Are most people who are in the military on the right side of the political spectrum...

What is also interesting is that proto-fascism developed in anarchist circles too.

Different forms of state have different relationships with their military. Caesar, for instance, WAS the military - he was the embodiment of the high command, and so what he said went, and to counterbalance that force the senators eventually united against him because their power was threatened by this. The soldiers themselves were getting their loot and their prestige, so what did they care about the politics of it all?

Meanwhile, a modern nation like the US has a very thick line dividing the legislative/executive/judicial and the military branches of the state. The military high command is routinely shuffled to prevent corruption, and their budget is determined by a separate branch of government. Whatever political ideology the top brass might hold will always be overcome by the esprit de corps of the institution, preventing something like an insider coup.

Also note that in more recent times the strength of a corps is determined by its drilling - that means kill, kill, kill, and don't think about why you're doing it beyond keeping your buddies safe. Even if a Northern soldier didn't want to emancipate any slaves, they're not going to risk killing their regiment mates and later getting hanged just to show how much they hate black people.

However, when you have a military apparatus deeply involved in the politics of a nation (Ottoman janissaries) or low morale/esprit de corps, that's when conservatism prevails. Generals then acquire power through politics as well as the military, and so they do so. And when a self-serving segment of the army wants to keep its privileges, they'll use force to do so.

>Also note that in more recent times the strength of a corps is determined by its drilling - that means kill, kill, kill, and don't think about why you're doing it beyond keeping your buddies safe.

You started off this sentence with "in more recent times." Hasn't this always been the case with armies though?

Fascism literally is just marriage of corporation and state. Communist states can be (and often are) fascists. Most governments in our world today are fascist.

Also, Rome was a republic long before Caesar. He was killed for trying to undermine republicanism in Rome. I don't know what you were trying to get with Caesar's death representing the death of Rome's republican ideas.

>I don't know what you were trying to get with Caesar's death representing the death of Rome's republican ideas.

The assassin of Caesar is associated with "violent conservative reaction" in OP's post. That "violent conservative reaction" (the conspirators assassinating Caesar and trying to maintain the republic) failed. OP was explaining how violent conservative reactions often fail.

So you are one of those people that take 'corporatism' as the ideology of big companies merely because of the name, huh? It shows how ideologically superficial people can be when it comes to criticising.

When one talks about a corporation in the fascist corporatist sense, it is a group that encompasses all the workers of one sector.

And what are those fascist countries today? I would to see how they try to achieve their integralist goal thanks to corporatism.

>Consider how Lincoln led the north against the south to prevent secession, but eventually included abolishing slavery. Why wouldn't a huge faction of Lincoln's army quit when their leader begins spreading ideas they are against (that is, once again, we assume most soldiers and military personnel are conservative)?
Loyalty to the country was more important to a lot of Union generals than their personal ideals.

If you support the status quo, you're on the right side of politics.

You're only an idiot to do that if you're not actually part of the status quo. Which most people aren't.

Not him but you could characterize Singapore as a sort of fascist country.

Singapore is a neoliberal wet dream. And considering that more than 70% of inhabitants are Chinese, I highly doubt a sense of Nation is really present.

Also concerning neoliberalism, I have seen many claim that many neoliberal politicians, such as the American financed puppets in South America during the Cold War, are fascist, that's obviously an oxymoron.

Guess how I know you're a communist

I'm a fascist though, a communist would insist that neoliberalism is a fascist plot just like the "popular" party in Spain did.

I thought I made it apparent enough.

the worker's party*

I fucked up.

Police is fascist.
Army is communist.
Politicians are liberal.
Common people are socialist.
Aristocracy (the rich) is capitalist.

Seeing how there is no one definition of fascism, it seems a reasonable thing to argue over.
From a historical perspective, Mussolini was a communist, then turned a softer socialist, and thats how he got in power.
So fascism, which is his party, named after his commie gangs he formed, is just italian socialism.
Because much of it was under a total war, it became more and more authoritarian to handle the pressure.
If we had gotten a longer period of peace under fascism we would've been able to easier see what it stands for, since right now it stands for preparing for war and going to war due to the circumstances.

Anyway, the main difference between the practical communism (which was authoritarian internationalist socialism) and the practical fascism (which was authoritarian nationalist socialism) is the closed borders and non-acceptance or at any rate non-promotion of immigration and globalization.
Fascists are thus communists who would only accept people of different nationality and ethnicity if they are exceptional, while regular communists as seen in the USSR promoted any people joining, and didn't filter foreigners.

>Mussolini wasn't from the army

He was in the army though. We know he got injured from shrapnel too.
And he flip-flopped between religion and atheism, communism and monarchy, imperialism and isolationism, nationalism and internationalism, and so on.
He was a career politician, he had no ideology, just whatever the people would buy on that given day.

>people change ideas over time, especially under changing times
I guess you could call everyone from the French Revolution a career politician too.

You forgot to also take into account everything related to social classes.

Explain the differences in the two systems.

>why is it that conservative reactions often fail
Uh... they usually don't. I can think of 4 off the top of my head that failed. I can think of more right wing reactions that succeeded in Latin America alone.

>"""succeeded"""

Meaning what? Because I can't think of 4 successful Latin American states.

Meaning the reaction succeeded against the left, you memeing cocksucker.

"The left" isn't some game over condition.
You fail against the left, then fail again, then fail again, fail 20 times, then you succeed once, and you'd count that as the state having succeeded, because eventually of course it will.

You don't count all the time where such reactions didn't succeed, died stillborn, a rumor starting, a few people yelling loud, and nothing happening. You should count this lack of reaction as a failed reaction.

So a reaction fails if there was no reaction to begin with? Are you really going to strawman with that?

Well you had communist armies, so I'm not too sure about that.

They are, however, authoritarian.

Are you going to imply that there is ever a case when there wasn't a reaction?
There is always at least 1 person who disagrees, and wants to do something, and fails to do anything.
Yes, a lack of reaction is a failed reaction in this context.

Then the left certainly has not succeeded or every country would be communist. Instead, politics have shifted rightward over the last 20 years in a right wing reaction. TMYK.

>Instead, politics have shifted rightward over the last 20 years

The welfare system has only been growing in the last 20 years.
Free movement of people has only been more and more prevalent in the last 20 years.
Gay marriage, transsexual laws, abortion, religion, everything is moving towards this hypothetical "left".
You are projecting your personal views onto the rest of the world. Don't do that.

>implying those are left wing things instead of libertarian things
You live in a right wing world and I'm not projecting anything.

This shows the stupidity of the 18th century era left-right system.

How is welfare a libertarian thing?

>This shows the stupidity of the 18th century era left-right system.
This. Move on FFS.

Welfare is not, but the rest of it is and welfare isn't necessarily left wing as your economy is still extremely right wing regardless of your governmental welfare system. You're just less libertarian rather than left wing. In a 2D or 3D political spectrum the VAST majority of countries fall on the right hand side instead of the left. The right wing reaction of the 1980's and 1990's ensured that. There isn't even a leftward creep going on.

You are reinventing the left-right axis in order to rationalize your stupid views, lad.

I'm not reinventing anything, it's been reinvented by others for a very long time. There's a reason the 1D political spectrum isn't taken seriously by anyone except normies and idiots.

You can't rationalise something that had been made for a specific place and time two centuries ago.

>There's a reason the 1D political spectrum isn't taken seriously by anyone except normies and idiots.

Yes, so all special snowflake political cults can sit on the good side of the Berlin Wall, and fuck reason, muh feels come first.

Basic Income is libertarian.

Welfare is the capitalist equivalent.

>throwing a tantrum over the reality that a 1D political spectrum is just as retarded as you are
>calling anyone out over feels
But your feels > reals amiright

>throw a tantrum
>someone responds to it
>accuse them of throwing a tantrum

I see you took the /pol/ school of philosophy.

>stating reality is throwing a tantrum now
That's not how it works. Honestly, I'm curious to see how you're going to keep shucking and jiving, but I'm going to bed because I really don't want to deal with this bullshit.

I accept your surrender.

How triggered must you be? /pol/ is the quintessence of your 1D axis: us or them.

This is a multipolar world, no longer divided by the Berlin Wall, you're welcome.

>Basic Income
it's also fudalist

Are you with this guy on his assertion that most western countries are right wing, and that somewhere in the 1980s the left lost and we've only been getting more and more right wing since then?

Whatever do you even mean with "right wing" then, since you clearly include welfare and immigration to be right wing? And what is left for the left wing to even mean, if you take these?

How so?

Welfare /is/ right wing. It's not intended to destroy poverty, but to preserve it.

Colin Jenkins provides (2014) a critique on the role of the capitalist state in the era of neoliberalism, using base and superstructure theory as well as the work of Nicos Poulantzas. Specifically, regarding developments in the United States during this era (roughly 1980-2015), Jenkins highlights the nature in which political parties and the political system itself are inherently designed to protect the economic base of capitalism and, in doing so, have become "increasingly centralized, coordinated, and synchronized over the past half-century." This, according to Jenkins, has led to a "corporate-fascistic state of being" that is challenging the equilibrium of this fragile relationship. His analysis specifically addresses the role of both major parties, Democrats and Republicans, in the United States:

It reminds us of John Dewey's claim that, 'As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance.' In the US, the two-party political system has proven extremely effective in this regard. Aside from differences on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, as well as socioeconomic issues like unemployment insurance and public assistance, both parties ultimately embrace capitalist/corporatist interests in that they both serve as facilitators for the dominant classes: The Republican Party in its role as forerunner, pushing the limits of the capitalist model to the brink of fascism; and the Democratic Party in its role as governor, providing intermittent degrees of slack and pull against this inevitable move towards a 'corporate-fascistic state of being.

Sauce is: hamptoninstitution.org/calibrating-capitalism-in-the-neoliberal-era.html#.V6Be2rLvQ2c

Welfare is fascist as fuck.

>guy uses "fascist" as an insult towards something he dislikes
>you use it to define fascism as a political position

Amazing.

Social democracy is capitalism's best friend.

Welfare protects the status quo by preventing the revolution from taking place: if people aren't miserable they won't be class conscious.

There is no left to be found anywhere.

Where is the revolution coming, comrade? Are the capitalists being overthrown yet?

Welfare IS left. The government spending your money for you IS the left. The state takes your money, and decides how and where its spent. Thats fucking left wing. Welfare is left wing. Taxes are left wing.

You are just retarded enough to put the Cold War propaganda image of USSR as a left thing, and everything else as right wing.

Taxes might be left-wing if they were progressive rather than regressive. Welfare might be left-wing if it were a simple payment with no strings attached.

When poor and working people pay more in taxes, when welfare is contingent on your remaining poor and unemployed, it's definitely right-wing. That system is designed to move money upwards, not to allow people in general to develop personal capital.

You invented a definition for left-right to suit your views. This is not the accepted and widely used definition.

Taxes, by definition, are left wing. Welfare, by definition, is left wing.
The government taking away your money so it can spend it instead of you is, by definition, left wing.

>The government spending your money for you
Not for you, to save itself, and the corporations paying it, from you.

Panem et circenses.

You're given that money so you are full of false consciousness, weak, complacent, and obediently buy the companies' products advertised on (State) television.

The State giveth, and the corporation taketh away.

The lower class citizen doesn't profit from welfare, because welfare is not an investment of his, especially when you can't barely pay for your housing with it, meanwhile the usual suspects are laughing all the way to the bank. Capitalists give money to the State and the parties, the State gives the welfare to the poor, the poor are brainwashed by media, crushed by debt and, unable to break this cycle of samsara, the money returns whence it came from.

Because the goal is not liberation, it is slavery. Changing the material the chains are made of, is not progress.

Look how prosperous and progressive are the ghettoes of African-Americans, and American or Australian natives, how identical is the freedom they enjoy to what their predecessors died in the name of, how free from consumerism their subcultures.

Sure is leftist, deep down in Plato's cave.

>Taxes are left wing.
Because everybody but the left hates taxes, right? Nice /pol/ meme, but nope. Right wing parties are anything but libertarians and spend tons and tons of your money too.

Mostly towards institutions such as the army and the police which also share the purpose of making sure you can't rebel.

Whether you vote 1984 or Brave New World, the capitalists profit, lo and behold, it's almost like their interest is for you to be free of freedom. Wow. So progressive. What a leftist world we live in.

>Cold War propaganda image of USSR
What the actual fuck. Is Jenkins here a Joseph McCarthy to you? Back to /pol/ with you, and take your false consciousness with you, you obedient slave of the establishment.

If it's fascism, is it:
1) Nationalist, does it put the Nation above all, that being the State, the market, other countries, the "global good", etc.
2) Organicist, does it view the Nation as an organic being
3) Corporatist, does it arrange workers in bodies regrouping them based on their sector
4) Modernist, as opposed as being ideologically rooted in Classicism or Romanticism

Yet the right-wing is always able to argue welfare into it's damaging half-measures form, the form that suits them best.

It's like their opposition to immigration. Legal immigration is not their goal.

Fascism is more of a vibe than an ideology, philosophy or structure.

It's the idea that everyone in the country wants what the government says everyone in the country wants; as opposed to the liberal idea that the government reflects and acts on what the country wants.

Yes, right wing parties are not actual right wing, because being right wing is impractical today.
That stands in opposition with your claim that we've been getting more and more right wing, when in reality even the right wing parties started leaning left int he past decades.

But they have been consistent in supporting the status quo, or demanding a return to status quo whenever they want to change things. The left has been consistent in presenting demands from the citizenry to the state, the right, and the state in general, presents terms to the citizenry.

>fascism is my subjective snowflake fairy tale

No, it isn't.

>hey lets discard the whole theory of this ideology I don't like so my argument becomes sound

We are so fucking left, that while left parties want to go even further left, the right parties want to sit where we are. To ask us to go right is out of the question, thats how weak the right idea is right now.

Right wing parties are conservative, because they'd get laughed at if they suggest actually moving right.

Tell us what fascism is in one post then, without being inaccurate.

...

Moving right would imply rolling back the victories citizens have made over the state.

Some people would certainly benefit from this, but most people would not.

So fascism is one of four incompatible things?

Its populist (in practice via nationalism) socialism.

Look at The first two points are due to populism, the second two are due to socialism.
Whats missing is the welfare state, also due to socialism, which guarantees jobs and homes to people.

Which is why we don't. Which is why the initial claim, that since the 1980s we've been going right is wrong.
Has this chain of replies gotten so wrong as for you to forget where it started?

Fascism is all of four. And how are they incompatible?

He's trying to be the intelligent cynic he sees so often on r/history

But... we have. Every President since Reagan has grown government power without precedent, and has increased taxes on poor and working people, and has decreased taxes on wealthy people, and has boosted the power and scope of the police, and has engaged the military in foreign adventures.

>state taxes
Left wing.
>state welfare
Left wing.
>state monopoly on violence and guns
Left wing.
>imperialism
Not on the axis.

>does it put the Nation above all, that being the State, the market, other countries, the "global good", etc.
Welfare is a national project by the nation, for the nation, from the nation, to the nation. Welfare is indeed a nation's own business.
>does it view the Nation as an organic being
Welfare is given to you if you're within the appropriate borders, that is the least possible requirement. It gets people who struggle economically to participate (anew) in the economy, together with the rest of the nation.
>does it arrange workers in bodies regrouping them based on their sector
Welfare is stratified, because at the very least "receives welfare" and "doesn't receive welfare" imply the most elementary of social stratification. It can become a complex and elaborate program based on whatever you factor: income, age, previous and current employment or lack thereof, specific field of occupation, marital status, number of children you're raising, and anything you want. The distribution of this welfare, in which money has to physically reach the individual requires some form corporatism not only to be efficient, but to work in the first place.
>Modernist, as opposed as being ideologically rooted in Classicism or Romanticism
This welfare state business is indeed modernist, disregards both the latter two, and goes back to the XIX and XX Centuries.

I don't know if socialism can be corporatist or not, it certainly is not ideologically rooted modernism. It was born in the early 19th, when romanticism was the dominant movement.

Have you not seen communist monuments? They are a move away from biology and nature, and towards engineered, mechanical futurism.

So Reagan was the most left-wing President ever in 1988?

Waaaaah people make money and there's commercials on tv and people buy stuff that's fashionable unlike my hyper efficient cargo shorts and chè Guevara shirt I wish there was no consumerism and everyone would just stand in line for equal rations and I could die digging irrigation ditches.

Communist ideologues would view man and mankind as we may discuss an artificial intelligence. They wanted to formulate and calculate how people react to this or that, so the society machine can be tinkered with.
Ideologically for socialists, despotism was rule of the army, monarchy was rule of the elite, capitalism was rule of the merchants, and communism was rule of the engineers.
They sure as fuck saw themselves as modernist and progressive, with the forced atheism to boot. Not at all romanticist.

Classic romanticist architecture.

>ideologically ROOTED in
Don't tell me you believe that socialism spawned in the 20th century.

Regan stalled, and the government after him doubled up, basically making his stalling irrelevant.
Again, you think that the USA is the only place in the world, that the political axis is custom made for the USA, and you throw random examples instead of arguing a trend or logically.

Socialism is ROOTED in Prussianism, if you want to go impractically far back in the past.
Does that mean that any political movement outside of Prussia can't be Socialism? Does it mean only Prussians can indulge in Socialism?

It doesn't matter where it was ROOTED in, what matters is practice. It was, in practice, heavily modernist, up to the point where it made modernism and progressiveness look bad by association.

>socialism was ideologically rooted in modernism even before modernism existed
Genius.

Liberals used Romantic architecture even if they developed in the Enlightment era. Romanticism was even opposed to liberalism and they still used its style.

>i don't read the thread before replying
>my reply doesnt even contribute to the discussion, its just random irrelevant statements

Why bother posting?

When did I prohibit socialism from using modernist art? You're putting words in my mouth.

I made the 4 main points of fascism, retard.

>i made that other unrelated post, thus i am correct
>ur retard D:

Kill yourself.

Let's assume that the right means "small gubmint" and the left means "big gubmint", and for the sake of argument assume this puts Lafayette on the right side (by modern standards, by the standards of his time he was clearly left but the meaning of left and right has changed drastically).

dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2325414/Men-physically-strong-likely-right-wing-political-views.html
Strong men are more likely to vote right. The explanation for that is clear: the right means freedom and little state intervention. Strong men like this because it means they are able to use their strength/skill and reap the rewards undisturbed. Women on the other hand favor leftism because they have always been dependent on men. Voting left no longer makes them dependent on a single man, but instead forces men as a collective to provide for them. They are not strong enough to thrive in liberty, so they want (enforced) equality (of outcome). The military is full of strong men so it's only natural they lean to the right.

But you don't need to go back to the 1930s or even the military to see this in action.
liberation.fr/direct/element/plus-de-50-des-policiers-et-militaires-ont-vote-fn-en-2015_28175/
Liberation, a left wing(!) newspaper in France, reports that in 2015 over 50% of policemen and soldiers voted FN. This may be why the spineless snail Hollande and his Moorish lackey Valls fear that a FN victory will mean civil war.
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/12046087/Front-National-win-could-lead-to-civil-war-warns-French-PM.html
(But of course it's the FN that's fearmongering, not the establishment at all!).

All the discussion about modernism began in I also never implied that my argument was right because of that, you made a argumentless post so I replied by a non-argument.

So yeah, I totally appeared from nowhere unlike you.

>When did I prohibit socialism from using modernist art? You're putting words in my mouth.

When did I imply that you are doing such a thing? You're putting words in my mouth, and ignoring my argument by doing so.

In your post, you compared my argument to socialism only being able to be performed in Prussia by Prussians.

This of course doesn't even work as a comparison since I have never implied that only Romantics can do socialism, socialists can only be Romantics, and so on.