/pol/tards claim fascism is something of tradition, workers' rights, etc. and nothing else. Progressives claim that fascism is an inherently rightist position. American conservatives claim fascism is an inherently leftist position. Yet the founder of fascism itself defines it in a much way:
>"Fascism is the marriage between corporation and state" t. Mussolini, considered to be the founder of fascism.
Mussolini is the founder of fascism, that has been stated. The other aforementioned people/ideologies are not the founders of fascism, and have probably done little research and/or reading into the subject. We can see whose words carry more weight when speaking of fascism.
Therefore, can we all agree that fascism is as Mussolini defines? That it is "marriage of corporation and state", and nothing else? That fascism is not some racial theory or some inherently evil plot?
If we can use such logic with fascism, let us do so again with liberalism.
According to American conservatives and /pol/tards, liberalism is a 'bad' ideology and comprised is social justice, censorship, socialism, promotion of promiscuity and sex, and overall anything they don't like. Progressives agree with this definition, yet they say it is a 'good' ideology. Yet the man considered to be the founder of liberalism says things that are very, very different from the definition above:
>"A liberty to follow my own will in all things where that rule prescribes not, not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man, as freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of Nature." t. John Locke
Let's see more quotes from liberal thinkers over what they believe:
>"There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice." t. Montesquieu >"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer." t. Smith >"The happiness of society is the end of government." t. Adams >"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." t. Jefferson >"Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all." t. Robespierre
(con't)
Eli Williams
Part 3:
These thinkers, champions of the liberal Enlightenment, list what would become the pillars of liberalism within their quotes. People in our age probably know little about the Enlightenment. It should be obvious which group holds more ground here.
Therefore, can we agree that liberalism is the ideology of limited government and the intervention thereof, personal freedom, legal equality, free markets, property, secularism, etc.? That it is not "social justice", communism, big government, etc.? That the modern definition of liberalism is completely bastardized by people who have no idea what they are talking about?
Juan Cox
Liberal still means "muh free markets" in continental Europe.
>communism >big government
Lel
Jacob Young
Conservatives in America are Liberals. Socialists just stole the word to make themselves sound more moderate.
There is a vocal minority in the Republican Party that is reactionary and that is the closest it's ever gotten to conservatism by the European standards.
Brody Long
No socialists call themselves liberals. You're thinking of progressives.
Ryder Davis
>Socialists just stole the word to make themselves sound more moderate. Wasn't it the progressive side who stold it not socialist?
Hunter Flores
Retards think "muh taxes and social programs"=socialism.
Mason Lewis
>That the modern definition of liberalism is completely bastardized by people who have no idea what they are talking about? Yes, it is, but this is far too common to really change it. Just about everyone on the left in the US is a 'liberal' unless they are 'progressives'. Generally they're willing to call themselves 'liberals' although in response right wingers nearly have turned the word into a pejorative.
Because this is a sight of Americans, you'll just have to get people to distinguish between 'classical liberalism' and what Americans mean by 'liberals'. I don't know if it's possible to take the meaning back.
Another fun version of this thread could be done about the term 'neoliberal'. Go ahead and look up all of the people who used it in the past and what they meant by it, it's a bit amusing.
Jaxon Lopez
It means a very different thing in the US lol that's what I'm trying to change.
>Conservatives in America are Liberals. "No." (pic related)
Juan Mitchell
>Therefore, can we all agree that fascism is as Mussolini defines?
I'm not an expert on fascism, so I won't weigh in on how near he was to the mark, but I know enough about politicians to say you're better off measuring fascism by how Mussolini behaved rather than by how he defined his movement.
It's pretty obvious that the founder of any movement will try to portray it in the most appealing / idealistic light possible, rather than trying to portray it by how it works on a practical level. A realistic, nuanced pitch for your political movement will win fewer supporters than a simple and nice-sounding one.
Eli Sanders
>neoliberal If i'm correct, it used to basically refer to a form of proto-Keynesianism but now refers to general liberal economics, right?
Cameron Ortiz
>how Mussolini behaved rather than by how he defined his movement. Mussolini's state operated by that 'marriage'. The corporation was the 'Italian' nation, and it was benefitted by the state. The same exact thing occurred in Nazi Germany, where the German nation was the corporation with Germany as the state.
The problem is that people see these two examples and assume "well fascism must mean the nation+state always". However, we have multiple states benefitting and sometimes even ruling aside major businesses. One could also argue that welfare states make their subjects the corporation and thus the relationship that occurs makes it fascism.
Luke Carter
>"No" >pic of one guys opinion, which doesnt contradict democracy at all by the way Sure is fucking reddit in here
Elijah Taylor
>Retards think "muh taxes and social programs"=socialism. Are you willing to say that socialism has also been butchered in its definition?
If so, what do you call the system by which the government redistributes wealth?
Anthony Scott
Become a libertarian or whatever then.
Brandon Price
There's a reason why the "evangelical vote" is a thing.
Jason Collins
Yeah definitely. That and the Soviet and Chinese experiments. The fact that Marxism-Leninism is still the dominant socialist tendency in much of the world is also very damaging to the socialist cause.
>If so, what do you call the system by which the government redistributes wealth? Social democracy, progressivism, social liberalism.
Jack Hernandez
>If so, what do you call the system by which the government redistributes wealth? ..... You don't know what socialism is do you?
Daniel Hall
Socialism is the collective ownership of property and the means of production.
Cenk/Bill Maher pls go.
Noah Torres
Eh close. Socialism is social ownership. It can mean collective like you said, cooperative, public ownership, workers self-management, etc. over the mean of production
Jaxson Cruz
Part of fascism is the belief that man is inherently bad.
Matthew Edwards
>cooperative >workers self-management
Eh, I don't think these are enough to qualify socialism. Classical Liberals like Smith, Ricardo and Mill believed that cooperatives would become the dominant business model in the future.
Jason Fisher
Well I guess I meant a workers cooperative. Basically it's a small form of market socialism
Anthony Powell
My political beliefs don't matter.
The problem is that with the redefining of 'liberalism', the works of American founding fathers are no longer liberal. Thus, any political organization can say that the founding fathers acted under the influence of said political organization. We see this already with Republicans actually thinking Thomas Jefferson was influenced by the Ten Commandments and Bernie Sanders quoting Jefferson.
Gabriel Sullivan
>Social democracy >Social liberalism >Social-ism Hmm, I see a pattern...
Noah Reed
You may want to understand that when Mussolini was talking about corporations in reference to something different than it was meant to be. The Fascist version of corporatism was to get labor and industry to collaborate in a more harmonious and "organic" way. The State would operate as a counter-weight to either to break any deadlocks.
And in fact, Mussolini was the founder of Fascism, but he was not the major philosopher of Fascism. If you want a philosophical understanding of Fascism, you need to read Rocco, Gentile, Panunzio, and Spirito. Particularly Spirito and Gentile if you want an understanding of Corporatism.
For that matter: don't go to /pol/ for an explanation as to what Fascism/National Socialism are. You can find the primary sources, some translated some not, that are much better at explaining things than somebody on a message board.
Brandon Sanders
>The Fascist version of corporatism was to get labor and industry to collaborate in a more harmonious and "organic" way. So labor and industry would be the corporation, correct?
Anthony Sullivan
Roughly. First it was a 'third way' between socialism and classical liberalism proposed by Germans hoping to avoid another great depression, then it was used to describe Pinochet his lot, then it was used to describe Bill Clinton.
At this point it's a generic pejorative for anything about the status quo that you don't like, it's a completely useless term.
Daniel Lewis
>Social conservatism
Brandon Martin
Well those liberals took the word libertarian from socialists so what?
Daniel Sanders
>believing in human perfectibility ISHYGDDT
James Ward
Labor, Industry, and the State would be a part of the Corporation. Remember, this is the Fascist imagining of the logical end goal of Sorel's Revolutionary Syndicalism, so brushing up on what Sorel was talking about may help.
>not realizing that Fascism, National Socialism, and Communism are all Utopian Ideas We just need to become the New Men, user, it's just that easy.
Gabriel Miller
>New Men >Nu Male
/pol/ CONFIRMED FOR THE REAL NU MALES
Carter Williams
>Well those liberals took the word libertarian from socialists so what? delet this
Cooper Davis
Perfection is an arbitrary concept when applied to humans.
>Sorel's Revolutionary Syndicalism And who is Sorel?
Google doesn't pull up anything.
Isaac Morales
Georges Sorel en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sorel His biggest contribution was the idea of unions forming together into syndicates to fight back against capitalism/capitalists. The logic being that a violent revolution by the working classes would sweep capitalism away and replace it with a new, revolutionary state. His arguments in favor of political violence made him a favorite among the more revolutionary (and progressive) Fascists who were coming of age in the 1900s-1910s.
To get back to the OP: trying to frame Fascism as either Right or Left is going to be an exercise in futility, since it has borrowed elements from both to such a point that it can't be really identified as either. It loves the Nation-State, but believes that a perfect "Fascist Man" can be created, relying on willpower and spirit. All the books I've seen that try to define Fascism end up defining the methods it used, rather than tackle its philosophical base. But that's probably because hardly anyone cares about what a bunch of Italians were writing in the 20s and 30s.
Dylan Wright
>made him a favorite among the more revolutionary (and progressive) Fascists who were coming of age in the 1900s-1910s. I don't believe this considering workers and unions were treated like shit under fascism.
Nathaniel Ortiz
>His biggest contribution was the idea of unions forming together into syndicates to fight back against capitalism/capitalists. The logic being that a violent revolution by the working classes would sweep capitalism away and replace it with a new, revolutionary state. His arguments in favor of political violence made him a favorite among the more revolutionary (and progressive) Fascists who were coming of age in the 1900s-1910s. Literally just Marx.
>trying to frame Fascism as either Right or Left The whole point of the OP is NOT to do this; rather base fascism on the definition offered by Mussolini.
Cameron Gomez
You're looking at the final output, Fascist thought in regard to workers and unions underwent transformations, especially as the Corporatists (like Gentile) managed to have more philosophical clout than the Syndicalists.
>literally just Marx With a different end result, and a greater focus on organized labor, but yes, Sorel is similar to Marx in a lot of ways.
Nathan Barnes
>Sorel is similar to Marx in a lot of ways. When will fascist-lets learn.
Anthony Moore
>>"Fascism is the marriage between corporation and state" It is, but not of the corporation you're thinking about:
The Corporations 18. The State represents the aspiration and effort of the people, as a community, towards material and spiritual advancement. Those only are full citizens who give their best endeavour to add to the wealth and strength of the State; these truly are one with her in her growth and development. Whatever be the kind of work a man does, whether of hand or brain, art or industry, design or execution, he must he a member of one of the ten Corporations who receive from the commune a general direction as to the scope of their activities, but are free to develop them in their own way and to decide among themselves as to their mutual duties and responsibilities.
19. The first Corporation comprises the wage-earners of industry, agriculture and commerce, small artisans, and small landholders who work their own farms, employing little other labour and that only occasionally. The second Corporation includes all members of the technical or managerial staff in any private business, industrial or rural, with the exception of the proprietors or partners in the business. In the third, are united all persons employed in commercial undertakings who are not actually operatives. Here again proprietors are excluded. [...]
20. Each Corporation is a legal entity and is so recognized by the State.
(cont)
Jace Thompson
Chooses its own consuls; makes known its decisions in an assembly of its own; dictates its own terms, its own decrees and rules; exercises autonomy under the guidance of its own wisdom and experience; provides for its own needs and for the management of its own funds, collecting from its members a contribution in proportion to their wages, salary business profits, or professional income; defends in every way its own special interest and strives to improve its status; aims at bringing to perfection the technique of its own art or calling; seeks to improve the quality of the work carried out and to raise the standard of excellence and beauty; enrols the humblest workers, endeavoring to encourage them to do the best work; recognizes the duty of mutual help; decides as to pensions for sick and infirm members; chooses for itself symbols, emblems music, songs, and prayers; founds its own rules and ceremonies; assists, as handsomely as it can, in providing enjoyment for the commune for us anniversary fetes, and sports by land and sea; venerates its dead, honours its elders, and celebrates its heroes.
I'd bet my life savings that 90% of these posters itt haven't read the Fascist Manifesto and are just spouting utter bullshit from either /pol/ or plebit
Cameron Morales
>i am very smart: the post
Elijah Jackson
Your first mistake is not recognising that liberalism and American liberalism are two entirely different things.
Classical liberalism is more akin to libertarianism.
Jayden Morgan
>I am smart: the post
Owen Hill
>n-no you! If you are so enlightened about fascism, tell us why it is, like, totally the worst, man. I don't want to harsh your buzz, bro. Positive vibes only
Julian Carter
Come on, tell me how "the pursuit of a transcendent and cleansing nation-statism through paramilitarism" is so ebil? You fuckin' limp-wristed kike.
