Would national socialism be effective at reversing this capitalistic march-to-the-lowest-common-denominator the West is...

Look at this marxist loser not blaming everything ever on the jews! Point at him and laugh!

no you're not, you're a bunch of angsty teenagers sitting in a room surrounded by piss bottles babbling on about muh nazis

however, unfortunately my little pseud friend is correct. there is nothing in fascist ideology that protects the rights of the individual. no government that has ever existed that could loosely be termed "fascist" has ever had a problem with taking property from whichever subgroup of its citizens it decides to turn against that day

>He pointed out that there are no universal property rights protecting capital in fascist states so I'll just call him retarded
Very mature.

I never understood this argument, fascism is the bane of liberalism's existence. The ruling class is no longer the ruling class within a fascist state, the party is. There is no longer a guarantee by the state that their capital will be protected, at a moment's notice the party could decide that someone is not aligned with the party's interest and take everything. While it's hardly communism, it certainly seems distinct as a system from capitalism.

I like parts of marxist theory but you people say such stupid shit

Right? Like there's definitely something to be gained from Marxism, but so many of their talking points are just ridiculous.

Holy shit, truth... on Veeky Forums. Let's see how this goes.

To be fair, user didn't just write this one point.

no Fascist economics failed everywhere it was implemented and in Chile was indistinguishable from Libertarian minarchism. Completely autistic

>talking points
Where not on Fox and Froends you faggot

which total financial collapses in history were preceded by fascism?

>Chile was fascist
Do you even know what fascism is?

And yet you say the same gibberish over and over.

when has fascism or nat-soc ever worked?
get over yourself and 'muh west' and get a fucking job for once

I would agree that it's distinct, but it's relatively easy to come up with an economy that would be distinct from capitalism. Communism was the dream of being both distinct and 'beyond' capitalism. Fascism is distinct, but it does retain some capitalist elements. I'm a bit more of a Marxist than a Deleuzian so my question is what specific problem in capitalism do you think fascism would get rid of?

nice riposte user, you really skewered me with that one

Well capitalism retains some feudal elements I'd think as well, and surely most Marxists would consider capitalism beyond feudalism in the same manner that communism is beyond capitalism. Maybe communism's problem is that it is too beyond capitalism?

Regardless, I think fascism definitely seemed to reverse the tide of deterritorialization that's inherent in globalism. Deleuze acknowledges that reterritorialization is possible, but is always temporary. But I don't really see how that would be true within a fascist system, the very meaning of fascism's existence is reterritorialization, the preservation of what cultural localism exists. There was a paper posted on here or on Veeky Forums a month or so ago that looked at the idea that there was seemingly an increased sense of individualism within Nazi Germany. I don't have a link to it and I wish I did, but it's an interesting idea. Liberalism seeks to maximize individual power but only ends up commodifying everything and everyone, whereas within a fascist system that seeks to subsume the individual is the opposite true?

>Get's a shitpost in reply to a shitpost
Why are you surprised?

>We're discussing solutions to Deleuzian capitalistic deterritorialization. If you can't contribute then don't try.

You're not even trying, man. Deleuze would say something like "Start becoming a nomad" and Guattari would bring a parade of Brazlian MTF neo-pagans to paint a graffiti mural (wish I was kidding).

sage and reported

>Chile was indistinguishable from Libertarian minarchism.
Pinochet was a zionist stooge who remodeled Chile according to the ideology of NWO jew Friedman. Read Miguel Serrano. Chile is over, a marrano IMF state

bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_zion59.htm

im reeling? falling into the abyss, the archangel fashy goy has broken my will! oh i thovht i would climb ever so high and spit into the eye of gods but look, my Icarus wings have melted, i am plunging swiftly beneath the gaze of my foes. that i was so mistaken in my self-estimations, so outmatched from birth, where can i find any reprieve from this punishment, this self-inflicted injury?

Just because they were shitstains and literally insane doesn't mean they don't have some ideas that are worth looking into you pleb.

'Socialism' with Chinese values is the greatest respond to the modern world yet.

>read schizo not a legitimate researcher or economist
no
>it wasn’t natsocialism also ignore what happened in germany, spain, greece and brazil lol
>also ignore that the only place on Earth it worked was Singapore
>but that’s not national socilism!
>and neither is Israel
>you KIKE

you're a marrano, blinded by your mongrel jewish soul, I am a hyperborean, son of the visigoths and the white araucan giants

based pragmatic Han-fascism

Gnon bless the Chinks.

>Authoritarianism and fascism are the same thing
Ugh this is a literature board go read a book you stupid niggers. Umberto Eco's Eternal Fascism is a good essay, maybe you can even finish with enough time to come back to this thread to fix your bullshit.

>>Authoritarianism and fascism are the same thing
nobody said this soyim

>Umberto Eco's Eternal Fascism
Why not one of the other dozen definitions?

doesn't fit his narrative and that makes him angreeeeeee

you stupid fucking niggers

The one guy is trying to argue unironically that Pinochet, Franco, and Lee Kuan Yew among others are fascist. It's pseud-tier.

National Socialism was the realisation of the Gesamtkuntswerk.a total art work, an apocalyptic aesthetic experience, a work of overwhelming beauty and terror, beyond the comprehension of the slave morality addled leftist mind. Sieg Heil!

youtube.com/watch?v=drAwiSG4slI
youtube.com/watch?v=7ceLnMT0rps

>Gesamtkuntswerk
Is this Wagnerian philosophy?

National Socialism was not only Wagnerian, but also Faustian, Goethean, Lutheran, Nietzschean, Romantic, Theosophic, Hitlerism was the glorious culmination to over 5000 years of teutonic civilisation. Nothing the post war era has been able to produce gets close to even one millionth of the glory of National Socialism

None. He's an idiot.

No it wasn't. National Socialism had the possibility of being "total" in a positive sense, which is why the conservative revolutionaries and Heidegger were interested in it. But it ultimately relied on merely technical and populist kitsch, ironically just like Wagner, ironically the same reason Wagner's Gesamtkunstwerk is vulgar, demotic, and unphilosophical. Wagner inaugurated musical modernism and the Nazis were the zenith of the modern in their own way, in that they strapped pointless technology to spiritless decisionism and pragmatism. That's why every philosopher lost interest in them when they revealed that they had smothered any possibility they ever held of creating something new, in favour of monumentalizing the old and broken bourgeois order.

The Nazis were a failed project. What you think you like in Nazism was vulgarized by them and failed as a result. Go read Junger's Arbeiter and then his postwar work to see what Nazism was supposed to be and what kind of inner emigration is necessary in the wake of its failure.

>t. Michael E. Zimmerman

the links between Esoteric Hitlerism, Tibetan Buddhism and the Manson Family are worth looking into, these apparently disparate themes fit together like pieces of a puzzle, behind which lies the annihilating unlight of the Black Sun, remember that Manson interview? He is nobody, I am nobody
youtube.com/watch?v=tqrqaPThCmI

It sounds insane, but I have seen it, I have seen the Black Sun after hours of meditation I glimpsed it. I was absorbed by the rotating unlight, I have embraced damnation. Hitler was God and Manson is his prophet. Only the reborn national socialist movement will be able to bring forth the final conflagration, that is, WWIII, Helter Skelter. Then an only then, at the hour of absolute chaos, will we witness the awakening of the Fuhrer, who never died, the Fuhrer Adolf Hitler, the Avatar, who slumbers under the Himalayas at the halls of Shambala. Sieg Heil! I call on you to surrender to the Black Sun, my brothers, so the world may end, and we might know peace.

youtube.com/watch?v=oSseSXIQBbY
youtube.com/watch?v=cMpOZ1Vg6Nk

*reads Heidegger's diary once*

existentialism is dumb shit, my man

What the fuck in Ponderings reminds you of that post?

>And the scapegoat offered by anti-semitism

The jews lost the ability to call themselves a "scapegoat" after about a dozen times into their 359 expulsions. They are the problem and always have been, not everyone else who kicks them out and doesn't want them living in their countries.

The way to not be deterritorialized starts with being deterrorized. Attain the groundless ground.

All of Heidegger's writings deal with the Black Sun in some way or another.

>the groundless ground.
AKA the Black Sun

>the Jews aren’t a scapegoat because they are such a prominent example of a scapegoat

The Jew is an objective cosmic principle of degeneration, which predates and prefigures the historical phenomenon of The Jewish Race, which made its appearance at the dawn of the Kali Yuga. Some racial philosophers believe that the Jew exists within every animal species, from the elephant to the humble dustmite, undermining the species from within.

Nope. You must void the void.

Of course... He ruins pizzas

Sauce us up homey.

>That the failure of the nazis is responsible for the accelerated culture death we're experiencing goes without saying

citation needed

Whoever understands that pizza is a frabrication knows that pinapple pizza is neither pizza nor non-pizza.

Heidegger is Nazi neo-pagan LARPing: the philosopher.

You can even compare a bunch of quotes of Manson about life/metaphysics with Heidegger and they're basically shilling the same shit.

gee, maybe the neo pagan nazi 'LARPers' are onto something. The feminist yay science and reason be yourself consumer worldview that gets shoved down our throats 24/7 just pisses me off, maybe I'm mentally ill or something, but I just can't stand it, so I became a Nazi.

You realize Heidegger invented deconstruction, right? Neo-paganism, for Heidegger, is implicitly deconstructionist.

sjws can't into deconstruction because they are christian slave moralists. Christ replaced by the bluehaired victimblob, the slave morality component of christianity hypertophied at the expense of everything else.

No, they are faithful readers of Heidegger who have taken up his radical critique of traditional metaphysics. Borders? Deconstructed. I'm sorry, but you can have a border unless you first answer "what is is?" Derrida noted this.

Based Nazi po-mo philosophy.

Those questions are answered through ontological violence(killing of untermenschen)

I remember a while back there was a thread on Heidegger's sympathy for Nazism, and someone said that the message of Fascism is "take life seriously". Does anyone here perhaps have some insight on this, and on philosophy's relationship to fascism in general?

this is some next level dank shillery, did you just graduate?

>Based Nazi po-mo philosophy
you are trying to attack a persons visions of ideals by throwing labels at them you hope they find distasteful

>the message of Fascism is "take life seriously"
No. Fascism is one the most intellectually unrigorous and propagandized political positions of all time. Italian Fascism basically thought of violence as inherently valuable and German Nazism is self-victimizing on a national scale. Being a self-declared Fascist is basically a ticket to the insencere and unself-aware fun camp.

>German Nazism is self-victimizing on a national scale.
German Nazism didnt need to self victimize, in theory it could and could have existed fine, if no law breaking and death were involved: I am not sure there is anything fundamentally wrong or evil, with the tenets, though I dont precisely know how strictly 'world domination' was embedded in the tenets: if they definitely were, what I am saying is wrong, if they definitely were not, what I am saying may be right.

The fundamental problem must be recognized: power, land, ownership. Power, a person, a group of people, the will of some of the people, via ignorance, brainwashing, or true desire: felt they wanted foriegners living in their land to leave: is this fundamentally wrong of them?

power is scary, especially lot of it in few hands, uncertainty is scary and dangerous, unaccounted for. Fascism is that, which is why all systems following it (and well, even prior, with ideals of America) attempted to spread the power as thinly as possible, to the ''simple' common people folks, who likely would not grow the want or need to assemble to conquer a town or country, but who knows.

>German Nazism is self-victimizing

Imagine being a jew and projecting this hard.

This sounds to me like someone who read Leo Strauss' lecture on German Nihilism. Basically, Strauss said that German youth were upset with the prospect that Capitalism and Communism reduced human life to pleasure and consumption, and that they wanted to value the struggle in life for its own sake. They wanted to take life seriously.

Fascism would never have come about if jewish bolsheviks hadn't been exterminating Russians in the east and trying to overthrow European regimes similarly in the west.

How do you account for uncertainty?

Well first let me say: in this instance the uncertainty I speak of is: The power in the few hands feels like they want to steal this peasants car today and noone can stop them. Arbitrary, unlawful whim, is the uncertainty I speak of, and the access to go through with that, depending on system: (checks, balances, forces, powers, knowledges)
and so I guess my answer is something like
enlightened democratic soft fascist transparent socialized nationalism

they werent the pawns? (or ok, knights, bishops?)

>Would national socialism be effective at reversing this capitalistic march-to-the-lowest-common-denominator the West is experiencing?
They tried, didn't work.

>enlightened democratic soft fascist transparent socialized nationalism
which by name is exactly what exists in America?

Thats the funny thing about those terms: and well, things are just so complex today, with population size, and scope: we talk of all this crazy stuff, but people are non stop flying across the planet every which way in planes everyday, what are we really talking about, what is really being discussed, and wanted, what is really wrong, what should concerns of the average citizen really be, today and in the coming future, or for those who should be caring about the well being of the average citizen. Simply good law existing, and it not being broken, is almost as much as can be asked for: