What are some good critiques of communism by fascists?

>hurrrrr communists and fascists were the same

Read Nolte instead of saying that.

Anti-materialism
Anti-collectivism
Anti-egalitarianism
Anti-progressism
Anti-bolshevism
And so on.

Yes, they were (counter-revolutionary YET) revolutionaries, yes, they were anti-bourgeois, yes, they were anti-capitalists, but their goal was CONTRARY to communists' since their primary goal was to destroy bolshevism.

>he thinks that rebuttal has defeated me

save me, based snyder!

read Guenon, then Evola, hang around niggers for a day or two, hit the gym for a week, take up salsa lessons the next, then finally go mountain hiking.

then you'll understand everything that's wrong with ''communism''

Unironically this is correct.

what do you mean when you say that marxism/communism is materialistic?

Replace proletariat with the specific ethnicity and bourgeois for ethnic enemies and communist literature reads like a fascist screed

Fascism: share the wealth with your own people/country
communist: share the wealth with everybody but wealth is a bad thing and everybody deserves to be poor except officers

Wow, a common limited friend-enemy distinction? You've convinced us, user.

Wow it's almost like you chose to take the most vacuous way to misinterpret what I said.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism

>Genuine equality means not treating every race the same, but attending equally to each race’s different needs

>The Jewish race, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the Jewish mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become Jewish themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

>Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the nation’s cause needs is the unity of Fascists, not unity between Fascists, and opponents and distorters of Fascism

>An army of the people is invincible!

>Fascism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution
This is actually a lot of fun, so I could continue but I imagine you get the point now, pseud.

>There is often talk of human rights, but it is also necessary to talk of the rights of one's Volk. Why should our people walk barefoot, so that others can travel in luxurious cars? Why should some live for thirty-five years, so that others can live for seventy years? Why should our people be miserably poor, so that others can be hugely rich? I speak on behalf of the children in our nation who do not have a piece of bread. I speak on the behalf of the sick who have no medicine, of those whose rights to life and human dignity have been denied.
One last one

Then I apologize. What was your point, then?

Again, so both movements seek to benefit a limited in-group, only one for laborers/proletarians and the other an ethnic group, at the expense of the Other. So what?

I'm saying if you change the subjects they're more or less identical. There's this false dichotomy of communism/socialism as diametrically opposed to each other, on complete opposite ends of the political spectrum, when it's more proper to describe them as rival siblings and children's of mid to late 1700s classical liberalism, both firmly rooted in the revolution of 89.

I also want to go through my copy of communist manifesto and replace the words in it as I did in the earlier posts and just post it on some site like stormfront or /pol/ just to fuck with them.

you need to die you fucking ant

>There's this false dichotomy of communism/socialism

I'm guessing you meant 'communism/fascism?'

But again, the treatment of the Other is a rather superficial (depending on who you ask, I guess) aspect of both ideologies, no? Just like the other poster noted in invoking Nolte, Fascism is anti-communism in every other aspect -- anti-materialist, anti-egalitarian, anti-Modernist, and so on. In fact, as far as the topic of the Other goes, Marxism rejects the bourgeois as representative of the oppressive past/present, whereas Fascism attacks the Jews for representing the rapidly modernization path to the future.

Relax.

the doctrine of fascism touches on it. interesting read anyway

you're a fucking subhuman

>but da communists killed millions.

>Fascism is anti-modern
You have to be 18 to post here kiddo. Fascism was never about to reverting to pre-modernity, rather it was meant as a path forward for reaction, a marriage of traditionalist values with a forward looking, mechanized/speed driven (Italian fascism and to a lesser extent Nazism share the Modernist avant-garde obsession with the aesthetic of speed) ideology that sought to recreate man in an idealized archetypal image similar to that of the Soviet new man. While the term "totalitarianism" is often abused and is pretty spooky, there is no doubt a strong correlation between fascism and communism in that they represent two distinct takes on western modernity.

Good post. Can you expand on how the failures of Marxism-Leninism contributed to the death of the modernist project? I never considered those two movements to be very deeply intertwined.

>TO SAVE BILLIONS

"Public need before private greed" (National Socialist slogan) >>> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Communist slogan)

Communism's main contention with capitalism is that the bourgeoisie takes value created by the proletariat for themselves, and that if the workers could realize the dependence of the bourgeoisie on the proletariat the proletariat could revolt and keep the wealth for themselves. As long as the bourgeoisie is consuming more than they produce and the proletariat are producing more than they consume, the proletariat are slaves to the bourgeoisie.
Now that's all well and good, I don't support the bourgeoisie either. The difference is I don't support the proletariat instead; I oppose oppressors, but that doesn't mean I support everything the oppressed do. I have two issues with communism. The first is that as long as the quality of people is not addressed, the oppressor-oppressed dynamic will remain and become inverted. My other issue is that "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" necessarily entails the very slavery communism claims to oppose, with those who have more needs than abilities becoming the new bourgeoisie and those with more abilities than needs becoming the new proletariat.

>The first is that as long as the quality of people is not addressed, the oppressor-oppressed dynamic will remain and become inverted.

What do you mean here?

Fascism is expressly something new. It embraces the modern ideals of history progressing towards something even if in lip service it rejects them. Look at how what scant few fascist authors actually state unequivocally that it was the historical event of WWI that broke old European institutions and paved the way for their ideology, or at least so they thought.

Likewise fascism is never about reverting to old forms of pre modern political/economic systems. In this sense it's reactionary in that it strides against the current zeitgeist, but not to push back to an earlier time, merely to change the direction of the flow forward. It also seeks its own, end of history, exemplified in a strong, centralized state, which is able to create a nation which can last forever (the thousand year reich).

As far as materialism goes look into what little economic writings the Nazis created. They read like hastily rewritten socialist theory, most likely because they were. They're all about redistributing wealth and property for the good of the Volk, etc. all subject to the authority of the state in the interests of what's best for the nation and its people.

Oppressed revanchism

At least communism tried to help people, fascism is just for assholes. Communism is too good for this world

This, both the USSR and Nazi Germany reflected the dream of the administrative utopia, a cornerstone of modernist thought.

better b8 next time please

Except it doesnt.

Read his follow-up posts. It does.

Needs as defined and understood by who, exactly?

Communism is terrible and that has been proved by most of the communist rulings in the 20th century. Communism destoys religion and aims to replace it. It destroys religion, tradition, family, anything that stands in the way of it molding a new man. The destruction of culture and tradition is the saddest part.

Why did you make so many different replies?

And although fascism may seek to make a new man, it is at least reactionary and aims to be traditional. To support the family and the cultural traditions.

An aside. I wish modern 'communists' were actual communists who knew what they were on about. Rather than the socially liberal and free handouts kind that you see around uni campuses

>Mussolini was a socialist before getting quicked of the party for racism
is this true? as far as i know Mussolini didn't fall for the race meme until he had to when aligning with the Germans

>Is this true?
Yes, it is, read some history books.

>Mussolini had been a leading member of the National Directorate of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI),[5] but was expelled from the PSI for advocating military intervention in World War I, in opposition to the party's stance on neutrality
seems like your meme history is wrong, sorry :(

fascism contrasts with communism mostly in the fact that it's staunchly antirational and views society and people as organic parts of an organic whole, an ideology based on solidarity that transcends class, communism is rationalist, views everybody as an economic unit, and is highly iconoclastic
tl;dr communists want to destroy the soul and the bitter things it brings and fascists want to make it strong and embrace the struggle

how is any of that stuff anti-rational

fascists believe in the importance of myth and the icon while communists want to destroy those things because muh science muh rational thought

Are you sure you're not confusing word-police liberals and communists?

not that Evola would consider himself fascist

myth and icon are very involved in communism for the purpose of ensnaring proles, just look at the propaganda

Any critique of communist ideals must fall back on the tired argument of human nature.
>Ah, but people are greedy, proud, they seek advantage over one-another. Doctors would never accept that janitors have as much as they!
This unending struggle between left and right is really a struggle between optimists and pessimists. Between those who have experienced the goodness and the potential of man first-hand, and those miserable wretches who have only seen indifference and egoism.

Communism will win.

Why don't mommy and daddy sleep together anymore?

fucking /thread

Are you sure you're not strawmanning the fuck out of communists, because of a personal agenda? I really enjoy reading religious texts, Greek and norse mythology.

how about
>equity is not virtuous

Well, I don't believe in Sirens of Titan -esque enforced equity.
The problem is when a system is practically designed to accelerate and exacerbate wealth inequality.
There's lots of lesser 'virtues' that might be circumstantially violated in a communist arrangement. But these are mere details, one virtue appears as the single most significant: To not allow any member of society/tribe/species starve and wither away in destitution.
Note how this is a negative statement. Its about preventing an evil. It doesn't make sense to pursue minor virtues while there is still major evils

>Any critique of communist ideals must fall back on the tired argument of human nature.

Or the flawed model of history, or Marx' misunderstanding of economics, or the persistence of religious and tribalist thought.

How about this?

I would like to own my house, my car and the clothes on my back. I would like to be able to start my own business if I have a good idea and think I could provide goods or services that people would want to buy. I don't want to be completely enslaved economically to all of humanity. I want there to be space for individuals to do their own thing.

This is, arguably, only a moral preference, but that also goes for the idea of equality/equity as the one cardinal virtue.

in commonism daddy does not fuck me

> I want I want I want me me me me me me
Capitalism has made you a sad, antisocial creature. You've forgotten you're part of a larger whole. Belonging isn't enslavement.

I don't want communism because I want to control you, to take your freedom away. I want it because I know that if we put our head together, in true fellowship, with true solidarity and compassion, we can come up with a better arrangement for all of us, certainly superior to the invisible hand's arrangement, where 99% get the invisible finger up the ass.

I'm not a capitalist, I just want every individual (including myself, yes) to have an economic space of their own. Communism does not afford them this opportunity in the slightest. No private property and no trading allowed.

>It's not slavery I just want you to do only what I want instead of trying to get ahead
Nigga what?

you don't need these things to be happy.

I know this is awfully arrogant and overbearing. claiming to know what's best for another man.
But you're stating these principles in a reaction to an imagined communist dystopia, where your individuality is annihilated, you are citizen 897535 who lives in housing unit 62903028. This doesn't have to be the reality of communism.

Imagine a small-scale local commune, where you know your neighbors and you convene with them regularly to make the economic and political decisions together. Where your expertise and hard work make a real difference for the community, you are needed and appreciated. You face the challenges and hardships together and enjoy the good times together. What's so fucking utopian about that?

>you don't need these things to be happy.

i also don't need communism to be happy, fuck off faggot

You're angry. That's not what I want.

I wouldn't want to forcibly change your way of life. I don't want to force anyone to do anything.

That's why I despise capitalism. The system where you are forced to participate all the while believing you are free. Coercion veiled as freedom. "free" to choose anything you can afford, "free" to work anywhere if you were given education and the labor market is favorable enough. etc, etc..

Except the average man doesn't understand economics in the slightest, let alone how to run a manufacturing concern.

If you think you aren't forced to participate in communism you're an absolute moron

>you don't need these things to be happy.
You do, though. Which is why communism has always failed

Except it is a staunch plank of communist societies that they cannot exist while capitalist societies exist. They must destroy them by necessity. That's part of the USSR's foreign policy, they felt threatened just by the existence of other systems in operation and look what happened, they eventually collapsed because they were unable to compete with the "inferior" system of capitalism (not that it's not without its own faults and failures, it's just a better system for humans to operate under).

Likewise any capitalists in a society that suddenly becomes communist, socialist, really any member of any "oppressor" class in a revolution of the oppressed must by necessity be disenfranchised from their property, wealth, means, etc. both to fuel the revolution (seizure of noble and church lands in French Rev, seizure of any suspected capitalist property during Russian rev, seizure of bank treasuries during Nazi invasion of Europe, etc). Such fierce, world shaking movements can never allow people to simply exist as they are. You either conform or you're made to conform. Those unable to do so are purged by the state as traitors to the Revolution, enemies of the state, etc.

Such systems might be morally acceptable if they developed in a vacuum but the immense brutality they bring about in their birth pangs make them intensely immoral systems. Perhaps if they were to naturally develop out of and from old institutions, whereby all peoples slowly willingly adopted them (not to say that colonization of Africa and Asia by the new world was justified or a slow outgrowth which forced capitalist society upon them) but strictly speaking in the west I cannot ever accept such violent means of change.

Like I said previously, you either believe in people, in their potential, or you don't. Its a sad vision of humanity indeed that we are mostly imbeciles tended to by our benevolent (Hahah!) masters.

To the extent that there's no more free land on earth for you to run off to and start a new tribe, and that living solely off the land is a lost skill for most of us, participation in any society is the only sane choice.
Now, a system that presents you with fake choices (get rich or starve to death trying) is coercing you, and a system that involves both your ability to contribute and your basic needs is a system which includes you.

I entertain historical arguments. Do you have any?

To fuel the revolution and to secure the "security" of the new order. Sorry.

>I entertain historical arguments. Do you have any?

The abject failure of every communist experiment thus far, yes. Also you cannot make such sweeping arguments as "you do not need those things to be happy" for every human being.

>the race meme until he had to when aligning with the Germans
This is a meme Italian fascist try to make. He was a racialist and a antisemite way before allying with Hitler.

>This is a meme Italian fascist try to make. He was a racialist and a antisemite way before allying with Hitler.
So was everyone else back then. Most allied powers were blatantly white nationalist, but that didn't matter for their ideology.

Fascism and Nazism in particular hold the enlightenment as the start of degeneracy. They're entirely anti-rational.

anti-rationalism, not anti-rational

>So was everyone else back then.
It wasn't the core of their ideology, and no, not everyone wanted to kill inferior races and not everyone hold their ethnicity as the best on Earth.
>White nationalist
Now this is a term that doesn't really make sense. There were no "white nationalists" back then because "white" wasn't an identity you mutt.

Doesn't mean their very placards and system don't heavily borrow from enliideals. I didn't see them resorting to feudalism or espousing divine right of kings. They expressly talk about the nation OF and FOR the people, an intensely enlightenment/post enlightenment idea. Hitler rejected any communication with the deposed German Emperor and intensely disliked the old aristocracy.

No, they're anti-rational as well. Hitler started a war he couldn't win and wanted to kill all Slavs for some reason. Mussolini was a bumbling retard who couldn't even win a war against the disorganized Greece.

Enlightenment ideals

> it is a staunch plank of communist societies that they cannot exist while capitalist societies exist. They must destroy them by necessity.
I disagree and you have failed to provide any evidence of this. I'm arguing about communism, not the USSR. I've already stated that I value historical arguments, but for us to derive general truths from history, the examples must be generalize-able.

> they eventually collapsed because they
were engaged in a pointless cold war against a ruthless and unscrupulous adversary, who exploits a working class for cheap labor with which to produce war machines.

> A revolution of the oppressed must by necessity (...) the immense brutality they bring about...
This is merely one possibility of a transition to socialism. You guys are always painting the worst possible scenario. If had some means of production for every strawman I got...

I don't believe is smashing capitalism. I believe in making it obsolete. Outgrowing it. Form independent, self-sufficient communes until one day you've bought the last thing you'll ever need from a capitalist establishment.

>an intensely enlightenment/post enlightenment idea.
Wrong. It's an entirely romantic idea. Hitler took it from Wagner and company and Mussolini took it from Mazzini.

>Mussolini was a socialist before getting quicked of the party for racism and being bribed by the nobility, so he stopped writing about communism when he got kicked for corruption
No, he didn't. He was kicked out for supporting the right wing from an accelerationist viewpoint but then he unironically supported them and became Fascist.

>It wasn't the core of their ideology, and no, not everyone wanted to kill inferior races and not everyone hold their ethnicity as the best on Earth.
The Americans, Brits, and Russians did, and they formed the core of the Allies. Churchill ran a campaign to keep Britain white, which would be regarded as fascist today.

Also the Italians allowed Ethiopians and North Africans membership of the party.
>Now this is a term that doesn't really make sense. There were no "white nationalists" back then because "white" wasn't an identity you mutt.

Yes it was, you fucking revisionist moron. See my comment on Churchill. Writers like Hume and Hegel already wrote about the white race in the fucking 18th and 19th century.

I'll repeat myself here, for us to derive general truths from history, the examples must be generalize-able.

Prove that the 4 or 5 attempts of at building communism represent every possibility and every angle that we need to consider.

> you cannot make such sweeping arguments as "you do not need those things to be happy" for every human being.
I actually tend to agree. I qualified that statement very heavily. I mean that people cling to these capitalist ideals, but they are so small and insignificant compared to Liberty Equality and Fraternity.

>romanticism
Which also has strong roots in enlightenment thought like liberalism and individualism

> I qualified that statement very heavily. I mean that people cling to these capitalist ideals, but they are so small and insignificant compared to Liberty Equality and Fraternity.

Freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and tribal identity are actually part of the slogans of the french revolution, and your attempt to dismiss them shows that you are only interested in "freedom" and in a very narrow and predefined sense, which most people will find oppressive.

>The Americans, Brits, and Russians did, and they formed the core of the Allies.
So this is the power of internet history...
I didn't know the Americans, Brits and Russians run death camps for niggers and Jews. The more you know...
>Yes it was, you fucking revisionist moron. See my comment on Churchill. Writers like Hume and Hegel already wrote about the white race in the fucking 18th and 19th century.
And Kant as well. That doesn't mean "white" was an identity. People identified with their nation, not their race. You're a dumb mutt.

If you're rejecting the historical fact of the USSR as a communist society than you're disingenuously presenting yourself as being interested in historical arguments. Whether you agreed with their conception or execution of communism doesn't disinherit them as children of communist thought and one example ofit put into practice. Any attempt to claim they weren't communist is fallacious.

Their inability to compete and utilize their workforce, despite markedly more harsh conditions than contemporary capitalist societies is a damning evidence of their inefficiency and inferiority of a communist system.

By all means go innawoods and make your own system. But accept that failure is your fault just as much as success is. I'm curious how your experiment will go.

Fallacy of composition. Christian dogma has roots in Aristotelic thought as well but that doesn't make it Hellenic.

It is quite literally insanity to pursue an idealistic utopian fantasy that repeatedly causes the deaths of millions while simultaneously failing to achieve any of its promised goals. What's the cut off, how many permutations must be attempted before you accept that it's a failed ideology? Or will you literally not be satisfied until every harebrained, half baked concoctionis tried?