fascist counter-imperialism. While it could be argued in intellectual terms that America's role within NATO is an undeniable benefit to America, to a Fascist its more like one guy whose responsible for the security of all these other people, to the point they're neglecting their own health.

I'll write more when I have some free time.

Anonymous 2023-12-24 (Sun) 01:07:14 No.589765

I think theres something to say about autarky/dirigisme/gaullism/bonapartism in relation to fascism, at least in the popular understanding of it as 'authoritarian'. Is this really objectively different from multiparty liberal democratic bourgios dictatorship? Or is it just a counter-hegemony against globalization that has to adopt protectionism to safeguard its own industry - the capitalism of the underdog - but not yet in crisis so not openly terroristic towards the working class.

I don't like these analysis that say fascists do X because ideology. I think analysis of fascism should be centered on material conditions. The reason fascists are okay with national independence is because it addresses the economic needs of that nation and they see bourgeois dictatorship as a sort of freedom from imposition from outside markets. The particular mystical ideas that get plastered over to justify this don't really matter. There is this sort of liberal thinking that any country that is economically self sufficient is fascist and I think this misses the mark and comes from a chauvinist view that free market imperialism is progressive.

I googled "fascism and bonapartism" and trotsky has the opposite view, that bonapartism is basically fascism-lite and condemns 'stalinists' for trying to say fascism is different so that pushes me towards confirmation that stalin was probably correct. There are a lot of other marxist writings comparing the two and theres probably something important in Marx's 18th Brumaire that addresses this.

Anonymous 2023-12-24 (Sun) 01:52:45 No.589766

File: 1703382765275-0.jpg (122.38 KB, 512x640, 7759cfc2f5373b98a24e33cc43….jpg)

File: 1703382765275-1.gif (252.18 KB, 478x610, 8caad669be7c1e54c16dd1353a….gif)

CPUSA anon and Graceposter adequately summed up what Fascism is, imo.

It is no longer a mystery.

Time to study Anchovy now.

Anonymous 2023-12-24 (Sun) 02:04:12 No.589767

I'm wondering if the difference between these interpretations come down to treating the nation as something abstract and mystical instead of a material and concrete relation between people. I think a lot of people casually consider the state and the nation as something that is imposed on people by ideology instead of the Marxist analysis that nations and states emerge out of material development of capitalism.

It reminds that fascism is the socialism of fools. Like how libertarians will say that crony corporatism is not real capitalism in an appeal to the transcendental pure form of the ideal free market, discounting that monopoly and regulatory capture are the inevitable outcome of private property relations. In the same way people conceive of the nation or the state, as something separate from and outside capitalism, an objective thing that exists that we can return to or abolish separate from creating the material conditions that overcome the rational necessity of market relations.

Its almost as if all the confusion regarding what is fascism ultimately are just different ways to cope with how failing capitalism can save itself from the necessity of communism with one simple trick. They are completely incoherent because they are based on false assumptions about how capitalism actually operates.

i'm also seeing that FDR and the new deal qualify as bonapartist dirigisme. If he didn't die he could have served more terms and maybe even become emperor. why is Peron an authoritarian and FDR is not? he even did concentration camps. Consider the phrase social democracy the moderate wing of fascism, then is the real difference between social democracy and autarky, besides imperialism of the former denying external resource accumulation of the latter, really just racism?

Anonymous 2023-12-24 (Sun) 02:09:23 No.589768

>>589767
>I think a lot of people casually consider the state and the nation as something that is imposed on people
The Fascist worldview is that the State and Nation is the People, and what makes the People.

You must think in terms of politics in the classical sense: the civic model of the polis or city.

You look at a city, and it is made up of people: this isn't considered another realm apart from the state (like how right libertarians view it).

Anonymous 2023-12-24 (Sun) 02:23:07 No.589769

>>1709529
nah the social connections are commerce and trade. its not inherent its capitalism. the anglosphere is bound together by their joint imperialism.

>>589768
the fascist worldview is nonsense. it doesn't matter how they rationalize the economic relations between people and things, what matters is those relations and how they are materially reproduced by that society.

Anonymous 2023-12-24 (Sun) 02:36:57 No.589770

>>589764
True, but we can claim that they fit particular responses that come out of economic conditions. Lets look at fascism for example, people say that fascism is capitalism in decay, which has some truth to it, but fascism in its original condition came from italy, an agarian country that only barely unified and started its true industrial development. A system which promoted "economic development", colonism, "strong state" national rebirth, imperialism, and etc.
And this is where I think mercantilism and fascism seems to converge. When unified agrarian countries want to reach the top, destroy their rivals, and become a supoerpower, they embrace the same sort policies and mindset which fascism and mercantilism advocate. Mercantilist britain, also believed in a strong state that would develop the manufacturing forces, colonial empire, and imperialism. Mercantilist britain additionally believed that the goal of the state is to fight against opposing nations in the game of zero sum war capitalism. At the same time it also came out during a time where britain experienced a rapid change of national, political and philosphical change to a point a form of "national rebirth" happened in Britain(tho the contexts are different) Meanwhile, other countries counterpart for mercantilism, like say cameralism, also followed simmilar lines.
It seems to me, while fascism and mercantalism aren't exactly the same thing. At the same time they seem to fill the same economic necessity. Aka economic policies where argarian countries seek to reach their place in the top, beat their rivals, and defeat the previous hegemon.

Anonymous 2023-12-24 (Sun) 02:45:59 No.589771

>>1709529
The thing about the Anglosphere is that those were all colonies. They weren't beyond the borders, but within, and gradually became independent.

Anonymous 2023-12-24 (Sun) 02:56:15 No.589772

>>589770
Correction I meant to say italy unified very recently instead of barely

Anonymous 2023-12-24 (Sun) 04:24:17 No.589773

File: 1703391856673-0.png (241.09 KB, 1000x1000, 3 grace.png)

File: 1703391856673-1.jpg (43.48 KB, 350x417, 5892155608_f0e4274350_o.jpg)

File: 1703391856673-2.jpeg (116.47 KB, 1024x553, Sintesi-Fascista-Fascist-….jpeg)

>>589767
>In the same way people conceive of the nation or the state, as something separate from and outside capitalism
What you see in Fascism, I could likewise make the case w/ Absolutism.

Fascism and Absolutism have a unitary view of the State:

Aristotle said that the state and household differ, but Plato said that they differ not: Our respective view is aligned w/ Plato, the State modeled after a household.

Re-consider again, Aristotle, that the commonweal is the convention of these estates, or the estates-general, stressing their independence and the basis of the constitution their mingling.

Whereas the State is unilateral like a household (as Aristotle says, a household is a monarchy under one head) : so for Fascism, the State has a unitary being, is a person.

Fascism is fundamentally at odds w/ the constitutionalism Aristotle inspired, no less than Absolutism.

For this reason, to model the state after a household and being quintessentially no different, Fascism proudly touts that never before had a nation between lead unanimously by a political party.

A political party, after all, becoming a one-party state, has the capacity to become the model of a household: for Fascism, the political party was the vessel to do this. and rejecting the mingling or concord within the constitutionalist tendencies inspired by Aristotle, – the Fascists banned the political parties and made their own singular: the State would be manifest as a unitary person.

ᴉuᴉlossnW:
>A party governing a nation “totalitarianly" is a new departure in history.

As a departure from the Aristotelian mixed constitution, the maxim of freemen that stresses you cannot rule masters like a master is forgone: the estates-general becomes a unitary being, one person; the estates, limited; the State, absolute.

For this reason I believe Fascism believes it can limit the economic status and capitalism. It has this in common with Absolutism: it believes it can draw the lines in the sand.

In order to prove how Fascism shares this view with Absolutism, I'll provide quotes.

Jean Bodin:
>Provided that they [the family] are joined together by the legitimate and limited rule of the father.
>I have said "limited," since this fact chiefly distinguishes the Family from the State
>That the latter [The State] has the final and public authority.
>The former [The Family or Household] limited and private rule.

You must keep in mind, that when Jean Bodin talks about the limited rule of a father and family in comparison to the State, that also applies to economic units and the estates. The State has an unlimited rule, but the estates forming the corporations and businesses and companies under the sovereignty are limited by the State (which is absolute and has the final say).

Hobbes would agree w/ Jean Bodin,

In Leviathan, Hobbes writes for corporations (under the State) are also limited. I think the way Hobbes describes this applies also to other political bodies limited under a sovereign power, not only economic corporations).

<In All Bodies Politique [A Corporation under the State] The Power Of The Representative Is Limited
>In Bodies Politique, the power of the Representative is always Limited: And that which prescribes the limits thereof, is the Power Sovereign. For Power Unlimited, is absolute Sovereignty. And the Sovereign, in every Commonwealth, is the absolute Representative of all the Subjects.

Fascism shares the same view:

ᴉuᴉlossnW:
>For Fascism the State is absolute, the individuals & groups relative.

Giovanni Gentile:
>It must be a will that cannot allow others to limit it. It is, therefore, a sovereign & absolute will. The legitimate will of citizens is that will that corresponds to the will of the State, that organizes itself & manifests itself by the State's central organs

Giovanni Gentile:
>The Fascist State is a sovereign State. Sovereign in fact rather than words. A strong State, which allows no equal or limits, other than the limits it, like any other moral force, imposes on itself.

I'd almost argue that Fascism is like a republican or bourgeois absolutism.

Anonymous 2023-12-24 (Sun) 04:41:27 No.589774

File: 1703392886473-0.jpg (302.52 KB, 1200x882, Revolution_Nationale_propa….jpg)

File: 1703392886473-1.png (11.8 KB, 537x112, Aristotle rule of a househ….png)

What Absolutists denied in Aristotle (& agreed w/ Plato), that a state and household are no different, is the same for why Fascists deny multi-party democracy for a one-party state.

Multi-party democracy represents that convention of freemen and equals that Aristotle talked about.

Whereas a one-party state is a return to the model of a household: the party becomes the well ordered house, then the well ordering of the state as a whole.

Aristotle deems a unitary household authority proper for the economic estate, but not the political estates general: 2nd screencap related.
>The rule of a household (economic) is a monarchy, for every house is under one head.
>Whereas constitutional (political) rule is a government of freemen and equals.

The reason absolutists disagreed w/ Aristotle and preferred Plato's view, that a household and state are no different, is fundamentally because Aristotle makes monarchy improper for the political state: for this reason -constitutional- monarchists also severely hold back on monarchy and promote democracy.

From a monarchist perspective, I think it is the same with Fascism in their choice of a one-party state: except that one head is the corporation of one person as the state, which they supplement w/ the Leader principle.

That is a common misconception about Fascist corporatism btw: the corporation Fascists primarily talk about is the State.

Anonymous 2023-12-24 (Sun) 08:37:07 No.589775

The term 'absolutism' is typically used in conjunction with some European monarchs during the transition from feudalism to capitalism, and monarchs described as absolute can especially be found in the 16th century through the 19th century. Absolutism is characterized by the ending of feudal partitioning, consolidation of power with the monarch, rise of state power, unification of the state laws, and a decrease in the influence of the church and the nobility.

The Westphalian system, also known as Westphalian sovereignty, is a principle in international law that each state has exclusive sovereignty over its territory. The principle developed in Europe after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, based on the state theory of Jean Bodin and the natural law teachings of Hugo Grotius. It underlies the modern international system of sovereign states and is enshrined in the United Nations Charter, which states that "nothing … shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state."

After the collapse of slave society, Feudal Society grew up in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. Here an organisation of violence was needed for defence against outsiders, in just the same way as the tribe had had to defend itself against invaders. However, this organisation for self-defence grew up on the basis of agriculture and a much more developed, class-based division of labour. Feudal society was characterised by an immensely developed class structure built around kinship relations.- Kings, Princes, Barons, Bishops, Monks, Yeomen and Serfs, each had their own, though by no means equal, rights and obligations, including property and well-defined rights of inheritance.

The important thing about feudal society is that the state did not appear to stand above society; feudal society was in a sense one big state, a hierarchy in which everyone had their place, both king and serf; the king and his yeomen were an integral part of the state. The relation of every person to the state was defined through kinship relations just as was their role in the social division of labour.

With the expansion of trade, a class of merchants, with ever increasing wealth, embryonic capital, accumulated outside the feudal system. The introduction of sheep and cattle grazing pushed millions of peasants off their land, to wander the countryside as paupers. Processes of this kind brought about a “bourgeois society” in the midst of feudal society as a realm of economic activity lying outside feudal right, unregulated by the ethics and traditional relations of feudal society, and laid the basis for the Industrial Revolution.

The vast network of kinship relations characteristic of feudal society was shattered; on the one side remained the family, which still survives in the residual nuclear family household of today; on the other, was the political pinnacle of feudal society, the kingly state. This state was successively weakened and undermined by the growth of bourgeois society.

The bourgeoisie had to break the power of the feudal state in order to develop trade and industry and to protect their own class interests, and the first bourgeois revolution was Oliver Cromwell’s English Revolution of 1640; later came the French Revolution of 1789. There was of course nothing democratic or peaceful about these revolutions, by means of which the conditions for capitalist accumulation were created.

The bourgeois theory of the state was developed by Thomas Hobbes, who saw the state as necessary to prevent society descending into “a war of all against all”. For John Locke, the role of the state was to preserve property and personal freedom. Jean-Jacques Rousseau held that the state was based on a social contract binding all members of a society, while Hegel saw the state as an expression of the Universal Will and opposed the idea of the state as a guardian of property, which he saw as the role of Civil Society. Hegel, in his Philosophy of Right, pointed out that the state expressed the conflicts in “civil society”, and its separation from the family and civil society was characteristic of the emergence of modern (i.e. bourgeois) society. For Hegel, the State was the “March of Reason in the World”.

In his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, the young Marx criticised Hegel’s conception as the “society of mutual reconciliation” and insisted that the conflict between labour and capital could not be reconciled and that the state was therefore necessarily an expression of the dominant forces within bourgeois society – capital.

So under capitalism, a special organisation of violence is required to maintain the conditions of legalised theft on which capitalism is based. This state must give the appearance of standing above the conflicts of bourgeois society.

What is a nation? A nation is primarily a community, a definite community of people. This community is not racial, nor is it tribal. The modern Italian nation was formed from Romans, Teutons, Etruscans, Greeks, Arabs, and so forth. The French nation was formed from Gauls, Romans, Britons, Teutons, and so on. The same must be said of the British, the Germans and others, who were formed into nations from people of diverse races and tribes.

Thus, a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people. On the other hand, it is unquestionable that the great empires of Cyrus and Alexander could not be called nations, although they came to be constituted historically and were formed out of different tribes and races. They were not nations, but casual and loosely-connected conglomerations of groups, which fell apart or joined together according to the victories or defeats of this or that conqueror. Thus, a nation is not a casual or ephemeral conglomeration, but a stable community of people.

Anonymous 2023-12-24 (Sun) 16:39:27 No.589776

File: 1703435966996-0.png (277.21 KB, 1000x1050, 10.png)

File: 1703435966996-1.jpg (481.37 KB, 839x1200, E3g-TxuXIAEA6cL.jpg)

>>589775
>the state did not appear to stand above society; feudal society was in a sense one big state
That's what the state is.
It's not that it stands above society; it is the formation of society.

ᴉuᴉlossnW:
>Rather is it the State which creates the nation, conferring volition and therefore real life on a people made aware of their moral unity.

ᴉuᴉlossnW says that the State makes people aware of their moral unity. It is the bond of them all together.
I bring up the civic model because the political body is synonymous with the state.
To think of the governance of the state, you should also think of a city, and the houses constituting it: the houses are a part of the state, be they public or private, in the grand scheme of things – govern people.
It's really no different in feudalism than capitalism: you are being governed, and part of the government is involved in the economy. A city has need of public laws and institutions by default.
In Leviathan, this is all evident when you see the Leviathan above and the City below:
The Leviathan is the City.
It still is the view that the state is society. From the family to all the professions in society. The statist view is that all this belongs to the state: the totalitarian view keeps in mind that society as a whole. As Aristotle says that the whole comes before the part, so the city has all that concerning the buildings and people and families (and all this is what makes society).

ᴉuᴉlossnW:
>The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.
>Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, & the Fascist State – a synthesis & unit inclusive of all values.

Consider this quote.
ᴉuᴉlossnW says, the Fascist State is totalitarian, but also a synthesis and unit inclusive of all values.
The Household as a unit inclusive of all values: because under the household, all professions are considered: a room for every profession.
The City is the grand total sum of all houses:
So ᴉuᴉlossnW says, that the State is the total of all values.

>the king and his yeomen were an integral part of the state
It's important to understand monarchical pre-eminence to truly know why things are as they are.
Monarchy is the rule of one – it has the onerous task of putting the individual (a monarch) on par with the state (all of society constituting).

Aristotle aptly describes it.
>and he who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the whole to the part.

When looking at monarchy from an absolute monarchist perspective, what's important to understand is how to go about justifying this: how is one person equal to myriads of people, in power and capacity? Aristotle says that such a person might as well be a god among men, deeming any individual sufficient for himself to be a god or a beast.

Thomas Hobbes Leviathan was the inevitable recourse for this dilemma: how to put a monarch on par with the state, to be the state, to have the full might of it, and not be a part in relation, but the whole in relation to the part.

What Hobbes does is make the State into a Monarch: It is a corporation of one person. "The People" is a corporation of One Person. And Hobbes even in consideration of Aristotle, just to be safe, dubbed his Leviathan to be a mortal god under the immortal god.

De Jouvenel:
>>Where will it all end? In the destruction of all other command for the benefit of one alone – that of the State. In each man's absolute freedom from every family and social authority, a freedom the price of which is complete submission to the State. In the complete equality as between themselves of all citizens, paid for by their equal abasement before the power of their absolute master – the State. In the disappearance of every constraint which does not emanate from the State, and in denial of every pre-eminence which is not approved by the State. In a word, it ends in the atomization of society, and in the rupture of every private tie linking man and man, whose only bond is their common bondage to the State. The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet: that was their predestined course.

<The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet:

Absolute Monarchists were critical in this view: the extremes of individualism and socialism meet – because absolute monarchists to begin with were tasked with putting the individual (a monarch) in relation of the whole (society / state).

Giovanni Gentile
>Both Nationalism & Fascism place the State at the foundation–for both, the State is not a consequence, but a beginning.
>For nationalists, the State is conceived as prior to the individual.

Aristotle:
>Further, the State is by nature clearly prior to the family & individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part.

Giovanni Gentile:
>For Fascism, on the other hand, the State and the individual are one, or better, perhaps, "State" & "individual" are terms that are inseparable in a necessary synthesis.

Giovanni Gentile:
>It is the State that possesses a concrete will & must be considered a person.
>The State, for us, has an absolute moral value–as that moral substance whose function it is to render all other functions valuable.

Giovanni Gentile:
>The Fascist State, in order to penetrate & direct the consciousness of its citizens, wishes to organize them in national unity; a unity possessed of a soul.
>That unity would manifest itself as a unitary being, possessed of powerful will, & conscious of its own ends.

Giovanni Gentile:
>So that the thought & will of the solitary person, the Duce, becomes the thought and will of the masses.

The rest is the same old /his/ narrative you find (which I'm critical of).

Anonymous 2023-12-24 (Sun) 17:45:53 No.589777

File: 1703439953653-0.png (687.94 KB, 1200x675, ezgif-3-e81021f3d7.png)

File: 1703439953653-1.jpg (89.38 KB, 850x500, walmart-checkout-850x500.jpg)

When I say that the household is a unit inclusive of all values:
You should consider a royal palace:
There is a room for royal guards (soldiers), a royal chapel (priests), a kitchen (for cooks), a laundry room and cleaners (janitors), and a vast array of servants.
Plato would say that a household management doesn't differ from a small city: which has all the households.
Also consider a supermarket:
A supermarket is also a building inclusive of all values. It has all kinds of things and people working there and a vast array of servants.

Household / Economic:
A room for the master's children to be educated with teachers
A kitchen for the cooks to provide food
A room for laundry
A room for books.

The City / Political:
It has schools / universities for people to be educated
It has a restaurant for people to eat and be served by food workers.
It has laundromats for people to clean their clothes
It has libraries for their public books.
Public services where the people can be masters with public servants

Common good and common weal and common wealth and free cities and free market are all stemming from the classical political philosophy. Albeit right libertarians (ancaps in particular) have radically departed, they have their roots in Aristotle – since before it was The Economy, people talked about the Common Wealth (and Commonwealth, unlike The Economy, was synonymous with the Political). Before it was the Free Market, it was Free Cities (meaning, their independence like free men as heads of these states: the ideal being their concord or convention as the basis of the constitution, like they would practice with multi-party democracies today, except in these terms its various estates as parts of a whole, ruled over by their simple components or freemen mingling together). The term Free City before Free Market also shows how right libertarians became dissatisfied with politics and took Aristotle's freemen to the extreme: where they abandon the notion of a state altogether to be wholly independent from each other in a free market: contrary to a mixed constitution that still considered their mingling essential to make a state.

In order to achieve the commonweal or common weal or common wealth (that people sometimes call the Free Market or the Economy in layman's terms), there is a state and public laws to assist them: it's not like the right libertarians say, that the free market resents public laws and institutions – they want a state too, imo, b/c it is the general over particular, that allows them to work in common for the fruition of the city or state, for which purpose it wants public laws and public institutions so one side of the city may correspond to the other side of a city: or parts in a machine can help the whole machine work – same with a city – same with a sovereign state over many cities like a city over houses (we extend this idea with sovereignty). And sovereignty rather than the concord of these parts, is what makes their union possible from an absolutist or fascist pov: it must have a unity to make them whole. The unity of one person is the bonding agentto give them a unitary being (rather than a concord or stress on the mixture or compoundness, which consists of independent heads mingling – it has an indivisible and pure unity, and becomes a unitary being rather than a convention of heads or multi-parties) and where I believe this fundamentally begins to diverge from Aristotle). For this reason I think Fascism likes its leader figures like the Duce, the Caudillo, the Fuhrer.

Anonymous 2023-12-24 (Sun) 17:52:35 No.589778

File: 1703440355556.jpg (136.82 KB, 1116x1567, this_is_for_Bradley_Cooper.jpg)

>>589773
>>589774
>>589775
>>589776
>>589777
Y'know Grace, while disagreeing with your politics I can't say you don't put effort into your posts. Still reading through them, but thanks for your contribution.

Anonymous 2023-12-25 (Mon) 04:16:49 No.589779

>>589423
What is the corporate system which Oswald Mosley keeps talking about? His position on the colonies was that 'adorning backward countries with the garment of western democracy has been a failure", and he advocates for "the establishment of the corporate system in place of western democracy" for India.

Anonymous 2023-12-25 (Mon) 18:08:43 No.589780

File: 1703527723649.jpg (139.06 KB, 768x940, Mosley.jpg)

>>589779
>What is the corporate system which Oswald Mosley keeps talking about?

I think he discusses it a bit in "100 Quesions Asked and Answered" which is in the OP; but let me try to summarize it; in his first few points (from point 10 onwards) he discusses the political structure of his idealized Fascist state. Given this was a pamphlet meant for the British masses, it should be noted some of the stuff he talks about is contextualized to his time/nation.

Firstly he compares his state to liberal parliaments. In point 14 he explicitly states that opposition parties would not be allowed to exist under Fascism, but also gives some more insight into the Fascist political system:

>"It is the deliberate aim of Fascism to bring to an end the Party game which we believe to be the ruin of the Nation. We substitute a new system of action suited to the modern age for the system of talk which belongs to the past. For instance, a Parliament elected under Fascism will be a technical and not a political Parliament. The franchise will be occupational and not geographical. Men and women will vote according to their industry or profession, and not according to their locality. They will vote for people versed in the problems of their industries, and not for professional politicians."

To some extent, Oswald Mosley's Corporate State resembles something of a technocratic state. And to be fair I think in developed countries like America, voting via profession rather than geography may be more representative. So in a corporate state you'd have stuff like steelworkers voting for steelworker representatives to represent them in parliament, rather than people in California electing representatives to represent vague "Californian" interests.

Point 17, Mosley says:

>"The first Act of a Fascist majority will be to confer on Fascist Government the power to act by Order, subject to the right of Parliament at any time to dismiss the Government by vote of censure if it abuses that Power. Thus we shall combine the power of the Government to act with the right of the people to control the Government through the Parliament they have elected."

So to some extent he advocates for checks and balances familiar to liberal parliamentarianism; it's not, in theory, just some vulgar dictatorship where "everything the leader says goes."

Point 19 he elaborates a little more on these checks:

<How do the people retain control of a Fascist Government after giving it ''power of action by order"?
>"(1) The Parliament they have elected can at any time dismiss it by vote of censure. In this respect they retain the same control as they at present possess.
>(2) At the end of a normal lifetime of a Parliament or a lesser period they can themselves dismiss it by a direct vote on universal franchise. The most effective control the people can possess is that any Government will have this possibility in mind.

But back to corporate government under Fascism:
<25. What will be the position of the House of Lords?
>The House of Lords will be replaced by a Second Chamber representing the industry, culture and ability of the Nation. This Second Chamber will also contain representatives whose technical knowledge of science and industry shall be specific and detailed beyond the needs of the House of Commons, and will also contain representatives of Education, Religion, the Services, Science, Art, and every aspect of the people's spiritual life. From this national pool of culture and ability, Government will derive a real assistance.

<26. If voting is on an occupational basis, who will represent that quite large number of people who live on allowance or pensions?
>A special Corporation will be constituted to watch their interests, from which in particular consumers' representatives be selected by Government for service in other Corporations. Ex-Service men will, of course, be conspicuously represented in this Corporation.

<27. Have occupational groups any control over their elected representative on their Corporation?
>Can they dismiss him if he does not fulfil his duties to their satisfaction? Yes, they can dismiss him by their periodic votes at Corporation elections as they can dismiss any other representative or Government itself.

<28. What will be the relation between Parliament and the National Council of Corporations?
>In brief definition, Parliament will deal with the general problems which confront the Nation. They are largely but not entirely the broad aspects of industry. The National Council of Corporations will deal with the more detailed industrial problems and for many years, during the creation of the complete Corporate State, will be very fully occupied with that detail.

<30. What are your proposals for the reform of local Government?
>No nation can be efficient if the Government pulls one way and the local authorities pull another way. What would be the fate of a big business whose head office pursued one policy, and whose branch offices pursued an opposite policy? Yet this is the system under which the country is governed at present, with a consequent increase in the chronic paralysis of Government. The Fascist principle is that the will of the majority of the country as expressed through their elected Government must prevail nationally and locally. Action is impossible until this principle is established. Local authority areas will be greatly enlarged for the sake of efficiency and will be governed during the transitional period as follows.
>The local leader, armed with executive authority and responsibility, will be an M.P. of the majority party in Parliament, selected from, an area with which he is specially acquainted. He will be advised by a council elected locally on an occupational franchise which will provide a technical and non-political council. Thus the majority of M.P.'s will all possess executive function. Instead of hanging about Westminster obstructing in the Chamber and gossiping in the lobby, they will be among their own people doing a job of work. When Parliament meets at regular intervals to review the work of the Government they will be armed with practical suggestions and criticism from firsthand knowledge of local problems. M.P.'s will be converted from windbags into men of action. But electors must be more careful than at present to select men of capacity. They will have not merely to talk but to act.

From then on he discusses corporatist economics in a Fascist state, which I think can broadly be described as Autarky with the goal of balancing production with consumption; I do wonder if he encountered Marx's Capital and tried to create his own novel solution to the Crisis of Overproduction.

Anyways, I'm about to leave. Gonna spend time with the family for Christmas. But I hope my explanation of Mosley's views were helpful. He expresses a deeper commitment to describing Fascist politics than most other Fascist intellectuals.

Anonymous 2023-12-25 (Mon) 18:25:08 No.589781

>>589779
the system of functional constituencies in Hong Kong seems similar to the corporatist idea, where rather than geographical boundaries, you elect representatives in your sector

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_Kong)

Anonymous 2023-12-26 (Tue) 01:41:26 No.589782

>>589781
It's an interesting concept. I also remember learning of neo-fascists in Italy that tried to revive corporatism on a local level; I think part of their outreach was telling youth sports clubs "Hey, you'll have an actual position in local government and can help us craft decisions around sports."

Corporatism as a whole, I think, can be more progressive than even European Social Democracies given it codifies what were once purely voluntary or ancillary groups. Workers having actual representation, even if it's tempered by representation for the bourgeoisie, seems a progressive step away from mere localism.

Also as an aside, while occasionally you'll hear people on the Left talk about getting involved in "local politics" I think a quirk of Capitalism is a growing decoupling of this idea of a "local council." For example, the borders of my own municipality are pretty vague, I'm pretty sure I commute to another town for work, but it's not like I pass a sign saying "You are now entering so and so." There's so much density that it feels like towns are sliding on top of each other.

Beyond that, it also feels like in America, the majority of local politics is in the interest of property owners. I couldn't fucking tell you who "my" local politicians are; when they're elected, where they meet, what they discuss, etcetera. It seems to me like the modern town council exists just for home and small business owners; if you rent then you have no input in the community… which is especially weird when I look at the sheer volume of apartments we got out here. I'm pretty sure most of the population is renting.

Anonymous 2023-12-27 (Wed) 11:11:56 No.589783

I wanted to find out when/how Nazism began to be classified as Fascist, whether it was a creation of Allied propaganda to generally label the new form of enemy nationalist ideologies, or whether Germany was ever recognized as Fascist by either the Nazis or by Fascist theorists (I know ᴉuᴉlossnW didn't have much esteem for Hitler and his party's ideas). And the Montreux Fascist Conference seems like a good diving point.

>>589655
>>589691
I do find it funny to hear their first item was to try and make a coherent international definition of Fascism and they failed.
It seems to me that one of the big dichotomies was between a economic/corporatist basis for national unity, vs. an appeal to race. It's interesting how quickly the concept of Fascism among many of the parties which ended up attending the explicitly Fascist conference, devolved from an non-racial economic ideology into a racial ideology.
Can we say with confidence that groups like the Iron Cross and other non-corporatist participating parties really considered themselves to be Fascists? Or did they adopt the label merely to reflect the successful Italian Fascist movement? It definitely makes sense to me to differentiate totally between Nazis and Fascists, just as it makes sense to differentiate between Marxists and anarchists. Is that proposal too simple and un-nuanced?

Anonymous 2023-12-27 (Wed) 11:18:12 No.589784

>>589782
>I also remember learning of neo-fascists in Italy that tried to revive corporatism on a local level; I think part of their outreach was telling youth sports clubs "Hey, you'll have an actual position in local government and can help us craft decisions around sports."
>Corporatism as a whole, I think, can be more progressive than even European Social Democracies given it codifies what were once purely voluntary or ancillary groups. Workers having actual representation, even if it's tempered by representation for the bourgeoisie, seems a progressive step away from mere localism.

Just like Social Democracy, it's a form of capitalist reform which is (I'm confident to say) objectively better than the status quo, but insufficient to tackle the bigger issues, like capital, and may even provide a deradicalizing effect on attempts at revolution. It's an understandably convincing policy.

Anonymous 2023-12-27 (Wed) 19:48:23 No.589785

File: 1703706503400-0.jpg (32.24 KB, 474x371, Italian Ethiopian War.jpg)

File: 1703706503400-1.jpg (34.32 KB, 419x600, Italian Ethiopian War Two.jpg)

>>589783
>Can we say with confidence that groups like the Iron Cross and other non-corporatist participating parties really considered themselves to be Fascists? Or did they adopt the label merely to reflect the successful Italian Fascist movement? It definitely makes sense to me to differentiate totally between Nazis and Fascists, just as it makes sense to differentiate between Marxists and anarchists. Is that proposal too simple and un-nuanced?

Funny enough when it comes to determining who was Fascist and who was not, ᴉuᴉlossnW invited the Spanish Falange to the conference but, weirdly enough, Jose Antonio wanted to make it clear that the Falange wasn't a Fascist movement… despite wearing blueshirts, doing the Roman salute, etc. Apparently, the whole situation was confusing to him because as far as ᴉuᴉlossnW saw it, the Falange were ideal Fascists.

It should also be remembered that the underlying politics behind creating the conference wasn't just to define Fascism, but to orient Fascism explicitly behind Rome. The Italian Fascists briefly were rivals with the Nazis, in no small part because of the assassination of Dollfus in Austria. Italy wanted to assert that it was going to be the ideological heart of Fascism. To some extent it's almost reminiscent of the Sino-Soviet split or Soviet-Yugoslav split; where you've got these groups falling under some broad ideological umbrella yet still skirmishing over sectional interests.

Regardless I think it's smart to differentiate orthodox Fascism from Nazism; after all we differentiate ourselves between Trotskyists, Maoists, MLs, and Anarchists. To an outside observer the Austin Red Guards are just "Communists" alongside the PSL or CPUSA, but within the movement we can recognize significant differences between us; I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't want to be associated with the zealots leaving severed pigs heads outside DSA members' houses.

Now the follow-up question we have to ask is where Fascism ends and Nazism begins, or vice versa. I think race is a good place to start.

Let's consider the racial policies of various Fascist movements that weren't explicitly in Nazi Germany's orbit. In "100 Questions Asked and Answered" Mosley comments a couple times on the idea of race:

<86. Is it your intention to attempt the education of the Indian masses? If so, how could you prevent their becoming as discontented as the ex-university babu? If not, how will you eradicate the evils and oppressions inherent in the Hindu religion?
>We will certainly attempt the education of the Indian masses, but not on Western lines. The mistake has been the imposition of western culture on oriental life. Indians should be taught a higher ambition than to be a pale imitation of the West. The best minds of India will be only too willing to co-operate in that conception. It is a tragedy that Indians with an older cultural tradition than our own should merely seek to imitate our failures, such as Parliamentary institutions. Discontent arises from this inefficient imitation fostered by Western Parliamentarians and academic ideologues. Fascist teaches pride of race and racial culture. Under Fascism, Indian leaders will arise to carry forward their own traditions and culture within the framework of Empire and the modern world of science.

<93. Do you believe in the racial theories of the German Nazi Movement?
>They are German and we are English, therefore our views and our methods on many subjects will be different. In this particular we possess a great Empire comprising many different races. They possess no such Empire, and their aim is a revived German race, geographically united. We believe profoundly in our own British race which has created the Empire, but we know also it would be bad for the Empire to stigmatise by law other races within it as inferior or outcast. We have created that Empire without race mixture or pollution, by reason of the British social sense and pride of race. That is an achievement unique in history, and we can trust the British genius in this respect in the future as in the past. It should not be necessary to secure British racial purity by act of law. It should only be necessary by education and propaganda to teach the British what racial mixtures are bad. If a Briton understands that some action is bad for his race he will not do it. With the British this is a matter for the teacher rather than the legislator, but if legislation was ever necessary to preserve the race, Fascism would not hesitate to introduce it.

I believe this pamphlet was written around the turning point where Nazism became an increasingly powerful force within the Euro-Fascist movement, and here you've got Mosley trying to thread the needle of racial politics. Essentially dismissing racial purity as an urgent issue whilst acknowledging that it can become an issue later. What's funny is he treats racial issues as a kind of vague public health concern, like not drinking while pregnant. He believes in some kind of "reality" to race but assumes all you need is to tell people "race mixing is bad, m'kay?"

By contrast in "Talks With ᴉuᴉlossnW" which was written before Hitler came to power:

<But if nationalism be independent of forms of government, and also of questions of class, then it must also be independent of questions of race. Do you really believe, as some ethnologists contend, that there are still pure races in Europe? Do you believe that racial unity is a requisite guarantee for vigorous nationalist aspirations? Are you not exposed to the danger that the apologists of Fascism will (like Professor Blank) talk the same nonsense about the Latin races as northern pedants have talked about the "noble blonds" and thereby increase rival pugnacities?"
>"Of course there are no pure races left; not even the Jews have kept their blood unmingled. Successful crossings have often promoted the energy and the beauty of a nation. Race! It is a feeling, not a reality; ninety-five percent. at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today. Amusingly enough, not one of those who have proclaimed the 'nobility' of the Teutonic race was himself a Teuton. Gobineau was a Frenchman; Houston Chamberlain, an Englishman; Woltmann, a Jew; Lapogue, another Frenchman. Chamberlain actually declared that Rome was the capital of chaos. No such doctrine will ever find wide acceptance here in Italy. Professor Blank, whom you quoted just now, is a man with more poetic imagination than science in his composition. National pride has no need of the delirium of race."

I think Jose Antonio made similar claims, that Spanish colonization and crossbreeding actually promoted more energy and dynamism in the "Spanish Race." Of course to an extent the politics of Italy at the time may have dictated their views on race; ᴉuᴉlossnW wanted an Italian Empire that would expand into African and Slavic lands, and funny enough if you look at some propaganda posters from that time, you've got this depiction of White Italians standing alongside Black Ethiopians as seeming equals. It almost seems like old Soviet Propaganda posters despite the fact the Italians were invading the Ethiopians' land.

I think it can be safely said that "Orthodox Fascism" is not opposed to the idea of race, not entirely at least, however it doesn't "center" race as its driving animus. The whole Nazi worldview was one of, not merely the reality of race, but the immediacy of it. The racial questions had to be answered in the here and now, and it was hoped that through heavy handed eugenics programs, genocide, and selective breeding, the Nazis could breed a superior race of men. While ᴉuᴉlossnW thought of things like birthrates in mostly economic terms ("We're gonna need more Italians for the Italian Empire to expand efficiently!") to the Nazis race was this central, all-consuming thing. People were sterilized not just for disabilities, but also for things like "anti-social personalities" or just having panic attacks. It was presumed the weakness was "in the blood" and so it had to be purged. Meanwhile, there were minglings in Hitler Youth camps where young girls and boys would hook up and "continue the race."

It's kind of a spectrum of Nature vs Nurture. Early ᴉuᴉlossnW thought that insofar as "Nature" within races existed, it would just refresh and revitalize a race; think Gauls and Romans mixing to make the modern French. Jose Antonio similarly thought that a bunch of Spaniards hooking up with indigenous populations only brought out the best in both. By contrast Mosley wanted to split the difference, and if you read 100 Questions Asked and Answered, funny enough he handles race with the same sober rationality in which he discusses alcoholism: "Yeah it's probably bad, but all we need is just better education."

Hitler didn't have that. Sterilization was a distinct element of the Nazi regime. They treated human beings like pure-bred hounds and thought methods of science could be employed to create a "better" human. This ties in neatly with their myth of the "Aryan" race, which they tried to codify scientifically. That there was in fact this pure master race in the ancient past, and the goal of the Nazi regime was to revitalize it as best they can through selective breeding/sterilizations. It's all a lot of woo-woo, like how Chiropractors think they can cure any ailment in the human body by cracking the right spinal bone.

Anonymous 2023-12-27 (Wed) 21:18:41 No.589786

>>589785
I suppose what I'm getting at is, is there a grey area between Fascism and Nazism? Or are the completely distinct, only grouped together by either opportunistic association or retrospectively by Western analysis?
To me, it's not like grouping Trots and M-Ls, because they are all self-admittedly Leninists (and Marxists, and communists). It would be like grouping social democrats in with socialists. They don't share the same base at all, they merely share some goals, traits and attitudes. Again, it's absurd as grouping Juche or modern China with Fascism. The similarities exist, and people do attempt to group them, but they're fundamentally not the same.

Anonymous 2023-12-28 (Thu) 00:57:12 No.589787

File: 1703725032525-0.jfif (85.65 KB, 1024x576, Armstrong.jfif)

File: 1703725032525-1.jpg (417.01 KB, 1200x1618, LilNazbol.jpg)

>>589786
>I suppose what I'm getting at is, is there a grey area between Fascism and Nazism? Or are the completely distinct, only grouped together by either opportunistic association or retrospectively by Western analysis?

Y'know this is tough to say with certainty, but I imagine there's a lot of grey area there where they overlap. Hitler certainly considered his movement to be in the Fascist vain, even if ᴉuᴉlossnW initially dismissed him as a joke. It should also be noted that Fascists themselves would claim that theirs is a universal movement with national characteristics; which is to say, the Fascist regime in Italy isn't necessarily supposed to look like the regime in Germany or France, even if they do share similarities. And not to "scry the vibes" but I think a lot of how we come to understand Fascism relies on, by degrees, transitory or contextual factors. ᴉuᴉlossnW and Hitler both portrayed themselves as this kind of singular "will" that the whole Nation would find its highest manifestation within… I was going to write a checklist of all the similarities they have, but I think that'd fall into the same issue of comparing China and Juche with Fascism, getting to the crux of the idea might not be as simple as a formulaic understanding of "If you've got X, Y, and Z you're Fascist."

Hitler and the Nazis did make attempts to mimic Fascist Italy, in some cases earnestly. However I think what distinguished Fascist Italy was that it hadn't purged the Left Wing of Fascism which allowed it a degree of more political versatility. The Nazi regime by contrast was quick to purge its left flank and sold out almost entirely to corporate interests, I can't really think of a situation wherein the Nazi state conflicted with corporate interests; meanwhile capitalists in Italy briefly considered funding groups to overthrow Fascism when a few Left-Wing Fascists took their rhetoric seriously. That's a big distinction: ᴉuᴉlossnW's regime had an underlying tension, one which led to him being briefly couped by landowners and elements of his own party.

How much of this is a genuine ideological distinction? I think we have to consider that Hitler himself wasn't all that smart and didn't have a background in materialist politics. He saw the world as one big Wagner opera; some meaningful racial struggle that'd end in the ascendance of the Aryan superman. He saw a world of conspiracies and powerful narratives, while a lot of the Fascists in Italy were former leftists or otherwise politically conscious people trying to create something new, they were attempting to lay the groundwork for a new kind of political regime. I think Hitler ultimately didn't care about the "how" as long as he could bark orders and have some shiny new wunderwaffe made.

You know, while I was typing this out I was looking through the Oswald Mosley website for whatever material I could find comparing and contrasting elements of Germany and Italy; I remember one a while back that talked a lot about Social Credit (I believe Ezra Pound collaborated on that) but I couldn't find it.

Instead, however, I found an article on Usury written by some modern British Fascist. The most stunning thing is he references/cites Das Kapital, even while ultimately being opposed to Marx.

>"What [Marx] stated of banking and credit in Das Kapital was that dealing with this central issue would derail the historical dialectic of class struggle. Indeed it would, as the hidden factor of usury remains concealed and safe while employees and employers are kept in conflict arguing over crumbs. Hence, Marxist parties regard banking reform as a diversion and as harmful to class struggle, despite Marx’s brief description of ‘fictitious credit’. (Karl Marx, Capital (1894)Vol. III Part V, ‘Division of Profit into Interest and Profit of Enterprise. Interest-Bearing Capital’, Chapter 36). The Left offer banalities of the simplistic ‘Occupy’ movement type, such as ‘tax of the rich’, while leaving the prerogative to create and issue credit to the international banking system."

https://www.oswaldmosley.com/usury-the-primary-issue/

I can't think of any Nazi, either modern or historical, who actually read Marx's works enough to reference or critique it. Hitler's own critique of Marxism derives from never having read Marx but juggling some second-hand conspiracies where Marx's lineage mattered more than anything he wrote, that it was all part of some great millennia-spanning plot to destroy the Aryans.

So if I had to compare them, I think Nazism and Fascism have a lot of grey area where they can cross-pollinate, but Nazism is a less coherent, thought out ideology.

Anonymous 2023-12-28 (Thu) 01:02:08 No.589788

Hmmm. Fascism. What kind of international organizations do fascism make?

Anti-Comintern Pact
Anti-Bolshivek Bloc of Nations
World Anti-Communist League

what does it all mean? what is fascism about? is it about how they believe in the aryan spirit and the body of the nation? i guess we will never know! fascism is so complicated and confusing

Anonymous 2023-12-28 (Thu) 01:41:37 No.589789

>>589788
If you want to understand Roman Paganism, you don’t just look at its early persecution of Christianity, and vice versa. To reduce Fascism to mere anti-communism would defeat the point of even having a term called “Fascist.” It would merely be referring to anything outside of communism.

To refer to Fascism as just the repression of Communism would imply that liberal democracy is either incapable or inefficient at repressing communists, when I think the history of Communism in America shows you can have pretty harsh repression of communism without going explicitly fascist.

Anonymous 2023-12-28 (Thu) 02:00:18 No.589790

I think the concept of "Bourgeois Nations" vs. "Proletarian Nations" is interesting because it seems to me these are the kinds of societies that neoliberalism has strived to create, where you have the Western "Bourgeois Nations" who sit atop the imperialized "Proletarian Nations" who produce everything (yes I know this is not what the terms originally referred to but still). Granted I'm not sure that such a world has been created yet but it may be a possibility.

Anonymous 2023-12-28 (Thu) 02:14:42 No.589791

>>589789
The problem with analysis that doesn't center anti-communism is that it only serves to psychologically distance fascism from capitalism. America is the center of global fascism and trying to come up with nuanced perspectives about how unique and special different fascisms are to excuse that are really just cope. You already live in the Fourth Reich.

Anonymous 2023-12-28 (Thu) 02:16:38 No.589792

>>589789
In fact I would say that "fascism" is itself an attempt to distance capitalism from its crimes. As if state terrorism isn't the logical conclusion of imperialism. In that sense you are correct that there is no point in even having the term.

Anonymous 2023-12-28 (Thu) 04:36:45 No.589793

File: 1703738205367.jpg (146.48 KB, 1024x798, 1662398987736.jpg)

>>589790
Tangentially related, and it's certainly possible it's been discussed earlier in the thread already, but it does perplex me why the broader American right has not more strongly embraced fascism as an ideology. Is it a question of nationalism, that fascism and Nazism are simply seen as too foreign for the American right to rally around? I mean the same tropes, the same ideas seem to exist on the American right and have existed since the rise of fascism, if not before.
It does feel though like the mainstream of the American right has slowly been embracing fascism more openly since at least the 80s as well though.

Anonymous 2023-12-28 (Thu) 07:21:14 No.589794

File: 1703748074053.png (3.64 MB, 1185x1640, 1662090225200.png)

>>589790
>>589793

I think it's because in part the goals, terms, and ideals of Fascists are vastly different from those proposed by American rightoids.

For one, Fascism is a collectivistic ideology; the whole point of fascist corporatism was to prevent class war by collaboration. Everyone is working for one another in these huge national projects, and the idea of class identity can be subordinated to national identity. That's what this whole idea of the "Nation as a body" comes from, where even if you're confined to being the "feet" of the body you're still part of the whole and wont be abandoned by it, but neither can you ever escape it.

Meanwhile the tradition of the American Right is individualism. It's this idea that the individual is sovereign, he doesn't owe anyone anything but that also extends to others: they don't owe anyone anything either. I believe during a hurricane in Florida, DeSantis' wife said something along the lines of "It's not the government's job to help you." And while ghoulish, that's a great summation of the American right wing's ideals.
>"Oh, your town was devastated by an earthquake? Fucking help yourselves, it's not my problem; if you were smart you wouldn't have lived in an earthquake town."

It's all part of our cultural mythos and traditions. We envision the smallholding frontiersman settling the plains or gilded age tycoons taking huge gambles but striking it rich. The fundamental ideal behind a lot of American Right Wing thought is this principle of rugged individualism, and almost Darwinian sorting by the market. I think this finds its highest expression in shit like Atlas Shrugged. For those who haven't read the book, the title comes from a metaphor given by one businessperson to another: you've got Atlas, this one guy, holding the world on his shoulders, and the MC responds by saying she'd tell Atlas to shrug. Who gives a fuck about the world after all, what matters is your comfort, and those moochers are taking it from you.

The Chapos once joked that America wouldn't go Fascist because that would mean it'd need a welfare state, and y'know to some extent there's truth to that. You don't just sign over your liberty to a dictator without at least getting something out of it; even if it's just a stronger social safety net. Fascism means subordinating your individual interests to the nation, which doesn't appeal to the freaks who think its tyranny that the government asks you to not sell meth to kids. The Religious Right may be a little closer to Fascism because they can pursue a social agenda collectively, but there's plenty of times where that agenda negatively impacts business and the military, so they can't exactly rely on them for support.

Anonymous 2023-12-31 (Sun) 18:55:31 No.589795

Figured I’d bump the thread to say a new project I’m working on (mentioned this in another thread) is a manifesto for a fictitious American Fascist organization
>Why?
I think it’s important to understand that a successful Fascism won’t necessarily look like Nazism or use Nazi language. In fact I believe dropping the Nazi stuff is necessary for modern fascism to achieve success. So it’s important for people to be versed in the dog whistles and rhetoric that clever fascists would utilize to seize power.

Anonymous 2023-12-31 (Sun) 19:24:23 No.589796

>>589795
I am of the belief that American fascism will include the theythem army/anti racism/anti transphobia stuff to an extent. well, that american fascism will arise out of a military bonepartist coup that includes those things

Anonymous 2023-12-31 (Sun) 20:01:38 No.589797

>>589795
Have you considered basing it on existing US neo-fash (non-race) manifestos?
Here's one example which was spammed around imageboards in mid-2022, dead now lol: https://web.archive.org/web/20220513232323/https://www.americanreformationfront.org/our-platform

Anonymous 2023-12-31 (Sun) 20:11:32 No.589798

>>589797
This is basically the manifesto of a generic centrist party in Europe.

Anonymous 2023-12-31 (Sun) 22:20:31 No.589799

Found an amusing text by Vidkun Quisling

https://archive.org/details/russia-and-ourselves/page/282/mode/2up

talks about how "Bolshevism" needs to toppled and Russia rebuilt by American and British capital and German labour lol

Fascists are the ultimate capitalists

Anonymous 2023-12-31 (Sun) 23:11:48 No.589800

>>589797
I’ve seen that one and I think it was clever of them to mention baseball and football while not explicitly mentioning fascism. I’m incorporating a variety of sources for the fake manifesto, I think my ultimate goal is to capture the “vibe” of something persuasive to young Americans, something that can get us sleepwalking into Fascism without realizing it.

>>589798
America is kind of in the same weird place Argentina was before Peron where even fucking Fascism can seem radical and almost progressive to our decayed political apparatus.

>>589796
That’ll definitely be an aspect of it, but it won’t be so explicit. I’m thinking it can play off a desire for the culture war to just fucking end.

Anonymous 2024-01-02 (Tue) 01:47:38 No.589801

>>589785
>>589785
>Regardless I think it's smart to differentiate orthodox Fascism from Nazism; after all we differentiate ourselves between Trotskyists, Maoists, MLs, and Anarchists. To an outside observer the Austin Red Guards are just "Communists" alongside the PSL or CPUSA, but within the movement we can recognize significant differences between us; I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't want to be associated with the zealots leaving severed pigs heads outside DSA members' houses.
If anyone is leaving severed heads of pigs outside the houses of DSA members, they are most likely a fed or some kind of adventurist, but the later category predisposes them to being a fed, since it is the adventurists that prefer "terror" (i.e conspiracy), trying to create reasons for which they and everyone else gets arrested, except for a handful who are kept for "breeding" (i.e to lure more people into getting arrested) by the police forces. Adventurism isn't passion because you can be a passionate yet disciplined, professional revolutionary. Adventurism is basically the fixation on doing dangerous things, that is premised on the supremacy of spontaneity, that conceives of propaganda and agitation as separate, that advocates plots, conspiracies, assassinations, in order to "rouse the people up" against the state by showing them that the agents of the state are not so immortal or so powerful but are in-fact merely human. The actions of adventurism are claimed to be "propaganda of the deed." Of course, in the Marxist-Leninist theory, there is no prohibition on all illegal activity, no prohibition on taking risks, but it is always emphasized that we can only build the party once, that if we are not careful, we could build a party that is undisciplined, weak, and is clowned on. We would not only be failing the vibe check but we would fail to inspire the confidence of the working class if we were to not act like leaders of our class. Stop the childish games. Please when you read Lenin and Mao and Stalin and Che and Marx and understand that their words are not scripture, this is not "the word," that this is their experience at the time, these are their observations, some of their points are correct, some are incorrect, some were mistakes, some were highly instructive and contribute a lot to our present struggles, but if you treat their texts like the word, you are not a dialectical materialist, you are a dogmatist, you don't get it at all.

Anonymous 2024-01-02 (Tue) 11:53:50 No.589802

Anyway, there's no real point to this thread.

My point about Quisling says all that needs to be said about fascism. Fash are attack dogs of capital and decadent bourgeois children who should be shot in the back of the head without a second thought.

Anonymous 2024-01-05 (Fri) 17:16:32 No.589803

Is haz the american sorel. (kinda being unironic)

Anonymous 2024-01-05 (Fri) 22:21:37 No.589804

>>589803
I really don’t pay attention to Haz, I see him as more of an entertainer than a thinker.

Meanwhile I think Sorel actually deeply felt his ideological homelessness and his ideas were born from a place of genuine inquiry. To me Haz just seems to be chasing an aesthetic or trend.

Anonymous 2024-01-05 (Fri) 22:42:25 No.589805

>>589803
No.
Sorel was deeply concerned about the nature of the labour movement while haz is just a labour fetishist pseud.

Anonymous 2024-01-06 (Sat) 19:23:04 No.589806

File: 1704568983993.jpg (5.05 KB, 344x147, Sorel.jpg)

>>589805
>>589803
Since we're talking about Sorel, I figure I'd include some interesting excerpts from "A Premature Fascist? Sorel and ᴉuᴉlossnW" from James H Meisel

On Sorel's reaction to WWI:

>Sorel's flirtation with French nationalist and monarchist circles did not last long. In 1914, while Italy was still a neutral in the war, ᴉuᴉlossnW became the socialist patriot and interventionist, whereas Sorel had long since returned to the internationalist camp, decrying imperialistic carnage and restating most emphatically his old, proletarian allegiance.
>If Sorel had been impressed for a moment by Charles Maurras, "the most eminent theorist monarchy has ever had," he soon decided that brilliant pamphleteering alone would not bring about the downfall of the Third Republic. To achieve this purpose, revolutionary action was required.
>Maurras alone among the right-wing radicals had understood that the strong state he envisioned needed a strong social basis, and it is this insight which made his teachings so attractive to quite a few French workers. But would Maurras act? Sorel did not think so. French monarchism had become infected by the spirit of bourgeois reaction. "The real enemies of the Action Francaise," according to Sorel, "stand on the right." After the war which in his opinion was inevitable, the two forces, nationalism and Marxism, would confront each other. "After the foreign war, civil war. It is always like that." Which one of the two extremes would prevail? In France, very likely, neither one. The parliamentary system, Sorel thought, might be able to carry on, after having corrupted every counter force.

I think you get some interesting insights into Sorel. You'll see more on his thoughts on liberal parliamentarianism later in the article, but you get a nice glimpse here. What catches my attention is his idea that the Bourgeois parliaments aren't necessarily "weak", in fact they seem adaptable enough to neuter most challengers to it. I think this is where Sorel flirts with vocal reactionaries like Maurras, perhaps out of some deeper belief that what matters is killing Bourgeois liberalism first. His critique of Action Francaise's enemies being "on the right" relates to this, to Sorel it seems cooperation with liberals appears far more noxious than all the monarchism and nationalism of Maurras.

>"There are," Sorel wrote, "at least as many kinds of socialisms as there are great nations." In Italy, he believed, socialism might evolve along the line of the rural cooperative which was becoming increasingly popular with the poor tenant farmers. Was this perhaps to be the proletarian institution with which they would fight and win the class struggle in Italy? Sorel tended to believe it.

This is another interesting facet of Sorel, which might have more to do with him passing away long before the Cold War established Marxism-Leninism's ideological dominance. While it's become common enough to regard Marxism-Leninism as the sole legitimate form of Socialism (in no small part because the second largest competitor, Social Democracy, has sold out) to Sorel "Socialism" can take many more forms; not necessarily being the same in Italy as Russia.

>In 1912, at a time when his opinion of French syndicalism was very low indeed, he told Jean Variot: "I do not believe that Italy's future will be the result of a normal, evolutionary process. I believe the syndicalist Italian youth, the most serious-minded of Europe, will make Italy greater because it knows best that the socialist theories, infected by democratism, are no longer tabu."

Again it seems to me that Sorel's saved his most biting critique for parliamentarianism. Remember he's also saying this before 1914, when the German Social Democrats rallied to their Nation during WW1; you also see this same attitude in "Reflections on Violence" which again predates the various failures of Social Democracy. You've got this recurring theme of bourgeois republics "infecting" or otherwise "corrupting" the socialist project; which may go towards Sorel's willingness to rub shoulders with various populists and nationalists.

>If he had not fully appreciated the impact of the new nationalism before, now, during the war which he hated and despised, Sorel saw the warmongers of the right unmasked: "I am not extremely surprised by the turn the discussion among Italian nationalists is taking . . . they are behaving like street Arabs…. Italian nationalism reveals, at this occasion its democratic soul just as our Action Francaise has done .. . the majority of our great idealists are at bottom demagogues complaining about democracy when the circulation of their newspapers is disappointing."

On the rise of Fascism:

>In but one published letter, the last he wrote to Croce, did Sorel give credit to ᴉuᴉlossnW's movement, if only for forcing socialism into decisive action before it was too late: "The adventures of fascism are, perhaps, at present, the most original social phenomenon in Italy; they seem to me to surpass by far the combinations of the politicians." It appeared to Sorel that ᴉuᴉlossnW had already accomplished one thing: to instill "in a growing number of rural Socialists" the desire to enter the government. But their leader, Turati, "is hesitating because he is afraid his socialist personnel might not be up to governmental standards; however, he will end by taking the big plunge because even a brief delay would turn his abstention into a gran rifiuto." When Turati finally made up his mind, in July, 1922, it was too late; by then the Socialist party had lost the last remnant of its bargaining power.

Again you get some really good insight into Sorel's personality. He comes across as this extremely devoted and energetic radical. A lot of the critiques he levels at the Socialists of his day and liberal parliaments would be used by Fascists as well. It's this extreme desire to act decisively and passionately. He'd hoped that the immense violence of the Fascists would stir Socialists from apathy and get the revolution started in Italy. Unfortunately this wasn't the case; one could argue the Fascists simply wanted it more and were more decisive.

The rest of the article is also a fascinating insight into Sorel's thoughts on Fascism prior to his death. And it portrays a man conflicted, both in what role he may have had in inspiring Fascism as well as his own thoughts on the matter. At once he praises ᴉuᴉlossnW as a historical figure no less important than Lenin while repeatedly reacting in horror at what the Fascists were accomplishing in Italy. At once he claims that the King is the clandestine leader of Fascism, while admiring how flippantly Fascism ignored "the rules" of Bourgeois liberalism.

>The intellectual attitude of Sorel, the social scientist, would have loved nothing better than to accommodate Sorel, the sympathizer with organized labor, by relegating the new phenomenon, fascism, to the camp of counter-revolution. But somehow, it would not work. The thermidorian ᴉuᴉlossnW defied the scheme of the Reflections. He continued to flout all the rules of the game: by reviling monarchy, by threatening the Church, and in parliament by consistently voting with his enemies against his friends. Was it possible that he, the anti-Socialist, might yet help socialism to win its battle? Not a few Italian radicals thought so at the time. On April 18, 1921, Sorel quoted, without comment, a speculation of his Italian friend, Missiroli to the effect that Socialists and Fascists might arrive at an understanding and unite in a republican front: "The day the call for the republic would be sounded forcefully and taken up in earnest by the Socialists, that day would see the end of all resistance."

Anonymous 2024-01-06 (Sat) 19:36:20 No.589807

>>589806
I like your perspective that socialism was not yet a concrete ideological movement like it became after the soviet union. Fascism was clearly born from one of these "many socialisms" permeating the space of labour movements, which also included peasants.

Anonymous 2024-01-06 (Sat) 20:08:01 No.589808

>>589807
Glad you liked it; it's important to note that during both World Wars, Socialism gradually became more concrete. Whereas before you had Syndicalists, Anarchists, Utopians, and various groups jockeying for power. With the rise of the USSR Marxism-Leninism was put in the leadership position. What was the alternative? For the most part it was Social Democracy.

So where does Fascism fall in the "many socialisms"? I think it can possibly represent a schism in Socialism we don't acknowledge as much. Victor Serge said ᴉuᴉlossnW had managed to win over the most radical and violent of the Socialist party into the Fascist movement; the Social Democrats in Germany similarly had an unacknowledged Nationalist tendency among elements of their base. I think with Fascism you saw men who weren't well versed in theory, but violent and deeply passionate, schism from the "intellectual" wing of the Socialist movement that found a home in bourgeois politics, but lost that radical and violent edge.

Sorel seemed to hope that being confronted with the naked violence of Fascism could get these bookworms to act, because their life was on the line. Sadly, for much of the Italian Socialist leadership, you had people unwilling to pull the trigger.

Anonymous 2024-01-18 (Thu) 02:51:27 No.589809

File: 1705546287524.png (217.03 KB, 320x496, ClipboardImage.png)

Are fascists neurodivergent in some way?

This sounds like a joke post, but it seems to be a common belief about fascism, although usually implied rather than stated outright. The impression you get from most discussion of the topic is that fascism and fascists are a kind of latent tendency always present and waiting for an opportunity to rise. The implication seems to be that some number of people simply are fascistic in their heart and behave in a fascist way opportunistically.

This strikes me as anti-materialist, focused on fascism as some innate or essentialist trait and at the very least distracts from the way that fascism behaves systemically, at a social level. The widespread liberal misunderstanding of fascism is potentially dangerous, since it distracts from the material conditions that actually cause fascism. At the same time it lays the groundwork for scapegoating people for innate differences, which is itself quite fascist in character. And of course, liberalism and fascism are closer to each other than liberals ever want to admit.

Thoughts?

Anonymous 2024-01-18 (Thu) 02:56:24 No.589810

I've been reading actual Italian Fascist literature. Including the "Doctrine of Fascism".
I am more knowledgable about the differences between National Socialism and Fascism/Coporatism. I do not believe in anyway that Fascism was a socialistic ideology, nor a fair one, but I can see that ᴉuᴉlossnW was at least semi-sane in his ideas. Whereas Hitler had no real ambitious economic ideas other than production growth.
Can anyone give me more information on fascist "syndaclism" within its government? How did its national trade unions differ from the Soviets?

Anonymous 2024-01-18 (Thu) 04:07:58 No.589811

>>589809
>Are fascists neurodivergent in some way?

Speaking as a guy with Autism, I'd say there are a lot of Autistic fascists out there. I don't mean that as an insult, I really don't. I think you're correct in recognizing a degree of neurodivergence among modern Fascists (historical ones I'd say were pretty neurotypical).

As for why that is, it's a few things. And it's not anymore intrinsic to Autism than, say, trans women and Hearts of Iron 4. A lot of ASD kids grow up with a really limited social circle, not helped by the fact that neurotypical parents, even educated ones, might not know how to help them. In my case, my parents hid my diagnosis on the assumption I'd just "figure it out" eventually, and while I went to workshops for socializing, I was funnily enough one of the least autistic people there. Without socialization, even if you're an introvert, you start to feel hollow inside. You get angrier, you get inside your own head and nurse grudges until they become a misanthropic hatred against everyone and everything.

Something I've said before is that it feels like a lot of Leftists try their hardest to make appealing ideas sound awful, while Rightists try to make their awful ideas sound appealing. It took a lot for me, personally, to get over some of the "Settlers" rhetoric I saw on the Left, and when Fascists are trying to conflate random twitter libs with leftists, well then you've got a bigger well to draw from. You've got them throwing all these random tweets and clips around, and they're trying to say "See? The Left hates you, it's actively trying to attack you, it's taking over your hobbies and trying to change them to be 'woke'." And a lot of these people can end up genuinely believing it.

More than that, there's this impression that the Right offers a solution to these alienated and neurodivergent young men. It's grift, sure, but that's still more than they think they're getting from the Left. You look up "why can't I get a girlfriend" or "why can't I make friends" or "the epidemic of male loneliness" and you're bound to run into some right-wing manosphere guru talking about how feminism ruined women forever, how the secret to making friends is to act like an abrasive douche, and when they're more lonely than ever because of it, they'll just double-down on bad ideas. Each step of the way, they're told they can't turn back because, again, "The Left hates you, they want you to be miserable and lonely forever. They want to ruin your hobbies for you." Shit, I remember when "annoying Tumblr blogs" was a more common trend, you'd have these really dehumanizing statements published for all the world to see: Men don't feel emotions, White people are so weak and pathetic, and any pushback is met with "Aww, did I make you mad? Cry more."

Fascism can present itself as "ripping the bandage off" in a way Conservatives just can't. Call it politics of revenge. You're a racist for feeling alienated by some "fuck white people" joke? Might as well go hard-R racism. It's a desire to just inflict pain on perceived enemies.
>"Discipline those annoying sluts who just want to ride Chad Thundercock's dick and use you as a piggy bank!"
>"Show those uppity minorities what REAL repression looks like!"
>"Ban all talk of white privilege."
Modern Fascism (really more just modern Nazism) is about a militant war on a set of ideals while reinforcing the old order. Conservatives might try to ban "CRT" but that's a smokescreen for this real, libidinal desire, to just do away with liberalism outright. Take rights away from others, crack the whip, and discipline anyone you perceive as mocking or belittling you. This is a really easy mindset for the neurodivergent to fall into if they lack the ability to conceptualize why the world seems so cold and hostile to them.

>>589810
>I can see that ᴉuᴉlossnW was at least semi-sane in his ideas. Whereas Hitler had no real ambitious economic ideas other than production growth.

Reading ᴉuᴉlossnW's last testament is kind of sobering. Because while at the end, Hitler was an erratic mess, screaming and pointing fingers and talking about how Germany should destroy itself, ᴉuᴉlossnW appears to accept his oncoming execution with some stoicism and looks to the future. What really struck me is he did this really stereotypically Catholic thing and forgave his enemies in his testament.

>Can anyone give me more information on fascist "syndaclism" within its government? How did its national trade unions differ from the Soviets?

It depends on which Fascist you're looking at and which period in Fascist Italy's history. Oswald Mosley wrote extensively about how Fascist Britain would work in theory but he never achieved power so we don't know how it'd work in practice. I would consider looking at Edmondo Rossoni and digging up whatever info you could find on him, he was the head of the General Confederation of Fascist Syndical Corporations which was the main arm of trade unionism in Fascist Italy, he also worked with Bill Haywood in the IWW back in the day (before his Fascist turn) and so his Syndicalist credentials are strong. He read Marx, and advocated worker control of factories once they'd been "trained" by Fascist syndicates in their production.

But finding objective information is difficult because Right Wingers will try to over-emphasize supposed "socialism" in Fascism, while Leftists will focus on Nazism specifically. English translations of material relating to the "Left-Wing Fascists" is difficult to come by. I've found this, which seems decently sourced:
https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/30423

This particular tidbit seems interesting, too:
>Much of the increased membership in Fascist syndicates stemmed from the deteriorating economic conditions that occurred during the long factory strikes in the early 1920s that had been spearheaded by revolutionary socialists. The occupied factories suffered financial problems, a shortage of cash to pay wages, and a slump in productivity levels.”[63] When factory workers started to abandon factories, “red guards” were employed to keep workers at their work stations, in some cases forcing workers to “work under threat of violence.”[64] What also contributed to the success of the Fascist union organizations was their strong affiliation to the Fascist party, a policy that was not taken up by the Italian Socialist Party and other labor confederations.[65]

I hope someone can provide sources on where this "red guards forcing occupied factory workers to work" shit comes from.

Anonymous 2024-01-18 (Thu) 04:11:57 No.589812

>>589811
>ᴉuᴉlossnW appears to accept his oncoming execution with some stoicism and looks to the future. What really struck me is he did this really stereotypically Catholic thing and forgave his enemies in his testament.
Yes I thought that too. Not to mention he also encouraged future-fascists to focus first on rebuilding the country before becoming more vocal in reestablishing the fascist state.
It's almost respectable.
This is something clearly Neo Nazis, Neo Fascists, /pol/lites and the like will never learn about.

Anonymous 2024-01-18 (Thu) 05:07:06 No.589813

File: 1705554426439.jpg (355.2 KB, 750x750, Mussolini.jpg)

>>589812
Well I figure if people are wondering what we're referring to, I may as well post it here.

The Last Testament of Benito ᴉuᴉlossnW

>No true Italian, whatever his political faith, should despair of the future. The resources of our people are immense. If we are able to find a common ground, we will regain our strength before any victor. For this common ground, I would give my life even now, willingly, so long as it is truly marked with real Italian spirit. After defeat, I will be furiously covered by spit, but later I will be cleansed with veneration. Then I will smile, because my people will be at peace with themselves.

>The worker who fulfills his social duty with no other hope than a piece of bread and the health of his family repeats, on a daily basis, an act of heroism. Labourers are infinitely superior to all false prophets who pretend to represent them. These false prophets have an easy time of it due to the insensitivity of those who have the sacrosanct duty of taking care of labourers. It is for this reason that I was, and am, a socialist.

>The accusation of inconsistency is without foundation. My behaviour has always been consistent in the sense of looking to the substance, not the appearance of things. I have adapted myself, socialistically, to reality. As the natural development of society proved more and more of Marx's predictions to be wrong, true socialism retreated from the possible to the probable. The only feasible socialism that can be truly implemented is Corporativism—a merging point, a place of equilibrium and justice, with respect for collective interests.

>The art of politics is very difficult, amongst the most difficult, because it works on matter that cannot be grasped, that wobbles and is more uncertain. Politics works on the spirit of men, which is much more difficult to define because it is subject to change. Most changeable of all is the spirit of Italians. When I am gone, I am sure that historians and psychologists will ask themselves how a single man was able to successfully lead a people like the Italian people. If I had accomplished nothing else, this single work of art would have been sufficient to prevent me from being forgotten. Others have been able to dominate with iron fists, not with consensus and agreement as I managed. My dictatorship was much milder than many democracies that are run by plutocracies. Fascism lost more men than its adversaries, and on 25th of July there were no more than thirty persons in exile.

>When it is written that we are the white guard for the bourgeoisie, it is the vilest of lies. I defended, and I state this with full conviction, workers' progress. Amongst the principal causes for the fall of Fascism I blame the deaf and merciless fight of certain financial and industrial groups who, in their mad egoism, feared and hated Fascism as the worst enemy of their inhuman interests. I must say for the purpose of justice, that Italian capital, the part which is legitimate and holds itself up with the ability of its industry, has always understood the needs of society, even when they required sacrifice to address new labour terms. The humble folk of labour have always loved me and love me still.

>All dictators have always made slaughter of their enemies. I have been the only mild one: a few hundred dead against several thousand. I believe I've ennobled dictatorship. Perhaps I emasculated it, but I rid it of instruments of torture. Stalin sits on a mountain of human bones. Is this bad? I don't regret to have done all the good I've done, even to my adversaries, even enemies who plotted against my life. I've done this through the provision of subsidies that were so frequent as to become stipends, as well as by saving their lives. But if tomorrow they will kill my men, what responsibility will I have for having spared them?

>Stalin is left standing and wins; I fall and lose. History only concerns itself with victors and the volume of their conquests; triumph justifies everything. The French Revolution is studied for its outcomes, while those who died with the guillotine are relegated to the obituaries.

>Nobody will be able to erase twenty years of Fascism from Italy's history. I have no illusion regarding my fate. They will not give me a trial, because they know that from a defendant I would become a prosecutor. They will probably murder me and then claim that I committed suicide, overcome by remorse. He who fears death has never lived, and I have lived, perhaps even too much. Life is nothing more than an intersection between two eternities: the past and the future. As long as my star shone, I was enough for all. Now that it fades, everybody is not enough for me. I will go where destiny will want me because I always did what fate requested of me.

>Fascists who will remain faithful to principles will need to be exemplary citizens. They must respect the laws that the people will give, and cooperate loyally with legitimate authorities to help them heal, as quickly as possible, the fatherland's wounds. Whomever will behave differently will demonstrate that he no longer supports the fatherland when he has to serve it from below. Fascists, in other words, will have to act out of passion, not resentment. From their behaviour will depend a speedier historical rehabilitation of Fascism. Because now it is night, but later, day will break.

That last bit is fascinating. Hitler acted like Germany and the world would end with him, ᴉuᴉlossnW looked to the future. His call to "serve the fatherland from below" also stands in stark contrast to neo-nazis who, let's be real, seem to hate their nations just as slightly less than they hate everything else.

<Last Thoughts of the Duce

>It is not the faith that arrives at the moment of death which sustains me, it is the faith of my childhood and of my life which demands that I must believe, even if I might have reason to doubt. I don't know if the Italian people will ever read these notes of mine. I would like to believe they will, to give them the opportunity to accept my last thought as a confession of faith. I also don't know if men will provide me with sufficient time to finish writing. Twenty-two years of governing do not make me, by human judgment, worthy of living another twenty-four hours.

>I believed in the victory of our arms, as I believe in God, our Lord, but even more I believe in the eternal. Now defeat provides the test-bench upon which we must show the whole world the strength and enormity of our hearts. It is now a fact that the war is lost, but it is also certain that one is not defeated until one calls oneself defeated. This Italians will need to remember, if, under foreign domination, they begin to feel the undeniable awakening of their spirits and their conscience.

>Today I forgive those who don't forgive me and condemn me, thereby condemning themselves. I think of all those to whom it will be denied for years to love and suffer for the fatherland, and I would like them to feel not only witnesses of a defeat, but also bearers of a rebirth. After the time of terrible hate and revenge, there will be the time of reason. Thus, the sense of dignity and honour will be regained and I am certain that the Italians of tomorrow will be able to evaluate, serenely, the causes of the tragic hour that I am living. If this is the last day of my existence, I want to extend my forgiveness even to those who abandoned me and those who betrayed me, much as I have forgiven the king for his weakness.

Anonymous 2024-01-18 (Thu) 05:07:59 No.589814

>>589813
ᴉuᴉlossnW fucking hated Hitler.

Anonymous 2024-01-18 (Thu) 06:20:36 No.589815

>>589677
>Franco in Spain re-instituted serfdom and actual peasant slavery to the large landowners.
Where can I read more about this? Sounds interesting.

Anonymous 2024-01-18 (Thu) 06:25:15 No.589816

>>589815
It was literally one of the main reasons why the civil war was fought.
Spain was similar to Russia in the sense it was slow to the liberal reforms of most of the rest of Europe. Huge portions of the rural landscape consisted of farmland owned by landowners where the workers basically were paid whatever the landowner was willing to give that day, and the church was part of that structure.
The objective of the Republic was to get rid of this gradually. It was too slow and large strikes and rebellions happened because of it, which resulted in the republic sending Franco, an army officer, to deal with them harshly.
The breaking point was when the Popular Front won the election, barely, with one seat in the lead to CEDA, a reactionary monarchist party.
This meant a coalition government, which the communists refused to accept. Which resulted in a highened fear of revolution. Thus, the secret wink wink nudge nudge of the army to stir rebellion.

Anonymous 2024-01-18 (Thu) 07:25:16 No.589817

>>589813
>Fascists who will remain faithful to principles will need to be exemplary citizens. They must respect the laws that the people will give, and cooperate loyally with legitimate authorities to help them heal, as quickly as possible, the fatherland's wounds. Whomever will behave differently will demonstrate that he no longer supports the fatherland when he has to serve it from below. Fascists, in other words, will have to act out of passion, not resentment. From their behaviour will depend a speedier historical rehabilitation of Fascism. Because now it is night, but later, day will break.
Hey, that's exactly what happened. They became cops, they became judges, lawyers, military and other respectable people in service of NATO interests in Italy. And to thank them for their selfless service, they were slowly rehabilitated.

Anonymous 2024-01-18 (Thu) 07:26:50 No.589818

>>589817
I think he meant more the infastructure of the nation but oh well

Anonymous 2024-01-18 (Thu) 07:28:27 No.589819

>>589818
And what are cops, soldiers and judges if not the infrastructure of the nation?

Anonymous 2024-01-18 (Thu) 07:28:52 No.589820

>>589819
cops don't really rebuild industry

Anonymous 2024-01-18 (Thu) 07:30:13 No.589821

>>589820
cops makes sure that those who actually work are kept in line.

Anonymous 2024-01-18 (Thu) 10:56:47 No.589822

>>589638
So the Sun King was a fascist ? He was the founder of absolutism and believed in the absolute power of the state (himself).
Not every dictator is a fascist, not even "totalitarians" No, Fascism has a core and necessary element of Nationalism and imperialism, fascists wish to recreated a past that never existed where their nation dominated over the rest, it's a common point of all fascists regimes

Anonymous 2024-01-19 (Fri) 21:44:54 No.589823

>>589817
Kind of Macabre once you think about it. From what I understand Italy didn't have much of a program equivalent to "Denazification" and so now you have modern politicians like Berlusconi praising ᴉuᴉlossnW for "doing a little good" or something along those lines.

Again this all reinforces my point that Fascism, as opposed to Nazism, can adapt and is a far more dangerous opponent.

Anonymous 2024-01-19 (Fri) 21:48:38 No.589824

>>589823
Because ᴉuᴉlossnW was a mediator. Ironically, by being a lesser evil and more open than Hitler his influence has continued to stick much more than Hitlers.

Anonymous 2024-01-19 (Fri) 22:33:14 No.589825

>>589823
>From what I understand Italy didn't have much of a program equivalent to "Denazification"
We didn't. There was no clean up of the institutions, especially police. This also lead to some awkward moments: like when our former President Pertini (antifascist) visited a prison and the warden was his jailor during fascism.
Oh and the other day our Supreme Court ruled that it's ok to do the roman salute if you aren't planning on rebuilding the national fascist party.

Anonymous 2024-01-19 (Fri) 22:50:50 No.589826

>>589825
That’s fucking wild. I remember seeing a picture of ᴉuᴉlossnW’s grave and it kind of shocked me how reverent the whole thing looked; almost comparable to Lenin’s mausoleum—though smaller looking.

If you’re an Italianon I’m wondering if you’ve had any encounter with or thoughts on Nicola Bombacci and his writings; or if not that, anything you’ve got on the Fascist period in Italy would be interesting.

Anonymous 2024-01-19 (Fri) 23:57:54 No.589827

>>589826
I've had an encounter with him.

Anonymous 2024-01-20 (Sat) 08:31:05 No.589828

>>589826
>That’s fucking wild. I remember seeing a picture of ᴉuᴉlossnW’s grave and it kind of shocked me how reverent the whole thing looked; almost comparable to Lenin’s mausoleum—though smaller looking.
It's effectively a mausoleum. Predappio itself is an amusement park for fascists. All under the sun.
>If you’re an Italianon I’m wondering if you’ve had any encounter with or thoughts on Nicola Bombacci and his writings
The only thing more pathetic than Bombacci are his simps. "Ooohh, the rump state supported by nazi germany would have achieved full communism if it wasn't for those damn partizans!". All the "socialist pandering" of fascists like D'Annunzio and Bombacci is limited to empty platitudes.

Anonymous 2024-01-20 (Sat) 15:47:52 No.589829

>>589770
Italy at the time had a strong union movement that industrialists wished to crush, and a relatively strong socialist movement. There were socialists and communists in parliament when ᴉuᴉlossnW came to power. So I think "capitalism in decay" stands, so long as its understood that fascism is an attempt to stave off the decline of bourgeois power and not merely a symptom of the decay - obvious in how many times fascism returned to bourgeois democracy (i.e. capitalism can outlive fascism).

Anonymous 2024-01-21 (Sun) 13:27:20 No.589830

File: 1705843640460.jpg (6.68 KB, 130x148, goncern.jpg)

>>589809
>The implication seems to be that some number of people simply are fascistic in their heart and behave in a fascist way opportunistically.
>people simply are fascistic in their heart
What does this even mean?

It sounds not only anti-material but ignorant of human psychology 101.
If they're talking about disturbing obedience to authority in general, they should look at 'banality of evil' case studies like the Milgram experiments. If they're talking about idolization they should look at celebrity culture or religion.

>At the same time it lays the groundwork for scapegoating people for innate differences, which is itself quite fascist in character.
Scapegoating isn't a unique trait of fascism. I appreciate the irony and it's a nice pointed critique of harmful attitudes embedded in that 'fascism is a neurodivergence' theory, but in the academic context of this conversation, that line is fallacious - one could similarly say 'anti-liberalism is quite fascist in character', right? It's inappropriate to draw mere traits of an ideology out of context to derive a 'character' of the ideology, that's how people end up thinking the Democrat Party of America are socialist.

Anonymous 2024-01-21 (Sun) 13:58:39 No.589831

File: 1705845519483.png (352.18 KB, 720x713, ab2ed65392ed6e4000d406d906….png)

Anonymous 2024-01-21 (Sun) 14:51:58 No.589832

>>589831
Was mussolini progressive?

Anonymous 2024-01-21 (Sun) 14:53:23 No.589833

>>589832
It depends on how you see it. Compared to the system that came before, fascism was indeed progressive.

Anonymous 2024-01-21 (Sun) 15:01:33 No.589834

File: 1705849293027.jpg (57.03 KB, 623x599, c06a6d5c79637858bf1713390a….jpg)

>>589833
So while mussolini was trying to figure out a new way of doing things, hitler just shit the bed with schizo autism?
You know, i saw this one report of fascists today in italy who are localists, trying to help people, etc while nazis glorify school shootings and spam nonsense everywhere. It seems like a drift between fascists and nazis would definitely improve things politically since a lot of fascists are just populists.

Anonymous 2024-01-21 (Sun) 15:11:32 No.589835

>>589834
ᴉuᴉlossnW isn't innocent, he was obsessed with turning Italy into a true European Imperialist power, even if he arguably progressed the colonies he controlled too. But his philosophy was understandable and indeed progressive, despite the fact his economic ideas were concessional to the ruling classes. Weirdly similar to what democratic socialists believe, albeit with more uniforms and militarism.
Nazism on the otherhand offered nothing really new. Its only real revolutionary act was trying to transform German culture and identity into something it had never been before. It wasn't in anyway revolutionary from an economic perspective, even the Autobahn was just a continuation of a project started in the 1920s. And there was a real chance ᴉuᴉlossnW and Hitler would fight each other as ᴉuᴉlossnW strongly believed in the balance of power.

Anonymous 2024-01-21 (Sun) 15:14:45 No.589836

File: 1705850085414.jpg (156.2 KB, 1280x720, coverlg.jpg)

>>589833
>>589834
>You know, i saw this one report of fascists today in italy who are localists, trying to help people, etc while nazis glorify school shootings and spam nonsense everywhere.
We Italians are truly the best at making propaganda.

Anonymous 2024-01-21 (Sun) 15:19:02 No.589837

File: 1705850342604.png (69.15 KB, 320x541, 1666952375677.png)

Italian politics confuses me immensly

Anonymous 2024-01-21 (Sun) 15:20:22 No.589838

>>589837
This isn't even the most confusing thing.

Anonymous 2024-01-21 (Sun) 15:21:49 No.589839

File: 1705850509339.png (717.27 KB, 499x711, der freemason.png)

>>589837
>Supported by: P2 Masonic Lodge

Anonymous 2024-01-21 (Sun) 15:24:39 No.589840

>>589839
Masons are protestants so it makes sense they would manipulate a catholic society

Anonymous 2024-01-21 (Sun) 15:25:29 No.589841

>>589840
>masons are protestant
post-protestant, they're diests.

Anonymous 2024-01-21 (Sun) 18:15:28 No.589842

>>589685
That's a lie. The decrease in wages was because Hitler and the Nazis wanted to fuel a re-armament program to start their desired war, and that necessitated cutbacks in the standard of living for workers, just like how America today spends trillions of dollars on their military and assorted private contractors while letting their citizens die on the streets from drugs and whatever else.

Anonymous 2024-01-21 (Sun) 19:56:05 No.589843

>>589832
As >>589833 said it really depends on how you see it, he could maybe be seen as a Lee Kuan Yew or Park Chung Hee figure, in that he focused on the internal development of Italy (at least in the early years, his biggest mistake was getting into WWII) and Fascism itself was attempting this balancing act between all the different factions in Italy: arresting socialists here, hiring them there, nationalizing banks, conceding to landlords. Whether ᴉuᴉlossnW would've had the energy to keep the balancing act up through the post-war years is anyone's guess. If I had to throw a dart at the board, I think a Fascist Italy that didn't enter WWII possibly could've been the new center of the Non-Aligned Movement, or maybe share the title with Yugoslavia. It seems like it'd personally be in character for him.

>>589834
>You know, i saw this one report of fascists today in italy who are localists, trying to help people, etc while nazis glorify school shootings and spam nonsense everywhere. It seems like a drift between fascists and nazis would definitely improve things politically since a lot of fascists are just populists.

One has to wonder if a drift is currently possible. Numbers wise I believe the number of neo-nazis currently outweighs the number of neo-fascists. I've seen Fascist blogs where they acknowledged the current "base" of Fascism is LARPers and freaks. George Lincoln Rockwell, interestingly enough, claimed that he had a lot of support from middle-class whites, but none of them wanted to be associated with "Nazis" so he dropped the suit, picked up the brownshirt, and recruited from a bunch of freaks who he hoped he could train into discipline later. But that could change if they get someone intelligent enough on their side.

Anonymous 2024-01-21 (Sun) 20:09:49 No.589844

>>589843
>>589836
>>589834

One of my big takeaways from this thread is that the ᴉuᴉlossnW style fascists are way more competent and threatening than neo-nazis. In some ways im glad the face of fascism for most people is a buncha atomwaffen tweakers and not corporatists who actually interact with the community

Anonymous 2024-01-21 (Sun) 20:18:22 No.589845

>>589843
After reading and listening to intelligent right wingers i am always reminded by the company they begrudgingly keep, that fascism always appeals to the lowest common denominator, and the possibility of a robust right wing intelligensia is stifled out by this social base.
On the left there is also vulgarity and naivety, but its not as mindless or dangerous, because it often comes from a place of compassion instead of domination. But i think this shows the shape of history too, where being right wing is increasingly about giving license to cruelty and the left is swallowing up the good-hearted.
But still, i have empathy for the right wing thinker who must undoubtedly feel trapped in his camp.

Anonymous 2024-01-21 (Sun) 20:18:24 No.589846

>>589843
>Fascism itself was attempting this balancing act between all the different factions in Italy: arresting socialists here, hiring them there, nationalizing banks, conceding to landlords
Tbh when considering the "leftist" elements of Italian fascist policy it's really worth keeping Gramsci's theory of "Caesarism" in mind. Under this reading fascism in Italy represented an intervention by a previously dormant social formation (mainly the petty bourgeoisie and veterans) that were endowed with an enhanced degree of agency as a result of the bourgeoisie and proletariat mutually bleeding one another and fighting each other to a standstill during the Bienno Rosso. This allowed the fascists to constitute a "third force" which seized power and imposed a compromise on the two sides, albeit one that is ultimately reactionary because it preserves capitalism and bourgeois dominance.

Anonymous 2024-01-21 (Sun) 20:24:09 No.589847

>>589843
yeah and theres an argument to be made that park chung hee adopted a lot of fascist economic, political and cultural beliefs. Hell he and his buddies were straight out showa japan collaborators that were taught in japanese manchuko academies schools or etc. They also believed in the showa japan system. The problem though with park chung hee is that south korea was a vassel of the usa, and a quite small one.
Which leads into this comment here >>589844
Because Im also really glad that mussolini style fascism didn't go the direction park chung hee did, and thus probably become the face of fascism. Unlike park, mussolini italy would have probably formed a noticable bloc during the cold war that would be as the other anon said would have been the center of a non aligned movement. ANd who knows the long term political and cultural impacts that would have brought. Its a good thing mussolini italy went the direction it did.

Anonymous 2024-01-21 (Sun) 20:46:59 No.589848

>>589844
Just look at how fascism was re-normalized in Italy.

Anonymous 2024-01-21 (Sun) 23:00:45 No.589849

>>589846
Yknow the interesting thing about that hypothesis from Gramsci is that it ᴉuᴉlossnW himself somewhat predicted a new vanguard emerging in “Trenchocracy”, specifically the veterans of the First World War. It makes one wonder whether the soldiery can be considered a distinct social class existing outside of the traditional Marxist understanding.

That aside, I think a lot of us forget that the relationship between Fascists and big Capitalists is tense at times; there’s this attitude that since the traditional understanding of Fascism is “capitalism in decay” that means the Capitalists actually like the fascists. While that can be true in the case of the Nazis, for ᴉuᴉlossnW’s Italy you had this underlying tension that exploded into the open during the later stages of WW2; even in the early fascist period you had industrialists quietly talk about supporting the communists to undermine the fascists (this was when the Fascist labor syndicates were at their peak)

Anonymous 2024-01-22 (Mon) 01:25:28 No.589850

>>589845
I know I talked about Mosley extensively here already, but he’s the best example of what you’re talking about and it’s why I find him an interesting figure. He was a genuinely intelligent fellow and I’d be lying if I didn’t say he had charisma. You read most of his work and the majority of it is on economics. Shit I think someone mentioned here he openly argued for the Spanish Falange to ally with the CNT-FAI, personally I don’t think he was any more racist than Winston “Starve the Bengalis till they stop breeding” Churchill. Yet for all that intelligence his base pushed and pushed to embrace antisemitism like the Nazis, and eventually he conceded. Funny enough, looking through a list of known BUF members, and one of their earlier members was a Jewish professional boxer who left after it became too antisemitic. Whatever the original intentions of the movement, a mob of thugs dragged it towards their most ghoulish beliefs.

It might serve as a lesson for vulgar populists that even if you successfully create some cult of personality around you, you won’t control the base in its entirety. Even if you just want to rationalize the economy, there’ll be idiots out there screeching for more racism.

Anonymous 2024-01-28 (Sun) 11:29:41 No.589851

File: 1706441381137.jpg (72.1 KB, 976x549, unity 'follow your leader ….jpg)

>>589850
I haven't really sorted out the timeline of all this in my head, but I wonder if just the cultural association of Fascism with Hitler and Hitlerism (rather than ᴉuᴉlossnW's less sensational ideas) was a magnet, attracting the repulsive and repelling the sane.
Growing up within deep liberalism, it took me a couple of years to even begin to read anything praising Communism, that evil anti-democracy dictatorship ideology that purged disagreers and was incompetent and starved millions!!1!
Now imagine the first thing you hear about an ideology is 'they want to invade and genocide all these groups', then you'll just end up getting what we see now with neo-Nazism, where even a dumbass NotSoc who actually looked into Nazism will feel surrounded by idiots who think it's just 'racism: the ideology' and not muh 25 points.

Anonymous 2024-01-29 (Mon) 02:34:22 No.589852

>>589851
Honestly, yeah. Nazism’s evils are well known, the cultural association with Fascism and Nazism basically means even the most earnest, intellectual fascist is gonna be dealing with freaks and cowards 24/7. It’s kind of interesting listening to Mosley’s later Cold War speeches because you can still tell he’s aiming for a “normie” audience when compared to, for example, George Lincoln Rockwell getting up in a Nazi uniform and screeching Heil Hitler.

Like a lot of Mosley’s racism is kind of restrained by this genteel attitude. Closest I could compare it to would be that soft spoken guy who runs American Renaissance. Like it’s especially amazing because Mosley talks about “wonderful diversity” as an argument for segregation. His attitude towards the Chinese is some mix of rational and paternalistic, blaming unrestrained capitalism for China going communist and expressing sympathy for sweatshop workers. He tries to pull a canard that a lot of clever racists do, too, where he says “loving your race doesn’t mean you hate others, anymore than loving your family means you hate other families.”

You compare that to the American Nazi movement and their literature, like Turner Diaries, and you see how the American movement is cartoonishly evil and overcome with slavish admiration for Hitler—in the turner diaries I believe the birth of Hitler replaces the birth of Jesus for “year zero” of the new calendar.

Anonymous 2024-01-29 (Mon) 08:09:53 No.589853

Theres a lack of analysis on showa japan, here. Maybe I should write multiple paragraphs here to describe what showa japan fascism was like. Especially since it shared numerous characteristics with other fascist states including the mass movement, and populism.

Anonymous 2024-01-29 (Mon) 09:24:36 No.589854

>>589853
Please do

Anonymous 2024-01-29 (Mon) 10:13:13 No.589855

>>589852
I find it interesting how you used the description 'cartoonishly evil'. To reiterate what I've said in other threads; neo-Nazis in the US, UK, Aus, etc. are (at least initially) attracted to Nazism through the lens of liberal propaganda. That is how Hitler is initially presented to us, with Nazism quite directly defining cartoon evil in many ways.
To be attracted to Nazism, you essentially have to see a dumb cartoon evil villain known for militarism and genocide, then say 'that's good'. No-one is attracted to Hitler because of his generosity or economic prowess, the only people exposed to those myths are those trying to rationalize Hitler's garbage run as the Fuhrer. It's basically cartoonish ultraracism. It attracts distilled idiots.

Anonymous 2024-01-29 (Mon) 18:45:26 No.589856

File: 1706553926062.jpg (126.69 KB, 1252x719, bus.jpg)

>>589855
>That is how Hitler is initially presented to us, with Nazism quite directly defining cartoon evil in many ways.

So a lot of people don't realize how much the horrors of Nazism changed world culture, and I feel kind of obligated to explain a few things. So way back in the day, before Vatican II, it was actually common during Christmas celebrations to "pray for the conversion of the Jews" in Catholicism. After the horrors of the Holocaust became known, that was quietly dropped from church traditions.
Prior to WWII, when looking for "generic evil historical figure" to compare people to, it was actually pretty popular to use the Pharoah in the Old Testament; this is 'cause it was a common point of reference and story that everyone would understand as a bad guy. Again: the Nazis changed all that. Hitler's actions were so widely condemned that all the other historical "bad guys" used as references, Atilla, Genghis Khan, the Pharoah, were supplanted by him.

>To be attracted to Nazism, you essentially have to see a dumb cartoon evil villain known for militarism and genocide, then say 'that's good'. No-one is attracted to Hitler because of his generosity or economic prowess, the only people exposed to those myths are those trying to rationalize Hitler's garbage run as the Fuhrer. It's basically cartoonish ultraracism. It attracts distilled idiots.

Another thing is that I think the cartoonish evil is in fact a form of social acting out, and it's also why so many of these right wingers go on to become mass shooters. A lot of them are people who are otherwise ignored, lonely, or bored I think. They've "fallen through the cracks" and can subconsciously recognize that while they have nothing in their personality that can attract people to them, they can at least outwardly repel people through obscene public displays. Better to be acknowledged and hated than ignored, they think. You'll never feel an open hand on your shoulder, but you'll at least experience a fist against your face. It's a sensation, it's something.

And again this is where Mosley is an interesting person to observe, because he was an actual Fascist. He had goals, beliefs even, and so it was extremely important to him that he rehabilitate Fascist ideals after the war. I believe he was one of the earliest public figures to claim that the Holocaust was actually the result of allied bombing of railways; which you'll hear some Holocaust denialists use to this day. In his interview with William F. Buckley he'd claim that the Holocaust possibly could've been avoided if the allies just didn't go to war with Hitler. Even in speeches where he opposes race mixing, he talks about encouraging national development in Africa and Asia, ending global famine, so on.

He denied the Holocaust because he recognized how morally abhorrent it was and saw that as a setback to the rehabilitation of Fascism. Modern Nazis deny the Holocaust because they see it as something they can desecrate; it's in the vein of "it didn't happen but it should've anyways." Oswald Mosley described the colonized people of Asia as "the poor devils in China, India, and Japan" while George Lincoln Rockwell toured around the country in the fucking "Hate Bus", like that's literally what he called it. Mosley actually had politics, modern Nazis hate the world and themselves.

Anonymous 2024-01-29 (Mon) 19:30:14 No.589857

>>589856
> Mosley actually had politics, modern Nazis hate the world and themselves.

Not only is this an accurate statement but you can apply this to approximately 40 to 50% of online communists in comparison to actual historical communists

Anonymous 2024-01-29 (Mon) 22:58:55 No.589858

>>589856
I always find it interesting that people think 1984 was about Stalin when it was about Mosley.

Ingsoc -> English Socialism -> National Socialism(in England)

Anonymous 2024-01-29 (Mon) 23:10:03 No.589859

I need to be the cpusa anon but for showa statism and other east asian forms of fascism (park, black shirts, etc)
This thread is too fucking western centric, gotta bring out my books that study east asian fascism.

Anonymous 2024-01-29 (Mon) 23:23:51 No.589860

>>589859
I hereby grant you the right of being known as CPUSA Anon East.

>>589858
To be honest, I think “ingsoc” had a variety of inspirations, and in theory at least it was supposed to be about “totalitarianism”

Funny enough, as I understand it, the fear of Mosley forming a “King’s Party” was supposedly a partial inspiration for parts of Tolkien’s Silmarillion. I do kind of wonder if he read any of Tolkien’s works, cause he published some book reviews before.

Anonymous 2024-01-30 (Tue) 00:39:33 No.589861

Fascism literally is in most of it's manifestations the attempt of creating a total, holistic, organic political civilization, synthetizing the state apparatus with the "social body" and civil society and the economy at large through (often vertical) unions, corporations, party delegations and other guild-like associations (in italy's late stage these were even intended to have significant self-government). Regarding some potentisl red-brown alliance, fascists try to avoid it thinking they would be purged, and socialists do it for the exact same reason, while the actual point of disagreement lies in both ideologies political theology that juxtaposes them despite their pragmatic, material similarities. The vast majority of fascists don't view private property as the best thing ever and could easily do away with it.

Anonymous 2024-01-30 (Tue) 00:50:53 No.589862

>>589856
> Mosley actually had politics, modern Nazis hate the world and themselves.

Modern nazis are not nazis, they're libertarian white supremacists and tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists who think that Hitler was all about fighting the illuminati. If you read Rudolf Jung, Werner Sombart or Gottfried Feder, you'll see very little similarity to modern nazis, specially american nazis. Rockwell was a libertarian white nationalist who co-opted nazi symbols too. Nazism itself was a german-exclusive historical, political, and sociological phenomenon that made no sense in the USA or the rest of the world for that matter.

Anonymous 2024-01-30 (Tue) 01:22:24 No.589863

File: 1706577744478.jpg (79.55 KB, 850x400, quote-i-m-so-despondent-ab….jpg)

>>589856
>Mosley actually had politics, modern Nazis hate the world and themselves.
So did the OG's
>>589862
This is a better answer.

Anonymous 2024-01-30 (Tue) 03:03:36 No.589864

File: 1706583816684.jpg (66.53 KB, 850x400, quote-my-measures-will-not….jpg)

>>589863
Nazism is just nihilism

Anonymous 2024-02-01 (Thu) 09:00:15 No.589865

File: 1706778015286.jpg (417.01 KB, 1200x1618, LilNazbol.jpg)

>>589861
To be honest, and this might sound controversial, it seems to me that Fascists are more accepting of the notion of "Red-Brown Alliances" than Communists; the term itself came from a Fascist writer (Francis Parker Yockey) after all.

As for why that is, I think it's because of the idealistic elements of Fascism. They can convince themselves of the right ideas for the wrong reasons; they're not necessarily slavishly committed to Capitalism as an economic system, as they are to the "frills", the idealistic stuff that helps maintain Capitalist order. For some its the church, for others its the nation, and they can convince themselves one way or another that Capitalists are a threat to church and nation. It's why Yockey tried to drum up support for Nasser, and why one of the first Neonazi Parties in West Germany advocated for literal invasion by the East to reunify Germany.

That said, Red-Brownism suffers like most other Fascist thought from being purely idealistic. That's to say, there's no actual understanding for what a "Red-Brown Alliance" entails, it's just an abstract concept some Fascists might like, same as "unity" and "patriotism." Does it involve marches together? Marching for what? What are they hoping to accomplish? For a Red-Brown Alliance to even be a theme, you'd have to presume a certain level of pre-existing power and organization in both the Fascists and the Communists. The only place I could see that being even a remote possibility is France, maybe, and even then you'd have to actually hash out what that'd mean; Communists selling out minorities for progressive economic policy? Fascists dropping the explicit racism? Neither seems likely or desirable by either side.

So I expect we'll continue to see Fascists (and the occasional underread, uninformed "socialist") proposing meaningless "alliances" that never get beyond some abstract notion of being nicer to each other on the internet. Call me when Melenchon is sitting across the table from Le Pen.

Anonymous 2024-02-01 (Thu) 09:08:58 No.589866

>>589865
"Red-Brown Alliances" are basically an admission of being desperate to become relevant. It doesn't work, except on the internet. Then, of course, liberals will always scream about muh horseshoe.

Anonymous 2024-02-01 (Thu) 10:38:07 No.589867

>>589865
Melenchon and Le Pen treat each other like an old married couple already so we're halfway there tbqhwyfamalam.

Anonymous 2024-02-01 (Thu) 19:58:42 No.589868

>>589867
>Melenchon and Le Pen treat each other like an old married couple already so we're halfway there tbqhwyfamalam.

Alright then, call me when they [spoilers]kiss[/spoilers]

>>589866
Of course that was another aspect of it I didn't mention. When Trump lost there were a lot of Fash crawling here like "C-can we team up, guys?"

Anonymous 2024-02-03 (Sat) 01:42:37 No.589869

File: 1706924557790.png (265.5 KB, 1476x1390, cuck_left.png)

Bumping the thread to talk about a subject kinda parallel to Fascism: Jews and Nationalism. Both of these have been topics that I’ve been thinking a lot on since October 7th.

I’m not sure where to start, but I figure I’ll say that among a certain stratum of Fascists there’s a notion that “the only thing dividing us from the communists is our stance on the nation.” And while of course there’s more to it than that, among elements of the “left wing” of Fascism that seems to be the general impression—that they aren’t so devoted to Capitalism as they are to social bodies like the nation, the church, so on.

Anyways, this brings me to the subject of the Jewish people. All things considered they’re a historical minority, in the sense that for most of their history they’ve been a nation without a state—even before the rise of nation states they existed as a distinct minority which, legally, couldn’t own land, couldn’t hope to ascend to the nobility, there wasn’t any kind of “Jewish Kingdom” to point to after their expulsion from Roman controlled Palestine. This is a special status that you won’t really find among many other nations, the only equivalent I can think of would be the Farsis in India or Roma, and even then they hadn’t achieved the same historical importance, at least in Europe, as the Jews have. The Jewish Question was a hotly debated topic in part because of that unique status coming to a head with the rise of nationalism.

Jews are, of course, a diverse group with a wide range of opinions, and one quirk of that is that in the 20th century you had Jews not just “over represented” in Socialism, but also Fascism. IIRC the percentage of Jews in the Fascist Party was higher than the percentage of Jews in Italy. In England too, one early member of the BUF was a Jewish Boxer who left the party after its antisemitic turn. The Jews unique status was something Europe struggled to resolve, and the “solution” was, of course, Israel.

While Early Fascism wasn’t explicitly anti-semitic, the Jewish question was of some importance to a movement revolving around nationalism, and its here the issue of supposed “dual loyalty”: was an Italian Jew first Italian or was he first Jewish? I think the early Jewish Fascists, at least initially, imagined a peaceful assimilation into the tapestry of the nation, they genuinely saw themselves as Italians first. Of course you also had Zionists as an alternative view, who thought Jews needed to have their own nation. And against this backdrop an uncomfortable question is raised, on whether at all the politics of Marx and Rosa and other socialists, at least on the question of nationalism, was influenced at all by their ethnic background.

The point being, it’s easy enough to reject nationalism in its entirety if the nation you belong to has never had a state. It’s in much the same way that a black person would have a drastically different view of America than a white person. A person descended from an ethnic group that’s long been discriminated against by the state, that was never a full member of the nation they resided in, that couldn’t even own land within it would have a much easier time critiquing it than their counterpart. For a period of time, a Jew would be a foreigner in any land he went to, and he may develop a kind of solidarity with the foreign, the downtrodden, by sheer virtue or needing to develop that empathy as a safety net. A society that doesn’t pursue ethnic supremacist policies is a society safe for Jews, among others.

But here’s the thing, rejecting one’s nation or some other social body as a majority member of that nation is a lot harder. Usually what it takes is some internal catastrophe to get someone to cross that threshold. Someone who’s a Muslim, or baptized as a Christian, will have a much easier time dropping the faith if it takes the form of abuse—one would understand a Muslim girl becoming an apostate if her father beat her for not wearing a Hijab, or a Christian becoming an atheist because his parents despise his sexuality. But what of the others? The Muslim whose experience with the faith was a kindly old Imam sharing food with them. In my case, the Catholic Church was my refuge from a dysfunctional home life. It’s easy enough for a Christian to sneer that the “Allah is a moon god” or an atheist to say the Catholic Church should be forcibly abolished and its Churches sold off piecemeal; but to people who grew up in those respective faiths and love them, that’s a line they simply can’t cross.

With the invention of Israel, the Jews entered a new period in their nation’s history. They now have land and a state to govern it. What did that result in? Well, we see the Jews become a people like any other. Liberal Zionism emerges from a contradiction between the Jews historical position as ceaseless advocates for the oppressed and downtrodden, and the modern reality of a Zionist state. This has been no small boon to neo Nazis who can easily point out that people who’ll demand that America and Europe become more diverse and tolerant, demand an ethnostate for themselves and no one else. They’ll chant Black Lives Matter in America, but complain that the situation is “complex” when some IDF scumbags let a bunch of infants starve to death. Why is this? Because, I think the awful truth is that not even the Jews have successfully abolished Nationalism among themselves. If a Jewish state commits atrocities, they’ll be far more willing to tolerate them, or excuse them, or justify them, because they see that nation as representative of themselves.

There’s this claim making the rounds today, that tries to separate Zionism from Judaism. One manifestation of that is this bizarre claim that “Zionism is Antisemitism”, but this is something that exists only as a defense of the Jewish people. You’ll never hear “white supremacy is anti white” or “anti European” from that same crowd, in fact the very phrase would be disregarded as inherently absurd. It’s only the fact that Jews have been historically progressive and often brutalized by European states that prompts people to simultaneously defend Jews while opposing Zionism.

Again, you’ll hear no end of people describing, say, Americans as scum for the actions of their government. People won’t try to create a category of “good whites” to comfort white people when discussing white supremacy. This is only applied to the Jewish people. If one thinks that white supremacy or the foreign imperialism of America is somehow reflective of whites as a whole, then it seems hypocrisy at least to claim that Jewish supremacy and the Jewish state is not reflective of some character of the Jewish people.

Now, this isn’t to condemn the Jews. Not at all. Instead I’m trying to illustrate just how difficult abolishing the nation or national feeing is. This is an advantage that Fascism has over Leftism. Leftism can tell the people ground up by Nationalism and theocracy “we’re here for you, we’re opposed to both those things.” But Fascism, at least it’s Left Wing, can speak to the people that see themselves as part of the nation and part of the Church; it’ll tell them it can have all the perks of Leftist economics, without making them go through the discomfort of losing their illusions or affinity for their nation, for their church, so on.

Many Jews, even anti Zionist ones, are now facing a dilemma many “majoritarian” communists have had to face, which is reckoning with the evils committed in their name and radically disavowing them.

Anonymous 2024-02-03 (Sat) 02:16:38 No.589870

>>589869
>It’s only the fact that Jews have been historically progressive and often brutalized by European states that prompts people to simultaneously defend Jews while opposing Zionism.

Zionism in the age of Dictators describes how modern Zionism developed out of German nationalism and adopted its racist underpinnings in order to justify itself. Zionism is literally antisemitic because its based on Blood and Soil "a nation needs its own land and the Jews are eternally alien parasites that must be sent home" reasoning.

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/mideast/agedict/ch02.htm

Anonymous 2024-02-03 (Sat) 02:28:28 No.589871

>>589870
>In 1925 the most vehement protagonist of total abstentionism, Jacob Klatzkin, the co-editor of the massive Encyclopedia Judaica, laid down the full implications of the Zionist approach to anti-Semitism.

<If we do not admit the rightfulness of anti-semitism, we deny the rightfulness of our own nationalism. If our people is deserving and willing to live its own national life, then it is an alien body thrust into the nations among whom it lives, an alien body that insists on its own distinctive identity, reducing the domain of their life. It is right, therefore, that they should fight against us for their national integrity Instead of establishing societies for defense against the anti-semites, who want to reduce our rights, we should establish societies for defense against our friends who desire to defend our rights. [4]

Anonymous 2024-02-03 (Sat) 02:36:02 No.589872

>>589870
One can point out that Zionism is a foreign creation, but to say that it’s antisemitic is, in my opinion, a step too far. Because while it’s a foreign idea, it’s, at its core, the philosophy of Jewish Supremacy. It doesn’t seek to “destroy” the Jews in some material sense. In addition, the BJP in India were influenced heavily by the Nazis as well, imitating them openly at times, yet you won’t hear a chorus of voices proclaiming that Modhi is “anti Hindu” or “anti Indian”.

This is a luxury only afforded to the Jewish people. That the mere fact their ideology was inspired by anti semites makes it intrinsically antisemitic even as it materially supports the supremacy of some “Jewish Race” over others.

Again, I’m not critiquing the Jews as a whole or insisting they’re “evil”, I grew up among too many to think that, what I’m stating is that Zionism has up beee the Jewish Nation’s historical norm of being fairly progressive. And what we see from the broader Jewish community, even among those opposed to the worst excesses of the Israeli state, is a delicate attitude towards Israel that more often than not isn’t replicated towards nations that Jewish people have more historic distance too. They can take the moral position of supporting a two state solution, but the radical position—one state not based on ethno nationalism—is a minority view. Let alone saying Palestinians have a right to defend themselves.

Anonymous 2024-02-03 (Sat) 02:57:13 No.589873

>>589872
>One can point out that Zionism is a foreign creation, but to say that it’s antisemitic is, in my opinion, a step too far.
That isn't what I was saying. A return to Palestine seems to have existed in the Jewish community as an idea in one form or another ever since they were exiled, but the modern form that predominates now was influenced by the German nationalism that some German Jews were exposed to in the 19th century.

I think it's also accurate to say that modern Zionism does seek the destruction of Jews in both a real and abstract sense. The state of Israel predicates its existence on the idea that Jews are in an inherently precarious position and liable to being holocausted again at any moment. The October 7th attacks have been held up as proof positive of this "fact", and even the president of the US has said that Israel is the only safe place in the world for Jews.

Then there is the Israel's portrayal of itself as being the Jewish state, casting its actions in the name of all Jews everywhere, and now with it diatorting even the concept of antisemitism into the mere criticism of Israel, it's begun a Jewish schism where to be a Jew means endorsing Israel's actions.

Anonymous 2024-02-03 (Sat) 06:55:28 No.589874

File: 1706943328649-0.png (2.91 MB, 2206x1659, 「MENACING」.png)

File: 1706943328649-1.png (91.17 KB, 501x684, OjWCush.png)

>>589873
I worry that we're gonna get stuck on the minutiae of defining Zionism when that wasn't really the point which I was arguing, so I'll try to explain things a bit differently.

Let me try and speak personally for a moment. I'm a White guy, and I was kind of keenly made aware of that from a young age. I'm not talking "White" in terms of the usual German-Irish mix that makes up a good portion of the U.S., I mean straight-up WASP. When I was a kid and attending Catholic middle school, historically they were aware of the fact most of their students were Italian or Irish (and later Hispanic and Filipino) and so one of the projects was to trace how our family came to America. It was in the context of learning about Ellis Island so it'd be a fun project where a lot of the kids would learn about how their working class parents came here way back in the day. So, I ask my parents, "How did our family come to America?" and my dad comes back with this big book. It's a short history about my family's genealogy.

In essence, we were indentured servants that traveled here from Scotland around, I think, 1776 or so; we literally came here within the time of our nation's founding. Anyways, we worked, paid off our debt, bought a plot of land out in Ohio, and made money farming. We made enough that some ancestors of mine could go through college, get degrees, and work as accountants, lawyers, doctors, and railroad executives.

And even being a kid, I understood that something was separating me from my peers there. Y'know they'd get this whole narrative of "I came to this country with only a quarter in my pocket and a strong work ethic, and look what I made of myself?" from their grandparents, my family didn't get that. It's common enough for liberal whites, at least, to claim "Oh I'm Irish" or "I'm part Cherokee", and I think part of this is because we're keenly aware of the horrors of manifest destiny and imperialism, it's not like we don't learn about the Trail of Tears and the like. The thing is, my family didn't even have that. We weren't the freckle-faced micks being met by "Irish need not apply" signs. If anything we were the people putting up those signs. We weren't Cherokee, we weren't mulattos, we were White enough that I think I could pass the one-drop rule. As for myself, I'm not LGBT, I'm not some discriminated against religious minority (no matter how hard protestants try to reawaken anti-Catholic sentiment here) and I don't think I have some sob story. My parents are grocery store clerks lucky enough to buy at a time when housing was cheap. That's it.

Y'know going through college didn't make me a socialist; if anything it was holding me back from taking the plunge and it was working retail with a diverse group of people that pushed me Left. Throughout college I got to take a chicano studies class, a class on western civ, an "intercultural communications" class, and a class on art history, and the running theme in each of those was this focus on these "harsh and bitter truths." I unironically learned about Critical Race Theory in Chicano Studies, my western civ professor made us read, I think it might've been "Germinal". My intercultural communications professor was focused on intersectionality, and my art history professor was an old hippy that'd talk up the caste system in tribal polynesia in flowery terms.

Going through all of that, it's not like they spared much criticism of white supremacy, eurocentrism, and misogyny. They were, respectively, a Hispanic man, a Jew, and two white women. And with all of them, I wondered at the time if they had so much ease making harsh critiques because of some ancillary part of their identity. It's self-explanatory why a Hispanic man would teach Chicano studies, after all. White women could point to the history of the feminist movement as their progressive credentials. Our Jewish western civ professor, well given all the Jews went through, is it any wonder he felt so comfortable critiquing "western civ"? (Sidenote, he also had a class on the Holocaust where he got so emotional during it he almost started to cry). Being just a white guy, however, you've got no real progressive darlings to point to; you're the subject of critique, not the one making it.

And again: it makes you wonder if some of these people are only making these critiques because they were on the losing side of an unfair deal.

Going back to the subject of Zionism. I've seen plenty of cases of Jewish people boasting about their left wing credentials ("I'm in the DSA! I'm a Marxist! Black Lives Matter!") only to get really uncomfortable when the subject turns to the state of Israel. It's not even that they're secret zionists, it's that they genuinely just find the subject to hit too close to home. Not to sound bitter, but it isn't like they cared about personal comfort of the audience when discussing white supremacy and the like, or leaving an out by claiming "white supremacy is anti-white" like some people are doing for Zionism. It was all: this is what white supremacy is, this is why it's bad, you've benefited from it as a white person.

To tie a knot on this already too lengthy post: you can get an impression that to be on the left as a white guy involves giving more stuff up than you get in return. I don't think it can be argued that Communism empowered the Chinese, the Africans, and various Latin-American states. Being a Communist as a white guy in America seems less "what can communism do for me?" and more "how can I help others?"

And that kind of ties back to the post I made. Which is to say: the emphasis on Nationalism that Fascism has baked into it is kind of the "easy path" for a lot of nations. You don't have to turn a critical eye on what you see as "your people" in the same way that a lot of the modern western left have to. This isn't because of anything inherent or biological in westerners specifically. There's less psychological barriers to overcome, less "harsh and bitter truths" to swallow. It gives the impression of being focused on you, on the majority of society, and empowering that "majority" rather than making them come to terms with their privileges or what have you.

Anonymous 2024-02-03 (Sat) 07:11:06 No.589875

Does fascism in the united states have the capability of triggering a civil war?

Anonymous 2024-02-12 (Mon) 18:26:46 No.589876

File: 1707762406454.jpg (234.2 KB, 720x1046, Screenshot_20240212_202422….jpg)

Fascism is just authoritarian capitalism. Nothing more nothing less.

Anonymous 2024-02-12 (Mon) 18:41:23 No.589877

>>589875
If they did, the war would have started decades ago. Fascism is extremely unpopular in America. What is common is the freedom loving militia, the constitution huggers and most importantly 100 million disfranchised people who live in poverty and don't like it, but not even they like to do what they are told.

It's more an European thing.

Anonymous 2024-02-12 (Mon) 18:43:38 No.589878

>>589876
>authoritarian capitalism
Tautology.

Anonymous 2024-02-12 (Mon) 18:45:02 No.589879

>>589874
>Being a Communist as a [any race] [any gender] in [any place in the world]
…is about organizing the workers and preparing an armed revolution. It's not about bourgeois IDpol and it is not about doing shit for the lumpenproletariat either.
If a man is a worker, he is your comrade, if he is not you must make him one. That's what being a communist, no matter the religion or race of place.

Anonymous 2024-02-12 (Mon) 18:49:57 No.589880

>>589867
Frog here. Allow me to explain who they are.

Le Pen exchange public money for votes and is against immigration to not dilute the money on too many people.
Melenchon exchange public money for votes and is for immigration to secure more voter for his side.
Macron got elected by exchanging public money against the vote of old people. The first time he got elected by promizing public money in exchange for the vote of the youth. Silly young people, you must ask for guarantees. No mony for you, thank you for the vote.

Welcome in French politic.

Anonymous 2024-02-12 (Mon) 18:50:12 No.589881

>>589878
Liberalism and fascism are two sides of the same capitalist coin. To be anti-authoritarian is to be a communist.

Anonymous 2024-02-12 (Mon) 21:24:12 No.589882

>>589881
How will you convert those who reject communist?
>With authority

Anonymous 2024-02-12 (Mon) 23:39:49 No.589883

>>589882
How do you "reject" having housing, healthcare, education and work as a right?

Anonymous 2024-02-13 (Tue) 06:02:00 No.589884

File: 1707804120020.jpg (131.1 KB, 616x900, b8.jpg)

>>589882
They're an idiot, stop derailing.

Anonymous 2024-02-17 (Sat) 02:11:43 No.589885

>>589875
Depends on the kind of Fascism I suppose.

I don’t think Nazi inspired Fascism, or racialized Fascism, has much of a chance of seizing power. Their best bet I think would be temporarily rampaging through the country like some home grown ISIS, before getting put down like rabid dogs. Out and out Nazis are repulsive even to conservatives, and America is simply too racially diverse and integrated for a white supremacist movement to govern without opposition. They wouldn’t even be able to get 100% of whites on their side.

Fascism in the vein of Mosley and ᴉuᴉlossnW though? Honestly I think it’d have the possibility of being extremely popular if executed correctly. I once entertained a thought experiment that you could probably have a successful Fascist movement grow out of a tendency in the DSA. Granted they wouldn’t call themselves “Fascists”. They could call themselves “AltSocialists” maybe. I think Mosley might be the best source of inspiration, because Britain had a fairly racially diverse Empire and his solution, as far as I can infer from his statements and actions, was to support greater amounts of autonomy for different racial groups like Indians and Blacks. I think it’s plausible that some mutation of Black Nationalism could find its way into a modern American Fascism. Hell George Lincoln Rockwell associated with the Nation of Islam, and I’ve read blogs from modern Fascists praising Marcus Garvey as “The Black Moses”

The alternative would be, maybe, an attempt to bind people together in some non-racial American identity, but the problem with that is it’d be a process of difficult compromises, deal making, and essentially creating a new national mythos from scratch. One that absolves Whites, dignifies Blacks, and makes space for Hispanics and Asians. How would you go about it? In my opinion it’d be by emphasizing the “melting pot” and finally severing any link the confederacy had to America. Talk up how “every culture contributes to America” and muzzle any other narrative on race.

Anonymous 2024-02-17 (Sat) 02:19:03 No.589886

>>589885
i think a new kind of fascism will arrive. one that binds whites/asians/latinos together against blacks. in this scenario however i believe the fascists in charge will be mixed, hapas and so on. whites will allow themselves to be ruled over by mixed white/asians and mixed white/latinos as long as they can fuck over blacks. they will try to find a common ground with asians and latinos and present blacks as the clear enemy. i don’t know if slavery will return but i think black people may be reduced to second class citizen status. the one drop rule will come back too. the future looks bleak for black people in the west.

Anonymous 2024-02-17 (Sat) 02:29:53 No.589887

>>589886
Gonna say I genuinely disagree. Blacks broadly dominate a lot of pop culture, from movies to music, and while it may be shocking for some to hear, most whites aren’t—in fact—so actively racist that they’re looking to “unite to enslave blacks again”

Anonymous 2024-02-18 (Sun) 12:56:11 No.589888

File: 1708260970802.jpeg (128.67 KB, 960x636, EV5iC5eWAAExpBO.jpeg)

Seems relevant to this thread:
https://nicolasdvillarreal.substack.com/p/thesis-on-the-petty-bourgeoisie-as

Nico suggests that the petty bourgeoisie is the last remaining class fraction that hasn't been 'tamed' by the capitalist state. They remain an independent and dangerous political actor, the ones who brought us fascism and the ones animating most 'populist' discourse today. However, their politics contain the seeds of their own destruction, including the possibility of communism.

Anonymous 2024-02-18 (Sun) 13:08:46 No.589889

>>589887
I mean, who else is the right going to unite against. If you go to RW twitter you can always find schizos defending Latinx, Arabs, Asians and even Jews as some sort of temporal ally against an even worse ethnic enemy. But everyone hates black people man it's unreal. I've seen literal coal-skinned Hindutva twittards saying TND and shit. You can be the most White-passing, upper middle class and college-educated black person ever and you'll still find even non-black POC rightoid openly wishing for you to be second class citizen at best. I don't know if i just spend too much time in Nazi twitter but shit is looking rough for black people

Anonymous 2024-02-18 (Sun) 18:22:38 No.589890

File: 1708280558132.jpg (206.12 KB, 1712x927, jungle_fever.jpg)

>>589889
>I mean, who else is the right going to unite against.

See an argument I've been making here is that a fascist movement is pretty helpless if it's solely a right-wing phenomenon. For it to achieve relevance/power it'll need to dislodge at least a few people from the left. In Fascist Italy's case it balanced a relatively stable left wing within the Fascist movement.

But going into a bit more specifics, I don't think Blacks would make a decent analogue for Jews in America. For one, they're something like 12% of the population while Jews were 0.75% of the German population in 1933. That's a huge difference, and any open genocide or attempt to reenslave Blacks would prompt a civil war, not to mention intervention from foreign nations.

But getting into specifics. The Right Wing hates Blacks, of course, but they're increasingly getting alienated from the mainstream. Take social media at face value and you'd possibly think "TradCaths" are anything other than an extremely niche movement, too. Within the mainstream, however, black people go to the same schools as us, work in the same jobs as us, they're our neighbors, in some cases even our families. They're such a large portion of our population that I genuinely don't think you could run on a successful platform of alienating them from the rest of society. I don't think even many conservatives could get behind that. This isn't like with the Jews, where they're small enough that you can have large swathes of Germans that don't know any. Blacks are pretty well spread out throughout most of America's major population centers.

>>589888
Looking forward to reading it later. Thanks.

Anonymous 2024-02-18 (Sun) 18:38:15 No.589891

File: 1708281495039.png (460.58 KB, 489x654, 5294e8c33c92d956ea0fca54e7….png)

I saw someone post a pic of this Trump NFT while commenting on his new pair of collectible sneakers and I lolled. One thing about patriots.win too is how much anti-Semitism is there, when some other alt-right types moved on from Trump, but the people who post there are among his biggest fans and it's (((them))) and Jews this and that, and by the way here's some new merchandising!

Anonymous 2024-02-18 (Sun) 18:44:25 No.589892

>>589891
The weirdest thing about Trump’s fans is how they constantly try to portray this geriatric slug person as muscular or attractive or shit. I saw some MAGA Twitter guy complaining that he put a pic of Trump through some “hot or not” website and it graded him a 4/10. He was up in arms
>”BUT HES OVER SIX FEET AND BROAD SHOULDERED!!!!”

Anonymous 2024-02-18 (Sun) 19:11:33 No.589893

>>589890
>>589889
tbh I think trans or climate refugees are my pick for most likely scapegoat or perhaps whatever group o foreigners the US is beefing with at that time with a new "monster of the week" so to speak as conflicts change.

Anonymous 2024-02-18 (Sun) 20:59:55 No.589894

>>589893
I think we’re focusing a bit too much on scapegoats as that’s what we associate the most with the Nazis rise to power (blaming everything on so-and-so minority group to get support) when I don’t think you necessarily need to point to a minority group as all the world’s problems to have a fascist regime. IIRC the thrust of orthodox Fascism’s original pitch was “we are the only ones that can keep order”

Anonymous 2024-02-18 (Sun) 21:32:27 No.589895

> 400 replies
> Behemoth by Neumann not mentioned once
embarrassing thread

American Behemoth and Mass Psychology of Fascism are also good reads.

Anonymous 2024-02-18 (Sun) 21:37:21 No.589896

>>589811
There are lots of autists online so this will skew your perception of reality. Most fashies aren't like the creeps you meet over a LAN connection okay.

Anonymous 2024-02-18 (Sun) 21:37:54 No.589897

>>589895
Can’t say I’ve read Behemoth, got a short summary of it for us? Tbh a good portion of the thread has mostly focused on what early Fascists wrote themselves, so more literature is great.

Anonymous 2024-02-18 (Sun) 21:48:17 No.589898

>>589897
All three books are class analysis on the fascism of Nazi Germany or America in the 20s-40s by Marxists. Behemoth thesis is that Nazi germany had no coherent structure or ideology.

The introductory chapter on Weimar republic and its shortcomings are imo very important for modern leftists to read. I feel like you could filter most politics through the lens of 1920s Germany and rarely miss.

Anonymous 2024-02-18 (Sun) 22:12:37 No.589899

>>589898
Well I definitely agree with the sentiment that the Nazis had no coherent ideology. They still don’t. In fact I’d say neo Nazism is far removed from even the dregs of political thought the Nazis had.

Funny enough I’ve encountered in early Fascism an acknowledgement from the fascists themselves that their ideology was underdeveloped initially. Apparently a frequent accusation from Socialists at the time was that Fascism was just pure demagoguery without substance. The Fascists countered that their ideology wasn’t emerging fully formed so much as gradually unfolding and being developed. There was a debate between a BUF member and a, I believe, Trotskyist. The Trot touched mentioned something along the lines of “ᴉuᴉlossnW had 13 years of power to create a corporate state and he couldn’t even do that!” The Fash responded by saying, basically, “the Fascists’ first goal was to stop all the chaos that was afflicting Italy, the corporate state was a later addition. We’re starting from the premise of creating a corporate state right away.”

Yknow not to sound too controversial, but I wonder how Fascism could have developed if Hitler didn’t drive the whole thing into a bright red brick wall.

Anonymous 2024-02-18 (Sun) 22:15:18 No.589900

>>589899
https://www.marxists.org/subject/fascism/conze-wilkinson/ch21.htm

The Vagueness of the Fascist Programme: There are certain curious features about this Fascism. There has been no efficient fight against it, even when the danger has been understood long beforehand, and there is not yet even a satisfactory explanation of what Fascism is. The Fascists themselves have not been able to produce an intelligible definition. These difficulties are to a great extent due to the elusive character of Fascism itself. Fascism is not a clear-cut theory. It takes great pride in despising coherent theories and well-thought-out programmes.

ᴉuᴉlossnW used to say: ‘What we need is not a programme but action.’ Mosley in his early days took this as his slogan, and becomes the less effective the more he departs from this attitude. The Italian Fascists have always stressed what they call ‘dynamics’. Quite cheerfully, even in 1924, the Fascist Govi in the Critica Fascista (one of the theoretical organs of the Italian Fascist Party) could say: ‘Fascism is clear in its negative programme, but it is not clear in the least what is its programme in positive innovations.’

In his early days, when he was preparing for his first bid for power, Hitler in a speech made in 1923 declared: ‘Let us first begin to rule, then the programme will come quite by itself.’ – a statement that would be received with roars of laughter in any Socialist or Liberal conference. But four years later he was saying significantly: ‘The people want no programmes. They want someone to rule them.’

True, even as far back as 1920 Hitler had had a string of 25 points. These were very vague; one of them advocated the ‘nationalisation of big industry unless it is founded by great German leaders of economics’, whatever that may mean! Another demanded the ‘breaking of the thraldom of interest’ without troubling to define what rate of interest constituted ‘thraldom’. But even these points, vague as they are, were always causing trouble. Dr Goebbels was moved to remark, amid great applause, after an attempt to sort out some of these dissensions: ‘If I had founded the party I should not have put out any programme at all.’ Goebbels could raise great meetings of 20,000 people to ecstatic enthusiasm by his declaration: ‘We are reproached that we have no programme, or that the one we have is full of contradictions. But just because of this we shall gain the victory.’ In that piece of cynical realism, Dr Goebbels came very near to an understanding of the essentials of Fascist success.

To earnest believers in the class-war theory a Fascist party is simply a monstrosity. So incompatible are the sections which compose it, so obviously in conflict are their economic interests, that such a collection ought not to exist as a party. But it does exist. More than that, it acts at a time when homogeneous parties constructed on the best Marxian models seem paralysed by the difficulties of the same situation which provides Fascists with the conditions of their success.

Of course there is continual internal conflict between the incompatible sections of Fascism. No other party could stand the open intrigues against each other, wars almost to the knife (in some cases literally to the bullet) in which both higher and lower ranks of the Nazi leaders have indulged.

Anonymous 2024-02-18 (Sun) 22:21:15 No.589901

In my opinion, the USA can't slide into "proper" fascism unless something really devastating happens, something that really shakes the foundations of the country. America is an old country with a very deep democratic tradition. Italy and Germany were new countries. Japan was an old country rebuilt following the Prussian tradition, and it followed a similar path. The republics of Portugal and Spain were new, too.
I think American fascism would take the form of a renewed herrenvolk democracy, but not based "on race": in fact, every talk of race would be banned because divisive. The divide would be between True Americans and everyone else.

Anonymous 2024-02-18 (Sun) 23:31:53 No.589902

>>589900
Yknow the interesting thing about Fascism’s “act first, think later” approach is it seems to align neatly with Giovanni Gentile’s contention that the highest form of reality is, in essence, living in the present moment. The reference to Fascism not elaborating on things like “what interest is thralldom” also reminds me of the 2016 debates where they’d try to get Trump on having a completely incoherent tax plan, and he’d bulldoze past them. Similar to when Bush Sr. called Reagan’s tax plan “voodoo economics”.

Of course there’s something to be said of that. The Fascists have their eyes on the prize of state power and they’re constantly working towards it. I’m also reminded of political scientists scratching their heads at the contradictions of populism or whining that people “don’t understand the economy is doing good.” If I can give some credit to Fascism, it’s that it sees things on a visceral level. All these goddamn eggheads see the line is going up, or employment is higher, or what have you, and they’re wondering “why don’t Americans think the economy is good?” But I can look out my window and see homeless people screaming at the sky, streets littered with trash, and walls tagged with graffiti. I think there’s a genuine disconnect between whether people are experiencing reality as “headspace” (eg primarily as something to be intellectualized and thought about) and people who experience it as sensations of sight and smell and feeling.

In regards to Hitler’s “people just want a ruler, not a programme” I think there’s truth to that in some circumstances. I’m certain the majority of Americans imagine the President more as some sovereign than properly understanding the separation of powers. Even if they do, it’s like the contradiction between people who want “bipartisanship” along with an end to government gridlock: it’s an abstract cry for people to “just get along” and not a real political demand. A lot of people may just want one guy to rule by decree.

Anonymous 2024-02-19 (Mon) 05:22:33 No.589903

there are retards who actually believe Hitler won a single election. Where did this meme start, and no the enabling act wasn't democratically passed.

Anonymous 2024-02-19 (Mon) 05:43:00 No.589904

File: 1708321380685.png (207.57 KB, 495x683, Screenshot from 2024-02-18….png)

yall ever think about how based this dude was probably was

Anonymous 2024-02-19 (Mon) 18:41:40 No.589905

>>589903
Gonna make a harebrained claim here, but from what I understand certain elements of the Bourgeoisie that'd go on to form the Bilderberg group saw the horrors of the 20th century as the result of "demagogues" appealing to peoples' emotions and starting WW2 in some huge populist frenzy. Hence why one of the missions of the Bilderberg group is to support up and coming politicians globally in order to clamp down on populist sentiment.

Hitler being "elected" puts the onus on the people, rather than the capitalists and their hand picked politicians. It wasn't that they wanted to develop a force that'd successfully suppress the communists (as Italian industrialists were all too happy to admit) but that the stupid, emotionally driven masses, falling for a guy that could give a pretty speech once in a while. Queue a bunch of people not "in the club" writing soliloquies about how Hitler being "elected" says something profound about the ignorance and libidinal hatred of the masses.

However

Regardless of Hitler not being elected, I think it can be said he was fairly successful in securing his power. I think Trotsky said something along the lines of if the Nazi regime didn't fall due to an uprising of its own people, we'd have to rethink some really core tenants of Marxism. Granted, I'd contend that Trotsky could be remarkably naive (IIRC he also said that if Wehrmacht troops conquered Russia, they'd unite with the local populace to overthrow Hitler or some shit). Still, the fact remains that even when Berlin was under artillery fire, the German people didn't rise up in this great mass to overthrow the Nazis. I think Adorno was similarly disappointed by the lack of a revolution against Hitlerite rule.

And that raises the uncomfortable question about the vigor of Fascist regimes and the nature of "national consciousness" as it were. Let's not forget that it was nationalism, to a degree, that facilitated the collapse of the Soviet Union (on top of Gorbachev's idiotic leadership, of course) and we're living in a new era of nationalist populism to which left wing populism, while growing as well, plays something of a second fiddle. Maybe the bitter truth is that class consciousness simply isn't as visceral or intrinsic to people as national consciousness. It's not "in the blood" as it were. And if it comes to a choice between a foreign nation of workers and one's own nation, bourgeoisie and all, a great majority of people will choose the latter.

Anonymous 2024-02-19 (Mon) 20:59:54 No.589906

>>589905
really interesting stuff here thanks anon

Anonymous 2024-02-19 (Mon) 21:57:52 No.589907

>>589896
Got to disagree on this point. As it stands I’d say the number of orthodox or intellectually respectable fascists is minuscule. The movement as a whole seems split between terminally online autists and skinheaded freaks.

Anonymous 2024-02-19 (Mon) 22:18:13 No.589908

>>589907
It depends on the country.

Anonymous 2024-02-19 (Mon) 22:24:05 No.589909

>>589908
where? arguably the highest number of "orthodox fascists" were during the years of lead in italy and most of them were either insane idiots or effectively just conservatives nostalgic for mussolini

Anonymous 2024-02-19 (Mon) 22:26:33 No.589910

File: 1708381593245.png (304.05 KB, 1080x2340, Screenshot_20240220-052618.png)

Cockshott put it simply.
If people don't see socialism as a viable alternative what alternative is there but fascism?

Anonymous 2024-02-19 (Mon) 22:35:53 No.589911

>>589909
Aaah, now I understand what you meant. My bad.

Anonymous 2024-02-19 (Mon) 23:07:25 No.589912

>>589909
We’ll go be fair I would say Italy is still the beating heart of Fascist intellectualism; with Neo-Fascist candidates actually running on positions like local corporatist reforms, but outside of that specific context a lot of modern fash just fall into what I’d coin “killpeople-ism”

Of course that can change. Casapound has actual international ties ranging from Hezbollah to Azov, they’re training militants, and it’s entirely possible that they could in turn offer international training to other Fascist groups.

>>589910
Honestly if people don’t think Socialism is gonna do anything for them, of course they’ll go fascist. Yet in spite of that I see a certain strain of Socialists claim that Socialism would immediately lower American living standards, or solemnly proclaim that Socialism can never happen here, or find some other way to make an obviously appealing idea sound “bad” to the masses. This really shouldn’t be controversial, but for some reason people think being wildly abrasive to the people you want to appeal to is acceptable as long as you’re correct. Meanwhile Fascists will go out of their way to try to “woo” people or present themselves as reasonable.

I see plenty of people on here saying rhetoric doesn’t matter, presentation doesn’t matter, “those are just liberal spooks”. I’ve got to disagree. How you present ideas do matter, and if you’re a cunt, people aren’t going to listen to you.

Anonymous 2024-02-19 (Mon) 23:13:50 No.589913

>>589903
>there are retards who actually believe Hitler won a single election
he was the head of the Nazi party, and the Nazi party won large electoral victories in the 1930s, enough to form a plurality of delegates in the Reichstag. He was essentially picked as chancellor (i.e. prime minister) because he could form a majority coalition between his Nazi party and other conservative nationalist parties. By the logic of a parliamentary system, he did gain power in a conventional legal way.

That being said, Hitler personally lost when he attempted to run against Hindenburg in presidential elections in 1933. His being pick as chancellor also happened under murky circumstances, because parliamentary elections were delayed extralegally by Hindenburg. In the final parliamentary elections (in 1932) before Hitler was chosen as chancellor in early 1933, the Nazis were starting to lose electoral seats after their massive gains in the previous 2 or 3 elections, indicating that the Nazis were on a trend of losing their seats.

Anonymous 2024-02-19 (Mon) 23:14:09 No.589914

>>589912
Well I don't very much like how Richard wolf present himself tbh. This in your face well duh aura is not going to win anyone over really. And his solution, market socialism. Well he doesn't talk about it much. Okay so I work at Amazon so I get to be owner of the Amazon warehouse now? What about a guy who works at a restaurant?
I've come across libertarians that say. Well I want libertarianism but with American made goods and employing Americans and be more self sufficient. Those guys are confused communists I think.

Anonymous 2024-02-20 (Tue) 21:21:48 No.589915

>>589914
>Well I don't very much like how Richard wolf present himself tbh. This in your face well duh aura is not going to win anyone over really. And his solution, market socialism. Well he doesn't talk about it much. Okay so I work at Amazon so I get to be owner of the Amazon warehouse now? What about a guy who works at a restaurant?

Funny enough I tend to like Wolff for his cranky New York Jew persona. Though I watched him debate an Objectivist and there were people saying he seemed angry all the time while the lolbert he was debating seemed friendly and smiley. So I can see where you're coming from.

>I've come across libertarians that say. Well I want libertarianism but with American made goods and employing Americans and be more self sufficient. Those guys are confused communists I think.

I've got a good friend who's a libertarian, and a lot of the time it feels like he gets real close to Marxism before pulling himself back. Like saying economics matters more than racial identity and shit. I think the problem is American propaganda forcibly defined "Communism" as being akin to 1984; so people want the freedom Communism can provide but get scared away from Communist thought because they're convinced it's when the government breaks your legs to make you "equal" to crippled people.

Anonymous 2024-02-21 (Wed) 18:36:52 No.589916

When Oswald Mosley Met Juan Peron

>On the 31 October 1950, BOAC flight BA351 took off from London Airport and arrived in Buenos Aires at 19.40 hours the next day. According to the passenger list there was a ‘Harry Morley’ on board the aircraft.

>However, this name didn’t fool MI5**. As early as 9 October they had picked up from a phone tap on Union Movement Head Quarters that Alf Flockhart, one of Oswald Mosley’s political secretaries, was booking an open ended airline ticket to Argentina for him – and that ‘Harry Morley’ was to appear on the passenger list.

>MI5 immediately sent a list naming eight of Mosley’s most active supporters in Argentina, and elsewhere in South America, to SIS and on 26 October informed the Foreign Office.

>On arrival in Buenos Aires, Mosley was interviewed and said that his visit was connected solely with the sale of books in Argentina and Chile and that he was staying with friends. A message sent by the British Embassy to London on 4 November by diplomatic bag commented that Mosley’s visit had been reported fully in the Argentinean press who claimed that it was instigated by members of the Argentine government. However the Embassy believed that this did not appear to be the case, there was no indication of any Argentinean government interest and later the press went out of its way to say he was an unwelcome visitor.

>On 17 November Senor Pombo of the Argentinean Embassy in London was taken to lunch by someone in the Foreign Office and he ‘confirmed’ that Mosley was only getting in touch with certain Germans there. Later MI5 reported that Mosley arrived back in the UK at Hurn Airport on 26 November having broken his journey in Spain for two days.

>But for all their phone taps and mail intercepts, MI5 and the Foreign Office had been fooled. Mosley did indeed meet Peron which, if known at the time, might have seriously jeopardised Argentina’s negotiations for higher beef prices with the British Labour Government who considered Mosley their mortal enemy. Suddenly, Senor Pombo’s ‘reassurance’ and the hasty change in tune of the Argentinean press can be seen as part of an orchestrated plan of misinformation by the Peron Government.

>But how do we know that Mosley and Peron did meet? And for what purpose?

<The Mosley-Peron Accord.

>The first indication of the meeting came three months after Peron’s deposal in 1955. ‘European Stars and Stripes’***, the daily newspaper of the U.S. army of occupation in Europe, reported that investigators of the new Argentine Junta had raided the Lake Sanroque home of Hans Ulrich Rudel who had just fled to Paraguay.

>Rudel was the former German Luftwaffe fighter ace who single-handedly knocked out 532 Soviet tanks, two cruisers and a battleship. After the War he had settled in Argentina working as a test pilot at the Cordoba Military Airplane Factory alongside former Luftwaffe Commander Adolph Galland.

>Among Rudel’s papers left behind were letters related to meetings held in Argentina a few years previously between Rudel and Peron (indicating complete agreement on political matters), Rudel and Oswald Mosley – and Oswald Mosley and Peron. However, as ‘European Stars and Stripes’ was not widely read by the British the revelation went unnoticed.

>Mosley made no mention of meeting Peron in his 1966 autobiography ‘My Life’. But in Robert Skidelsky’s biography ‘Mosley’ published in 1975, the year of Peron’s death, there is a brief mention confirming that they met. The President’s passing had released Mosley from the vow of secrecy which he had strictly observed even though the reason for it had long since passed.

>But what did Mosley and Peron discuss at their 1950 meeting at the Casa Rosada unobserved by MI5 and the British Foreign Office?

>Hans Ulrich Rudel told the story of his amazing wartime experiences in ‘Stuka Pilot’, a best-selling biography distributed by Mosley’s Euphorian publishing house. The Junta Government investigators, as reported in ‘European Stars and Stripes’, noted that at their meeting Mosley had asked Peron for his permission for Rudel to visit Europe to promote the book and this had been agreed. But in Mosley’s mind there was a far more important issue on the agenda.

>Since the War he had advocated a self-sufficient United Europe containing all the manufacturing capacity, raw materials, foodstuffs and energy sources it would need to protect its high-wage economy from undercutting by Third World cheap labour. For complete autarky this would also include ‘Europe Overseas’ to encompass Canada, Australasia and part of southern Africa. But these were not all – Mosley envisaged the inclusion of the European-oriented countries of Latin America in ‘Europe One Nation’. To begin with these would comprise Argentina, Uruguay and Chile.

>I remember his words on the subject spoken 50 years ago to an audience of the British people in Kensington Town Hall: “And it is there in South America too that only two things really matter. One is Communism – and the other is our great European idea!” The applause that followed must have carried all the way to the Royal Albert Hall.

>Peron’s quest for political union with other South American countries began in earnest in the first year of his second Presidency when he publicly advocated the economic union of Argentina, Chile and Brazil. He considered a confederation of Latin states as the only way to achieve development free from domination by Capitalist or Communist imperialism. On a visit to Chile in 1953 he went further: “I believe that Chilean-Argentine unity, a complete unity and not a half-way one, should be made total and immediate. Simple economic unity will not be sufficiently strong.”

>As a first step towards a United South America, agreements to the principle of union were signed by Peron with Chile, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Paraguay – the last even made him an honorary citizen. President Vargas of Brazil, an admirer of Peron, also declared for continental unity. As we know, in the event political union was to remain a dream: coups and internal crisis soon pre-occupied their leaders’ energies. But as Peron’s biographer, Joseph Page* surmised: “Peron was the only Latin leader willingly to promote union vigorously and he did so until the day he died.”

>Peron was trying to do for South America what Mosley was trying to do for Europe. That surely would have been the major topic for discussion at the secret meeting of Peron and Mosley: one on which they would have been in complete accord.

>The two men continued to keep in touch for years to come though it has not been confirmed if they ever met again. But even as I write these words a letter signed by Peron in exile addressed to Mosley’s office has appeared for sale on the Internet which reads: “I see now we have friends in common whom I greatly value, something which makes me reciprocate even more strongly your expressions of solidarity…I offer my best wishes and a warm embrace.” -signed Juan Peron, Hotel Pinar, Malaga, Spain, 20 February 1960.

>Oswald Mosley and Juan Peron came from entirely different backgrounds but they shared many core beliefs. They both advocated the ‘Third Position’ in economics. They both wanted to unite their continents and envisaged that European civilisation, values and culture would undergo a historic renaissance. And although when cornered they would fight like Lions, they would both go to any lengths consistent with honour to avoid bloodshed and war.

>More than ever are such men needed in an age where political pygmies vie with each other to plumb new depths of corruption, cowardice and mediocrity.

Vid related, "Harry Morley" arriving in Argentina

Anonymous 2024-02-27 (Tue) 18:58:39 No.589917

File: 1709060319617.jpg (37.38 KB, 474x657, Measurehead.jpg)

Started reading "The Coming American Fascism" by Lawrence Dennis. Interesting thing about him is that he was a mixed-race (white passing though) American diplomat who later came to advocate Fascist anti-capitalism of a kind. He resigned in protest of America's suppression of the Sandino rebellion. He was called "America No. 1 Intellectual Fascist" by Life Magazine in 1941

Some tidbits

>It seems a fairly sound generalization to say that no social group, after debating the merits of the existing order versus those of a possible successor, proceeded to scrap the old and adopt the new as long as the old system was maintaining a semblance of order or working. Indeed, it is a part of the process of maintaining order and making a given social system work to see to it that the people like what they have. In measure as defenders of a system deem it necessary to argue with the people in favor of the preservation of the old system, they really admit and advertise its doom. There is no doubt but that the continuous attacks on fascism and defenses of the present system featured by powerful publications like the Saturday Evening Post, and in the public utterances of influential citizens like Mr. Hoover, do more to advertise and further fascism than almost any other factor calling fascism to the attention of the American people. A social system is either on the offensive, or it is doomed.

Emphasis mine on the last part.

>The usual defense of the system made today by its supposed friends, however, consists mainly in apologies for the system’s unworkability and in appeals for loyal support no matter how it works. There is a typically liberal naivete in appealing to Y’s reason to be loyal to a system which still suits X, but which is not working so well for Y. That kind of loyalty is not born of reason but habit, early conditioning and wholly unreasoned impulses. One of the earliest proofs of the unworkability of a system, after its failure to care for the elite, is its failure to maintain the suitable mass conditioning for the system’s survival. But of this we shall have more to say under another heading.

>In the fascist view of the situation, the unworkability of the present system is the starting point in social thought and action. It is also the most vulnerable point for attack—and the fascists are attackers. Taking this particular view of the system’s crisis or slow decline does not mean that a fascist-minded person sees nothing else in the situation but mechanical defects or that he minimizes other aspects of the situation. That the injustices of the present social situation, in which millions suffer hunger and privation while productive instruments, like human hands, land, and factories, remain in enforced idleness, are a crying shame, the fascist fully recognizes. That Father Coughlin and his League for Social Justice should emphasize this phase of the situation and demand its correction is both humane and helpful. But, if an individual or a group sets about the correction of these injustices, the first order of problems encountered will be found to lie squarely in the fields of social mechanics or government and management in the broadest sense of these terms.

He also seems to touch on Communism and how it's distinguished from Fascism a little later:

>The reason why Karl Marx towers among all the prophets and reformers since Luther and Calvin is that his was the first influential mind after the industrial revolution to try to think things through in connection with the denunciation of what he considered evil and the advocacy of what he considered righteousness. Marx, in his prophecy, did not proceed on the assumptions that the social evils he deplored were in the nature of defects rather than properties of the prevailing system, and that social justice, as he idealized it, was something obviously attainable within the framework of prevailing institutions, provided the people so willed it. He worked out a theory of the existing system to explain the evils he deplored the exploitation and misery of the workers; a theory of a new system to realize the ideal he cherished—a classless, stateless, governmentless society of workers enjoying the highest standard of living which available resources could afford; and a program of action to effect the transition to this ideal order—the transitional program being the dictatorship of the proletariat.

>I am inclined to find in his explanation of the existing system and its inevitable course to collapse many flaws in logic and science. I find the ideal of a classless, stateless, governmentless society of workers enjoying social order and material abundance fantastic and unattainable. It appears unattainable for the reason that social order requires government and administration by a ruling class or power—exercising class which must always be an aristocracy of management, however selected, operating through some set of mechanisms of social, control, economic as well as political. Incidentally, it is to be remarked and even stressed that communist Russia, no less than the fascist countries, the billion-dollar capitalist corporation, or the efficient army in the field, meets with extreme thoroughness and rigor these universal imperatives of social order and administrative efficiency. The communists will, of course, admit this fact but try to convince the non-communist as well as themselves that these features of contemporary Russian communism are peculiar only to the present revolutionary phase, and that when revolution is finished, i.e. when the communist millennium comes, the state, government and the dictatorship of the proletariat will be sloughed off. The noncommunist with a realistic turn of mind will find this prediction of a coming millennium lacking in plausibility.

>Incidentally, one of the important points of difference between fascism and communism is that fascism is singularly free of millenarianism. Fascism is without the naivete peculiar to the belief that we today can have in the mind’s conception an ideal social pattern for all time or for the people living a hundred or a thousand years hence. The only social patterns a hard, realistic mind can find useful in the enterprises of life are those of immediate organization and action, either to conserve what we now have and like, or to change from what we now have and do not like to something different which we can never accurately foresee but which we hope will be more to our liking. The social end must always be composed largely of the means of its achievement, which is to say that social ends and means are much the same things. Social ends and means are not only parts of a whole but, if they are to have any meaning, they must be parts of a whole which is realizable in a lifetime.

Anonymous 2024-03-04 (Mon) 00:57:57 No.589918

File: 1709513876987.png (471.86 KB, 1291x721, ClipboardImage.png)

Thread in a nutshell.

Anonymous 2024-03-04 (Mon) 02:12:26 No.589919

>>589918
The one consistent theme in almost every work from non-Nazi fascists I’ve read is that Hitler was a retard.

I mean it makes sense just looking at the background of other Fascists. Hitler was the equivalent of a Highschool dropout. Modern Hitler is a guy insisting to his parents that he’s waiting for his SoundCloud rapper career to take off.

Anonymous 2024-03-04 (Mon) 03:43:15 No.589920

>>589889
On race, the fash will kill themselves over it, and could only possibly create an effective movement alon religious lines, as America unlike much of europe, still has large religious movements in even urban and suburban areas. TND advocacy won't work because black people, even with less collective wealth, hold enough political power and voting power to swing politics to pro-black activism, even the American south had to heavily restrict poll voting to prevent Alabama and Mississippi becoming swing states, but then again the racial polarization is so big 90% of whites there voe R and 90% of dems vote D. Of course we also have the influx of Latinos and Asian immigrants that run tech and engineering in this country. Even if the right can prey on scaring the moderate white, anti-labor union sentiment is what pushed the urban white to the left, so being generally anti-intellectual and anti-college is the right's best bet. Labor unions can also radicalize people out of raical division and to class struggle, so there also must be a push against labor unions, but that won't stabilize the right, it alienates all but the petit bourgeoisie and uneducated peasants, which does not have enough power to overthrow the liberal hegemony.
So what's anti-union, anti-intellectual, and traditionalist?
Christianity. Just mix in Catholocism and allow state run unions (so national syndicalism) and bing bang boom, the new far-right reinvents Falangism. It was always falangism. Besides, some Republican senators have actually quoted Fransisco Franco.

Anonymous 2024-03-04 (Mon) 03:58:50 No.589921

File: 1709524730642.jpg (38.63 KB, 383x470, Why is this on my hard dri….jpg)

Welp, the thread reached 500 posts. Have an ultra rare and disconcerting ᴉuᴉlossnW pic.

>>589920
See the contention I'd have with Christo-Fascism is just that the younger generations are by and large less religious than before. We've also seen how repealing Roe has galvanized young people. I'm not saying that the Right won't try to make ChristoFascism a thing, I'm certain there's a few trying right now, but I think it's successes would be limited.

Honestly I think a kind of American nationalism that tries to censor any discussion of race, or maybe a stratocracy born from the military, will be the source of Fascist ideology going forward. I think it's important for the Fascists to have a populace that, if they aren't enthusiastic for the regime, are at least apathetic to it. Evangelicals trying to ban teaching of Evolution doesn't create a more apathetic society.

Anonymous 2024-03-04 (Mon) 04:14:08 No.589922

>>589921
>Bare chested ᴉuᴉlossnW
Idk why rightists find this performative display of Masculinity cool. It feels the same witt Gaddafi prancing around like a Bedouin sheikh. The entire thing feels forced and garish.

Anonymous 2024-03-04 (Mon) 04:20:03 No.589923

>>589921
For a while the right did get atheists on their side using the underlying misogyny in the movement to uphold anti-feminism, and of course ruthlessly attack lis for being too soft on Islam, but overall the atheist movement either moved back to general progressive secularism or the right wing atheists had a born again revelation. Christianity could bounce back as a great awakening to radicalize normies aainst the apathetic secular blandness of modern society to the passions of christ. I have seen traditional orthodox and catholic accounts get HUGE on Instagram using religion to radicalize teens.
The other rhetoric the right uses is the aestheticization of rural Americans and farm life, seeing homeschooling and living off the land as independence from "debt" and state indoctrination. Maybe fascism will come in the form of an "agrarian populist revolt"

Anonymous 2024-03-04 (Mon) 04:24:53 No.589924

>>589923
isnt agrarian populist revolt an element of alot of facist movements?

Anonymous 2024-03-04 (Mon) 04:34:29 No.589925

>>589900
>there is not yet even a satisfactory explanation of what Fascism is. The Fascists themselves have not been able to produce an intelligible definition. These difficulties are to a great extent due to the elusive character of Fascism itself. Fascism is not a clear-cut theory.

Most relevant post ITT.

Anonymous 2024-03-04 (Mon) 18:40:54 No.589926

File: 1709577653878.jpg (161 KB, 1024x781, Mosley Reading.jpg)

>>589922
>Idk why rightists find this performative display of Masculinity cool. It feels the same witt Gaddafi prancing around like a Bedouin sheikh. The entire thing feels forced and garish.

A running theme in Fascist movements the world over is a battle against the "emasculation" of their home countries. I believe Codreanu said something along the lines of "We need men! Not 'programs'."

If I had to explain why that is, I think it's born of a frustration with the Parliamentary process. It's here Mosley, again, makes for an insightful read. He spent a great deal of time critiquing Parliament, its processes, and the people within it. Fascism lionizes action, which is traditionally a masculine trait. In times of crisis, the Fascist appeal is "Well, we're actually willing to do stuff." That's a pretty tempting appeal if you've suffered through years of seeing your government do nothing but talk endlessly and filibuster any progressive reform. It's humiliating, ain't it? We've had plenty of Democratic Presidents claim they'll "codify Roe" as their first act in office, and they never fucking do. They'll dangle the possibility of progressive reforms in front of us, then yank them away and claim "Well, we just don't have the votes for it."

Y'know what Mosley promised he'd do if the House of Lords tried to veto his reforms? A self-coup. He out and out said, in writing, "Well if we win the election, we've got a mandate by the people. If the House of Lords tries to stop the will of the people, then we'll just abolish them."

Of course, it's a dangerous idea to publicly exclaim you'll launch a coup against your own government. I wouldn't be surprised if Mosley would've been assassinated before he got that far. But imagine for a moment, someone vowing to go that far for politics you like? Let's imagine you've got an up and coming American politician. He won the presidency, and he promises to get Universal Healthcare passed. Somehow it gets through the senate, but then some business conservatives bring a case to the supreme court. The Supreme Court strikes it down as unconstitutional (note, they tried to do the same with minimum wage, too) and the President gets up on television one day and says:
>"Clarence Thomas made his decision, now let's see him enforce it."
Instantly he signs a decree dissolving the Supreme Court and replacing it with a new hand-picked court. Universal Healthcare is now guaranteed to every American.

Sure, such a President would destroy American democracy as we know it, but when things have decayed so fucking badly as they have now, I think some people would be fine with that. It'd be important for such a President's image that he portrays himself as strong and willful. He'd be capable of strangling a senator who disagrees with him with his bare hands.

In Matt Christman's podcast on the Spanish Civil War (currently on episode 2) he mentions that a lot of the coup-plotters were pretty open with the fact they wanted to overthrow the government. The problem was, in a liberal-representative system, no single politician wants to take responsibility. The whole point of liberal parliaments is for no one guy to make decisions and no one guy will take the blame. Fascism has a kind of honesty in that regard, in that it sees the ideal political system as in fact being directed by a single person. A single will. You can say what you want of the Fascists, but they let you know who's in charge in a way liberals never will.

For a modern example, I saw a news report on some labor dispute in Russia. Apparently some industrialist was stealing funds from his workers' pensions or something like that. Putin himself came down, and he just completely emasculated the guy. He chews the guy out in front of a table of his peers, forces him to sign a new contract, then chides the guy for not giving him his pen back immediately. The news agency reporting on it, however, made some aside that it's proof of how decayed and corrupt Russia's political system is, if you have to fly the President of the whole country out to resolve a labor dispute.

But the comments weren't having it.
>"This is how a REAL MAN leads! Take note, Dems!"
>"I wish we had a leader like that in America!"

The report is trying to insinuate that Russia's bureaucratic or political apparatus is so decayed because one guy is needed to resolve a labor dispute in bumfuck nowhere. But it's resting on some logic that in healthy liberal democracies, some bureaucracy would handle the corruption anyways! Well, do you see anything similar happening in America right now? When some Hedge Fund destroys grandma's pensions, they get a small fine and a slap on the wrist. People aren't thinking "Thank goodness my country doesn't need the president to do that". They're wondering why their Presidents AREN'T doing that. Because even if the industrialist isn't arrested for his crimes, they at least get the circus show of some strongman scaring the shit out of them.

In Talks With ᴉuᴉlossnW, they discussed corruption as well. And ᴉuᴉlossnW publicly boasts that when three Fascist bureaucrats were accused of corruption, he demanded to see all of them in person, only for two to end up killing themselves before meeting him. When some politician opposed him in Italy, the guy was beaten and tortured by blackshirts and ᴉuᴉlossnW just said "I take full responsibility" in front of all the others. It's thuggish and brutish, and flies in the face of any earnest liberalism, but it appeals to a people who've grown tired of seeing politics decay into a bunch of cowards refusing to govern and dodging responsibility.

Anonymous 2024-03-04 (Mon) 23:57:13 No.589927

>>589926
It seems as though the material conditions in America are ripe for fascism but is missing a ᴉuᴉlossnW

Anonymous 2024-03-05 (Tue) 00:33:12 No.589928

>>589927
I’m inclined to agree, though I’d say that the rubicon of saying “we will self-coup the government if they try to veto us” has yet to be crossed.

As for America’s ᴉuᴉlossnW, I think the most rational place they could come from would be a populist politician. Maybe a governor in the vein of Huey Long.

Anonymous 2024-03-05 (Tue) 00:52:21 No.589929

>>589928
>I’m inclined to agree, though I’d say that the rubicon of saying “we will self-coup the government if they try to veto us” has yet to be crossed.
That'll most likely happen if Project 2025 is seriously implemented by Trump

>As for America’s ᴉuᴉlossnW, I think the most rational place they could come from would be a populist politician. Maybe a governor in the vein of Huey Long.
Do you think the social imperialist wing of the '"American left" is likely to spawn such a figure?

Anonymous 2024-03-05 (Tue) 02:09:15 No.589930

>>589929
Not sure what context you’re using the “social imperialist” wing of the left. I could see it being born from a blackpilled or cynical leftist going full: “I just want fucking healthcare.” It could also be a disillusioned Marxist. Or even a generic populist who doesn’t realize what he’s unleashing.

I think, regardless, they won’t try to popularize Fascism AS Fascism. If they’re smart, they won’t even wink towards it. They’ll call themselves the young patriots or some shit, the American Union, whatever. I think the more they know of the Left however, the easier time they’d have at splitting it. Thus the most successful Fascist would be a former leftist, who’s otherwise disappointed. Hell if he’s smart I imagine he would try to force the Left into constantly discussing Sakai and Third Worldist crap; just hold up a copy of Settlers and say: “this is what they believe. They hate you. Nothing you do will ever be good enough. But we care. We want a better lot for everyone!”

Anonymous 2024-03-05 (Tue) 03:14:33 No.589931

>>589930
I had DSA radlib succdems and Infrared types in mind specifically due to their right opportunism.

Anonymous 2024-03-05 (Tue) 05:26:18 No.589932

>>589931
I mean it's a distinct possibility. Maybe they'd be the "face" of the movement whereas ex-Marxists would make up the intelligentsia, yet I think the problem with these right-opportunists is a lot of them are so terminally online they can't see what direction the world is heading in.

This may be a bit optimistic of me, but I think enough polls have shown how much young people viscerally despise the "MAGA" movement that trying to meme "MAGA Communism" into existence as Haz is doing will just end with them alienating themselves from the masses even moreso.

I mean this is necessary for every political movement, but you can't just post. You can't turn the internet into your whole life. You've got to get out there and actually talk to people. And there's always going to be some distance between Socialist "influencers" and the actual working class because they're a part of a completely different world. They don't talk about bread and butter issues in a way that matters to a lot of people.

So I'd lean more towards a DSA guy, or a Marxist who did more than just book clubs, as the next prophet of American Fascism.

Anonymous 2024-03-05 (Tue) 13:04:06 No.589933

File: 1709643846394.jpg (307.6 KB, 1000x1333, 1670317377457.jpg)

>>589931
>>589932
I don't think it's a question of leadership so much as the capability of a leader to drum up a coherent social base out of the petty-bourgeoisie. Because despite being so atomized that strata is the most militant and independent of America's class fractions.

I heard someone summarize an interview with the widely acclaimed speaker, writer, journalist, and political analyst Caleb Maupin the other day, where he made a point about allying with US petty-bourgeois politically to take advantage of a budding isolationist and anti-interventionist sentiment in order to achieve anti-imperialist objectives. Something like that might actually have some legs if it was combined with a robust (pro-capitalist) domestic agenda and put into practice.

If you haven't read the Substack piece I linked a while ago >>589888 I would encourage it, gets very interesting towards the end talking about what could happen to the state and society in the event of a successful petty-bourgeois political movement.

Anonymous 2024-03-07 (Thu) 02:44:31 No.589934

File: 1709779471236-0.jpg (31.13 KB, 850x400, 240717840_119461983759317_….jpg)

File: 1709779471236-1.jpeg (90.53 KB, 607x760, index.php.jpeg)

File: 1709779471236-2.jpg (517.25 KB, 2040x1386, fdc3d4bd06304863b842b17d22….jpg)

>>589885
> I think it’s plausible that some mutation of Black Nationalism could find its way into a modern American Fascism. Hell George Lincoln Rockwell associated with the Nation of Islam, and I’ve read blogs from modern Fascists praising Marcus Garvey as “The Black Moses”

The analysis of black nationalist groups like Garvey's UNIA and the Nation of Islam as being fundamentally fascist organizations isn't made nearly enough. Most leftists just fascism = wypipo and thus make the mistake of assuming that movements representing oppressed and/or colonized people can't be reactionary in nature

Anonymous 2024-03-07 (Thu) 02:59:24 No.589935

>>589934
one struggle… against communism

Anonymous 2024-03-07 (Thu) 06:25:09 No.589936

File: 1709792709280.jpg (53.66 KB, 1280x720, ogre.jpg)

>>589926
>In times of crisis, the Fascist appeal is "Well, we're actually willing to do stuff." That's a pretty tempting appeal if you've suffered through years of seeing your government do nothing but talk endlessly and filibuster any progressive reform. It's humiliating, ain't it?
This is the reason why I support community aid as a tactic, even charitable non-mutual aid in some cases. Show by example that we can do things which the state will not, and take credit for it. And if the state crush it, like the case with some FNB, that's powerful radicalization material.

If we don't, others will. See Patriot Front idiots trying this out in East Palestine.

>But the comments weren't having it.
Take that with salt - social media comments are prime propaganda spots. But even so, it doesn't matter if those comments were propaganda or not because it's a powerful point. It's more symbolic and convincing than seeing a politician cut a ribbon, romance babies or cosplay as a worker for a day.

Anonymous 2024-03-07 (Thu) 11:31:44 No.589937

Came for the esoteric hitlerism thread, found this Reddit nonsense.

This place has fallen so hard

Anonymous 2024-03-07 (Thu) 11:55:16 No.589938

>>589937
>>1455451

Anonymous 2024-03-07 (Thu) 12:12:25 No.589939

>>589938
Absolutely nothing on the OG. Man it’s like walking around a dust bowl ghost town

Anonymous 2024-03-07 (Thu) 12:19:38 No.589940

>>589939
Make the thread you want to see in the world

Anonymous 2024-03-07 (Thu) 20:59:20 No.589941

File: 1709845160444.jpg (83.48 KB, 1357x758, White_Woman_Extinction.jpg)

>>589933
I thought it was an interesting piece to be honest, and I'm inclined to agree that the petite-bourgeoisie have a thoroughly odd, precarious place in America. I mean, Car Dealerships only exist, despite their inefficiencies, thanks to government law prohibiting people buying their cars directly from auto manufacturers. It's a wholly inefficient enterprise from the perspective of Capitalism, but it represents the state taking pains to preserve these little capitalists as a class.

>>589934
>The analysis of black nationalist groups like Garvey's UNIA and the Nation of Islam as being fundamentally fascist organizations isn't made nearly enough. Most leftists just fascism = wypipo and thus make the mistake of assuming that movements representing oppressed and/or colonized people can't be reactionary in nature

I'm glad you mentioned that, because when I was checking out Orthodox Fascist forums/subs (and many of them were trying hard not to get banned so they quickly cracked down on Racism) they had the occasional thread celebrating "Anti-Colonial Fascists". Y'know, Chandra Bose and the like. This calls back to what I've said elsewhere, which is that Fascism can have a kind of "coherence in contradiction" that often enough Marxists don't understand. Like, "Nationalist Internationalism" can come across as an oxymoron, yet Fascists have shown a surprising ability to network beyond their national borders and form a semi-cohesive front. You had George Lincoln Rockwell at least putting out feelers to the Nation of Islam. You have Marcus Garvey associating with the Klan. Y'know we like to tell ourselves that White Nationalists, if they ever gained power, would start purging themselves because of some need to narrow the definition of "White", but there's no guarantee that would be the case and a glance at /pol/ meetups shows a lot of these people, for some reason, hardly meet the criteria for "White" as is.

Where does this coherence come from? If I can court a little controversy, I'd say it's because the Fascists developed a framework around their moral and political principles that's adaptable while also being legible/"clear". That might be difficult to understand, so I'll try to elaborate.

To be "White" in America is to be universalized in a sense that other racial groups aren't. We can all acknowledge the existence of a "Black History" but what one would term "White History" has to be presented as just "history" for the American Nation-State to function. I've mentioned this before; the U.K. is led by the English, ostensibly, but some factions of the English will point out that the Scottish have their own Parliament but the English don't. While you can point to the English being the leading group in the U.K.'s parliament, they'll point out that they still have to share power with the Scottish, the Welsh, and the Ulster Scots-Irish. Being "White" in America is, to a lesser extent, a similar quandry where you can have groups specifically tailored towards minorities, but it's socially unacceptable to have a group tailored to "the majority." You can have Black Student Unions in Universities while "White Student Unions" are regarded as racist and inherently harmful.

This is a premise that isn't just contained to liberalism. The universality vs nationality issue exists within Communism too. You have the Communist Party which was supposed to be for all workers, and then you'd get groups like the Black Panthers within the wider movement who narrowed their focus to Black workers specifically. I believe Fred Hampton was asked in a radio interview whether the Black Panthers were for Blacks only, and he said something along the lines of "If Whites want to, they can form the White Panthers." Well, one guy did… and the White Panthers' job was to help the Black Panthers.

So you got a Black group designed to help Black People, and a White group designed to… also help Black People.

The Fascists ostensibly argue a simple worldview: "your only responsibility is to your group." And it's for this reason that you can have some weird crossovers like Marcus Garvey and the Klan, or Rockwell and the Nation of Islam. I think Rockwell even said something along the lines of "The Nation of Islam wants Blacks to have their own country here, and I want them to go back to Africa, but other than that we agree on most things." Of course, a Black Nationalist would argue for the necessity of Black Advocacy groups because the state as it presently exists overwhelmingly is dominated by and directed towards White people. Whereas the White Nationalist believes minority interests are "overrepresented" due to the supposed "Universalism" of White America. Both ultimately come to the conclusion that the two Races have to stay separate and within separate nations.

How do you resolve this dilemma? As it seems the present system of "Universalism with minority considerations" hasn't led to a solution. I suppose one novel possibility is the incorporation of the minority experience into the mainstream; which is to say, subsume the minority identity into the mainstream one, such that to be an "American" is to be simultaneously the Founding Fathers, as well as the enslaved Blacks in their plantations. I don't know if it could work, and I imagine it'd cause quite a controversy if figures like Martin Luther King Jr. or Fred Hampton must lose their "Blackness" in favor of a new American universality, but these are issues that we can't shy away from if we want workable solidarity.

Celia Sánchez 2024-03-08 (Fri) 21:52:15 No.589942

https://smadin.net/2024/02/23/against-revulsion/

Margeret Thatcher 2024-03-08 (Fri) 22:30:28 No.589943

>>589941
Not a worthy response to your effortpost, but I arrived at a similar conclusion almost by memetic means some time ago. The reactionaries will always try to split up the working class by making leverage on the particular identities of those who make it up. As such, the only permanent solution to this would be either to genocide everyone until you have a single group left, or sublime and merge them into one another, until they're indistinguishable and essentially one and the same.
Considering historical precedent, it seems to be that such a program can only be effectively deployed after a proletarian revolution

Ida Bell Wells 2024-03-09 (Sat) 01:23:26 No.589944

>>589943
See I don’t think it necessarily involves genocide. Like as I understand, Russian Nazis essentially want to reduce Russia to a quarter of its size (mostly just the European parts) and create a bunch of ethnostate from it. It’s how some Fascists can work with minority groups because they can both at least agree on segregation.

It also raises the question of how “incorporating minorities into the nation” works. I mean you’d undeniably need at least some kind of economic component—the Irish and Italians required the post-war boom to really be considered fully white. It also raises some questions about how to rehabilitate figures like MLK or Malcom X into the universalist mainstream when they were arguing from the particular position of minorities in America. I know PragerU tried this with some shitty results (getting cartoon Fredrick Douglass to say he disagrees with slavery but is happy the founders could “compromise” on it to make America.)

>>589942
It’s an interesting read, but I disagree with its conclusion (the conscious attempt to remove disgust from your mind) as, to be frank, I think it’s the kind of pussy stuff or middle class attitude that leads to the Left being real shit at actually seizing power and what that’ll entail. It actually reminds me of that line from Apocalypse Now where Brando says the army want pilots to drop napalm on villages but considers it a step too far if you write “fuck” on the same airplane.

Personally I find “fat phobia” in particular to be a dangerous trend. You’ve got a bunch of people promoting Junk science, convincing others to not give a fuck about their health cause “oh fat is beautiful.” They can talk about socially constructed beauty standards all they want, but then the question is what’s more likely: you can completely change how society views “beauty” or you just confine yourself to a much mocked niche while your enemies continue to belittle and alienate you? I also just don’t follow this logic, as though feeling visceral disgust at obesity will convince you “Well I guess I don’t want to seize the means of production after all.”

This kind of goes back to an impression I got in my early studies of Fascism. It feels like it caused a schism in the Left where we get the “soft” humanists while they get opportunistic nihilists. And now we have this tendency in the western Left to turn orgs into a vehicle to relitigate every Highschool prejudice or sense of discomfort you’ve ever experienced.

We’re trying to “do it all” but that never fucking works. There’s nothing wrong with narrowing our scope. Let the “fat activists” form groups for their own activism if they want, but Socialism doesn’t have to address it.

Alexandria Occasio Cortez 2024-03-09 (Sat) 06:13:02 No.589945

>Came hoping for a thread mostly consisting of links to historical materialist Marxist/Anarchist analyses of fascism, maybe even texts mostly written by historians
<Get thread full of stalinists rambling about the meaningless meandering incoherent yapping of historical fascists and their tendencies towards opportunism and literally coming very fucking close to the line of just straight up sympathizing with fascists because they recognize they want nearly the same kind of government anyway
<<Half the thread is literally just red-brown alliance vibes and wondering why red-brown alliance never happened
Holy fuck 👀
Anyway here's a uhhh video about the political economy of fascism and its comparison to settler-colonialism

Clara Zetkin 2024-03-09 (Sat) 17:15:18 No.589946

>>589945
To be honest, not a lot of people have been providing their own theories and arguments. One of the goals of the thread was to look at primary sources and analyze them, because I suspect most of us are familiar with the Marxist critiques of Fascism and the “capitalism in decay” argument, but most of us aren’t familiar with how Fascists perceived their own ideology.

I think primary sources can get to the substance of Fascism best.

Lucy Parsons 2024-03-09 (Sat) 18:39:11 No.589947

>>589946
Fascists are brainlets that think reading is for faggots, checking out their incoherent mystical woo woo is worthless
Like Benito's black shirts didn't fucking read, very few fash ever have

Lucy Parsons 2024-03-09 (Sat) 18:41:10 No.589948

>>589947
>>589946
And what's extremely concerning about your thread is the fact that the prevailing concensus is very close to
>Hitler ruined fascism!
i.e. the argument made by the most cowardly and spineless fascist worms

Tania Bruguera 2024-03-09 (Sat) 21:57:45 No.589949

>>589948
I think the argument is less that Hitler “ruined” Fascism so much as acknowledging that despite the Nazis becoming the “face” of Fascism, Hitler was an imitator more than an innovator.

Now as for the sympathy for Fascism, I can see where you’re coming from and I apologize if that’s the impression some people are taking away from this. If I suspect where it comes from, it’s a mixture of frustration with the liberal status quo, as well as an acknowledgement of what progressive elements existed within Fascism’s early years as a mutation of syndicalism. Which kind of goes back to the point I made earlier, which is that the danger I’ve repeatedly warned about emerging from Fascism isn’t just coming from the Right, but that it has seductive elements that can split the left as well. And it’s a far more discomforting realization that we can see our apparent comrades donning the jackboot than just being crushed under it with us.

Glowing Mariya Oktyabrskaya 2024-03-09 (Sat) 22:02:29 No.589950

>>589947
>Fascists are brainlets that think reading is for faggots, checking out their incoherent mystical woo woo is worthless
Yea this.
As silly as it probably sounds I listen to their music.
It's more unadulteratedly about feels and vibes, which is what fascism is based on.

bell hooks 2024-03-10 (Sun) 01:40:07 No.589951

According to the dominant ideology, fascism constitutes an exceptional break with the protocols of liberal democracy, which has only happened at rare moments in the history of the West, such as in ᴉuᴉlossnW’s Italy and Nazi Germany. Liberalism is thereby postulated as a bulwark against fascism, an idea that’s been consolidated through the massive perpetuation of a historical narrative regarding the supposed democratic defeat of Nazism in WWII. This presentation will critically interrogate these assumptions by re-examining the historical relationship between liberal democracy and fascism. Have they always been opposed to one another, or do they sometimes work in concert as two capitalist ideologies? Is it really the case that liberal democratic governments in the imperial core serve as safeguards against fascism? If so, what are we to make of their imperialist foreign policies, their colonial histories, their general tolerance toward fascists, and their current domestic practices of draconian policing, mass incarceration, the militarization of borders, and the empowerment of vigilante militias? In addressing these and parallel questions, this talk will seek to develop a refined dialectical understanding of fascism and liberalism as capitalist modes of governance that are often partners in crime, while also avoiding any simplistic, ultra-leftist conflation between them.

Anonymous 2024-03-14 (Thu) 22:47:07 No.589952

Is it possible for a worker's state to become fascist? Is fascism really just corporatism or is there something more to it economically?

Anonymous 2024-03-14 (Thu) 22:49:48 No.589953

>>589949
There's a question that I think we must answer. Were the syndicalists marxists? Or were they a mix of tendencies?

Anonymous 2024-03-15 (Fri) 00:21:49 No.589954

File: 1710462109394.jpg (28.12 KB, 640x289, 1695089276916-0.jpg)

It's going to be counterproductive if your analysis of fascism is actually a projection of a boogeyman, a liberal spectre or some invention to scare children off for fucks sake, you're perceiving a scarecrow just as the far right sees marxism as pic-related.

Fascism and it's variants were not auth big muscle reactionarism with pseudokeynesian concessions nor it was this abstracted notion of inmorality made political system. You're missing the forest from the trees and mistaking effects for causes.

Start by reading Hegel's philosophy of the right, then go for fascist foundational works and modern fascists (although modern proper fascists are difficult to find though) not only of the italian iteration if you want to have an understanding of it.

Anonymous 2024-03-15 (Fri) 00:27:40 No.589955

>>589934
>Muhammad Ali in the Fruit of Islam
Bro imagine being some racist cracker trying to start shit with some NOI dudes and none other than Cassius Clay himself comes out and now you have to fight him.

Anonymous 2024-03-15 (Fri) 01:57:00 No.589956

File: 1710467819447.jpg (66.66 KB, 650x433, eduard_limonov.jpg)

>>589952
So as controversial as this sounds, I think this poster ( >>589950 ) can be correct in the sense that a lot of what makes Fascism what it is are superstructural elements. I think this has been to the consternation of a great deal of Marxists because by nature, all these abstract or idealistic qualities defy a scientific approach. I'd say a similar comparison would be a Scientist and a Theologian discussing God and the Cosmos. The scientist can say "Well, I've looked through the most powerful telescope on earth, I've seen as far as we possibly can, and I don't see God out there." The Theologian might respond: "Well, do you expect to find some human looking guy in a white robe? You don't even know what to look for!"

I know it's not a 1:1 comparison, but it's apt I think. On one hand you've got Marxism with its scientific approach, on the other you've got Fascism with its Idealistic one. The mistake that a lot of Marxists make in trying to understand Fascism is they attempt to view it solely through a scientific lense.

Okay, maybe a better example would be trying to describe what a feeling like "love" is. You can talk about all the physical attributes of it: your heart starts racing, you blush, you become sensitive to another's touch, your eyes dilate, whatever. But if you try to explain it in purely measurable or scientific terms, you'll miss the essence of it and come to the conclusion that "love" is some kind of disease or drug.

ᴉuᴉlossnW, for example, once said that Stalin was a Fascist. And he had some praise for Roosevelt, curiously enough. If we think of Fascism solely in terms of its economics, then I think we're liable to misunderstand aspects of it, because I think the Fascists themselves in most cases genuinely don't put as much stock in economics. I think we make the mistake of imagining "Oh they're just faking it" or "Oh it's a bunch of humbug to shore up the Capitalist class" and while there's likely some truth to the claim that Fascism's historic role was to suppress the Left, I don't think that's the sum total of it nor the motivation of the "boots on the ground" as it were (nor even some of the leaders of the movement). I think I've said elsewhere, that if Fascism begins and ends at "well the Bourgeoisie needs a means of suppressing Leftism" then it doesn't explain why they can't do that through already existing political parties and means, it doesn't explain what makes "Fascism" unique enough that they'd see some necessity in creating it.

I think a prime force in Fascism is the desire to, above all else, preserve superstructural elements of society; "The Nation" or "The Faith" or "The Monarchy" or what have you. That seems to be the bulk of their focus and writings, at least. When it comes to economics, they don't make the connection between base and superstructure. They don't see "Capitalism" as inherent to the maintenance of the Church or the Monarchy or even the Nation. To them, these things are eternal and spiritual, existing "beyond" economics. And while under more materialist analysis we think there's some hidden motive there, some desire to preserve Capitalism, I think for a lot of these people it's a genuine drive.

Something to consider. I believe one of the earliest iterations of the "National Bolshevik" ideology came from, among other things, Russian Whites who saw the writing on the wall and hoped to preserve some degree of Russian Nationalism in the USSR. I don't imagine most of these guys gave a toss about whether the Capitalists would keep their factories or not, I think they genuinely thought "Well shit, we're Soviets now. Can we be National Soviets, at least?" You see the same with the Mladorossi and their bizarre blend of Tsarism and Socialism. A lot of these guys I think just have an attachment to all these institutions that Marxists dismiss as just part of the Capitalist hierarchy, so while they may be the first to fight Marxism if they feel their "nation" is threatened, I don't think it's on the grounds of Marxist economic policy.

For a more humorous example. I think "The Golden One" (a Swedish Neo-Nazi) once tried to explain his economic views. Emphasis on "tried." It boiled down to some incoherent nonsense where he claimed to believe in "National Capitalism" which was just "Capitalism with a sense of honor", no further definition given.

I think these guys genuinely don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Glowing Anonymous 2024-03-15 (Fri) 02:56:04 No.589957

>>589956
>and while there's likely some truth to the claim that Fascism's historic role was to suppress the Left, I don't think that's the sum total of it nor the motivation of the "boots on the ground" as it were (nor even some of the leaders of the movement).
I really don't think ᴉuᴉlossnW or Hitler, et al, walked outside and said 'hmm today i will be a pawn of the bourgeois capitalists'. They served that role as anti-socialists and anti-liberals, but it's not their own desire and motivation to serve the prior ruling class.
Similarly, social democrats and even some socialists don't go out and say 'I want to serve the ruling class', but they do serve the ruling class. They have to.

A material historical analysis of what role fascists have played will give a different, yet important, insight to looking at what fascists try to achieve and how they will attempt to manifest those aims under different material conditions. Both are informative.

Similarly, a material historical analysis of communist projects will give a different and important insight to the one you'd get from reading any of our theory. Communist theory doesn't say 'start a new state by getting destroyed in a world war and a civil war and then face a huge famine', we don't want that to happen, but that happened more than once! So is it an element of communism??

Anonymous 2024-03-15 (Fri) 04:18:44 No.589958

>>589657
This is an amazing find CPUSA anon. As a Latino I’ve always been interested in Castro, and I’ve noticed his dabblings into fascism. It’s why I characterized him as a Hispanic nationalist first and foremost

Anonymous 2024-03-15 (Fri) 07:23:50 No.589959

>>589957
Oh, I'm not denying that a material analysis isn't useful in this case. I apologize if that's the impression I gave, what I'm getting at is that we should augment our understanding with some acknowledgement of the "idealist" side of things and learn how to work around that. I think that's what makes Fascism at once dangerous, but also capable of surprises and some small successes.

While I've explained plenty of reasons why Hitler was an imitator, I'll say this: his overall unstable personality can be an apt summation of how much of Fascism is driven by idealism rather than the steady hand of status-quo bourgeois politics. It's why you'll occasionally get lesser fascists that bizarrely turn against what would seem to be their own national interests (the Russian Nazis that want to balkanize, the German Nazis during the Cold War who wanted East Germany to unite them) because a lot of it can be influenced by individual personality untethered from a unified political machine.

To simplify it: there are plenty of factors explaining the Biden Administration's support for Israel, with only one aspect being Biden's individual personality. With Fascism, the personality takes a greater role in state decision making, and when wielded by an impatient and incoherent statesman, it can lead to diplomatic stances changing on a dime. I believe the German Diplomatic Corps ultimately attempted to circumvent Hitler by trying to bring the Soviets into the Axis' orbit (in order to prevent a war they thought they would lose, rather than for altruistic reasons) but ultimately Hitler's mania was a bigger deciding factor. Shit, I believe when Baron Ribbentrop heard the news, he actually was spotted muttering to himself "Of course he's right, the Fuhrer is always right" or somesuch. He even apologized to Stalin after the war declaration.

All of this is to say, Fascism can be a wildcard. Gaddaffi's Libya might be an example of a kind of "progressive Fascism" whereas Hitler's was Fascism in a more regressive form. The unifying thread is that the personality of "The Leader" takes some prominence.

>>589958
I think there are elements of Castro's later life that showed a real conversion to Socialist thought, although perhaps tempered by his earlier influences. I still have nothing but respect for the man, personally.

Glowing Anonymous 2024-03-15 (Fri) 07:32:15 No.589960

>>589959
>I apologize if that's the impression I gave
No it wasn't, I was agreeing!

Anonymous 2024-03-15 (Fri) 07:33:05 No.589961

>>589959
Oh, one final comment before I go to bed: pointing out Fascism may at times be progressive isn't meant to absolve it of any potential danger or suggest we should trust it. A Movie Executive who's snorted an 8ball of coke might give you a few thousand dollars because he likes your tie, or has some subconscious guilt he needs to resolve, but he's also just as liable to throw a punch when your back is turned. In the immortal words of Hunter S. Thompson:
>"You can turn your back on a person, but never turn your back on a drug, especially when its waving a razor sharp hunting knife in your eye."

Anonymous 2024-03-15 (Fri) 07:55:13 No.589962

>>589959
>All of this is to say, Fascism can be a wildcard. Gaddaffi's Libya might be an example of a kind of "progressive Fascism" whereas Hitler's was Fascism in a more regressive form. The unifying thread is that the personality of "The Leader" takes some prominence.
This is simply an iron law of power, the only difference is that fascists dont hide behind "scientific" rhetoric to justify why stalin kills his doctors or why mao lied about swimming across a river in just a few minutes.
But this is the inheritence of a political "objectivity" that socialism appropriates from liberalism, where in each, the "market" or "history" as a self-moved thing progresses onwards. Its just typical theo-politics that replaces God with other signifiers.
So the point then is that drawing from a "material analysis" doesnt escape the fact that power is always personified, and thus dialectically, the abstract is concretised in the totality of its *idea*, *against* its concept.

Anonymous 2024-03-15 (Fri) 08:00:57 No.589963

File: 1710489657084.png (182.05 KB, 767x675, 8f7711cd8fda5b2d7fa1564e5e….png)

>>589957
If you begin with the thought that only socialists can truly oppose the ruling class then you have already set up a game where only you can win, but also one where only you can lose.

Glowing Anonymous 2024-03-15 (Fri) 08:02:38 No.589964

File: 1710489758049.jpg (41.49 KB, 700x400, commie captain.jpg)

>>589657
NAZBOL BOAT

Glowing Anonymous 2024-03-15 (Fri) 08:29:20 No.589965

>>589962
>the abstract is concretised in the totality of its *idea*, *against* its concept.
How is an idea distinct from a concept? I'm used to those words being treated as synonymous.

>>589963
>If you begin with the thought that only socialists can truly oppose the ruling class
I don't begin with that thought. I'm pointing out that, historically, fascist movements receive the support of a desperate ruling class because of the political conditions of the time; they are threatened by the emerging socialist movements of the time. The blackshirts and brownsharts attacked trade unions and socialists for members of the owning class. Socialism is actually pretty arbitrary in the scenario, it could even have been another, more economically radical form of fascism being fought by the fascist paramilitaries. Liberalism is the ideology of the ruling classes and fascists aim to be anti-liberal, so of course I don't think socialism is the only way it can be opposed. It's that fascism's typical idealistic structure tends it toward behaviors which fail to create the systematic change needed to threaten the capitalist class. But, I see no reason why it couldn't succeed in transforming the ruling class from the capitalist class into the state class, or some hybrid. Whoop-de-doo, the working class is still at its mercy! I don't see that as a problem solved, merely transformed.

>If you begin with the thought that only socialists can truly oppose the ruling class then you have already set up a game where only you can win, but also one where only you can lose.
Nice paradox, now explain how it's not pseudo-profound bullshit.

Anonymous 2024-03-15 (Fri) 08:39:14 No.589966

File: 1710491954357.jpg (52.33 KB, 850x400, quote-better-to-live-a-day….jpg)

>>589956
As a fascist, its not about superstructural "preservation", its about maintaining a national form of self-relation whereby a people may be realised by an idea. Fascism differs from national socialism in this question since fascism promotes modernity and the state as a mediating principle, while national socialism is essentialist and darwinist. It perceives the "nation" (a modern concept) as something organically encoded in a people (hitler would rather be more of a thinker of "ethnos" than "nation" like dugin).
Fascism sees that people can be made to come together by the active construction of a nation while hitler sees that the german essence is in the blood. So i would qualitatively distinguish it as nationalism vs civilisationalism.
Fascism also because of this has displayed progressive tendencies even within its self-conception, as the approriator of social relations by bringing discursive presence to the role of the corporate economy (as an advancement from early liberalism), while hitler in mein kampf only speaks pragmatically of the selfishness of union leaders subverting the national economy (where someone like gobbels who was more of a socialist was shafted out due to hitler's hands-off attitude in giving the economy to capable industrialists, and not for it to be set by the people, principally, nor for any unified project, except in his national imagination, particularly architecture, which is his fascism - hitler also says in mein kampf that he knew from a young age he would be an architect).
The corporate economy to mussolini was his historical conception of "late capitalism" (a term coined by nazi werner sombart), where business had naturally become made into trusts and so partnered with the state. ᴉuᴉlossnW only wanted to formally and politically realise this economic reality (something not yet achieved to this day).
>muh economism
Like i've said in an earlier post, you socialists and liberals are infected by a disease called economism which is its own branch of reductionist scientism. Most people arent scientific, theyre consumers of culture, so in the end, fascism beats the minimum wage, and thats the left's cynicism.
A socialist can speak of "the people" but can never speak of "the nation" and thats its fatal flaw and why it will always lose.

Anonymous 2024-03-15 (Fri) 09:10:57 No.589967

File: 1710493857239.jpg (58 KB, 512x231, unnamed.jpg)

>>589965
An *idea* in hegelian thought is the totality of something (where, lets say, when theory becomes practiced, the result is the rounding off of its *idea*, where the "concept" is its original "theory" in this case). So an idea is the true representation of a concept, where in hegelian thought, "the real is rational" and so the phenomena speaks for itself. When someone says for example that "its not real capitalism" or "its not real socialism" they are thinking conceptually rather than ideally (in the hegelian sense).
>the working class is still at its mercy! I don't see that as a problem solved, merely transformed.
The issue is that you oppose class society all together, when i think there will always be class hierarchy (which has always been true in history, and where state capitalism is a progression from liberalism by reproducing the class structure at a higher stage, like they do in china).
Give the working class fair wages and fair housing and they wont revolt. Its no big deal.
>Nice paradox, now explain how it's not pseudo-profound bullshit.
Because if history has its good guys and bad guys, and youre a bad guy if youre not a good guy then you either completely win or completely lose history. To me, history is progressive but within its own structure, like the spirit of absolute knowledge. If you accept that there will be space slavery and space capitalism and space fascism and even pockets of space socialism then you can tend to chill out.
Even marx's idea of communism is just a heightened reproduction of primitive communism. Its a spiral; it circles in as it moves inward. What comes after communism though? People just say more communism. No. History never ends, but it only progresses evermore from the sight of its foreclosure, which is *modernity* not communism proper. I defend modernity as an end to history, but an end that never ends within itself. We are all (post)modern because that is the *Spirit* of our experience, but we cannot all be communists alike.
marx is also right in his appropriation of hegel's Spirit in describing the capital relation, and i agree too that we are all essentially capitalist today, but postcapitalism (or post-liberalism) does not mean communism either

Glowing Anonymous 2024-03-15 (Fri) 11:08:28 No.589968

File: 1710500907723.webm (1.09 MB, 1920x1080, Tim Curry is escaping to ….webm)

>>589967
>re: idea/concept
Thanks. I haven't gotten around to reading Hegelian works yet.
>when i think there will always be class hierarchy (which has always been true in history
Depending on your leniency, I would suggest there are present-day societies without classes, or at least classes as we know them.
Zapatista Municipalities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_Zapatista_Autonomous_Municipalities (Large territory, pop. 300,000. One might consider their army as a separate class, due to their material power, but they don't use this power to rule so I would not consider them a ruling class)
Anarchist communes, e.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Oaks_Community,_Virginia (and its sister communities, almost 60 years old)
I obviously don't endorse communes and impatient anarchism as a path to overcoming liberal capitalism, they're just case studies.
I concede that these are communes or states within capitalist countries, and maybe not fit to replace a whole country or nation, and I also concede that some are comparatively small and/or young, but nonetheless they still demonstrate that the idea of a classless society is realistic, albeit only realized so far on a small scale or a limited extent, as was the case of liberalism a few hundred years ago.
For what it's worth, I consider myself a socialist first and foremost, communist second. I would accept a pro-worker anti-capitalist dictatorship as progress, a 'win' - vulnerable, but a huge success. Aiming eventually to consider building a classless society doesn't blind me from my first and foremost goal - I fucking hate capitalism and don't consider fascism able to supplant it any better than, say, China. Socialism with classes, I would call a win, just not the end of history. Like you say, it's a spiral and to pretend to know the end goal so soon is arrogant.

>Give the working class fair wages and fair housing and they wont revolt. Its no big deal.
But that's just it - capitalism systematically disincentivizes this! Otherwise, we would have done it by now. Europe (and honestly, USA) are certainly rich enough and social democrat governments in the Nordic countries and others would have wanted to, right? Even China, nominally communist and one of the richest countries, with amazing infrastructure capabilities and state power over capital and production that would make ᴉuᴉlossnW excited, can't even guarantee these things.
Fair wages means less profit and therefore less capital. Within capitalism, a business can't just decide to accumulate less capital, because they will eventually be put out of business or accumulated by other businesses. Exploitation of wage workers isn't just some evil people being evil for personal gain, even if all the CEOs and directors and landlords were benevolent, they can't deny the competitive economic pressures of the international liberal capitalist system. Unless the economy is revolutionized, it will remain a slave to capital. Reform can't save it.

If all it took to placate you and me were decent wages and housing, the governments would be stupid not to provide.

>Because if history has its good guys and bad guys, and youre a bad guy if youre not a good guy
Holy Marvel Studios, Batman!
History doesn't have good guys and bad guys. Good and bad just aren't useful concepts. History, life even, is generally too complex to be reduced to something so pure and abstract, moralistic.
But there are dominant modes of production, we saw feudalism essentially go extinct in Europe when liberal capitalism emerged. And yes, Marxists see capitalism as inherently imperialist and therefore it won't peacefully co-exist (lol CIA), it must be dominated for socialism to persist and, theoretically, will likely eradicated as a result (due to factors like falling rate of profit and overproduction making it unsustainable). It's not that completely winning history is a goal in itself, rather that if socialism dominates and creates a higher stage just like China's state-controlled economy has, capitalism won't be able to compete just like feudalism could not compete with capitalism, like primitive economies could not compete with feudalism. None were good ideologies or bad ideologies; capitalism was, in many ways, obviously beneficial!
>If you accept that there will be space slavery and space capitalism and space fascism and even pockets of space socialism then you can tend to chill out.
I see what you mean, and I don't believe in One True Universal Ideology. There are, and will always be, pockets, however much they struggle.
Honestly, I'm not even confident we will get any space society (beyond the kind of existing small space stations subject to Earth nations). It would take some radical events to get anything beyond tourism and research happening. But hey, as your moosey quote reminded me, there are days when decades happen. So let's be optimistic.
>I defend modernity as an end to history
I feel like modernity is modern the way that New York is new.

Anonymous 2024-03-15 (Fri) 14:28:44 No.589969

>Like i've said in an earlier post, you socialists and liberals are infected by a disease called economism which is its own branch of reductionist scientism. Most people arent scientific, theyre consumers of culture, so in the end, fascism beats the minimum wage, and thats the left's cynicism.

<if somebody doesn't believe something, it stops applying

TO REDUCE EVERYTHING TO PHYSICS IS A SCIENTISTIC ILLUSION. I BELIEVE IN THE SPIRIT!!! THE SPIRIT IS STRONGER THAN PHYSICS!!!!

(falls off a cliff and dies)

Anonymous 2024-03-15 (Fri) 14:38:55 No.589970

File: 1710513535456.jpg (47.41 KB, 640x318, am-i-the-only-person-here-….jpg)

>>589968
>Thanks. I haven't gotten around to reading Hegelian works yet.
It should be noted that what i describe as an idea is only its (concrete) totality, or its dialectical unfoldment. Marx borrows from hegel in the same way when looking at history. If we take the concept of History proper (as something which progresses toward an ideal end) then we see how History's idea is expressed by its "imperfect" conditions which point from its (actual) idea toward its received concept.
My criticism of concepts is only conjunctive in hegel, not part of his essential understanding, where a concept to me is in some way the idea of an idea, which is the undialectical attitude you get in dogmatists. If something is "not real socialism" then the concept is posited as a defence from the failure of its Idea. As zizek would say, its "pure ideology".
>Depending on your leniency, I would suggest there are present-day societies without classes, or at least classes as we know them.
Sure. But these are exceptions to the rule. And classes as a holistic concept (not just economic) are an ambiguous thing. Like how many people from working class backgrounds might go to university and cone back to be treated like a snob because of envious or bitter or reverse-snob relatives. The working class identity is not just about wage labour, but its become aestheticised, even as an abstraction apart from actual proles. Like how the patsocs think starbucks workers arent proles because they have blue hair. In one way they are idiots, but in another, they are right, because again, the idea of the working class doesnt match its concept. For example, i literally have no money, but i speak with a metropolitan accent and know academic jargon, therefore i would be rightfully seen as a middle class posh boy playing intellectual games, and in one way, this is correct, but in another, it is wrong. I think this contradiction between economic and cultural differences has to be sustained though as a fact of life. I myself am only an exception to the rule.
But i also feel that there are also spiritual hierarchies and so forth but we dont need to get too much into that. But for example, where does the professional chess player sit? Or the youtuber? Or the pop star?
Selena gomez might be as rich as a wall street stock broker but i wouldnt pair them up as holding the same interests. Politically, socially, philosophically, morally.
But this is my own reductionism i understand. My own measely game of words.
But this is why i like markets, however cringe they can be.
>I would accept a pro-worker anti-capitalist dictatorship as progress, a 'win' - vulnerable, but a huge success.
I consider myself a state capitalist, a la china and so my feeling is that the dialectic of class society simply has to be reproduced to the higher order of corporatist production, which would appropriate the (industrial) capitalist class for the sake of a national profit (which would still be exploiting workers, but for public gain). This would also de-internationalise the proletariat by in one way, creating self-sufficiency (and thus removing labour from the global market) and also in promoting nationalism *against* communism. To me, this is progressive in the dialectical (historical) sense because the dialectic is self-reproduced by its internal contradictions, not reversed like in the marxist doctrine. To me, marxism completely drops the ball when it comes to the notion of ending history by abolishing class society. It just makes no sense to me, socially or economically.
>I feel like modernity is modern the way that New York is new.
To me, modernity is the meaning of history and is its self-completion, so read this saga carefully. Before modernity, europe is captured by catholic priests who hold a monopoly of scriptural understanding due to educational and technological limits. But then modernity begins with the renaissance as a rekindling of pagan culture following the crisis of the late middle ages when true christendom had burned its last ember. The renaissance comes about and texts from antiquity are translated. So then we see a time-loop between antiquity and the primordial soup of modernity as a creature of progressive critique.
The protestant reformation happens (due to the printing press) which destroys the stranglehold of the catholic church and politically leads to modernity's first official instantiation, which is the english civil war that leads to king charles i being tried as a king and so beheaded (here we see a return of the myth of rome as a site of republican dignity). This creates the bank of england. Now, it should be said that both luther and cromwell were rosicrucians (forerunners to the freemasons along with the templars, who themselves created the first international bank). So occult banking is the result of this carnage, which links the modern mystery religion back to the babylonian banking system (which intwined banking with religion, same as rome).
Decartes begins with his discourses which are a rediscovery of metaphysics and place the subject as the centre of reality while at the same time offering a total scepticism of the world. This marks well with empiricism which also privileges the individual in the english invention of liberalism (as a construct of the british empire's global connections). Locke formulates the natural rights of man and takes much inspiration from the civil war. Too ofc milton is making cromwell into the glorious image of lucifer who leads a rebellion against God.
With the empiricists are the rationalists who begin with their protestant faith and try to reach god through reason alone, and so craft god as the very image of reason. Reason inverts god into his own absence through this exercise and the protestants become atheists (another luciferian revolution), which aids the further political aims of the enlightenment leading up to the french revolution as a reproduction of the "glorious revolution" in england. Here we get the masters who congregate in their illuminati and strike against the king. This is another abolishment of monarchy and the positing of a republic (expressly as a link to antiquity and all of the reborn ideas which floated around by popular transmission). The american revolution also happens as a rebellion against the king.
In this time there is a philosopher called immamuel kant who begins to reconcile empiricism and rationalism into his own system called "transcendental idealism", which justifies empiricism, but only through transcendental (a priori) categories of being - and so reason is preserved from the theatre of the mind (one of hume's concepts). So in kant we redeem the sensuous image; the phenomena, but only by a deference to "noumena" (the thing in itself) as the aspect of experience that cannot be fully reconciled by the human form, where to kant, reason is only within man, but not in the world.
After this we get a crucial critique of kant from hegel, who reverses kant by seeing reason, not in man, but in the world alone, and sees that we may only have our self-relation, not in meditation, but by being in society, for even within ourselves we speak our inherited language and have a given name. What is man's interior without his exterior? But moreso, hegel completely redeems phenomena and abolishes the concept of noumena itself - there is no outside of the frame of existence - there is no outside of life; subject is substance.
Here we see the tract of the beginning of modern thought in dialectical reversal, of decartes beginning with his solipsism and total negation of the exterior, then we get rationalists attempting to carve an exterior, but only from within, then we get empiricists who see pragmatism in the outside, but still relegated to scepticism, then in kant we get a trust of the outside but only through a unity of intuition and reason, and then finally we get hegel who completely empties the subject and gives full idea to the phenomenon. In hegel we see the transformation of philosophy into the sublimity of common experience.
Also for hegel, he receives a terrifying awakening with napoleon burning down his village, but alas he gives out a strange cry and declares that he sees world-spirit on horseback, where to hegel, the zeitgeist is the realisation of modernity, or the end of history, where the "negativity" of the free will is given social determinacy, and this to him is achieved by the enlightenment.
After the french revolution, napoleon appears on the scene as one of nietzsche's beloved, something of a reactionary revolutionary - one who is giving europe self-reference and social consciousness by its own internal violence.
Now, the english as eternal enemies of europe go to war and this is where the rothschilds get word of napoleon's defeat, but instead of alerting the british, they give the opposite of the truth so that all british money is immediately liquidated and the rothschilds begin to buy up britain itself. This leads to their eventual control of the bank of england itself and so a control over the british empire.
Marx begins to analyse the conditions of the english working class, particularly in manchester and writes his works, with a reversed adaptation of hegel that privileges the *unmanifest* (base) and so begins an appeal to a scientific noumenon - the statistical march of reducing the units of reality to their most basic elements, not possibly perceived by the senses, but only as a spirit of a capital relation. Here he theoretically deduces the reality of a surplus (as against the spending-saving dynamics of the "classical economists", a term invented by marx btw). A surplus held in excessive relation to his mutual discovery of value (as abstract human labour). A contradiction.
After marx we get the same old trouble in europe until ww1 where the world is shocked by the carnage that the new technologies offer. Russia has its own revolution and establishes communism. Lenin's propaganda spreads after the war and gets its way to germany and italy where its very popular, but there is nationalist tension against this and fascism wins in these countries. World powers are becoming more extreme, more oriented to grand ideas, more morally loose, more modern, more new. Theres another war where these zeitgeists battle toward total annihilation and communism and liberalism remain the victors. The individual is theoretically prized over the state (as per the hegelianism of fascism, and instead the powers defer to liberalism and marx's critique of hegel).
Nations become mournful, but most strikingly, there are the new idea of the laws of war. Empires are made to break apart. The great and beautiful and tragic days of modernity are over in a fiery blaze for in the new post-war malaise there is the emergence of postmodernity, of a radical return to scepticism of all things, and a new prizing of the individual with hostilities toward the state. Hegel is lost from popular consciousness and all ideas are critiqued in pursuit of the pure yet reluctant concept; a new and dangerous logocentrism (which is most dangerous, beginning in derrida for claiming that it is precisely against logocentrism!)
Modern subversion becomes mocking inversion. Beauty is replaced with ugliness. Elitism becomes mass production.

Now, i dont hate everything about our period, but still, most deeply i feel that it is cowardly and arrogant above all things. I would suggest to read anyone pre-45 and compare it to today. The ethos, the logos, the drive and passion were all radical and interesting. Modernity to me is the very meaning of ww2 and its ultimate outcome is the meaning of postmodernity. Modernity is the end of history as its reconciliation with its own idea; to hegel, of the political and social diffusement of the free will, expressed as the public and the state. To marx, in a qualitative subversion of this concept.
To me, postmodernity ontologically is about the autonomy of the sign (particularly in simulation), where modernity is about the fundamental self-relation of Man in the universal.

Anonymous 2024-03-15 (Fri) 15:39:09 No.589971

>>589966
>Like i've said in an earlier post, you socialists and liberals are infected by a disease called economism which is its own branch of reductionist scientism.
That's true but I think that's exactly why Lenin is important for emphasizing the subjective factor of revolution. He recognized social democrats in his own time as turning Marxism into a kind of sociology which asserts the priority of economic life over the classes that derive from it, that classes are an entirely objective and sociologically general reality.

One implication is that a revolutionary situation, as he put it, comes about when the ruling classes and the oppressed class are no longer willing to live in the old way, but there are many possible directions that can go in. There were, in fact, strong reactionary currents among the oppressed masses, some of them even supporting the Black Hundreds in Russia. And they were also "unwilling" to live in the old way, but also precisely for that reason, a revolutionary situation was possible since things would necessarily split in a dialectical way like that – and he put the task on his own party to bring out their own possibility to intervene in that situation with their own agenda.

Basically, nothing is perfect and there are no monolithically revolutionary or reactionary personalities in the world. (Well, maybe Lenin was a truly revolutionary person…). There's no revolutionary situation in which every worker is a revolutionary communist. However, it seems like the mechanical and economistic stuff creeped back, so that by 1937 if you had disagreed with the party line, they could find some reactionary tendency in your past (in the 1910s) before you became a communist (which would be most people really), and then shoot you.

>A socialist can speak of "the people" but can never speak of "the nation" and thats its fatal flaw and why it will always lose.
I'm not sure history bears that out although I think it's probably more like "you win some, you lose some."

>>589967
>What comes after communism though? People just say more communism. History never ends, but it only progresses evermore from the sight of its foreclosure, which is *modernity* not communism proper.
"More communism" is what Mao basically said but that there will be stages of communism and new qualitative changes that will happen. If we have communism for 10,000 years, would nothing change? Impossible! Just how people move around in cities will probably be very different in 10,000 years when there are flying skidoos crashing into each other and it'll be a big challenge to deal with that. Things will continue to develop in its own way. This sounds like a dodge but the point is to try to bring forward new things, otherwise what's the point?

That's why I'm also open to different experiments. There are the democratic confederalists in Rojava, and I don't describe myself as a "democratic confederalist," and I don't even know a lot about it, but they're trying something new, so I'm rooting for them. If they win… well, some people might only think that's a small victory but it's still a win.

Anonymous 2024-03-15 (Fri) 15:57:32 No.589972

>>589971
>That's why I'm also open to different experiments
This is why i like china's federal model of allowing different models in different sectors of their country. The international capitalists obviously missed the memo when they tried to secede hong kong, and i was only happy to see that there were subversive billionaires who later ended up missing. Fascism also had its economic experiments. In the beginning when they were lasseiz-faire mises even praised them as the saviours of europe.
But whats important is national sovereignty and identity regardless. Liberals wanto destroy nations just like the communists.
>communism just leads to more communism
I just wouldnt ca it "communism", but "modernity". I understand we wont be doing things like this forever, but the communist vision to me is fundamentally myopic since it discloses history in a mode of production, when to me, social life is an open thing. I also think its economic suicide, but thats just pragmatism.

Anonymous 2024-03-15 (Fri) 16:27:30 No.589973

wait are you an actual nazi?

Anonymous 2024-03-15 (Fri) 20:21:47 No.589974

File: 1710534107425-0.png (284.1 KB, 400x388, Could-the-South-Have-Won-t….png)

File: 1710534107425-1.jpg (73.05 KB, 602x454, main-qimg-e09a44dc4b1ac125….jpg)

>>589972
>Liberals want to destroy nations just like the communists.
Well, I don't go around writing up lists of nations I want to wipe off the face of the earth, but objecting to that in the abstract is not part of any political tradition I care to be part of. There's nothing inherently wrong with that to the extent it hastens development, administrative rationalization, and the emancipation of social life. (Pic is a case in point, or where the unification of the American nation involved the destruction of another one, but necessarily so because half its population was enslaved.)

>the communist vision to me is fundamentally myopic since it discloses history in a mode of production, when to me, social life is an open thing.
But I think looking at modes of production is useful insofar that the present one might actually keep people from living, or keeping them from having more than a stunted, unrewarding social life. That involves a critique of the present mode of living too, which is usually not how the liberals do it. There were people in the 60s revolts who said they "didn't want to become manipulated professional idiots," and were looking for another way, and they didn't find it. And we still live in an age of professional idiots, professional racists and professional grifters. Which is to say it's still an age of manipulated capitalism that makes an idiot out of everyone.

Glowing Anonymous 2024-03-15 (Fri) 23:02:51 No.589975

File: 1710543771521-0.mp3 (2.78 MB, If You're Creative, Get St….mp3)

File: 1710543771521-1.jpg (61.03 KB, 313x500, best-seller.jpg)

>>589970
>And classes as a holistic concept (not just economic) are an ambiguous thing.
Yes, although I'm using the term to talk about economic classes (or occasionally other ruling classes, like if the state is legally executing capitalists). A Marxist perspective results in two major classes in capitalist society - the working class and the owning class, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. So, sure, society and culture will recognize the 'working class' differently, stereotypically that brutish uneducated physical laborer, with a middle-class of privileged quieter folk above and then an upper crust of the mega-rich and the famous.
Those social classes can be useful, their connections are relevant, but ultimately a Marxist is by-default talking about how broad classes within capitalism generally relate to the means of production - beneath those social superstructures of upper, middle and lower. Both these models of society are useful in different analyses. I'm calling them models, because ultimately they are just abstract classifications we invent to generalize the world around us and make more sense of it. They are a useful illusion, like a crosshair or a grid on a camera. That illusion guides behavior so sure it can have real life impacts, but it's not some spirit or entity.
So when I say working class (I'll say proletariat from here-on, for clarity) and owning class (booj), a struggling professional landlord or lower-class Italian immigrant mom-and-pop store in net debt is owning class, and a privileged anesthetist earning $400,000 a year in a hospital is ultimately working class alongside a 1920s coal miner. This violates the standard consciousness of the social classes being poor yobbos and rich wankers. This also doesn't account much for the social class systems within the superstructure of each society, whether it be the British system which retains elements of nobility, the Australian 'battlers and bludgers' framing, the Indian caste system, etc.. This model doesn't care if you're broke or have a large vocabulary! It doesn't care if you own an iPhone or have an upper accent. It doesn't care about your nationality, ethnicity or pigmentation. It cares most about whether you're selling your mind and body to survive, or if you're renting bodies. When your economic situation (and therefore way of life) is threatened, this is a major predictor of how you will be affected and how you will choose to act. It explains who controls who can eat or not. It explains what control each class has over the economy, through collective actions like strikes and sabotage, capital flight and coersion.
And yes, this model is reductive. All models must be if they're useful! The world is too complex to always digest holistically. It just means the model has to be applied when it makes sense, rather than be worshiped as the One True Model. You do get interesting cases like the millionaire laborers, or someone who labors full-time but invests in stocks or is a landlord simultaneously. Many people expand on Marxism with ideas like labor aristocracy, an upper class of workers who should be distinguished from the poorer workers. But ultimately, we don't say 'poorfags of the world, unite!'. We don't see unity based on wealth levels or social status, we see it based on being exploited by those who control capital.

>To me, marxism completely drops the ball when it comes to the notion of ending history by abolishing class society. It just makes no sense to me, socially or economically.
I agree on that one, I reject Marx's notion of linear history or it ending with the one true ideology. Admittedly I haven't read Marx's own assertion of this, so if I'm misreading then someone correct me, but it seems like he's just taking a model of history just being one economic class dominating over another and therefore no more economic classes means history ends.

Anonymous 2024-03-16 (Sat) 20:51:49 No.589976

>>589966
Gotta say it’s a rare day when I see a Nazi flag anon with an interesting post. My one question though is about your last sentence on Socialists failing because they don’t talk about “the nation”. Could you elaborate a bit further on what you see as the divide between “the people” and “the nation”? Because, at least in my view, I think it can be argued that the dividing the two has often been used to whip the people into acting against their own interests (e.g. dying in WW1 for some petty aristocracy)

Anonymous 2024-03-17 (Sun) 02:19:23 No.589977

>>1796565
>So i see the dynamics there as more than just a piece of policy by strongman lincoln.
I wouldn't deny the other factors either. For example I think you can say economics asserted itself in the end, but to say it's the only factor would be a kind of vulgar Marxism, which lays more stress to the economic factor than it deserves while not doing justice to the others ones and that you're right to be against it.

>patrician anglo north vs the plebiscite european south (which still continues today ofc).
Yeah I think so. It's funny, people focused on the novelty of rapping Founding Fathers in the Hamilton musical but it's basically allowing the Democrats to reboot themselves back to the more centralizing New Eastern mode of politics which then leaps to Lincoln, FDR and then fast-forwards to Obama. There's even something resembling an industrial policy now.

>Maybe most people are just stupid and mediocre?
I mean, sure, but I count myself among them.

>The point then is to allow the best among us to thrive. This is part of the idea of the academy, but clearly not everyone is a genius or even deserves to be around real genius.
It seems like genius can exist, but great stupidity can also go echoing down across the ages like the ringing of great, big (but dumb) church bells through sheer brainless repetition. I have a kind of native suspicion of really famous stuff that's praised to the heavens constantly, I want to be like, "c'mon, he can't possibly be that good, in fact the opposite has to be true – he's got to suck!"

Rock critics have for decades claimed Lou Reed was a genius and his message was to shoot heroin and then take an erotic dump on someone's else chest in an orgy. There are people who say he was a genius, and the most important artist of the rock period: more significant than the Beatles. But I don't know if you've listened to the music, it's as toxic as fentanyl.

I might be more Nietzschean that you. I'm willing to exercise the will to power and decide: *I* don't like this, and so therefore, it sucks. And if I do like it, then it rocks. Whatever the genius involved, self-proclaimed or bestowed, is irrelevant.

Anonymous 2024-03-17 (Sun) 02:45:03 No.589978

>>1796626
pathetic

Anonymous 2024-03-17 (Sun) 03:13:42 No.589979

>>1796595
>So thats my basic apology of right-wing socialists like patsocs that many unread commies arrogantly dismiss as crypto-fascist or whatever (lets not bring up marx's feelings on lasalle either then! lol).
I think there's something to be said for companies that do make things (I was at a trade show this week that was mostly metal fabrication contractors) and, like, car dealerships that just flip cars for a profit, and for whom we can just get rid of without too much trouble. But you see here, it's in the interest of these car dealership owners to be against the conversion to electric vehicles for a variety of reasons because they stand to be cut out – they're reactionary in the literal sense of trying to slow down new technologies as a means of class survival, or at least the survival of their particular fraction of the class. Are there are large number of Americans who think of car dealership owners as heroic small businessmen? It seems to me that a lot of people think of them as sharks.

But "small businesses" is also rather abstract. I suspect a lot of people think of that as, like, the guy who owns a hair salon. And there can be a vulgar, stupid socialism that would lump him in with the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. I'll tell you, when the BLM protests broke out, a bunch of college radicals and would-be anarchists in my town at the time occupied the town square and were marching around for days. And I saw some older (around 40 probably) conservative-looking white guys standing on the street corner alarmed by it, and started talking to them – they were worried there might be riots. And I said, nah, because the college kids like all the businesses around here. They were mostly small businesses that catered to the college crowd. And I was right, and the police chief (who happened to be black) was smart enough to keep the cops at a distance, and then eventually the students got bored and went home.

But fundamentally, I think the right-wing patsocs weigh way too far into the right-wing culture war stuff while I think American society is liberal in a broad and general sense at the end of the day – not conservative (although there are some deeply conservative peoples, but they don't represent a majority of the population). This doesn't mean the so-called woke people at their extreme are representative of the general population, but I'd also look at modes of production, the role of social media and the internet, viral content farms controlled by large corporations as driving the kind of engagement that leads to "10 Reasons Why We're Done With White Men" or the right-wing anti-woke inverse of that, and which poisoned /pol/. We're basically dancing to the tune of algorithms, robots basically, and are changing our behavior to serve the machine rather than having it serve us.

And that's part of what socialism is for me. It's to flip that upside down so we tell the "machine" where to go rather than it telling us where to go.

I strongly suspect that part of this too is because these right-wing communists would be alt-right guys but can't because many of them are not white, but alienated diaspora kids from socially conservative families, and they suffer from ressentiment toward white people (and the alt-right types who excluded them), and they're also too online and being bamboozled by right-wing propaganda (of which there's a lot of money sloshing around in promoting), and white liberals are an easy target to beat up on as way to let out that mix of frustration and envy, and because the white liberals are politically correct and can't just be, like, we're going to deport your ass. But they sometimes cross the wires wrong like Sameera Khan singling out a white southern girl who likes to go hunting and fishing for her ire, I don't know if you saw that (but I don't think she considers herself a communist). In other words, they're a bundle of contradictions.

>>1796617
>The lumpen often talk about their "race" while a middle class black talks about their nation.
For a very simple reason, the lumpen talk about their "race" because the lumpen reproduce themselves via theft, so "race" becomes a way to receive protection from other classes in their race: "we don't steal from our own." The same goes for lumpen white skinheads who say white power and go rob black drug dealers in the name of protecting white people from drugs, but of course, they sell drugs to white people or steal from white people too.

>You will notice most nationalists are quite isolationist and oppose war, while the globalists love dysgenic zionist wars. Interesting.
Well, I think "against their own interests" or the false consciousness thing is a big problematic. I was just reading about British wars in the 19th century and into WWI, and there was a dynamic where kids in uniform leaving their town in the U.K. to go fight in the Crimean War and other theaters of war would result in higher wages back home because of the crunched labor supply. Or look at Russia nowadays, where they've implemented a form of military Keynesianism, you join the army and you get a lot of cash relative to what you'd normally be making, and this works its way back to these sleepy towns and cities all over Russia, and people go out and spend it, and it lifts effective demand. And if one of the kids dies, then he's immortalized as a hero. I think it's sick but it has an economic "logic" to it.

Glowing Anonymous 2024-03-17 (Sun) 03:35:12 No.589980

File: 1710646512485.png (102.97 KB, 518x641, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1796595
>Think for example of all the poor whites protesting the immigrants coming in and being put up in hotels. To me this is class war, or class civil war, but its still valid.
So, is their class enemy the immigrants being put up in hotels, or instead, the people who invite immigrants and put them up in hotels? The immigrants aren't in control of the situation, they are playthings as much as the poor whites. Their protest is valid, but misdirected at fellow subjects of the owning class. So unless their plan is to make themselves cheaper labour than hiring immigrants, how will it solve anything?
Even from a poor/rich perspective, the two poorer classes have a general best self-interest in fighting the richer class which carelessly threw away those poor whites.

Glowing Anonymous 2024-03-17 (Sun) 03:40:52 No.589981

>>589977
>There are people who say he was a genius, and the most important artist of the rock period: more significant than the Beatles.
"The fact that so many books still name the Beatles

Glowing Anonymous 2024-03-17 (Sun) 04:33:48 No.589982

>I also hate it when people say shit like theres no good movies or music anymore.
>Its literally never been better.
It's mixed feelings from me. I agree that "no good movies or music anymore" is absolutely ridiculous, but the mainstream popular stuff, the average that most people see the most, is increasingly industrialized, so their perception isn't just nostalgia trash from nowhere, it's founded in a real issue. But they're also wrong.
Animation is an interesting scene for this discussion, where the ability to cut corners, revolutionized by digital animation, has been a factor in mainstream animation being less and less expressive and creative, even on technical levels. And of course, that doesn't mean that technology has made it impossible for beautiful digital televised animation to exist - see stand-out examples like The Amazing World of Gumball, particularly the first season before the producers cut costs. But that kind of show is getting tougher and tougher at competing with the industry it was made from, where the money exists to make and support big productions. The indie scenes of any entertainment are always the most artistic, but limited.
It's hard not to look down on people embracing mainstream….. anything. I really don't mean that as a hipster sentiment, I enjoy some popular things, but it just amazes me that people tolerate all the blatant crap which dominates the mainstream, even that they don't like and whine about, whether it be social media platforms, software, music, television with ads, it's astounding.

Anonymous 2024-03-17 (Sun) 04:42:32 No.589983

File: 1710650549367.jpeg (992.82 KB, 3000x2000, 3000.jpeg)

>>1796671
>I find the quantitative, scientific outlook as repulsive and inhuman. It is so rational that it becomes irrational, in common fashion. You can be so right that you become wrong. Just look at reddit science worshippers.
That's true about scientism, but I think the material world is still there. Like, it can be rocks and trees and, well, whatever the hell, but it's there all the same and not something that can just be re-narrated, which is what this whole postmodern atmosphere and its obsession with texts and narratives has been all about.

>I never feel this oppressive weight leftists complain about with muh algorithms or data tracking.
What I do believe is that all of us find ourselves living in a world that is massively articulated by forces completely outside of our control, and I think we have to be true to that experience when we come to believe anything we do believe about what's true and what it isn't, while being cautious of the concept of "truth" as assertions of power or privilege.

>There also isnt class solidarity.
Not automatically. It seems to me like it just has to be built by the people involved.

>>1796680
>They dont have to come to the country
Refugees, migrants and illegals are the most vulnerable humans on earth, they are essentially stateless, homeless, penniless and terrified people who simply hope they don't die as they make the trip. Much of today's human flow is also a business, paid for by migrants, and yes there are many examples of criminality, exploitation, rape, abuse and death, but above all it's a "pull" factor phenomena given the West's hunger for cheap labor, international remittances and concentration of wealth.

Our latest controversy in America is also nothing new for Europe, the Middle East, Africa or Asia. In fact, most migrants of the world are not going to Western countries but to other countries in the rest of the world. Governments can also use their resources to pre-process, organize, and fly these people to the regions that want them, but they instead blame the migrants, who die during their journeys, which causes public outrage, which then sparks rescues (including by private citizens and NGOs), which then creates a backlash when the new arrivals stress social systems and policing. The politicians then harden their stance, creating barriers until more deaths are caused by adaptive but cruel smugglers, and the cycle begins again.

Simply put, Western governments have not, will not, and cannot stop the flow of humans seeking a better life. So they should deal with the situation. In America's case there is another irony, how does a nation built on immigration and immigrants deal with desperate people humanely, respectfully and productively?

Anonymous 2024-03-18 (Mon) 00:08:11 No.589984

File: 1710720490913.png (2.05 MB, 1822x1516, orthodox_fascism_is_more_d….png)

>>589425
>I think it was CPUSA who said something akin to, the ludicrous obvious bullshitting of neo-nazis makes them obvious, but the actual classical fascists (as few and far between as they are) would make a much more powerful threat.
this post?

Anonymous 2024-03-18 (Mon) 04:54:47 No.589985

>>589979
>I strongly suspect that part of this too is because these right-wing communists would be alt-right guys but can't because many of them are not white, but alienated diaspora kids from socially conservative families, and they suffer from ressentiment toward white people (and the alt-right types who excluded them), and they're also too online and being bamboozled by right-wing propaganda (of which there's a lot of money sloshing around in promoting), and white liberals are an easy target to beat up on as way to let out that mix of frustration and envy, and because the white liberals are politically correct and can't just be, like, we're going to deport your ass. But they sometimes cross the wires wrong like Sameera Khan singling out a white southern girl who likes to go hunting and fishing for her ire, I don't know if you saw that (but I don't think she considers herself a communist). In other words, they're a bundle of contradictions.
That is a hot take. White liberals get beat up on because their racism is passive aggressive most of the time and is not blatant like conservatives. They are our "allies" but in reality they do not have much of a high opinion of us and would stab us in the back if we do not check them. I could be incorrent but didn't you come from a liberal background because the tone from your post gives that impression. The arrogance to assume that we are "envious" of white people reflect yourself more than whatever patsoc image you have.

Anonymous 2024-03-18 (Mon) 19:24:56 No.589986

File: 1710789896825.jpg (5.45 KB, 170x218, 170px-Benito_Mussolini_por….jpg)

Thought this was an interesting read from the Fascio Substack

https://fascio.substack.com/p/the-fascist-and-bolshevik-overlap

The Fascist and Bolshevik Overlap
>Communism and Fascism, typically seen as polar opposites on the ideological spectrum, reveal unexpected similarities when examining Italian Fascism and Soviet Communism. Both regimes faced significant challenges, and their diplomatic interactions, particularly the economic and non-aggression pacts between Italy and the Soviet Union in the early 1930s, highlight a strategic partnership that transcended ideological divides. This collaboration, motivated by diplomatic isolation and the pursuit of strategic advantages, suggests that ideological adherence can be secondary to political and economic interests. The recognition of practical parallels between Stalinism and Fascism, coupled with ᴉuᴉlossnW's admiration for Soviet methods, breaks conventional categorizations. The mutual influence and acknowledgment between these regimes challenge the simplistic binary of left versus right, pointing to a nuanced interplay of ideas that could bridge ideological gaps for pragmatic purposes.

[…]

>Upon assuming the role of editor for the socialist publication Avanti! in December 1912, ᴉuᴉlossnW brought on board a diverse group of contributors, including anarchists and staunch Marxists like Angelica Balabanoff, who served as his deputy editor. The editorial team, including Paolo Orano and syndicalists such as Sergio Panunzio, significantly influenced the paper's socialist orientation. ᴉuᴉlossnW didn't stop there; he went on to launch and oversee Utopia from November 1913 until the end of 1914. This periodical became a gathering place for influential young socialists and syndicalist thinkers, playing a crucial role in shaping ᴉuᴉlossnW's ideological journey. In the years leading up to World War I, a number of syndicalists, Panunzio and Ottavio Dinale among them, viewed warfare as a means of societal progression. These figures, along with ᴉuᴉlossnW, advocated for Italy's military involvement in conflicts like the 1911 battle for Libya against the Ottomans and later in World War I.

>This period marked a significant shift as many socialists transitioned into what would become ᴉuᴉlossnW's fascist movement, with syndicalists such as Panunzio, Olivetti, and Orano emerging as key thinkers within the ideology. By October 1914, Olivetti was articulating a vision of an Italian socialism enriched with nationalistic fervor in the pages of Pagine Libere, emphasizing its potential to unify Italy, boost production, and elevate the nation to global prominence. Over the following three years, through his contributions to L’Italia Nostra, Olivetti championed the idea of a nation as a collective entity that transcends class divisions, rallying individuals across societal lines toward shared historical objectives. In his view, patriotism and the revolutionary spirit of Italian socialism were not just compatible; they were intertwined.

>By 1919, ᴉuᴉlossnW was highlighting the downturn in economic productivity within Soviet Russia as evidence of its failure to fulfill its historical responsibilities. He speculated that the Bolsheviks would eventually need to dedicate themselves to national reconstruction and defense, essentially adopting a form of national socialism similar to the one articulated by Fascism's syndicalist precursors. ᴉuᴉlossnW foresaw the necessity for Lenin to seek the assistance of bourgeois professionals to mend Russia's shattered economy, interpreting the Bolsheviks' inability to recognize their revolutionary imperatives. He argued that Bolshevism needed to "tame" and engage the workforce in focused development efforts, a move he deemed inevitable since Marxism itself stipulated that socialism required a well-developed economic foundation. Given that Russia had not yet navigated through the capitalist phase of economic evolution, it lacked the essential conditions for a Marxist revolution to occur. According to ᴉuᴉlossnW, Russia was as unprepared for socialism as Italy was.

>In July 1920, ᴉuᴉlossnW penned another critique of Lenin's government, pointing out the irony that he would later construct his Fascist regime using the same principles he had criticized in the Bolshevik model. He contended that what they had established was:

<“A State in the most concrete meaning of this word. A Government, composed of men who exercise power, imposing an iron discipline on individuals and groups and practicing “reaction” whenever necessary. In Lenin’s Russia,” there is but one authority: his. There is but one liberty: his. There is but one opinion: his. There is but one law: his. One must either submit or perish. With no room for individuality, the Soviets had created a “super State,” that swallows up and crushes the individual and governs his entire life. The most powerfully armed State, for domestic and foreign purposes, that exists in the world is precisely Russia. Whoever says State necessarily says the army, the police, the judiciary and the bureaucracy. The Russian State is the State par excellence [whose] proletariat, as in the old bourgeois regimes, obeys, works, and eats little or allows itself to be massacred.”
— Benito ᴉuᴉlossnW quoted in ᴉuᴉlossnW In The Making by Gaudens Megaro

[…]

>Following Lenin's demise in 1924, Stalin's interpretation of Marxism in 1925, dubbed "Socialism in One Country," essentially mirrored national socialism. ᴉuᴉlossnW was wary, suspecting Stalin might be veering away from communist principles. This shift appeared to offer economic benefits to Italy, prompting ᴉuᴉlossnW to see the logic in Italy manufacturing ships and aircraft for the Soviets in return for a significant portion of Italy's oil needs. ᴉuᴉlossnW also entertained the thought that Stalin could represent a continuation of Tsarist imperialism, a perspective Fascism might align with. In 1923, ᴉuᴉlossnW speculated that Russia would abandon communism for a return to traditional imperialism with a Pan-Slavic character. ᴉuᴉlossnW sought to persuade himself and others that Russian communism was becoming less revolutionary compared to Fascism, to the point where the distinctions between the two movements were becoming increasingly blurred.

<“Tomorrow there will not be an imperialism with a socialist mark, but it [Russia] will return to the path of its old imperialism with a pan-Slavic mark.”
— Benito ᴉuᴉlossnW quoted in Young ᴉuᴉlossnW and The Intellectual Origins of Fascism by A. James Gregor

>Even committed members of the Fascist party, such as Dino Grandi, who served as ᴉuᴉlossnW's foreign minister from 1928 to 1932, early on saw the similarities between Fascism and Lenin’s Bolshevism. Grandi, influenced in part by revolutionary syndicalism and having described the First World War as a class struggle among nations in 1914, by 1920 pointed out that socialists had misunderstood the essence of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. He viewed it as an underdeveloped, proletarian nation's fight against more developed capitalist countries. The perspective that Fascism and Bolshevism shared common ground wasn't exclusive to Fascists. Torquato Nanni, a revolutionary Marxist socialist who knew ᴉuᴉlossnW early on, anticipated these parallels as early as 1922. He noted the economic bases shared by Fascism and Bolshevism, leading to similar strategies, tactics, and institutional characteristics in these mobilizing, revolutionary movements. Both movements, he observed, took on the bourgeois task of industrializing lagging economies and safeguarding the nation-state, deemed essential for progress. Furthermore, Leon Trotsky, a key figure in the October Revolution, stubbornly viewed Fascism as a mass movement emerging from capitalism's failure. He dismissed any concept of a "national" communism but acknowledged a certain convergence between the movements.

<“Stalinism and Fascism, despite a deep difference in social foundations, are symmetrical phenomena. In many of their features they show a deadly similarity. A victorious revolutionary movement in Europe would immediately shake not only fascism, but Soviet Bonapartism.”
— Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed: What Is the Soviet Union And Where Is It Going?

>He hesitated to align completely with his occasional collaborator, Bruno Rizzi, who posited that taking on similar developmental and self-sufficient roles would inevitably lead to social and ideological alignment. He expressed regret that what Fascism pursued deliberately, the Soviet Union ended up constructing unintentionally. In his view, the regimes of Stalin, ᴉuᴉlossnW, Hitler, and even Roosevelt were moving towards a worldwide "bureaucratic collectivism," representing a form of Jacobinism. Fascist ideologues concurred with the idea of such convergence. By 1925, Panunzio was pointing out the essential parallels between Fascism and Bolshevism. Fascists observed that the Soviet regime had established a militarized, authoritarian, anti-liberal state, which had effectively organized and disciplined the populace for the sake of ambitious domestic development. The central government was in charge of producing and distributing resources, defining and managing interests, and taking on ultimate educational responsibilities.

>Therefore, as early Fascists were laying out the principles for an authoritarian, hierarchical, anti-liberal, and state-centered approach that emphasized mass mobilization and development under a charismatic leader, the Bolsheviks found themselves adopting a similar path. Both aimed to forge a modern, self-sufficient, industrial society that would secure political and economic sovereignty for previously underdeveloped national communities. Through forced industrialization and "State Capitalism," the Soviets aimed to achieve the advantages of bourgeois modernization for Russia. In light of the necessary sacrifices, both communists and fascists used economic motivations as well as spectacles, rituals, ceremonies, and parades to rally their people, adding territorial expansion to illustrate a striking "systemic symmetry."

[…]

>Concerning Russia's moral and intellectual "spiritual" existence, it drew the attention of several Italian writers, while others, possibly considering economic-political collaboration, examined the Soviet Union's political geography and its various regions. Italians were acutely conscious of the forces that threatened to dismantle the unified front of the socialist republics. Some were also concerned about Russia and Bolshevism's "expansionist," "primitive," "Asiatic" character, which they saw as a cultural and political threat to Europe, with Italy being its main defender. The political and philosophical dynamics of the power contest that ultimately placed Stalin in a position of dictatorial authority were not overlooked by Italian commentators.

>A primary forum for this discussion was the pages of Critica Fascista, a notable critical journal representing Italy's "corporativist left." Its editor, Giuseppe Bottai, known as the "Crusader of the regime," by the mid-1920s, was voicing the often-repeated assertion that Fascism and Bolshevism shared a common front against the bourgeois and plutocratic spirit. In 1930 and 1931, Critica Fascista published a series of articles later termed "Roma o Mosca?" In the spring of the former year, Bruno Spampanato interpreted Leninist violence as stemming from the "primitiveness of the Russian spirit," viewing Russians as political "children." He argued that Bolshevik ideology merely mirrored this immaturity. For instance, the government's push against religion stemmed from the "naive unawareness of the revolution's early stages." He predicted, just as Robespierre's anti-religious policies evolved into Napoleon's acceptance of religion, the Bolsheviks would eventually moderate their stance on religious hostility.

>Spampanato noted that Stalin, in carrying on Lenin's legacy, couldn't overlook the "necessity" of adapting. New socio-economic classes were emerging within the proletariat, and the campaign against the kulaks in rural areas was losing momentum. He saw the sequence of war, revolution, and civil war as Russia's Nietzschean transformation, emerging from chaos and death. However, the slower pace of development under the Tsarist regime meant that the Bolshevik revolution was marked by greater violence compared to other European revolutions. The delay in fostering a national consciousness in Tsarist Russia, coupled with the attempt by Leninism to forge a national identity, was further complicated by ideological burdens weighing down the Bolsheviks. Highlighting Fascism as the pinnacle of political evolution, Spampanato suggested that, as of 1930, Russia found itself in a standoff with Fascist democracy. Nevertheless, he identified a potential link that could, theoretically, unite the two.

<“Not fearing any example because they are solidly attached to the vitality of their historical experience, Fascists can fasten on to some fundamental points of esteem for the Bolshevik experience…. we dare to say that Bolshevism in Russia is the prelude to Fascism.”
— Bruno Spampanato, Equazioni Rivoluzionarie: Dal Bolscevismo al Fascismo

>The debate within Critica Fascista truly gained momentum about eighteen months later. Sergio Panunzio, strengthening his argument with a recent declaration from the Duce that Italy's trade relations with the USSR surpassed those with any other nation, refuted the notion of any economic conflict between Rome and Moscow.

<“Therefore, if we put ourselves exclusively on an economic ground, we arrive to the “absurdity” that fascism opposes communism. We also come to the point of not being able any more to discern a difference. On the contrary, we glimpse a balancing synthesis—the diagonal of the historical contact of two great forces and of two great modern revolutions: Communism and Fascism—Rome and Moscow.”
— Sergio Panunzio, La Fine di un Regno

>The ideological distinctions between Fascism and Bolshevism were stark, with the former being characterized by its focus on spiritual values, willpower, and national identity, while the latter was seen as centered around materialism and industrialism. This fundamental opposition between the ideologies of Moscow and Rome was described as deep and unbridgeable, particularly in the realms of spirituality, morality, and religion, setting the stage for an unending conflict between the two. Despite these profound differences, there were instances where Italians could envision working alongside the Bolsheviks in a practical manner without compromising their core spiritual beliefs. This possibility sparked a vigorous debate in the pages of Critica Fascista, initiated by an article from a former syndicalist. Riccardo Fiorini contended that the economic disparities between communism and Fascism weren't primarily about the divide between private and state control of production. Instead, he highlighted that Fascism's approach to production was inherently nationalistic, unlike communism, which he believed was on a path toward making production international. Even so, Fiorini anticipated that the economic methodologies of communism would gradually align more closely with those of fascism.

>On spiritual issues, Fiorini challenged the clear-cut distinction made by Panunzio between Fascism and communism. He was skeptical of the Soviet claim to materialism and noted that some aspects of Tsarist Russia's family and religious traditions deserved to be eradicated. Furthermore, Fiorini saw potential for spiritual collaboration between the two systems, as both opposed liberalism and democracy, arguing that they shared a common goal of establishing a new order and predicted communism would eventually converge with Fascism. Shortly thereafter, Mario Rivoire lent his support to Panunzio's viewpoint that the real divergence between Rome and Moscow wasn't economic in nature, describing Fascism's approach to physical matters as more nuanced. He disagreed with Fiorini, emphasizing that the key difference was metaphysical, with communism focusing on material aspects and Fascism on the spiritual. Rivoire criticized the initial discussion in Critica Fascista for lacking clarity and highlighted the challenge of reconciling Soviet actions with their rhetoric. He found guidance in a speech by ᴉuᴉlossnW from 1921, which helped him navigate this dilemma.

<“I recognize that between us and the communists there are no political affinities, but there are intellectual affinities. We, as you (the communists) think it is necessary to have a centralized and unitary State which imposes on all the unity of an iron discipline. There is one difference. You arrive at this conclusion through the concept of classes, and we come to it through the concept of the nation.”
— Benito ᴉuᴉlossnW quoted in ᴉuᴉlossnW and The Legacy of Revolutionary Socialism by Domenico Settembrini

Worth a read, if only for the historical context of Fascist Italy's relationship to the USSR from the Fascists' perspectives.

Anonymous 2024-03-19 (Tue) 13:55:56 No.589987

>>589986
>“Stalinism and Fascism, despite a deep difference in social foundations, are symmetrical phenomena. In many of their features they show a deadly similarity. A victorious revolutionary movement in Europe would immediately shake not only fascism, but Soviet Bonapartism.”
<— Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed: What Is the Soviet Union And Where Is It Going?
Trotskyists still promote this idea in their ranks. But to me this is the political contradiction within communism itself, with the right being stalinists and the left, anti-stalinists of all colours; trotskyists, anarchists and so on. Stalin's absorption into the contemporary russian national consciousness and lenin's total sidelining show this attitude too. Stalin is not a "communist", he is a nationalist, as per his legacy.
>"There is one difference [between communism and fascism]. You arrive at this conclusion through the concept of classes, and we come to it through the concept of the nation.”
<— Benito ᴉuᴉlossnW quoted in ᴉuᴉlossnW and The Legacy of Revolutionary Socialism by Domenico Settembrini
I would say this is extremely relevant too. But here we must be dialectical by positing *qualitative* distinction (as opposed to a quantitative one). The primacy of a political "idea" here matters more than its outcomes. But this to me also smashes the communist concept of a materialist politics, since the left understand well that its not right to give oneself to fascist concessions no matter how self-serving they may be. So politics has its principle in a higher meaning than self-sufficiency.

Anonymous 2024-03-19 (Tue) 14:02:20 No.589988

>>589987
Kerry Bolton, a national socialist has also written a book before praising stalin and his great purge as a protection of his nation against more """international""" actors like trotsky and co.

Anonymous 2024-03-19 (Tue) 18:20:23 No.589989

>>589984
this is nice because even people who shit on hitler and parade as "natsocs" "national syndicalist" "corporatists" and "orthodox facists" all have the same scare with communism, which means that all "facists" nowadays are just anxsty liberals who are larping. the mussolini type of facist is basically dead

Glowing Anonymous 2024-03-19 (Tue) 20:40:33 No.589990

Why do you uyghurs waste all your time on 110 year old dead fascists and not irl modern day fascists?

Anonymous 2024-03-19 (Tue) 20:52:08 No.589991

>>589987
>Trotskyists still promote this idea in their ranks. But to me this is the political contradiction within communism itself, with the right being stalinists and the left, anti-stalinists of all colours; trotskyists, anarchists and so on. Stalin's absorption into the contemporary russian national consciousness and lenin's total sidelining show this attitude too. Stalin is not a "communist", he is a nationalist, as per his legacy.

Personally I don't think there's all that much of a contradiction between Stalin "The Nationalist" and Stalin the Communist. They way I see it, upon gaining power within a nation, it's only natural that focus shifts to internal issues rather than external revolution. I believe Bordiga once tried trolling Stlain by saying that since Communism is an internationalist movement, governance of the USSR should be overseen by global Communist parties but of course such a statement is absurd. I think there's a moral and legal responsibility, when you're given a position of leadership over a people, to work towards the best interests of those people, I don't see that as fundamentally contradicting Marxist internationalism. After all, a Proletariat that's tired of war and wants peace after a Revolution is likely not gonna be so excited to die in wars abroad to "spread the revolution".

I believe Stalin's later recuperation as a symbol of Russian Nationalism is namely because Nationalists can excel at straddling contradictions. Which is to say, they can often take these figures out of their political context and just see them as great representatives of "The Nation." Hence a committed Republican Nationalist in, say, Britain, may still appreciate Alfred the Great despite the latter likely seeing the former as an upjumped peasant. Lenin was the founder of the USSR, and so would likely be lionized by people who want to see the USSR's return in some real political and transformative sense. Stalin can be admired solely for the fact he expanded what Nationalists see as "Russian territory" and transformed Russia into a superpower, they don't necessarily see the politics that led to such a transformation being possible.

>I would say this is extremely relevant too. But here we must be dialectical by positing *qualitative* distinction (as opposed to a quantitative one). The primacy of a political "idea" here matters more than its outcomes. But this to me also smashes the communist concept of a materialist politics, since the left understand well that its not right to give oneself to fascist concessions no matter how self-serving they may be. So politics has its principle in a higher meaning than self-sufficiency.

To be honest, Hegelianism and the like isn't necessarily my strong suit. I can enjoy Philosophy by degrees, but at the end of the day I'm just a prole that's a little better read than most.

Anonymous 2024-03-19 (Tue) 21:32:52 No.589992

>>589991
>Personally I don't think there's all that much of a contradiction between Stalin "The Nationalist" and Stalin the Communist.
Quantitatively no, but qualitatively yes.
Its not about *what* you do, its about *how* you do it. Style as substance. But this is also what denotes an aesthetic sensibility, which is an integral aspect to the judgement of any person.
We can see already in stalin an aesthetic which attracts certain people, and these people are less "leninists" and more "stalinists" (as a qualitative distinction), and its this qualification to me which creates the contradiction (which isnt a "bad" thing, its just how things work).
To me in the same way, there is this very contradiction between communism and nationalism, as something "felt" before it is thought. This to me is politics itself, which likewise denotes the advent of a right wing communism and left wing communism. I would say stalinists are on the right and everyone else is on the left. This is at least what i have observed as an internal contradictions. All disagreements arise from this primacy, which is not economic, but about worldviews (weltenschauungs), which includes aesthetics, morality, enjoyment, identity, and so on. We enter into everything with this baggage of our context.
>Hence a committed Republican Nationalist in, say, Britain, may still appreciate Alfred the Great despite the latter likely seeing the former as an upjumped peasant.
Theres a british monarchist guy i know who idolises oliver cromwell of all people as a symbol of "national rebirth", so i understand this contradictory identity of the nation as such. Where does it begin and end?
>Stalin can be admired solely for the fact he expanded what Nationalists see as "Russian territory" and transformed Russia into a superpower, they don't necessarily see the politics that led to such a transformation being possible.
I dont think it can be rationalised. But this is the cult of personality. We all love great men in our own camps without reason. People love stalin because he is stalin; i honestly dont think it mesns anything else. Its like how people loved queen elizabeth ii before she died, and if you asked monarchists why they just deferred to grotesque liberal answers like "she's good for the economy", but who says things need reasons? We are irrational creatures. But here you see my pain - when people attempt to rationalise the irrational they become fools and cynics. Just let it be.
>To be honest, Hegelianism and the like isn't necessarily my strong suit. I can enjoy Philosophy by degrees, but at the end of the day I'm just a prole that's a little better read than most.
My basic point is that people dont fight for better "material conditions", they fight for higher things like morality and meaning. Studies even show that people have fonder memories of disasters than of idle comforts. We are a species addicted to conflict since only in conflict do we discover ourselves.

Anonymous 2024-03-19 (Tue) 21:59:39 No.589993

>>589990
What theory do they have?

Anonymous 2024-03-19 (Tue) 22:39:44 No.589994

File: 1710887984289-0.jpg (184.16 KB, 1080x1115, 2540a8563580a97428c8e74b94….jpg)

File: 1710887984289-1.jpg (70.27 KB, 422x600, bdaf4c69-9277-4fe6-9736-5e….jpg)

>"I recognize that between us and the communists there are no political affinities, but there are intellectual affinities. We, as you (the communists) think it is necessary to have a centralized and unitary State which imposes on all the unity of an iron discipline. There is one difference [between communism and fascism]. You arrive at this conclusion through the concept of classes, and we come to it through the concept of the nation.”
<— Benito ᴉuᴉlossnW quoted in ᴉuᴉlossnW and The Legacy of Revolutionary Socialism by Domenico Settembrini

Simply put, totalitarianism and unitary views, since the days of Plato's Republic. The only reason authright can tangibly conceive of it this way is thanks to the concept of sovereignty and the cult of personality.

Otherwise they might as well be authleft without sovereignty or any cult of personality.

The concept of nation is only another means to unity because of sovereignty and the notion of a cult of personality, the means by which people become a person, so their disharmony and emotions are distilled into totalitarianism.

This is what leftists want to learn from studying Fascism.

Hitler admitted to borrowing from leftists in Mein Kampf, and saw leftists almost mesmerizing display of arrayed red flags and armbands: Hitler wanted to accomplish the totalitarianism in Plato's Republic, that conformed people to a unity in emotions and feeling, and sway the people to coalesce this way. Plato wanted to conform people to being united in emotion and property, by abolishing the multitude of properties, and binding them together, what racial ideology has is the same sentiment, but it's about abolishing different properties of persons into one personality aka race.

When you look at racial ideology this way, in the lens of Plato's Republic, you immediately begin to understand: people are divided on racial aligns, taught to mourn and grieve and celebrate different occasions on the basis of race: when race divides the people, they are disorganized and against each other. And the appeal to purity in race is fundamentally an appeal to unity in personhood, as if to unite and mold a people into the character traits and description a person would have (like his eyes, hair, facial structure and appearance).

Many authoritarian ideologies want to accomplish the goal of unity in Plato's Republic by various means, whether it is abolishing class division (communists), division of race (natsoc), or division of government (fascism) or unity of one person (monarchy) – that is fundamentally what is perceived.

Anonymous 2024-03-19 (Tue) 22:46:01 No.589995

>>589994
TL;DR:
Plato Republic
>And there is unity where there is community of pleasures and pains–where all the citizens are glad or grieved on the same occasions of joy and sorrow?

>No doubt.

>Yes; and where there is no common but only private feeling a State is disorganized–when you have one half of the world triumphing and the other plunged in grief at the same events happening to the city or the citizens?

>Certainly.

Anonymous 2024-03-19 (Tue) 22:50:46 No.589996

File: 1710888646139-0.mp4 (2.85 MB, 1080x1098, rapidsave.com_strike_one-x….mp4)

File: 1710888646139-1.jpg (180.15 KB, 640x640, 1653069979672.jpg)

This unity of emotion that Plato describes is seen in socialist regimes like North Korea.
It's one of the reasons why Plato wanted to abolish private property – to achieve this unity of emotion.
It's also why socialist states use a cult of personality or personhood: to help accomplish this aim.

ur stinky Anonymous 2024-03-20 (Wed) 01:23:35 No.589997

>>589994
Youre rarted
> authright
pls go outside and engage in politics outside of reddit and voting neoliberal parties

Anonymous 2024-03-20 (Wed) 01:56:15 No.589998

File: 1710899775044.jpg (34.83 KB, 600x594, Smug_Anime_Boyo_2.jpg)

>>589990
>>589993

I'm usually focusing on old school Fascists because the number of Fascists today who read their own goddamn theory is so small. That aside, here's something from a modern Fascist discussing American Nationalists.

American Nationalists Are Incompetent
(He recommends reading Dugin's article on MagaCommunism first)

https://www.arktosjournal.com/p/tucker-carlson-and-maga-communism?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web

>In essence, the article explains that Tucker Carlson effect on America. Additionally, it mentions the emergence of MagaCommunism, with proponents like Jackson Hinkle and Infrared, indicating a convergence of conservative and Marxist elements under the Maga movement, targeting the disruption of liberal dominance. Dugin then suggests that this presents a “viable left wing alternative.” I want to clarify why this situation is, in fact, quite disappointing.

>It's disappointing to witness the neglect of numerous nationalist efforts, with Alexander Dugin's focus shifting to Haz's MagaCommunism. In retrospect, I saw this coming. Haz distinctly deviates from Dugin's philosophy, primarily embracing Multipolarity and the concept of Civilization-States. Unlike Dugin's aim to combine the right wing of communism with the left wing of fascism, Haz strictly opposes such fusion, insisting on adherence to Marxism-Leninism for collaboration. My discussions with him have highlighted his rigid stance. Dugin, in contrast, has shown flexibility in collaborating with fascists. The most notable effort in the U.S. to align with Dugin's theories was undertaken by the Traditionalist Workers party (TWP), which planned to attend an international meeting in Russia to discuss Multipolarity, hosted Dugin. Numerous organizations from South America, North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East were slated to attend. Unfortunately, TWP's disintegration, due to the "cuck box" incident, has made Dugin hesitant to interact with American nationalists, whom he perceives as disorganized and ineffective. Furthermore, Heimbach consistently found himself in situations that negatively impacted his image in the American media.

>Infrared, despite its flaws, has not faced such public disgrace, positioning Haz as a potential ally for Russians and the Chinese. The absence of a strong American organization supporting Dugin's Fourth Political Theory is evident, with most neo-fascist groups either supporting Ukraine or maintaining a neutral, yet Kremlin-skeptical stance, like Joel Davis in Australia. This situation presents a significant hurdle for America First supporters like Nick Fuentes. His endorsement of Russia and China, is hampered by a critique of specific Putin policies and along with Nick’s absence of political and economic proposals beyond those associated with racism, have caused both nations to perceive him as less influential, further diminishing his standing.

>My dissatisfaction stems from Infrared's approach to fascism and disregard for pro-Russian fascists. For Haz to succeed, I believe he should reconsider his stance on the Romanovs, adjust his narrative about Jews, and be more open to working with nationalists. His strategy should not just promote patriotism but tap into a deeper nationalistic fervor that Americans are craving. I have always maintained that for nationalism to succeed in America, we should embrace a strategy akin to the Maoist Mass Line, fostering vanguardism and rallying the masses towards a revolution. This strategy entails collaborating with the Maga movement and prioritizing union efforts, particularly with truckers and rail workers. Infrared's public adoption of these tactics I've long supported only underscores the American nationalist movement's lack of effectiveness. The endorsement of Haz by China and Dugin serves as a stark confirmation of our shortcomings. The American nationalist scene's fixation on vulgar racism, internal disputes, and extreme propositions is leading to our downfall.

And now for a funny comment responding to the article.

<This is a much needed bitter pill for nationalists, America firsters, and even self-confessed fascists. We had a huge opportunity in 2015 - 2016, during the first Trump Campaign, however this opportunity was wasted, and opportunists and lowlives took the stage and ruined it. Now, the pendulum of history favors the 'Tankies', particularly the Marxist-Leninists, the MAGA Communists, and the PatSocs. They have the upper hand….for now.

<Just as there was dissention in the right, this dissention exists in the left as well. the widely acclaimed speaker, writer, journalist, and political analyst Caleb Maupin and his CPI was the first "domino" to fall if one recalls his little scandal back in mid-2022. (Now rumor has it that he's in with the famously revolutionary Moonie cult). I also suspect that the relationship between Jackson Hinkle and the circles around Alexander Dugin are uneasy, if Twitter drama by his opponents are anything to go by (according to the Twitter accounts arrayed against him, his Russian wife left him, but I do not see indication by Hinkle himself on this). Haz has a strong following among the Gen-Z youth, but they do not strike me as serious.

<That said, the tankies are still much better organized and they are more "clean" than us , and most importantly, they read and do their homework and are more intellectually rigorous. The fascist ranks on the other hand are filled with degenerates, vulgar racists, and sectarianism is rife among us. We also listen to some of the most God-awful music imaginable. The tankie has Soviet, Maoist, and DPRK music and socialist realism art to nourish their minds with. What are we listening to? What kind of art are we studying? Are we doomed to the Schillerian problem of nature-reason separation and with it, the neglect of the aesthetic?

<We are in the inferno now. We cannot continue to lie to ourselves. We are rock bottom. We have no rigor, no real sense of aesthetics, no proclivity to craft economic and strategic policy, many of us suffer from drug and alcohol problems. A common LaRouchean maxim is "It's a lot worse than you think!" And this is true with our situation.

<But there is a way out of the Inferno we are in. One of which involves understanding Dante's important work regarding the inferno.

<I extend my thanks to Zoltanous for publishing this.

Glowing Anonymous 2024-03-20 (Wed) 02:16:48 No.589999

File: 1710901008311.jpg (128.33 KB, 546x374, Based.jpg)

>>589994
All your Based belong to us.
Cope.

Anonymous 2024-03-20 (Wed) 03:02:50 No.590000

File: 1710903770183.jpg (124.09 KB, 1024x758, 1710418460798813m.jpg)

>>589895
I started reading Behemoth, and the comparison between Weimar Germany and the United States (or any other country I'm aware of) really makes no sense at all. The only similarities are the economy and the government not doing well, which regularly happens under capitalism. Fascists rose in prominence in a period largely defined by communist success, which is missing right now. The bourgeois don't need fascism at this point in time, they can just use regular war propaganda if they need to pass severe measures.

Anonymous 2024-03-20 (Wed) 03:57:10 No.590001

File: 1710907029915-0.jpg (94.87 KB, 957x958, 1697391028729351.jpg)

File: 1710907029915-1.jpg (82.52 KB, 594x1176, 4k0pxg7g5bry.jpg)

File: 1710907029915-2.jpg (90.84 KB, 1080x720, h73gcyzuwb7z.jpg)

>>589998
>the number of Fascists today who read their own goddamn theory is so small
Modern fascists in the anglophone world and /pol/ live and breathe on chasing gossip, blogs and Youtube, and meme maymay like frogposting.
They are nowhere near as totalitarian.
In fact they're really Americanized and easily buy into right libertarian sentiments with quotes decorated with flowery traditionalist imagery and appeals to pastoralism (which is all at odds with the totalitarianism of the regimes they embrace like Fascist Italy or Hitler's Germany).
These people complain about clown world, but tbh these clowns deserve clown world.
<History repeats itself, first as a tragedy, second as a farce

Anonymous 2024-03-20 (Wed) 04:57:14 No.590002

>>590001
Yknow I’m reminded of that post in USApol about a white nationalist going to the Midwest and being so bored around his fellow white people that he deradicalized himself. And I think it speaks to that old adage that we really get used to the water we’re born with. For as much as these people may consciously want to reject liberalism in hopes of chasing some kind of based trad ethnostate, they’re still hopelessly enmeshed in it. How many of these nationalists would stay nationalist if they Autarky meant giving up Japanese media? You’ll notice the Amish have no trouble returning to their people after experiencing modernity.

On some level it’s almost sad, like a person that can’t come to terms with their own sexuality throwing themselves into the first heterosexual relationship they can to try and “make” themselves straight. On the other, most of these guys are assholes.

Anonymous 2024-03-20 (Wed) 05:27:41 No.590003

>>590002
>For as much as these people may consciously want to reject liberalism in hopes of chasing some kind of based trad ethnostate, they’re still hopelessly enmeshed in it. How many of these nationalists would stay nationalist if they Autarky meant giving up Japanese media?
Maybe with nationalism or patriotism they can still have a little bit of that, even in the extreme examples of it.
But I imagine this is especially true for the traditionalist / funadmentalist types in those circles that want a return to religiosity to the same extent of places like Saudi Arabia and Iran or Indian caste society.

Anonymous 2024-03-20 (Wed) 05:47:32 No.590004

>>589998
what the fuck is the "cuck box" incident mentioned here

Anonymous 2024-03-20 (Wed) 05:52:06 No.590005

>>590002
>>590003
For context:
These people complain about censorship even in video games and other media – we're not too far the age when Bible Belt parents would censor these things and they'd complain about it – that is a distant memory, but even that was in its marginalized form within modernity.
I could only imagine the 180 pendulum swing /pol/ would make, if we rejected modernity and brought back the full extent of religious authority instead of a few moderate disgruntled boomer parents.

Anonymous 2024-03-20 (Wed) 05:52:48 No.590006

>>590004
https://www.thedailybeast.com/matthew-heimbachs-traditional-workers-party-implodes-over-love-triangle-turned-trailer-brawl

"One of America’s highest-profile neo-Nazi parties is “no more” after a bizarre love triangle saw its leader locked up for assault, the party’s former spokesperson, who described the incident as a “white trash circus” told The Daily Beast.

The Traditionalist Worker Party gained national attention after its involvement at the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, last August. Its leader, Matthew Heimbach was arrested Tuesday for allegedly assaulting his wife and his spokesman after Heimbach was caught cheating on his wife with the spokesman’s wife.

David “Matt” Parrott was the party’s spokesperson until Tuesday, when he quit in a statement to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Parrott told The Daily Beast the incident might be the end for the white nationalist group. “People have lost faith in the party on every level,” he said.

Parrott scrapped the TWP’s website after quitting because he believes the party to be dead, he said.

The implosion began at a TWP compound in Paoli, Indiana, where Parrott’s wife, Jessica, was allegedly having an affair with Heimbach—who is married to Parrott’s stepdaughter from a previous marriage.

Heimbach and Jessica told Parrott they’d ended the relationship, but Parrott and Heimbach’s wife were skeptical. They arranged to “set up” Heimbach and Jessica in a trailer on Parrott’s property to catch them having sex.

Parrott stood on a box outside the trailer and watched Heimbach and Jessica have sex inside, according to a police report. When the box broke under Parrott’s weight, he entered the trailer to confront them. Heimbach allegedly choked him and chased him into a house, where Parrott threw a chair at him. Heimbach hit back, choking him into unconsciousness, according to the police report."

Anonymous 2024-03-20 (Wed) 18:40:47 No.590007

>>590003
One only has to look at Saudi Arabia to see that a "RETVRN" to religious fundamentalism will just mean normal people getting their skulls cracked open by the morality police for listening to the "wrong" kind of music, while the upper class lives likes a bunch of degenerates.

It's also why I'm skeptical of "Christian Nationalism" lasting long. Yes the evangelicals are a bunch of highly motivated freaks, but they tend to skew older, and they'll quickly alienate people by trying to do shit like "Ban Pokemon for teaching evolution."

Y'know it's really funny. I'm watching Stranger Things for the first time with a buddy. We're on Season 4. And they bring up the Satanic Panic alongside the fear that D&D will literally give you magic powers and make you worship the devil. My buddy brings up how it makes him uncomfortable to see the show "shitting on religion" and I have to gently remind him that, for a period in the 80s, that was real life. Everything about some small town getting all energized and ready to hunt some "freak" down for the crime of playing D&D was pretty goddamn real. The first movie that Tom Hanks worked on was one about how playing D&D made him go crazy and kill people. And it's not like this social panic against "freaks" and "Satanists" would have any rhyme or reason to it, or only affect the excesses or dregs of a thing. You only have to look at the Comic Code Authority to see that it can completely shit up a hobby or subculture.

And for millions of people, there was a time when that was a tangible fear. Esoterica, a YouTuber I really like, goes into it a bit. He grew up around the time of the Satanic Panic and it almost destroyed his life. I'd say as much as 9/10 of the so-called "trad" types would flip if they see what "traditionalism" in the American context actually means. It doesn't mean marble statues and Roman paganism. It doesn't mean even returning to the aesthetics of "yoeman farmer" America. It'll mean a million Kenneth Copeland expies going from place to place, appointing themselves as "experts" on "moral degeneracy" and charging people fees to scream that the local Magic the Gathering tournament is run by satanic pedophiles.

Anonymous 2024-03-20 (Wed) 18:48:40 No.590008

>>590007
>Esoterica, a YouTuber I really like

ah fellow esoterica enjoyer

Glowing Anonymous 2024-03-20 (Wed) 18:51:57 No.590009

>>590006
>Parrott stood on a box outside the trailer and watched Heimbach and Jessica have sex inside, according to a police report. When the box broke under Parrott’s weight, he entered the trailer to confront them. Heimbach allegedly choked him and chased him into a house, where Parrott threw a chair at him. Heimbach hit back, choking him into unconsciousness, according to the police report."
I'd pay good money to watch that to the benny hill music.

Anonymous 2024-03-20 (Wed) 19:11:45 No.590010

>>590006
>The police report lists Heimbach’s occupation as “white nationalist.”
kek

>>590009
This.

Anonymous 2024-03-20 (Wed) 20:05:35 No.590011

>>590008
I found him through Atun-Shei and I've always had at least a mild interest in the Occult. Really like his content.

>>590010
>The police report lists Heimbach’s occupation as “white nationalist.”

<"Name and Occupation?"
>"Matthew Hembach. Professional racist."

Anonymous 2024-03-21 (Thu) 09:33:22 No.590012

I refuse to define fascism as some kind of nationalist idpol. Fascism is simply a capitalist dictatorship.

Glowing Anonymous 2024-03-21 (Thu) 09:40:02 No.590013

File: 1711014002397.png (350.1 KB, 474x473, ClipboardImage.png)

>>590012

Anonymous 2024-03-22 (Fri) 02:58:13 No.590014

>>590012
Honestly that's a pretty useless descriptor that wont help you spot Fascism when it's important to.

Anonymous 2024-03-22 (Fri) 20:07:11 No.590015

File: 1711138030909.jpg (444.87 KB, 1826x1200, Eurasianist.jpg)

Fascism - Borderless & Red
By Alexander Dugin

>There are, in the 20th century, only three ideologies that have managed to demonstrate that their principles are realistic in terms of their political-administrative implementation - these are Liberalism, Communism and Fascism. As much as one may like to - it is impossible to name another model of society which would not be one of the forms of these ideologies and [which], at the same time, existed in reality. There are liberal countries, there are communist [countries] and there are fascist (nationalist) [countries]. Others are absent. And are impossible. In Russia, we have passed two ideological stages – the communist and the liberal. What remains is fascism.

<1. Against National Capitalism

>One of the versions of fascism which, it seems, Russian society is today ready (or almost ready) to embrace is national capitalism. It is almost beyond doubt that the project of national capitalism or "right fascism" constitutes an ideological initiative of that part of the elite of society which is seriously concerned with the problem of power and feels acutely the power of time [velenie vremeni]. Yet, the "national-capitalist," "right-wing" variation of fascism does by no means exhaust the nature of this ideology. Moreover, the union of the "national bourgeoisie" with the "intelligentsia" on which, according to some analysts, the coming Russian fascism will be based constitutes a glaring example for what, actually, is entirely alien to fascism as a world-view, as a doctrine, [and] as a style. "The domination of national capital" - this is a Marxist definition of the phenomenon of fascism. It does absolutely not take into account the specific philosophical self-reflection of fascist ideology [and] consciously ignores the fundamental core-pathos of fascism.

>Fascism - this is nationalism, yet not any nationalism, but a revolutionary, rebellious, romantic, idealistic [form of nationalism] appealing to a great myth and transcendental idea, trying to put into practice the Impossible Dream [sic], to give birth to a society of the hero and Superhuman [sic], to change and transform [preobrazovat' i preobrazit'] the world. On the economic level, fascism is characterized rather by socialist or moderately socialist methods which subordinate personal, individual economic interests to the principles of national welfare, justice, [and] brotherhood. And finally, the fascist view of culture corresponds to a radical rejection of the humanistic, "excessively humane" mentality, i.e. of what represents the essence of the "intelligentsia." The fascist hates the intellectual [intelligent] as a type. He sees in him a masked bourgeois, a pretentious philistine, a chatterbox and irresponsible coward. The fascist loves the brutal [zverskoe], superhuman and angel-like, at the same time. He loves the cold and tragedy, he does not like warmth and comfort. With other words, fascism despises everything that makes up the essence of "national capitalism." He fights for the "domination of national idealism" (and not "national capital") and against the bourgeoisie and intelligentsia (and not for her and not with her). The fascist pathos is accurately defined in the famous phrase of ᴉuᴉlossnW: "Rise, fascist and proletarian Italy!" "Fascist and proletarian" - such is the orientation of fascism. [It is] a labor and heroic, militant and creative, idealistic and futuristic ideology which does not have anything in common with securing additional governmental comfort for the traders [torgasham] (even if a thousand times national) and sinecures for the socially parasitic intelligentsia. The central figures of the fascist state, [and] fascist myth [are] the peasant, worker, [and] soldier. On the top, as the supreme symbol of the tragic fight with destiny, cosmic entropy [is] the god-like leader, Duce [duche], Führer [fyurer], superhuman who realizes in his supra-individual personality the extraordinary tension of national will for feat. Of course, somewhere, at the periphery, there is also a place for the honest citizen-merchant [grazhdanin-lavochnik] and university professor. They too put on party badges and go out to ceremonial meetings. But, in fascist reality, their figures are fading, getting lost, [and] move into the background [otstupayut na zadnii plan].

>Not for them and not by them is the national revolution done.

>In history, clean, ideal fascism did not experience a direct incarnation. In practice, the urgent problems of assumption of power and establishing economic order forced the fascist leaders - including ᴉuᴉlossnW, Hitler, Franco, as well as Salazar - to forge alliances with conservatives, national capitalists, big owners and corporation heads. Yet, this compromise always ended deplorable for the fascist regimes. The fanatic anti-communism of Hitler warmed up by the German capitalists cost Germany the defeat in its war with the USSR while ᴉuᴉlossnW - trusting into the honesty of the king (articulator of the interests exactly of big business) - was delivered by him to the renegades Badoglio and Ciano who put the Duce into prison and threw themselves into the embrace of the Americans.

>Franco held out the longest, and even that because of the concessions of liberal-capitalist England and USA and because of [his] rejection to support the ideologically related regimes of the Axis. Moreover, Franco was not a real fascist. National capitalism is the inner virus of fascism, its enemy [and] guarantor [zalog] of its degeneration and perishing. National capitalism is in no way an essential characteristic of fascism as [national capitalism] is, on the contrary, an accidental and contradictory element in its inner structure.

>Therefore, in our case, in the case of the growing Russian national capitalism, one cannot speak about fascism, but of an attempt to preliminarily pervert what is not to be circumvented. Such pseudo-fascism can be called "preventive," [or] "precautionary." It hastens to make itself known before an authentic, real, radically revolutionary and consistent fascism, a fascist fascism is, in full measure, born and becomes strong in Russia. National capitalists – these are former [communist] party leaders who are used to boss around [vlastvovat'] and humiliate the people and who subsequently, out of conformism, became "liberal democrats," and who, now that this stages is over, are, equally zealously, venturing to cover themselves with national clothes.

>Having democracy transformed into a farce, apparently, the partocrats, together with the obliging intelligentsia, are, decidedly up to foul and poison the nationalism that is advancing into society.

>The nature of fascism [is] a new hierarchy, a new aristocracy. The novelty lies in that the hierarchy is based on natural, organic [and] clear principles - dignity, honor, courage [and] heroism. The dilapidated hierarchy which is trying to carry itself over into the era of nationalism is, as before, based on conformist abilities: "flexibility," "caution," "a taste for intrigues," "toadyism," etc. The obvious conflict between two styles, two human types, two normative systems is inescapable.

<2. Russian Socialism

>It is absolutely unjustified to call fascism an "extremely right-wing" ideology. This phenomenon is much more precisely characterized with the paradoxical formula "Conservative Revolution." It is a combination of a "right-wing" cultural-political orientation - traditionalism, faithfulness to the soil, roots, national ethics - with a "left-wing" economic program - social justice, limitation to the market forces, deliverance from "credit [protsentnogo] slavery," prohibition of stock market speculation, monopolies and trusts, [and] primacy of honest work. In analogy to National Socialism which was often called simply "German socialism," one can speak of Russian fascism as "Russian socialism." The ethnic specification of the term "socialism" has, in this context, a special meaning. What is meant is formulation of a socio-economic doctrine, from the beginning, not on the basis of abstract dogmas and rationalistic laws, but on the basis of concrete, spiritual-ethical and cultural principles that have organically formed the nation as such. Russian socialism - that is not Russians for socialism, but socialism for the Russians. In distinction to rigid Marxist-Leninist dogmas, Russian national socialism proceeds from an understanding of social justice which is characteristic exactly for our nation, for our historical tradition, for our economic ethics.

>Such a socialism will be more rural than proletarian, more communal and cooperative than administrative [gosudarstvennyi], more regionalistic than centralistic - all these are requirements of Russian national specificity which will find its expression in the doctrine and not only in practice.

<3. New people

>Such a Russian socialism should be build by new people, a new type of people, a new class. A class of heroes and revolutionaries. The remains of the party nomenclature and their ramshackle order should fall victim to the socialist revolution. The Russian national revolution. The Russian's are longing for freshness, for modernity [sovremennosti], for unfeigned romanticism, for living participation in some great cause. Everything that they are offered today [is] either archaic (the national patriots) or boring and cynical (the liberals). The dance and the attack, fashion and aggression, excessiveness and discipline, will and gesture, fanaticism and irony will seethe in the national revolutionaries - young, malicious [zlykh], merry, fearless, passionate and not knowing limits. They [will] build and destroy, rule and fulfill orders, conduct purges of the enemies of the nation and tenderly take care of Russian elderly and children. Wrathfully and merrily will they approach the citadel of the ramshackle [and] rotten System [sic]. Yes, they deeply [krovno] thirst for Power [sic]. They know how to use it. They will breathe Live [sic] in society, they will shove [vvergnut] the people into the sweet process of creating History [sic]. New people. Finally, intelligent and brave. Such as are needed. Who take the outer world as a strike (in the words of [Evgenii] Golovin [a Russian mystic and teacher of Dugin - A.U.]).

>Immediately before his death, the French fascist writer Robert Brasillach voiced a strange prophecy: "I see how in the East, in Russia, fascism is rising – a fascism borderless and red."

>Note: Not a faded, brownish-pinkish national capitalism, but the blinding dawn of a new Russian Revolution [sic], fascism - borderless as our lands, and red as our blood.