[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


File: 1674846959785.jpg (6 KB, 158x320, faggot.jpg)

 No.17634[Last 50 Posts]

I have struggled with this question a lot, particularly because many of the things that get called fascist are quite clearly, in my eyes, not unique to fascism from both sides of the political aisle (e.g. free market advocacy, socialism etc.) So, leftypol, is fascism truly everything I don't like?

 No.17635

>>17634
Fascists have no theory which means it can anything anyone needs it to be.

 No.17636

>Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. Fascism rose to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
<The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries, most notably Germany. Fascism also had adherents outside of Europe. Opposed to anarchism, democracy, pluralism, liberalism, socialism and Marxism, fascism is placed on the far-right wing within the traditional left–right spectrum.

 No.17637

>So, leftypol, is fascism truly everything I don't like?
yes

 No.17638

File: 1674849542941.png (1.06 MB, 1024x655, 42-24332115_1024x1024.png)

>>17634
Yeah pretty much. Its lack of a clear definition is one of its defining characteristics. Fascists take great pride in despising theories and well thought-out programs. They had some vague slogans that both capitalists and workers could squint at and project what they wanted onto it, but they didn't leave behind much in the way of a theory, their actual history was totally schizo, and fascist ideologues openly said at the time that their goal was to seize power first and then come up with a program. It's all "we're men of action." All that other stuff is just gonna muddle everything and prevent men from doing… action! Because moxie is in such short supply these days…

They openly embrace cynicism. ᴉuᴉlossnW said that no one was more relativistic than the fascists. They don't believe in "debate" other than a power flex. They don't believe in people reasoning together. They loved war and saw that as a source of spiritual renewal. In more industrialized countries with stronger socialist parties, they played up an anti-capitalist element, and in countries with less industry and weaker socialist parties, they downplayed it. They somehow managed to unite all the contradictions and antagonisms of their societies in a single point represented by a theatrical LEADER who promised that everything will change and all problems will be solved but nobody will have to change anything about themselves and their own group (except the Jews and communists or X other group who have to GTFO).

So that's the strength of fascism. That's also the weakness of fascism, since it's a reactionary system, and can only attempt to solve all of these contradictions by warfare. They want to improve the condition of the working class due to the anti-capitalist elements of their politics (which also helps get the working class to support the coming war), but the ultra-capitalist elements ensure that those conditions will go down anyways. They tend to support autarky, but want to conquer foreign markets and "take their oil." They want to preserve the middle classes as they are but also tinker with economic planning in league with large corporations that would ruin the middle classes. They want to go back to villages and WHEAT FIELDS but also want to boost heavy industry for the war effort. They don't just say one thing and do the other, they say both things and try to do both things which makes it an inherently schizo type of regime.

 No.17639


 No.17640

>>17634
Fascism is the neoliberalation of Marxist-Leninism

 No.17641

>>17634
You can stop struggling, anon. What really counts is that whatever it is, we work to make it end like picrel.

 No.17642

>>17641
DAMN STRAIGHT

 No.17643

It's just anticommunism.

 No.17644

>>17634
Most anons have answered the question well enough since fascism defies most principles, and the one party that has taken power and has actually called themselves fascist (Italy) has been consistent about generally two things when describing themselves: the subsumption of the individual to the state in totalitarianism, and what they're against: democracy, liberalism, communism.

Fascism is generally a pretty hazy term that describes nothing aside from "right-wing dictatorship that isn't a traditional monarchy", and describes nothing about what they're actually for. Yet rightoids appeal to it all the time for different reasons that they project onto it, so the term itself isn't going anywhere. All that means is that fascism cannot be understood on its own terms. The only way to have anything close to an understanding of fascism is to see how it's functioned historically, and what it leads to. It was parasitical on the rise of socialism and worker consciousness, and when liberalism is eliminated as a real choice, it tends to be the bourgeoisie's second choice, despite, or because of, its tendency to eliminate the communist movements which are the most dangerous to them as a class.

 No.17645

>>17636
>wikipedia
are you a fucking bot?

 No.17646

I was always partial to describing as "liberalism in decay+colonialism come home" turns out when shit hits the fan the capitalists dont give af about civil liberties(whodathunkit).

There usually a cultural element to it that will vary by nation and the gay nazi was pretty on point with how this plays out irl

 No.17647

bosses' offensive

 No.17648

>>17646
>colonialism come home
This might be the best and most succinct way of putting it that I've seen.
Colonialism extended into the borders of the empire. Domestic colonialism / internal colonialism.

Most other attempts at descriptions rely too much on superstructural elements imo

 No.17649

>>17640
*Neoliberalisation
Fuck me

 No.17650

File: 1674883920685-0.jpg (349.83 KB, 1670x1266, slavery 2.jpg)

File: 1674883920685-1.png (560.64 KB, 494x767, ClipboardImage.png)

>>17646
>>17648
liberalism in decay + colonialism come home? oh no no no no no USA bros

 No.17651

>>17644
>Fascism is generally a pretty hazy term that describes nothing aside from "right-wing dictatorship that isn't a traditional monarchy", and describes nothing about what they're actually for.
And interesting text here:

>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.'

https://www.marxists.org/subject/fascism/conze-wilkinson/ch21.htm

 No.17652

My simple definition of Fascism has always been a One-Party State in the Capitalist Mode of Production, but if you want a more in-depth explanation of this definition you should read this highly informative article that clearly articulates the Maoist conception of Fascism http://www.massline.org/Politics/ScottH/Fascism-MLM-Conception.pdf , ✊😜!

 No.17653

>>17651
> ‘Fascism is clear in its negative programme, but it is not clear in the least what is its programme in positive innovations.'

Right. Fascism is, among other things, extreme anticommunism. It is defined entirely by its violence, its class collaborationism, and its criticism of the moderate bourgeois in not persecuting communists hard enough.

 No.17654

File: 1674886140520.png (431.24 KB, 1100x619, Julius Nyerere Quote.png)

>>17652
>My simple definition of Fascism has always been a One-Party State in the Capitalist Mode of Production
that makes america fascist

 No.17655

>>17653
That whole book is interesting because it's a Marxist work from the 1930s but it goes beyond the typical boilerplate. From "Chapter VI: The Conflict Between Capitalism and Socialism in Fascism."

>To maintain so large a private army and extensive propaganda did, of course, need enormous funds, but even so these were only provided in part by capitalist subsidies. From the first, Hitler laid down the rule which has proved so successful in the case of the Salvation Army that propaganda must pay not only for itself but bring in money to the cause.


>The Nazi newspapers were self-supporting. Hitler insisted that they must be run on commercial lines. As they were interesting and full of scandal they had a large sale. The great meetings were a considerable source of income. These big demonstrations were always magnificently stage-managed, crowded and stimulating. But they had to be paid for. Front seats in the first 10 rows cost the equivalent of an English pound and the rest in proportion.


>The Nazi Party soon developed ingenious ways of getting money both from supporters and the public. In fact by 1930 it had become a huge business concern. An insurance company was formed for the Storm Troopers. A cigarette company was founded which could count on a vast and growing market among Nazi supporters, with whom it was a point of honour to smoke the party cigarettes. Even if the quality was mediocre, the slogans on the packets were all right. Bonds were issued with the inscription: ‘Y has given X marks in the time of Germany’s deepest distress.’ The petty bourgeois could hang this up with pride in his sitting-room. It might in certain districts be a good investment to hang one showing a big donation if he kept a shop.


>Those who wanted to make the best of both worlds could become ‘secret members’ by the regular monthly payment of at least four marks a month. Nazi secretaries were most tactful about the secrecy, especially to nervous officials and business people who wanted to be sure ‘in case…’. In addition to these, of course there were many hundred thousands of ordinary paying members. Money was collected by Storm Troopers at every street corner, particularly at election time. Levies were put on middle-class supporters and on anyone whom fear or hope could squeeze money out of. Uniforms, office equipment, most of the things needed were bought on credit. Food supplies were collected from friendly or frightened shopkeepers. In short, the Nazis had numberless ways to get money. They could raise it because the booty they were after was the German Empire itself. Many would sacrifice a little in order to be assured of a slice from so large a cake. Hitler pursued the old tactics of Cæsar, who made people believe that one day he would rule Rome, and on this belief got large sums of money. Hitler, like Cæsar, ‘pawned the state before he had it in order to get it’.

https://www.marxists.org/subject/fascism/conze-wilkinson/ch26.htm

 No.17656

>>17654
no, america still larps as two party. only once it stops larping, well den

 No.17657

File: 1674887077995.png (247.61 KB, 438x396, 1535034610481.png)

So I've kind of spitballed a few definitions for Fascism before, but as other Anons here have said: it's really fucking vague. Honestly, I'd say it's more of a generic "vibe" than a more positive program. Like Oswald Mosley, IIRC, tried to lay out a specific Fascist economic and political program, but he was mostly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. You also have Fascists making some odd alliances. Like Peron (who was undeniably inspired by Fascism) was actually on pretty good terms with Salvadore Allende and seemed disturbed by Pinochet's seizure of power. Meanwhile Francisco Franco seemed to get along well enough with Fidel Castro. Because it's so abstract, every now and again you get a Fascist willing to make seemingly bizarre friendships/relationships because it's almost like a theater show.

Like Nick Fuentes has an ideology undeniably hostile to Blacks and other minorities, but he's getting along fine with Kanye for example. And there's plenty of pics of /pol/ meetups where there seems like a fair bit of diversity at play.

That aside, I'd say probably the most intelligent thing I've heard a Fascist try to argue or theorize, came from Julius "Negroid Sperm is Magical" Evola. Or an interpretation of him by some "Iron Front" poster or something. Basically, the claim was that whereas a liberal thinks that society is based on the individual and individual rights or ideas, and a socialist thinks society is based on socio-economic classes and class struggle, a Fascist believes society is centered on something known as "The Warband."

The argument, though I'm paraphrasing from memory, is that if you go back far enough in history, to the rise of the earliest states or societies, you see the emergence of this band of "warriors" which usurp power and direct it form above. The earliest human kings, after all, were essentially military leaders who were appointed/elected to lead armies and then gradually oversaw civilian laws and development and what have you. This would be especially true in post-Roman Europe, where the entire job of the aristocracy was to essentially be warriors and "protectors."

Now I'm giving the fash a bit too much credit here because this is (in my opinion) a fairly intelligent point. At least a lot more than Nazi's schizophrenia over race war. Most Fascists are probably not even cognizant of this (though maybe Cultured Thug is, he seems to actually read Gentile and all these other early Fascist theorists) and are just into it for aesthetic or libidinal pleasure.

However, it could be that there's a decent argument there. If we were to put aside our mutual loathing of one another and discussed the role of the military and war in society, perhaps we could both walk away having learned something new or expanded our theoretical knowledge. After all, there was a legitimate debate in certain Communist circles after the first World War, on why the poor conscripts on both sides didn't come to see each others' shared humanity and rise up against this pointless fucking war. You had a glimpse of it in The Christmas Truce, but that was a beautiful if all-too-short fluke.

And when one considers Fascism as a war or soldiering ideology, well then a lot of things fall into place. As the old saying goes, "Truth is the First Casualty of War." Of course Fascism would seem incoherent and undefinable, because in a military setting you're expected, first and foremost, to follow orders. There's a great scene in the original Star Trek where Kirk, I think, he's stranded with his crew on an alien world. Everyone is unsure of what to do, they're surrounded by forests. And so he leans down, examines the soil, makes a big show of looking around, before pointing and saying "We'll go this way."

Well someone asks Kirk how he knows that'll lead them to civilization. He admits he doesn't. But in a crisis situation he has to point them in some direction. Any, really. And the theatrics of knowing what you're doing, of staying calm, and acting like you have a plan when you just picked a direction and started walking. Well that helps him keep the situation under control.

 No.17658

>>17650
gonna start hoarding polymer80s and brass catchers

 No.17659

>>17634
Nobody here understands it, most scholars don't understand it, it's been distorted to history. If you want to understand it, read it straight from the horse's mouth: read Giovanni Gentile.
As concisely put as one can (and no I don't care about all the easily anticipatable snarky responses, none of you get it), fascism is a relativistic, idealist ideology concerning human empowerment under a totalitarian mode of collectivity and intersubjectivity. Under this pretext, ironically, fascism is an anti-essentialist, or 'radically constructivist' ideology operating under the most central criterion that one can do and make of their world, and, crucially, as well as of their abilities, whatever they will. On account of this anti-essentialism, the class model as being mechanistically determinative is rejected just as much as any other explanation, supplanting an alternative of collaborationism under the shared assumption of a self-constituting, self-accounting agential reality. When all of this is syncretized in tandem, you end up with the finalized, mediated expression of the nation-state as such. Modern fascists who lambast autism score testing, race realism, biological determinism, etc. don't understand what they're talking about in a political context and are just interested in being edgelords. If you qualify hitler as a fascist and don't bother on making the distinction between nazism and foundational fascism, then sure, they are consistent. If you do understand nazism to be a separate category though, then read it and weep: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/36762/36762-h/36762-h.htm

 No.17660

>>17659
I should add that, based on all of this, it's still appropriate to consider fascism 'liberalism in decay', in that it represents a more consistent and evolved version of certain premises integral to liberalism, only deviating and disavowing from the naturalistic tenets of the ideology and incorporating certain hegelian and marxist principles of philosophy (concerning the human subject, specifically) instead. In this sense, an even more accurate denotation would be something like 'liberalism in acceleration'.

 No.17661

God I love the same thread every 6 months minimum and having to give the same answer over and over again.

 No.17662

>>17661
welcome to leftypol

 No.17663

>>17659
SHOULD READ LAMENT NOT LAMBAST MB

 No.17664

>>17659
I barely understand what you said but it seems like you know your stuff.

 No.17665

FASCISM IS PALINGENETIC ULTRANATIONALISM

 No.17666

Fascism strikes me as a sort of "capitalism without liberalism," though ultimately the state is in charge and the bourgeoisie either rules along side it, welded to the corporatist state, or must live by its dictates. This seems to contrast with your Randian and propertarian reactionaries who view the state as rightfully subordinate to capital and the bourgeoisie.

 No.17667

>>17656
the larping as 2 simply makes the bourgeois dictatorship more effective.

 No.17668

>>17667
yes okay but stilll not fascism, because fascism usually involves the dismantling of any illusion of delmocracy

 No.17669

File: 1674899532918.png (4.12 MB, 1436x2047, nazi_to_nato.png)

>>17668
american fascism learned to maintain this illusion, which is why it's more effective.

 No.17670

>>17669
this cartoon made me laugh a lot more because how true it is today

 No.17671

>>17657
>The argument, though I'm paraphrasing from memory, is that if you go back far enough in history, to the rise of the earliest states or societies, you see the emergence of this band of "warriors" which usurp power and direct it form above.
So a military junta. By this logic Gaddafi was a fascist, and Sankara was a fascist. Which, I disagree.

 No.17672

>>17670
>how true it is today
always has been

 No.17673

File: 1674902511588.png (2.47 MB, 3092x2027, ClipboardImage.png)

>>17661
"As revolutionaries, we don't have the right to say we're tired of explaining. We must never stop explaining. We also know that once the people understand, they cannot but follow us." THOMAS SANKARA

 No.17674

>>17634
The United States has been a fascist dictatorship since 1945.

 No.17675

>>17674
The United States is today a dictatorship of the big bourgeoisie, a dictatorship of the Hitlerite type

 No.17676

>>17674
why not before 1945?

 No.17677

>>17666
Correct

 No.17678

>>17674
>Since 1945
Fuckin' Leninists.
>>17673
Fair enough.
>>17671
👆
>>17634
Fascism can be tied to the Romans and their successors but at the end of the day shit has gotten so out of hand and I'm pretty sure I got banned the last time I spoke about this, that I'll just say fascism is just what you don't like.

 No.17679

>>17634
First of all you cant define fascism based on what the fascoids say, you have to analyse them through class lens
Second of all , fascism isnt any millitant movement, not even all right wing larping movements.
>The fascist movement in Italy was a spontaneous movement of large masses, with new leaders from the rank and file. It is a plebian movement in origin, directed and financed by big capitalist powers. It issued forth from the petty bourgeoisie, the slum proletariat, and even to a certain extent from the proletarian masses; ᴉuᴉlossnW, a former socialist, is a “self-made” man arising from this movement.

>The banner of National Socialism was raised by upstarts from the lower and middle commanding ranks of the old army. Decorated with medals for distinguished service, commissioned and noncommissioned officers could not believe that their heroism and sufferings for the Fatherland had not only come to naught, but also gave them no special claims to gratitude. Hence their hatred of the revolution and the proletariat. At the same time, they did not want to reconcile themselves to being sent by the bankers, industrialists, and ministers back to the modest posts of bookkeepers, engineers, postal clerks, and schoolteachers. Hence their “socialism.” At the Yser and under Verdun they had learned to risk themselves and others, and to speak the language of command, which powerfully overawed the petty bourgeois behind the lines. [2] Thus these people became leaders.



So the black hundreds of Lenins time who were sucking the boots of the royal family and of the aristocrats or any other movement who is sucking the cocks of any other bouj politician arent fascist and yes socdems and wtvr arent fascists either
Third question is weather fascists are inherently racists or wether fascism is some special for of nationalism ,fascism was chauvinistic from the start ,since the capitalists are always chauvinistic but all political ideologies that serve the capital can become chauvinistic.
>At the start of his political career, Hitler stood out only because of his big temperament a voice much louder than others, and an intellectual mediocrity much more self-assured. He did not bring into the movement any ready-made program, if one disregards the insulted soldier’s thirst for vengeance. Hitler began with grievances and complaints about the Versailles terms, the high cost of living, the lack of respect for a meritorious non-commissioned officer, and the plots of bankers and journalists of the Mosaic persuasion. There were in the country plenty of ruined and drowning people with scars and fresh bruises. They all wanted to thump with their fists on the table. This Hitler could do better than others. True, he knew not how to cure the evil. But his harangues resounded, now like commands and now like prayers addressed to inexorable fate. Doomed classes, like those fatally ill, never tire of making variations on their plaints nor of listening to consolations. Hitler’s speeches were all attuned to this pitch. Sentimental formlessness, absence of disciplined thought ignorance along with gaudy erudition – all these minuses turned into pluses. They supplied him with the possibility of uniting all types of dissatisfaction in the beggar’s bowl of National Socialism, and of leading the mass in the direction in which it pushed him. In the mind of the agitator was preserved, from among his early improvisations, whatever had met with approbation. His political thoughts were the fruits of oratorical acoustics. That is how the selection of slogans went on. That is how the program was consolidated. That is how the “leader” took shape out of the raw material.
>On the plane of politics, racism is a vapid and bombastic variety of chauvinism in alliance with phrenology. As the ruined nobility sought solace in the gentility of its blood, so the pauperized petty bourgeoisie befuddles itself with fairy tales concerning the special superiorities of its race
>The petty bourgeois is hostile to the idea of development, for development goes immutably against him; progress has brought him nothing except irredeemable debts. National Socialism rejects not only Marxism but Darwinism. The Nazis curse materialism because the victories of technology over nature have signified the triumph of large capital over small. The leaders of the movement are liquidating “intellectualism” because they themselves possess second- and third-rate intellects, and above all because their historic role does not permit them to pursue a single thought to its conclusion. The petty bourgeois needs a higher authority, which stands above matter and above history, and which is safeguarded from competition, inflation, crisis, and the auction block. To evolution, materialist thought, and rationalism – of the twentieth, nineteenth, and eighteenth centuries – is counterposed in his mind national idealism as the source of heroic inspiration. Hitler’s nation is the mythological shadow of the petty bourgeoisie itself, a pathetic delirium of a thousand-year Reich.

TLDR:READ UYGHA READ
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330610.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm#p1
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/lit_revo/ch04.htm

 No.17680

>>17666
>capitalism without liberalism
It's the end point of liberalism.

 No.17681

>>17634
Capitalism in decay

 No.17682

File: 1674922061087.png (737.78 KB, 838x649, ClipboardImage.png)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm
>The genuine basis (for fascism) is the petty bourgeoisie. In italy, it has a very large base – the petty bourgeoisie of the towns and cities, and the peasantry. In Germany, likewise, there is a large base for fascism …
>It may be said, and this is true to a certain extent, that the new middle class, the functionaries of the state, the private administrators, etc., can constitute such a base. But this is a new question that must be analyzed …
>the fascist agency, by utilizing the petty bourgeoisie as a battering ram, by overwhelming all obstacles in its path, does a thorough job. After fascism is victorious, finance capital directly and immediately gathers into its hands, as in a vise of steel, all the organs and institutions of sovereignty, the executive administrative, and educational powers of the state: the entire state apparatus together with the army, the municipalities, the universities, the schools, the press, the trade unions, and the co-operatives. When a state turns fascist, it does not mean only that the forms and methods of government are changed in accordance the patterns set by ᴉuᴉlossnW – the changes in this sphere ultimately play a minor role – but it means first of all for the most part that the workers’ organizations are annihilated; that the proletariat is reduced to an amorphous state; and that a system of administration is created which penetrates deeply into the masses and which serves to frustrate the independent crystallization of the proletariat. Therein precisely is the gist of fascism …

 No.17683

>>17682
>The genuine basis (for fascism) is the petty bourgeoisie. In italy, it has a very large base – the petty bourgeoisie of the towns and cities, and the peasantry.
Aaaaand nothing changed in 100 years.

 No.17684

>>17634
>What is fascism?
Very popular on 4chan that's what

 No.17685

>>17682
Calling fascism a "petty-bourgeois movement" is kind of weird considering the primary victims of fascist violence were probably the petty-bourgeoisie. The Nazis wiped out a huge chunk of the landowning peasantry in eastern Europe so their land could be given to German settlers and property in the towns and cities seized so they could go to German settlers. Same as the Italian Fascists did in Libya and the Balkans.

 No.17686

>>17685
Petty bourgs are stupid as fuck, already pointed out by Marx in 18 brumaire

 No.17687

File: 1674923714610-1.jpg (210.2 KB, 1024x884, 757567655675675.jpg)

File: 1674923714610-2.jpg (233.2 KB, 1000x750, mao-letter-3.jpg)

>>17657
>And when one considers Fascism as a war or soldiering ideology, well then a lot of things fall into place … because in a military setting you're expected, first and foremost, to follow orders. There's a great scene in the original Star Trek where Kirk
Or like Kirk from the Mirror Universe who's evil and and carried out a coup of the Federation and became a fascist dictator. A military officer with masculine virility as a form of Caeserism. I think Hitler or one of the top Nazis said something too like "people don't need theories, they need someone to rule them."

You know an interesting contrast here is modern China where the would-be fascist warlords were put down by communists. Also ironically (?) Mao is more like a traditional Chinese ruler in the sense of being a literary type. He was a guerrilla but a lot of these stories of that time is "Chairman Mao giving his advice" and using his brains and strategy skills to help the generals win the battle. China had historically been ruled by literary bureaucrats who wrote stories about strong generals, but they also shat on the generals when things went wrong (for obvious reasons). The pen is mightier than the sword. A man with a sword can physically kill you. A man with a pen can shit on you for eternity.

>>17665
You can get some insights from him but I'd point out he's a fundamentally liberal and non-Marxist scholar which is why he focuses on this idealist concept IMO

 No.17688

>>17685
Holy shit!
Libya had a petit bourg class?!

 No.17689

>>17688
You're mocking the idea that Libya, commercial centre of the Sahara, had a petty-bourgeoisie?

 No.17690

File: 1674927373246.png (985.47 KB, 900x1440, ClipboardImage.png)

>>17687
>>17657
Imo WW1 experiance is overstated , Sorel's Reflections on Violence was written in 1908
He influenced Marinetti who wrote the futurist manifesto in 1909 before even becoming a war correspondent .
In general italian fascoids while extremely chauvinistic and ready to serve in the millitary seem to self centered to support stratocracy ,their authoritarianism comes from their love of machines rather than from a millitary fetish, Marinetti even in street fights ,saw himself as a swashbuckler .

The nazis since they were nowere near as radical as their italian allies tied their paramillitarist to ww1 trauma and also jealousy since many SA members had fought only as freikorps or as office personel something often mocked by their rivals

Modern poltard love of fittnes aesthetics of various propaganda demostrations but those werent exclusive to the right (pic related)

 No.17691

>>17690
>Imo WW1 experiance is overstated
It's not. Fascism in Italy had success thanks to the rhetoric of "vittoria mutilata" by D'Annunzio who had more mass appeal than Marinetti thanks to his various exploit. Meanwhile Marinetti was just a wacky artist with wacky ideas (such as love for war).

 No.17692

File: 1674928322238.png (53.33 KB, 1642x780, 1659604560402.png)

The three definitions most useful for understanding fascism are as follows:
>The open terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, chauvinist, and imperialist elements of finance capital.
This is the ML definition and it best describes "mature" fascism, that is to say fascism that has taken and consolidated power. This usually involves a process of shedding its initial "radical" elements, which are typically pretty bourgeois or other middle class elements with certain leftist tendencies. The Strasserites are probably the clearest example of this, and their suppression in the Night of the Long Knives is a textbook example of such a purge. These elements need to be expunged in order to complete the alliance between fascism and the ruling class, with the end result being above definition.
>Modern reactionary Caesarism
This one comes from Gramsci, and his based on his concept of "Caesarism". This concept essentially boils down to a way to explain and analyze certain regimes which have apparently contradictory tendencies and are hard to fit into traditional left-right boxes. Gramsci argues that in periods of strategic stalemate between progressive and reactionary forces, other factions can act with a level of agency that would normally be impossible. When such a force intervenes and imposes a compromise on the warring groups to break the stalemate, the result is a Caesarist regime. These regimes can be progressive or reactionary depending on which force benefits in the long term. I think that this analysis is useful to understanding fascism because it shows how the petty bourgeoisie can intervene in politics under certain conditions to preserve their class interests. The result is that the stalemate is broken, the rule of the bourgeoisie is secured, and the middle class radicals who built the regime lose the conditions that allowed them to act with such agency. Once that happens they remain in the orbit of the bourgeoisie and the middle class ideologues are purged, leaving us with mature fascism as described by the ML definition.
>The application of colonial methods of rule to the metropole.
Iirc this one comes from various writers in colonized countries. I think it's useful because it helps illustrate the relationship between bourgeois society and political terror. As the definition suggests, it's a recognition that states which behave like liberals at home very often behave like fascists in their colonies. This is because imperialism allows a country to raise the standards of living for its own population through the super-exploitation of colonies. This has the effect of exporting class struggle from the core to the periphery, meaning that class contradictions are always more intense in the latter. Sharper contradictions mean more violence is necessary to coerce the population into compliance, which means less room for liberal freedoms and labour rights enjoyed even by workers in the metropole. Eventually however capitalism enters a period of crisis, which causes the contradictions in the core to suddenly intensify. The result is that the ruling class must now apply the methods used to contain class antagonisms in the colonies to the metropole, and this produces fascism. Of course the implication of this theory is that from the prospective of a colonized person, all colonial regimes are fascist. If you look at pic related, fascism for the metropole can essentially be summed up as the bottom of the pyramid collapsing, leaving only the upper levels, whereas in the colonies the bottom was never there in the first place.

I think that all three of these definitions are necessary to understand fascism. The first because it describes the class power behind mature fascism. The second because it describes the class forces which give birth to fascism as a movement, as well as the conditions that allow it to succeed. The third because it illustrates the close relationship between fascism and the "normal" means of governance in bourgeois society, at least for imperialist countries.

 No.17693

>>17671
I'm mostly going off what Evola described as Fascism, though I'd say what separates Fascism from the typical military Junta is that the military, represented superficially by the Fascist party, tries to become a "Class Of Itself." As it were. The whole of society is mobilized to serve military ends. Whereas a traditional Junta has the military as the dominant power in society but it isn't an all-consumed obsession with military matters.

 No.17694

>>17691
Fascio d'Azione Rivoluzionaria was founded before italy entered ww1 based on Sorel

 No.17695

>>17694
I'm saying that fascism would have probably remained marginal if it didn't couldn't feed on post-war malcontent against the government.

 No.17696

>>17692
This conflates way too many different forms of rule as belonging to merely one.
Fascism may have elements of autarky, but fascism is not strictly autarky itself. Same goes for its relationship with/to imperialism. Your post's definitions are just autarky and imperialism. If you believe fascism is merely the combination of the two, then you could have said so much more concisely.

 No.17697

>>17695
Well ww1 influenced the workers movement as well

 No.17698

>>17696
I didn't mention autarky at all Anon, and I only mentioned imperialism in relation to how fascist methods of government are actually a normal feature of bourgeois society. I talked about these three definitions because they each addressed a different aspect of fascism: its mature form, it's origins, and its relationship to bourgeois society as a whole.

 No.17699

>>17693
>I'm mostly going off what Evola described as Fascism
understood
>The whole of society is mobilized to serve military ends.
by this logic War Communism or FDR's wartime economy is also fascism

 No.17700

>>17685
to be fair, they selectively targeted bourg and petty bourg based on how Jewish or slavic they were or homosexual they were, or whether they had any plausible ties to communists.

 No.17701

>>17657
Evola was a schizo who thought everything post 800bc was in some way degenerate(based on his readings of mythology)

His ideas became well known post ww2 in pro italian social republic circles of msi youth

 No.17702

>>17643
Retarded

 No.17703

>>17659
>Under this pretext, ironically, fascism is an anti-essentialist, or 'radically constructivist' ideology operating under the most central criterion that one can do and make of their world, and, crucially, as well as of their abilities, whatever they will.

Well, that explains why they lose as often as they do.

 No.17704

>>17699
>by this logic War Communism or FDR's wartime economy is also fascism
Those were intended to be temporary though, like one of the U.S. propaganda songs during the war was about winning the war so they wouldn't have to fight a war again (psyche!). I get the sense that most countries in a major war are gonna seem kinda "fascist" or go into Starship Troopers propaganda mode, but what distinguished the fascist regimes is that such a society, a virtuous soldier-based society under arms, was the whole goal and is what attracted so many veterans and militarists to it.

 No.17705

>>17634
I’ve had it with the Nazlib glowie definitionfags

Fascism is when one section of the ruling class takes over a state and applies Malthusianism to stabilize the economy via authoritarian methods.
That’s it.

 No.17706

>>17705 (me)
The Democrats and the liberals in Burgerstan are more aligned with fascism these days than the GOP is.

 No.17707

>>17706
Trump and the movement around him represents the fascist tendency in American politics. This is why the people who identify with the fascist political tradition identified with him, but only a small group of people in the big capital strongly supported him so he wasn't able to establish a dictatorship. Mainly figures like Richard Uihlein (Uline), Bernie Marcus (Home Depot), investor Robert Mercer, banker Timothy Mellon (from a family that were enthusiasts for ᴉuᴉlossnW), and a few others. His politics also served the short-term interests of the middle and lower bourgeoisie.

 No.17708

>>17705
>I've had it with definitionfags
<proceeds to give a definition, no less retarded (certainly much more) than the other ones in this thread

huh is this the trve power of defying the anglobox? please teach me your skills

That said, focusing on definitions is stupid, because behind every definition is a real thing that at one time didnt exist, then did exist, then ceased to exist again - and any number of other things with different names might take on similar aspects. The point of inquiry (if its useful at all) is to tell us about the material reality behind the name, allowing us to make connections to other similar things, as well as the context for a thing's existence and so on. Focusing on defining and re-defining a word is literally beyond pointless, no one has any better definition. One is good enough, it points generally as historical self-named fascism, and as many people pointed out through this thread, fascism is extremely tied to liberalism, capitalism, and the bourgeoisie (including petite-bourgeoisie, especially).

Honestly I think it's yet to be shown that fascism in its concrete existence is not a part of the normal functioning of capitalism. Of course it comes from capitalism, and historically tends to return to liberalism or have an uneasy relationship with power, but what's left out is the necessity of fascism. The prime liberal view of the essence of fascism is "inexplicable, excessive violence". This is what they think differentiates their worldview from the fascist one. I think they're correct, but not as correct as they think- the violence is obviously structural and necessary. The petite bourgeoisie couldn't fight back effectively against the big bourgeoisie, and so it attacked the working class. We see extreme repression in a fascistic manner in colonial countries. This doesnt mean fascism is colonialism in the imperial core, though, that is a silly way to frame things. The violence of fascism and colonialism are expressions of class struggle. Fascism is the bosses' offensive. And because of this it might be pointless to even consider fascism a thing distinct from "normally functioning" capitalism. In (class) war, there are always offensives on various fronts. Equally, there are retreats and stalemates. Liberalism is just as endemic to capitalism as fascism and colonialism. (interestingly as others pointed out, ideologically liberalism and fascism tend to be very similar, at least if you take new age liberals, or academic deconstructivist liberals, etc. Obviously at some point a thing turns into its opposite - but at the same time it may be less fruitful to hold onto this hegelian baggage of the "negation", when what's meant is "transformation"). When liberalism turns to fascism, the class war situation transforms. That's about its only significance. The minutia (fascist ideology, for example, fascist violence as opposed to liberal violence, fascist soldiers as opposed to liberal soldiers, fascism in its petite-bourgeois versus bourgeois character) are pretty much totally irrelevant and distractions, except insofar as the ideas have to be combated with superior information and theory, to dispel their stupid relativist/pragmatist philosophy, their shcizo use of historical mythological narratives, and most of all highlighting the class collaboration in their ideas and why it means only the suppression of the working class. (to be clear tho class collaboration is also present in liberalism, fascism only takes it further in promoting it absolutely, and with much prejudice). This is why there can be no alliance with "left-wing fascism", its at best extreme opportunism deriving from the academic and petite-bourgeois classes.

 No.17709

File: 1675144789353.mp4 (14.86 MB, 1280x720, fascisten undermenshc.mp4)

>>17641

ideally fascism would be a centralized system based on mantaining hegemony.
in theory the strong get stronger and the weak get crushed
however, considering most fascist leaders have been weak closet faggots and federal agents.

in reality fascism looks more like capitalism where the oligarchs who are the weakest individuals mantain all the power and the working class are crushed every day
if you can survive being crushed every day you're strong and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise

if the situation was hopeless their propaganda would be useless

 No.17710


 No.17711

Opinions on this guy? I think makes interesting videos on the topic of fascism despite being an anarchist

 No.17712

>>17634
Rejection of liberal promises, capitalist apologists and a reaction to class conciousness, which they reject or subvert.

 No.17713

>>17702
Anticommunism is the raison d'etre for fascism.

 No.17714

>is fascism truly everything I don't like
YES. Whenever you see something you don't like, call it fascist. If there's someone who doesn't like you, s/he's a fascist.

 No.17715

>>17634
"Fascism" comes from "fasci", which is the log and axe you posted. It symbolises the collection of a people, called by gentile, "the socius", the essential/spiritual harmony of a people, which typically entails race, and also class collaboration.
Corporatism, the fascist model, views society as a body, with different sectors accomplishing different tasks, the leadership occupying the "intelligensia", or "head" of state.
To mussolini all things revolve around the state, and so all things must become "nationalized" as an aesthetic and mode of production, which leads to many public organizations forwarding the national will.
Particular to fascism too is often a revival of paganism and a fetish for war. ᴉuᴉlossnW and hitler both celebrated the martyrdom of fallen soldiers and saw peace as a non-negotiable term.

 No.17716

>>17634
To put it simply fascism is authoritarian capitalism. Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie turning into a literal dictatorship.

 No.17717

calling thing fascism outside of fascism (musolini etc) is bad. it never end well.

calling thing fascism because said thing do the same thing the ww2 axis power did is bad. it never end well.

calling thing fascism in general is bad. it never end well.

cry harder if you not agree.

 No.17718

>>17711
burn it with fire

 No.17719

>>17634
Authoritarian capitalism.
/thread

 No.17720

File: 1680508790603.png (31.08 KB, 675x540, organize.png)

I figured I'd bump the thread with an update to share some disorganized thoughts as I try to dissect Fascism. I'm analyzing it from the works they wrote about themselves and will hopefully have a more thorough essay in the works eventually.

Fascism's recurring appeal to a Totalitarian State (and Gentile/ᴉuᴉlossnW themselves appear to call it as such in The Doctrine of Fascism) seems to be based in a unique conception of The State itself. Others have said that Fascists see the Nation as a "Body," but if we're talking classical Fascism, it seems Gentile claimed that Nations are the products of States or instead born from them. A primordial state is a coming together of peoples, classes, and families into a unified band. At least according to the Fascists.

Hence their appeal to Totalitarianism. Which, if my interpretation of some of their writing is correct, is less a call for a "George Orwell 1984 surveillance state" so much as a State wherein the totality of all human action exists within it. The artist is as much an appendage of the State as the Soldier, at least that seems to be what they're getting at.

Their critique of democracy borrows a lot from Socialist thought. Oswald Mosley, in his "100 Questions Asked and Answered," spends some time talking about how Party apparatuses essentially subvert the Will of The People toward special interests. Similarly, he attacks Free Press using the old Socialist critique: that it's fundamentally undermined by the fact private interests dominate the Press.

But there's something unique in the Fascist critique of "democracy" (really Bourgeois Liberal Democracy) that I think Mosley and Gentile both make arguments for. Which is that "democracy" as it exists in liberal states is a numbers game, and that numbers don't accurately represent "Will" in the nebulous sense.

What do I mean by that? Well it seems "Action" is a major virtue of Fascist dogma. The Doctrine of Fascism asserts that "inaction" is a matter of decay and death. And that the flaws of Liberal democracies is that raw "numbers" don't accurately reflect a popular Will. If you need a modern example of this, I suppose a Fascist would argue that the defeat of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Primary is one of the best examples. You had people: honest-to-God hardworking people, donating huge swathes of their paychecks, knocking on doors, making phone calls, it was this popular upswell. Stadiums of Sanders' supporters were packed. The energy was clearly there.

Yet South Carolina rolls around, and Bernie loses the primary. And bizarrely enough, the winner is the person with the least diehard supporters. Sheer institutional inertia carried Biden over the finish line. And all that sacrifice. All that hard work. The fact that there was a genuine, energized base for Bernie, that meant nothing. Because the party system doesn't reward passionate upswells but backroom dealing and party bosses. Mosley claims he had a groundswell of popular support in the Labour elections but similarly remarks he failed because the Trade Union Bosses opposed him.

It's an interesting critique. And it's something I independently thought of when theorizing what Socialist democracy would look like. That voting has to be more than just a numbers game, a vote in a Socialist society should be a commitment. If 40 people in a government of 100 vote to build a bridge, then I don't think that means the bridge doesn't get built, but that you only have the resources of those 40 people to do it.

These are just idle musings. I'm continuing to study the subject and I hope whatever I write can find some intellectual value.

 No.17721

A miserable little pile of imbecilic sadists

 No.17723

>>17722
It's just butthurt liberals

 No.17724

>>17723
Very simplified but not incorrect. We can see it in all the westoid societies now, the face behind the mask.

 No.17725

>>17720
SOMEONE SAVE THIS GOOD POST

 No.17726

>>17725
It's an average post, before people like you arrived that didn't even try to read the books, the theory. Treating mere flags like spectacular identities of ecelebs you root for. How do you have such low confidence in your own capacity? Get your shit together and start believing in yourself man, you are capable of growth, of literary acculturation.
Start small. Start with the shorter works or pamphlets of the authors you're already interested in. You would be surprised by the short length of some of Marx & Engels PDFs/ePUBs you sometimes skip the thumbnails of on here when they get shared.
After you get through those in a breeze you will be reading historical overviews of fascism with ease too, why wouldn't you? You're clearly interested in the topic. A big problem with the above CPUSA post is that he completely leaves out fascism's very contrasting ideological idealism, which makes them very distinct from the scientific socialist movement. He is also wrong about the "uniqueness" of "fascism's critique of democracy", as that can be traced to Sorel, which was a prominent figure in the labor movement that both revolutionary socialists, rev. syndicalists and fascists took inspiration from and which still echo through in today's Marxism via the likes of Gramsci, Mariategui and the people they inspired (not to mention today's anarcho-syndicalist federalism). If you read a historical overview of fascism, you will be supplied with whole knowledge like that. Eventually you'll prefer consuming information through the rich medium of literature over watching halfassed youtube clips by cringy grifting retards that attempts to shorten, contract, reduce the information from the source material, dispensing with important context, chapters and details in the process, saturating the runtime instead with timewasting appeals to aesthetics, marketing techniques that you've seen a thousand times over already, product placement and nags for you to subscribe for his channel for the "part 2" that comes after this 5 minute video. A lot of the self-important flagfag posts on here are much closer in quality to that of a 5 minute youtube video than that of widely acclaimed authors of books with reshare value throughout time. and you shouldn't be treating them interchangeably like you just did with your parasocial gushing.
You can do it, comrade. The brain is plastic, unlike what the algorithms would have you feel in the short-term.

 No.17727

It's a meaningless term. ᴉuᴉlossnW and the PNF themselves didn't really have an ideology aside from ultranationalism and imperialism. The Nazis were racial populists who attempted to create a colonial empire, but many other "fascist" movements weren't as concerned with creating colonies or even empires, preferring isolationism.

>Italian fascism was certainly a dictatorship, but it was not totally totalitarian, not because of its mildness but rather because of the philosophical weakness of its ideology. Contrary to common opinion, fascism in Italy had no special philosophy. The article on fascism signed by ᴉuᴉlossnW in the Treccani Encyclopedia was written or basically inspired by Giovanni Gentile, but it reflected a late-Hegelian notion of the Absolute and Ethical State which was never fully realized by ᴉuᴉlossnW. ᴉuᴉlossnW did not have any philosophy: he had only rhetoric. He was a militant atheist at the beginning and later signed the Convention with the Church and welcomed the bishops who blessed the Fascist pennants. In his early anticlerical years, according to a likely legend, he once asked God, in order to prove His existence, to strike him down on the spot. Later, ᴉuᴉlossnW always cited the name of God in his speeches, and did not mind being called the Man of Providence.

—Umberto Eco, Ur-Fascism

 No.17728

>>1421700
>/pol/yp still thinks he's slick and "owning" people

 No.17729

>>1421722
>t.

 No.17730

>>1421700
It's like porn, you know what it is when you see it :^)

 No.17731

I think it's when you are an angry little shit acting out
Empiricism

 No.17732

>>17635
How the fuck do you oppose it you fuckin brainlet

 No.17733

File: 1680539785083.png (204.64 KB, 600x475, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1421722
>noooo ad hominem how dare you not debate me at my command
ahh, the classic rightoid response. I'll ad hominem you as much as I please, because I don't owe you a debate. I view your side's fundamental irrationalist framing of basic issues to be vapid and shallow, and I view it as unworthy of discussion - which makes your own pretense of being logical thinkers all the more disgusting and hypocritical. So no, I don't feel obligated to take you seriously enough to meet your whinging for a debate in good faith, because everything every /pol/ tourst we get (including yourself) says reeks of bad faith. As such, I feel zero shame in verbally kicking someone who identifies with an entire movement of irrationalistic intellectual hypocrites

dilate and feel free to respond with as many butthurt wojaks as you please

 No.17734

>>17732
Like a caretaker disciplining a child

 No.17735

>ethnonationalist/cultural-chauvinist cult of origins underpinned by idealist essentialism + irrationalistic/subjectivistic epistemology
>explicitly cronyistic variants of capitalism (see: IG Farben, Siemens etc under the Nazis)
>imperialist foreign policy
>top-down authoritarian decision-making structures sans popular input or representation

there, /thread

 No.17736

>>1421763
>>1421766
>he's so butthurt by this he's samefagging

 No.17737

>>1421766
>everyone is as slow as me
I think this is what people in the healthcare industry call cope

 No.17738

>>1421805
I think that means you're gay, son

 No.17739

>>1421805
If you didn't care, you wouldn't have responded. You clearly do, and now you're attempting to prove how not mad you are that nobody here has any interest in taking your shitty attempts at bantz seriously : ^ )

 No.17740

>>1421815
>liberal

lmao this illiterate retard

 No.17741

>>1421815
So are you scared of being gay or trans? Both

 No.17742

>>1421835
Yeah just watch out it can happen anytime. Sometimes your brain goes on strike.

 No.17743

>>1421835
>the trans obsessed guy is switching between two threads trying to own us over culture war shit when he's too much of an illiterate retard to understand that our basic set of concerns are bread-and-butter shit like housing, heatlhcare, economic decision-making, etc

This is why we tell you to read a book: you don't even understand what we're about lmao

 No.17744

>>1421849
better read, less regressive

 No.17745

>>1421849
We don't simp for a different form of capitalism while pretending to be socioeconomically subversive, for starters

>inb4 but muh woke media


lmao are you enough of a gullible retard to think that media companies you don't like are the end-all of power and influence under capitalism

 No.17746

>>17725
Glad you liked it
>>17726
I intend to read some Sorel; and if you've got early reactions from Marxists on Fascism, I'd be happy to check them out.

 No.17748

>>17645
That's genuinely the best short summary describing fascism you could realistically find. Are you seething that it isn't a book length rant about financiers and capitalists?

 No.17749

>>17646
The original liberals who literally defined what liberalism is opposed mass democracy, so maybe not the most comprehensive definition possible

 No.17750

>>17653
Also a flawed approach, you are too self-centered, fascism is anti-communist by definition but anti-communism is not what defines it

 No.17751

>>17685
>"Petit bourgeoisie" i.e. free peasantry
Lol
Lmao even

 No.17752

>>17734
But how do you even find the child in the first place if you don't have a fixed definition of what a child is?

 No.17753

>>17752
>one guy can't decide what fascism is, therefore everybody on this board can't decide what fascism is
<this is the intellectual heft of /pol/'s best

 No.17754

>>17732
>How the fuck do you oppose it you fuckin brainlet
with a gun
and if that don't work use more gun

 No.17755

>>17661
If Marx wanted us to answer the same questions every 6 months, he wouldn't have invented screencaps.

 No.17756

>>17635
First post shit post.
Just because you haven't read their theory or don't respect it doesn't make it non-existent and unanalyzable.
>but evola was a fucking schizo
Yes.

 No.17757

File: 1683520604353.png (629.37 KB, 538x730, Unauthorized humping!.png)

Fascism is a meaningless term since the 1930s
Socialism is a meaningless term since the 1880s
Only use them for rhetorical effect, never for any serious analysis.

Y/N?

 No.17758

>>17659
>If you do understand nazism to be a separate category though, then read it and weep: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/36762/36762-h/36762-h.htm
That's 200 pages of shit I ain't got time to read all of. Which section supports your argument that Hitler's Nazism is consistent with foundational fascism? Or, to approach it another way, what arguments does it preempt?

>neo-fash and neo-Nazism

It's a stretch to consider them as forks. It's more just an unintentional caricature parody of Nazi Germany through the lens of each side's propaganda. At least outside of Europe, I'm not sure how different it is there. But it's certainly built around edginess and aesthetics rather than any philosophy or socio-economic theories.

 No.17759

>>17674
>runs into a thread
>writes one sentence which makes no sense and doesn't even relate to the thread topic
retard

 No.17760

>>17634
Fascism is not a coherent ideology, though it is defined by certain invariant characteristics. This is by no means an exhaustive list.

>Ultranationalism

>Extreme Militarism; the military serves as a model of society
>Xenophobia
>Irredentism (Muh Roman empire, muh Reich, make murrica great again)
> Jingoism or a sense of racial, ethnic, or cultural superiority
> (often) Territorial expansionism
> Führerprinzip, or leadership principle of hierarchical authoritarian control (model society on military ranks)
> anti-equalitarianism, anti-democracy
>Authoritarianism, statism
> Anticommunism
> Civic religionism (the state is a religious substitute)
> Cult of masculinity; masculinist chauvinism ; contempt for woman, antifeminism
> Imperialism
> Weaponization of science
> Demagoguery, appeals to emotion

 No.17761

>>17760
Notice how I did not list antisemitism. Because I honest to god do not believe that is an essential characteristic of fascism. Nazism's obsession with Jews retroactively influenced the whole of fascist thought, simply because German fascism was far and away the most powerful manifestation of it. ᴉuᴉlossnW and his ghost writers had very little to say about Jews until the regime depended on Germany for its survival.

 No.17762

>>17761
>ᴉuᴉlossnW
Idk wtf happened here!
I meant to type ᴉuᴉlossnW

 No.17763

>>17761
antisemitism is indeed not necessary to fascism, but I believe that conspiratorial thought about certain elements of a society (religious or ethnic minorities for example) is part of fascism.

 No.17764

>>17762
It's a word filter. The joke is he was hung upside down.

 No.17765

>>17764
Yeah I got it the second time :p I was bamboozled.
>>17763
You're right, that is a property that should be listed as well. Scapegoating and resentment is an enduring attribute of fascism .
Fascism is often defined by emotional forces. This feeling of wounded pride, of stifled greatness. It's honestly pathetic . It's a great big hissy fit.

 No.17766

File: 1683529795299.jpg (25.59 KB, 474x541, jiggy.jpg)

>>17726
Comrade, they asked you to save a good post, not make a good post.

 No.17767

>>17765
Yes, scapegoating summarises it well. Fascist have a metaphysical and static view of society, technological progress is possible but not societal progress because in a orderly and hierarchical society everyone knows their place, so advancements are kept to a minimum. Society can only be disrupted by external forces such as foreigners, religious minorities, foreign ideas which are blamed for every societal ills.

 No.17768

Saw the thread was bumped, popping in with an update. Next book I'm gonna try and get a hold of is "Fascism for The Million" by Oswald Mosley; I think he's an important enough figure in that he was, by my estimation, a real believer in Fascist doctrine and simultaneously was attempting to explain his ideas, in plain English, to win over the masses of the U.K.

With that said, there are a few points of interest I want to explore.
>The Socialization of The RSI
As one of the progenitors of Fascist theory, how ᴉuᴉlossnW acted when in power is, I think, important to understanding Fascism as a whole. And something I haven't seen really discussed is the period of "Socialization" in Fascist Italy after the Nazis occupied the North.

Nicola Bombacci (a former Communist that joined the Fascist cause) tried to make the case that with the Monarchy and Popular Front in rebellion against Fascism, now ᴉuᴉlossnW could begin the "real" Fascist revolution without being held back the old powers of Italian Politics. And to Il Duce's credit, it appears that the "Socialization" of the Italian Economy was something done of his own volition, rather than the prodding of Nazi Occupiers.

It seemed to be unpopular, but that's just according to Wikipedia. I remember reading some articles claiming it was somewhat similar to China's current economy, but I have no idea how true that statement is.

While the popular argument is that Fascism is merely Capitalism in decay, or that Fascism has no coherent ideology, it should be noted that there was a gradual "gut" understanding of what Fascism is, or what it would look like. Even by Fascists themselves. Of particularly interesting note is ᴉuᴉlossnW's early statements that Stalin was creating "Fascism in the Russian style" and a Nazi diplomat (might've been Ribbentrop, not sure) claiming that "Socialism in One Country" was a kind of pseudo-Fascism. I believe the head of the Russian Fascist Party, before he died, wrote to Stalin claiming he was a kind of "National Bolshevist." Was it just the ramblings of bizarre Fascists? Maybe. I'm not entirely sure myself.

It should be noted that the historical period in which Fascism arose took place against the background of numerous crises in Marxist thought. For one, Imperialism had managed to tide over some amount of class antagonism, thanks in part to excess wealth being distributed to the national proletariat from the imperial periphery. For another, and this is something of particular importance, there was little better time for a global Proletarian Revolution than WWI. Europe burned itself to cinders, and for what? So some fucking inbred Kraut can dominate another inbred Kraut. It would be absolutely logical for the soldiery on both sides to recognize their shared humanity and realize they had no reason to fight each other.

Other than the Christmas Truce, that never came about. Even when Lenin and the Russians brought the fires of Socialism to Russia, there wasn't a global revolution. There were some incidents in Ireland and Germany, but the Proletariat was brutalized and the Revolution was confined to the USSR.

Finally, and this is an awful fact, the Fascist regimes of Italy, Germany, and Japan had the strength to endure. Despite all the immiseration brought to the proletariat in those nations, they went out "on their own terms" as it were. As far as I know, even when the Soviets were marching into Berlin, the Germans kept fighting–and for what? There were rebellions among the Officers, many of which were reactionary, but as I see it, even when the war was lost the Germans went down defending Hitler. It's depressing to think about, that by the time the Red Army was pushing into the heart of The Reich, the German peoples hadn't risen up to kill the bastards that brought them no end of pain and misery.

Italy was a little better. They had an active partisan movement. But it seems that it took the figure of The King to rally Italy into a general revolt against Fascism.

What does all this mean? I'm not sure. Maybe we've underestimated the power of the superstructure. Or maybe there's some data I'm overlooking. Regardless, to dismiss Fascism by saying there's nothing there or reducing it to a system in decay, ignores the fact that it could survive until it was killed, and that there were still plenty of bizarre figures willing to die for it up until the bitter end.

 No.17769

>>17757
Kill yourself
Y/N?

 No.17770

>>17634
>>17648
>>17646
I'm also partial to "colonialism turned inwards"
And the (schizo) ideology that supports it or is created to justify it, or emerges out of the material conditions of the internal colonialism ( >>17638 ).

By that measure, I think its fair to say that America is a fascist empire with a happy face. The place (disproportionally black) poor Americans have in the US is (to my understanding) basically internal colonialism, not even counting the prison slavery system, which is even more egregious.

When it enters crisis, then it drops the mask, and "liberalism enters decay". Which is all this anti-trans hysteria, tikitorch alt right bozos, incel mass shooters, police murdering people left and right, all that jazz. What was once under the surface comes into the surface, but the fascist system was already there.

 No.17771

>>17659
That seems to be the ideological grounding of the original fascist movement, but not necessarily what came of it.

It tracks with what the original fascists were doing, which was shit like free association, sex parties, and other libertine shit like that (maybe I'm getting details wrong, I don't know much). It also tracks with the idea of taking liberalism to its limits, and also why libertarians are so ideologically close to fascism.

Neoliberal ideology, including shit like Ayn Rand, Hayek, but particularly Thatcher, seem to me to be a new, updated and also retardo version of this "foundational fascism". The line "society doesn't exist, only individuals", puts the individual at the center of the creation of the brave new world that was also promised by neoliberals, of the wonders of human reason, science, industry, all when man is a master of his own domain.

Does that make any sense?

 No.17772


 No.17773

File: 1684691549620.jpeg (3.82 MB, 4032x3024, IMG_1705.jpeg)

Kind of surprised I found this at a local book sale. Anyone read it before? Thoughts? Bumping the thread cause Sorel was influential in early fascism.

 No.17774

>>17772
O

Fascism is authoritarian capitalism.

 No.17775

File: 1684707704595.jpeg (91.39 KB, 724x720, 1620984285660.jpeg)

>>17659
>under a totalitarian mode of collectivity and intersubjectivity
very important. to make it more succinct, fascism is the idea that the state furnishes an otherwise abstract ego with substantiality, and furthermore it must mediate all contradictions. that second point is motivated by a a moral constructivism that is rigorous until it begins to conflate the spiritual socius with the actual state. from all of this class collaborationism naturally follows. at the end of the day they didnt take marx's criticsms of hegel's philosophy of right seriously enough which is strange given the fact that gentile has read marx though perhaps not enough

>>17773
fascism is basically a sort of state syndicalism if you think about it

 No.17776

>>17775
You can read marx and still disagree with him

 No.17777

Fascism is the religion of The State.

 No.17778

>>17773
It's interesting to read to understand the anarcho-syndicalist mindset. It's very focused on the mythologization of power wielded by the state eg. what separates state force and revolutionary violence. It reads like Nietzsche honestly, which can turn off a lot of left-brain Marxists. Sorel is one of those cases where you have to read him critically because while he does have a type of class consciousness, he is the precursor to the vulgar mythologization of violence that attracted fascists like ᴉuᴉlossnW.

 No.17779

>>17776
oh course, and i have read some of gentile's criticism of marxism, but it doesn't seem to at all touch marx's critique of institutions. perhaps i have not read enough gentile

>>17775
oh yeah might as well link some stuff:

https://fascio.substack.com/p/the-anarchist-and-fascist-overlap?s=r
>Italian syndicalists viewed social revolution as a means for rapid transformation to provide “superior productivity,” and if this economic abundance failed to occur, there could be no meaningful social change. One of the means to bring about the social revolution was Imperialism to spur economic development. Which would attract many nationalists inspired by fellow revolutionaries like Gabriel D’Annunzio to the Fascist cause. The emphasis by syndicalists towards the importance of “producerism” was originally argued by Sorel in 1907, who argued that Marx considers that a revolution by a proletariat of producers who have acquired economic capacity. They were referring to when Marx reminded his colleague that; “material conditions necessary for the emancipation of the proletariat” therefore must be spontaneously generated by the development of capitalism. A. James Gregor talks about in his book Italian Fascism and Developmental Dictatorship and it’s what motivated the original Manifesto of The Italian Fasces of Combat.
>[…] The Fascists believed with Sorel they found in Marxism a plan of developmental historic ends to bring about worker control of the means of production by direct action. Meaning the intellectuals of syndicalism came to the realization that Italy’s primitive economy could facilitate neither socialism nor abundance for society. Without a mature industry developed by the bourgeois class, they came to understand that a successful social revolution required the support of “classless” revolutionaries, collaboration, and war. ᴉuᴉlossnW, along with Italian syndicalists, nationalists and futurists, contended that those revolutionaries would be Fascists. According to ᴉuᴉlossnW and other syndicalist theoreticians, Fascism would be “the socialism of proletarian nations.” The Futurists, some of whom were Fascists, talked favorably of Renzo Novatore, a prominent Anarcho-Individualist writer
>[…] This revolutionary nature of Fascism from its anarchist and syndicalist origins, was therefore following a goal of its development for economic socialization. The economic policy of Corporatism for Fascism was in fact just Nationalized-Syndicalism an inversion of anarcho-syndicalism. Leading people like the musician Douglas Pearce to say this:
<“The way I understand it is that, to paraphrase ᴉuᴉlossnW, the Fascists are the real anarchists for they truly did do exactly what they wanted. Libertarianism and Fascism are bedfellows no matter how some people might find that repugnant.”

https://fascio.substack.com/p/giovanni-gentle-philosophy-introduction
<For Fascism, on the contrary, the State is a wholly spiritual creation. It is a national State, because from the Fascist point of view, the nation itself is a creation of the mind and is not a material presupposition, it is not a datum of nature. The nation, says the Fascist, is never really made; neither, therefore, can the State attain an absolute form, since it is merely the nation in the latter’s concrete, political manifestation. For the Fascist, the State is always in fieri. It is in our hands, wholly, hence our very serious responsibility towards it.
>[…] As the act of thinking constitutes reality, collective thinking constitutes collective reality that is manifest in the State (defined in spiritual terms as a higher subjectivity or greater Mind). All individuals are constituted in the Spiritual State, meaning that individuals (subject) and the State as Spirit (object) constitute a single, organic whole. There is thus no distinction between society (as a collection of atomic individuals) and State (representing the higher Mind or Spirit). The individual is not subject to the State (as in the classic formulation of authoritarianism), nor is the State subject to the individual (as in the classic formulation of liberalism). Rather, the State is the individual, and the individual is the State. The State is not merely an abstract, external object; you are part of the State, and the State is part of you. That is to say, it is the Aufhebung (sublation) of the two
>[…] To Gentile, Marx's externalizing of the dialectic was essentially a fetishistic mysticism. Though when viewed externally thus, it followed that Marx could then make claims to the effect of what State or condition the dialectic objectively existed in history, a posteriori of where an individual's opinion was while comporting oneself to the totalized whole of society. i.e. people themselves could by such a view be ideological 'backwards' and left behind from the current State of the dialectic and not themselves be part of what is actively creating the dialectic as-it-is.
>Gentile thought this was absurd and that there was no 'positive' independently existing dialectical object. Rather, the dialectic was natural to the State, as-it-is, which means that the interests composing the State are composing the dialectic by their living organic process of holding oppositional views within that State, and unified therein [emphasis added]. It being the mean condition of those interests as ever they exist. Even criminality is unified as a necessarily dialectic to be subsumed into the State and creation and natural outlet of the dialectic of the positive State as ever it is
in these last two paragraphs i just pasted, we can see the idea that the state must somehow mediate contradictions. i guess he does sort of criticize marx here, idk where gentile writes this criticism though

https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/51160/1/2013WakefieldJPhD.pdf
>For her (potentially flawed) will to generate moral claims, it must be ‘resolved into the universal [will]’ manifest in her ‘moral conscience.’31 This is achieved dialectically by reference to the ‘society inside the person’ (la società in interiore homine)
>[…] A more elaborate explanation is offered in Gentile’s last book, Genesi, where he describes the ‘internal dialogue’ taking place in the ‘transcendental society’38 comprising the ego, or the narrowly personal part of S’s identity, as she considers her particular interests and circumstances; and the ‘socius,’ or the part voiced by other people as a whole,39 which presents itself to S as an ‘alter-ego [which] joins [her] in a dialogue, speaking and listening as [her] partner in life’s drama.’ This ‘dialogue’ between these two abstract parts of S’s ‘absolutely social’ identity enables her to identify the demands of her conscience, or the universal will, and distinguish these from the contrary demands of her internal and external enemies
>[…] Gennaro Sasso argues that Gentile’s identification of the universal will with the (political) state is wholly unjustified and ultimately damaging to actual idealism’s credibility as a moral and social philosophy. S does not recognise the authority of the universal spirit’s will and align hers with it through the internal dialogue. Instead the universal spirit’s will (which is really the will of a dictator or equivalent political executive) replaces S’s will. There is no negotiation or justification or recognition; S’s will does not come into the equation. Under these circumstances it is senseless to talk about an ethical state, individual freedom, or even the state’s ‘interiority.’ Where the state is deaf to the individual will, yet possesses a will of its own, to which S is forced to submit irrespective of what she personally wills, the only meaningful will is external, possessed by a person whose arbitrary identity is only obscured by Gentile’s spiritual posturing
>[…] [T]he real shipwreck of actualism came when Gentile began to confound the ideal of the self-constitutive act of thought with the reality of fascist politics, with the result that he saw fascism as the necessary, universal and self-justifying outcome of history. At this point the norma sui principle, which otherwise would have formed the basis of a most tolerant philosophy, turned into its own opposite, and formed the basis of one of the most intolerant philosophies in history

 No.17780

File: 1684710054359.png (180.15 KB, 480x360, ClipboardImage.png)

>>17732
Cvrsta ruka, batina, i zatvori

 No.17781

>What is fascism?
Fascism is the politics of imperial decline and resentment. Without fail, every time , fascism emerges from conditions of vindictive imperial resentment. Italy and Germany were upset that they didn't get to participate in the colonial expansion of the other western powers . Japan was upset that it was a backwater and did all the work of industrializing like a western power but had none of the fancy colonial assets of France or Britain. MAGA retardation is another sign of aggravation imperial decline, it's literally explicit in the slogan. It's plain as day.

 No.17782

>>17781
>Italy and Germany were upset that they didn't get to participate in the colonial expansion of the other western powers .
Furthermore Italy was even more upset that it wasn't a power at all. So Benito shook his little fist and stuck his chin up in outrage and shouted about a New Roman Empire despite the fact his mouth was writing checks his ass couldn't cash.

 No.17783

File: 1685144222801.jpg (20.2 KB, 252x395, Saloposter.jpg)

>>17634
Salo, ,or 120 days of sodom is the best representation of fascism

 No.17784

Keep it simple and to the point.

 No.17785

File: 1685153880238.png (105.04 KB, 850x400, Untitledsassas.png)

>> As a former Fascist I can tell you fascism is to put it in simple terms its When the State Own fucking Everything for a Nationalistic goal and the Economy is neither Capitalist or Socialist but Corporatist at least in theory

 No.17786

>>17775
>>fascism is basically a sort of state syndicalism if you think about it

depends for example Falangism and Polish Falangism are both Syndicalist but Italian Fascism and Classical Fascism aren't but are instead corporatists and Nazis are just libertarian Socdems but racist also known as 'yellow socialists or pissoc as I like to call it.

 No.17787

did mussolini ever say fascism is corporatism. And im not talking about that one quote because theres no real evidence he said that.

 No.17788

>>17787
did you have to read his shit?

because I had to

also did,t say fascism is corporatism I just said fascist economics are about corporatism 1479459

 No.17789

>>17788
the comment wasnt directed at you im just wondering if he ever directly connected fascism to corporatism… besides that fake quote
your comment just reminded me of the corporatism thing

 No.17790

File: 1685156846496.png (183.36 KB, 439x600, ClipboardImage.png)

>>17789
oh ok i apologise, comrade,

 No.17791

>>17789 couple of times in some of his book \(yes mussolini made theory) and if you want i could give you a link

 No.17792

>>17791
give me the link pls, I want to read it. thanks

 No.17793

File: 1685157520137-0.pdf (62.85 KB, 159x255, Corporatism.pdf)

>>17792 your welcome

 No.17794

>>17793
nice thanks

 No.17795

>>17635
Literal idealism, not shocking from modern leftypol

 No.17796

>>17795 so true Anprim poster

 No.17797

File: 1685159016756-3.pdf (62.85 KB, 159x255, Corporatism.pdf)

>>17635
EXCUSE ME NO THEORY?!!

 No.17798

>>17773
Sorel is based he inspired lenin

 No.17799

>>17798
Interestingly Sorel was very quick to support Lenin in October when others wavered

 No.17800

>>17797
YESSSSSSS

 No.17801

>>17799
October was the blueprint for fascism

 No.17802

>>17797
mosley says here that fascism is about conquering "red anarchy". I know trotsky used the phrase as well. does anyone know where?

 No.17803

>>17801
Shitty imitations on their part
Go with the OG

 No.17804

>>17803
Fascism had no vanguard, just a street army

 No.17805

>>17786
corporatism is a syndicalism offshoot as well im pretty sure

 No.17807

>>17805
Yes it is
Quite clearly
Anon is just being weird for no reason

 No.17808

>what is fascism?
Manlets seeking to be the ubermensch

 No.17809

>>17808
all of the world's evil can be traced back to an insecure manlet trying to overcompensate
eliminate manlets and you will eliminate fascism(14 c,d,e,g)

 No.17810

>>17808
where did the hilter was small myth come from? he looks pretty tall here

 No.17811

>>17810
Is 5'9 tall to you?

 No.17812

>>17811
he looks nearly as tall as Chamberlin here. unless this is some form of illusion or trick

 No.17814

>>17813
eh alright

 No.17815

>>17814
Bro the heights are literally written on them
Are u okay?

 No.17816

>>17815
im drunk

 No.17817

So I'm still reading "Talks with ᴉuᴉlossnW" and, for comparison's sake, I skimmed "Mein Kampf" once.

I've got to say that ᴉuᴉlossnW seems, far and above, a more interesting personality than Hitler. Given it's from the perspective of a German-Jewish reporter (who hilariously enough said there's no one in Germany with the right character to be a Fascist dictator), there might be a bit of the fellow's bias coming through. Hitler was by all accounts a freak, even by the standards of his time. He had few, if any, childhood friends, and an overbearing mother. He couldn't hold down any normal job, partially because of his own stubbornness. He had almost no romantic partners.

ᴉuᴉlossnW, say what you will, could function as a normal person in society. Beyond that, he seems to possess a far more adventurous and exciting personality than Hitler. He actually had a family for one, a healthy relationship with his parents, lovers, so on. He worked multiple jobs, was a newspaper editor, a laborer, a teacher, and a soldier. Whereas Hitler seems to look back on the wretched poverty of his life before The War with rage and contempt, ᴉuᴉlossnW puts up a stoic face and talks about the lessons hardship taught him.

Holy Fuck it just hit me: Hitler is his followers. He's some weird neet, "wronged by the world" who thinks having artistic or creative passions gives him "depth" that the "normies" just don't have. Mein Kampf's a rambling school shooter screed. Every last one of those little Patriot Front dweebs is a little Hitler. If we ever get some clownworld 4th Reich Nazi state, the next Fuhrer is going to write a rambling book about being beat up by Antifa or getting radicalized by some twitter spat.

>The "Gradually, I came to hate them" line is Hitler literally complaining about how he'd debate Jews "with facts and logic"


And every one of his retarded, modern day followers realize that even if it's only subconsciously. "Hey kids: here's a guy who couldn't make friends, couldn't get pussy, and was adrift and directionless in the world. And look at all he accomplished!"

Jesus. I don't know what's more horrifying. That we have a thousand little Hitlers running around, or that there can be some bizarre twist of fate that puts someone so nakedly pathetic in charge of a major European power. Churchill, FDR, Stalin, ᴉuᴉlossnW, and hell, Hirohito just by the sheer weight of his title. These were all larger-than-life figures. They lived a life in full. Hitler though, was amazing only because of his sheer inadequacy.

 No.17818

>>17817
Why do you think all these crazy neet retards worship Hitler? They identify themselves in this lunatic failson whose primary talent is creating aesthetic spectacles and grandiose megalomaniac speeches.

 No.17819

>>17634
Fascism is a violent attempt by lower middle classes and lumpenproles to stabilize, reset, and “purify” capitalism so it works in their favor.
/Thread

 No.17820

Been reading coming of the American behemoth which is all about fascism in the 20s-40s highly recommend!

 No.17821

>>17817
screencap worthy describes the types of fascists I encounter well- failson incel(/pol/ack) or unhinged sociopath(is in the aryan brotherhood)

 No.17822

>>17761
also that mean israel wouldn't be fascist/fascistic which as we all know is straight cap

 No.17823

>>17819
>threading your own post
>its a stupid fucking post
fascism is always driven by the porkies first and foremost

 No.17824

>>17823
its an "alliance" between porkie and the lower middle class , but porkie tends to have more power and eventual control over the relationship.

 No.17825

>>17823
> fascism is always driven by the porkies first and foremost
T. Historical illiterate
Fascism has always originated from bands of former veterans and lower middle classes who hate capitalism for leaving them in the dumpster of history. Typically, they moderate their program over time to secure funding from the capitalist class, until they come to power, when they pick their old ideas back up. This is most evident in the case of Italy, where 75% of industry was nationalized by ᴉuᴉlossnW

 No.17826

>>17825
Literal Nazis invented privatisation on the other hand

 No.17827

>>17818
>>17821
Admittedly I was stoned when I wrote that post, and the moment I had that kind of "Aha!" was when ᴉuᴉlossnW talked about his time in the military.

Both he and Hitler showed some degree of personal courage on the battlefield. Though I'd argue Hitler was more suicidally reckless than brave. Both of them wound up getting treated in a military hospital. But whereas Hitler seems to have developed a kind of psychosomatic blindness brought on the sheer psychic trauma of Germany losing the war, ᴉuᴉlossnW describes being confined to a military hospital and hearing artillery firing all around him, thinking at any moment: this could be it.

Honestly, ᴉuᴉlossnW just seems more psychically grounded than Hitler ever was. Were it not for the monumentally stupid decision to follow the Nazis into the abyss, I imagine he could've kept the Fascist regime semi-stable.

 No.17828

>>17825
this may be true in italy but in nazi germany, the private corporations were major allies to the nazi regime

 No.17829

>>17827
ᴉuᴉlossnW literally carries himself like a jojo villian

 No.17830

>>17828
That’s why I said it’s an attempt by lower middle classes to reset capitalism. Because it doesn’t always succeed. In Germany, the main Fascist party lost its revolutionary character because it had to legalize itself to attain power, while in Italy it seized power via a march on the capitol. Also, all Fascist regimes entail some kind of attempt to reset capitalism, usually through violent conquest. And that’s exactly what the Nazis tried doing in the East. They actually were in the process of replacing the German working class with eastern-European slave laborers while the Germans would all be soldier-peasants

 No.17831

>>17827
if mussolini had allied himself with the allies or stayed neutral he could have beneifted from the cold war. I can imagine him forming a italian bloc with spain, or fascist leaning nations thats side with the usa. Meanwhile the usa would have given lots of cheap fucking loans to italy and the bloc it represents. A anti communist bloc.

 No.17832

>>17830
alright, fair enough

 No.17833

>>17829
Haha, well while I'm not sure of that, I figure I'd throw a few… interesting quotations from "Talks With ᴉuᴉlossnW" out here to get an idea of how his personality comes across:

Upon discussing his father's imprisonment and his escape to Switzerland:
>"One does that sort of thing [get a job in manual labor] in mingled enthusiasm and despair; but perhaps rage is the dominant feeling. I had been infuriated by the sorrow of my parents; I had been humiliated at school; to espouse the cause of the revolution gave hope to a young man who felt himself disinherited. It was inevitable that I should become a Socialist ultra, a Blanquist, indeed a Communist. I carried about a medallion with Marx's head in it in my pocket. I think I regarded it as a sort of Talisman."
<"What do you think of Marx now when you look at such a medallion?"
>"That he had a profound critical intelligence and was in some sense even a prophet."

On being held up in a military hospital:
<"Is it true that when they performed a necessary operation, you refused to take Chloroform?"
>"I wanted to keep an eye on what the Surgeons were doing."

When discussing his expulsion from the Socialist Party:
<"I have been told that when the Party expelled you, you shouted, in answer to the hissing and invective which arose from all parts of the hall, 'You hate me because you still love me!' That was a fine saying. I suppose it really happened?"
>ᴉuᴉlossnW nods

 No.17834

>>17817
How will people like that be dealt with under communism?

 No.17835

>>17817
>He's some weird neet, "wronged by the world" who thinks having artistic or creative passions gives him "depth" that the "normies" just don't have.
Failures make up the reaction. This has been a known fact since the conception of it.
There are exceptions, in the NSDAP for example there was Göring, who used to be an ace pilot.

 No.17836

>>17835
He and his family were petty bourgeois types, became lumpen after ww1.

 No.17837

>>17833
good thing this guy didn't have access to the internet I can only imagine the channel this guy would run

 No.17838

Just read the Last Testament of ᴉuᴉlossnW, kind of interesting because even then, he was still pushing back against the “Fascism is capitalism in decay” notion; to me that comes across as a true believer rather than pure opportunist.

Also I’m trying to find sources on ᴉuᴉlossnW’s reaction to Gramsci’s death. I know he told him to read Bordiga ironically enough, but I don’t know much of their personal relationship.

 No.17839

File: 1685815730750.png (159.58 KB, 611x822, ClipboardImage.png)

>>17817
Hitler had childhood friends, including August Kubizek, an Austrian composer that wrote a book on his experiences with Hitler in the 50s
I don't know what angle you're trying to get at, both ᴉuᴉlossnW and Hitler were just very boring, standard petit-bourgeois who were thrown into politics by the collapse and crisis of that class

 No.17840

>>17839
I’m sure he had a couple, but from what I understand of Hitler’s personal life, he didn’t have much of a social upbringing. He had a crush but never actually dated anyone. He was a poor student who started skipping school. In Vienna his roommate would describe him being quiet, and then going on unhinged rants.

Like I don’t think Hitler’s personality can be described as “normal.” He was the prototypical psycho incel. Not necessarily the boring bureaucrat of Himmler. By contrast I’d say ᴉuᴉlossnW had a far healthier social development than Hitler.

 No.17841

>>17840
Wtf is this spooky bullshit lmao

 No.17842

>>17841
>Talking about Hitler’s childhood development and it’s impact on his psyche
>Spooky
Not sure what you’re getting at.

 No.17843

>>17842
You already answered the question
This is why Bordiga said the only thing worse than fascism was anti-fascism
"If you don't follow norms and have a 'healthy' social life literally from childhood, you're basically Hitler"

 No.17844

>>17843
>This is why Bordiga said the only thing worse than fascism was anti-fascism

fat ass L leftcoms explain this shit turning point bordiga head ass

 No.17845

>>17844
We need to genocide all potential Hitlers, remove the toxic dysfunctional elements from the gene pool, free up living space and allow the will to triumph

 No.17846

>>17843
I think there’s some miscommunication going on here. I genuinely don’t know what you’re talking about.

I’m merely pointing out some of the features of Hitler’s early life, and how they appear to have affected his personality, and that personality was a major characteristic of the Nazi regime.

“Hitler as a boring petite-bourgeois bureaucrat” just isn’t an accurate analysis of his psychology. He missed key steps in his development and I don’t think that he would’ve been “any old normal German” and he not become Fuhrer. I believe he would’ve been a social recluse, a freak, and would’ve died in obscurity.

By contrasting that with ᴉuᴉlossnW, I think you can see an ideological difference between Nazism and Italian Fascism. ᴉuᴉlossnW was concerned with ideological and economic matters; hence corporatism, hence his last testament proclaiming that Fascism isn’t “just capitalism in decay.” Because this was psychically important to ᴉuᴉlossnW. Hitler, by contrast, was content to surrender control of Germany’s economy to private industry. When he was about to die, he had no interest in “clearing his reputation for the next generation”, he wanted Germany to die with him.

As for comparing Hitler’s personality to many of his modern disciples, I think this can go a way towards explaining why the more repugnant and less intellectual of the pair has a major following all over the world, while ᴉuᴉlossnW’s acclaim is predominantly confined to Italy. There’s something perhaps universal about Hitler, or rather, Capitalist society can vomit out a million socially maladroit freaks who want to make the world pay. We’re just lucky that most blow their load on mass shootings or suicide rather than seizing power.

 No.17847

>>17840
ngl CPUSAnon those all sound well within the range of normal to me. without getting too into semantics, i think you can reasonably say that something like being a child soldier or child movie star is abnormal. being lonely and weird is very normal

 No.17848

Matt Christman has a good episode on this

 No.17849

>>17756
if you think animal farm is fascist literature you're too far gone to warrent my ear

 No.17850

File: 1686090439217.jpg (801.31 KB, 800x1135, Klan.jpg)

>>17847
Depends how you define "normal" I suppose. Maybe "typical" would be a better term.

I think there's some misunderstanding at least. I'm not saying anyone who was lonely or weird or otherwise "abnormal" is destined to become Hitler-like; if I was, well then I'd be condemning myself too. After all, I had a slightly similar childhood: strained relationship with my father, not too many friends growing up, not many long term relationships, so on.

I guess what I'm saying, is I think that there are certain milestones one can accomplish to have a broadly "healthy" (as in, pro-social) development. Having a strong relationship with both parents for example. Having a network of friends and acquaintances to socialize with. Having a lover. Sustained employment. All of these contribute towards making a person that's part of a greater social body.

As for why that is, I think its because when people don't have the company of others, they end up retreating to the company of their own mind. Now this isn't always a bad thing; plenty of Holy Men lived as hermits and there's a kind of intellectualism that can come from being alone with your thoughts. But when that isolation is seemingly forced on you (even if it's by your own inaction) then it can drive a person mad.

Take, for example, Hitler's hatred of Jews. I think the most shocking thing about it was how nihilistic it was. The awful truth about genocidal Nazism, is that it seems to have come about for no reason. I've tried researching it before, and I don't think there's a single negative encounter Hitler ever had with a Jew prior to the Holocaust. His first crush was Jewish. The doctor who treated his mother, for free mind you, was Jewish. His commanding officer during the war was Jewish. As silly as it is to think some Jew once cut Hitler off in traffic and so he decided he was going to commit genocide, it's almost baffling that Jews were the one people who showed this strange social recluse any kindness, and he responded with mass murder.

It wasn't even a lack of gratitude. Hitler made special exceptions for his old commanding officer and his mother's doctor. He could be personally gracious, but to the Jewish people as a whole, he was a monster.

How'd he square the circle of Jews being nothing but kind to him and his desire to kill them all? If I had to guess, its because he was in this introvert's world for far too long. Remember, every single person we encounter on the street has a vast inner world. We only see what they want to show us. When a person is walking or driving or doing other non-social activities, they're still thinking. Ideas swim around their head. An introvert is merely someone who spends more time in this realm of ideas than out among other people.

So you have Hitler, he's sitting alone in some shitty apartment after selling his paintings to a bunch of tourists. And he's thinking. He's thinking. He keeps thinking. Next thing you know, he walks out of that room and he decides the Jews are the cause of all the ills in the world. There's no visible cause for his antisemitism, in just the same way that you'll have these /pol/ types spend 12 hours a day confined to their room, only communicating through the internet. As far as their parents know, their child was a good student, a bit quiet, but they thought they taught them right from wrong and explained life as best as they could. Somehow that kid became a Nazi; and no amount of pointing out how their cousins were Jewish or how their Jewish teacher was always their favorite can convince them otherwise. Because they've gone through a metamorphosis that took place entirely in the confines of their mind. And their fantasy world is closer to them than the real world could ever be.

One last thing I'd like to point out. Something that seems to be a recurring thing in the "quiet" White Supremacists, the ones that aren't shaving their head and loudly bellowing "Heil Hitler", is they're almost comically surrounded by the people they want to exterminate. There was a 4chan Greentext making the rounds of some "Nationalist" who got a new Muslim coworker and became friends with him, in part because he learned so much about Islamic culture through sheer immersion in hating it. He isn't out and out rude, and I'm sure the Muslim fellow considers him to be a good friend. I've heard people similarly claim that the notorious Antisemitic caricaturist, A. Wyatt Man, is close to tons of Jews. Again and again, among the people that would later go on to profess a kind of Nazism (Oswald Mosley and Ezra Pound come to mind) when called out on their rampant anti-semitism, they'll say something like "Oh, I don't hate hard-working, honest Jews! I think there can be good Jews! I only hate the bad ones!"

Some people would think that's the world's laziest excuse. Or that they're lying. I'd argue they may genuinely be telling the truth as they see it. They don't hate the Jews they encounter on a day-to-day basis, the friendly Jews, the real Jews. They hate the Jews that are scrambling around their skull. The imaginary Jews they've reduced to a Demonic caricature. The slimy, hook-nosed, perverse, cunning Jews. If you lined up all the Jews they actually knew, and told them to push the button to the gas chamber, I think at least a few would find they didn't have it in them to do it. Maybe they'd justify it by saying "No no no, those are the GOOD Jews!"

But the fact is, when dealing with power as broad as passing laws; you don't distinguish between "good" and "bad." Once you punish a category, you punish all the people within that category. The thief that steals to feed his family is a thief and is dealt with like a thief.

The Nazis sentenced millions of good, hardworking, and kind Jews to their deaths. That they spared the ones they personally knew isn't a mark in their favor.

It's the ultimate absurdity of Nazism.

 No.17851

>>17850
>I guess what I'm saying, is I think that there are certain milestones one can accomplish to have a broadly "healthy" (as in, pro-social) development. Having a strong relationship with both parents for example. Having a network of friends and acquaintances to socialize with. Having a lover. Sustained employment. All of these contribute towards making a person that's part of a greater social body.
Hahaha you'd have a lot in common with Nazi propaganda thinking this spooked sentimental bs
>Now this isn't always a bad thing; plenty of Holy Men lived as hermits and there's a kind of intellectualism that can come from being alone with your thoughts.
Ah yes, Holy Men are the height of intellectualism
>How'd he square the circle of Jews being nothing but kind to him and his desire to kill them all? If I had to guess, its because he was in this introvert's world for far too long.
Have you considered maybe there were larger political and social things happening which he became a representative face for due to no particular reason? That's not a thing that a self-proclaimed communist would consider?

 No.17852

>>17851
This kind of post is the exact kind of vulgar "materialism" endemic to people who get their Marxism from Memes and YouTube summaries than actually reading Marx.

The social environment classes and people engage in of course lends itself towards developing reactionary or progressive ideals. Do you even know what spooks mean?

 No.17853

Fascist movements were the natural outgrowth of liberal European nation-states, a fact which disturbs liberals to this day, and which causes them to try to depict it as "irrational" or "totalitarian" and to "psychoanalyze" it. The fascists were managers of the decay of liberalism in the face of proletarian-centric mass movements like Social-Democracy and Communism, agents of Jacobin terror to put an end to these implacable threats to liberal status quo.


Unique IPs: 97

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]