Why are fascist aesthetics so mesmerizing and enchanting? Shiny uniforms, catchy songs, marches, flags, the speeches, the celebration of masculinity and strength, passion for violence and war... everything just seems so appealing and natural to a man.
And despite being so pompous and bombastic, at the same time it emphasizes on what is essential, the preservation of order, morality, tradition and values. It's like pottery.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>everything just seems so appealing and natural to a man
That is the purpose of propaganda.
>emphasizes on what is essential, the preservation of order, morality, tradition and values. It's like pottery.
Yes, it works well on stupid people.
It's more of a middle-brow thing. If you want to know what stupid people like, just watch TV.
no, no, fascism panders to stupid people. it's just that stupid people of today are most stupid than stupid people back then
>most
*more. well, that's a freudian
>everything just seems so appealing and natural to a man.
>it emphasizes on what is essential, the preservation of order, morality, tradition and values. It's like pottery.
The fuck are you talking about? You're missing the point entirely.
Fascist aesthetics came from futurism. It carried with it the spirit of modernism (idealist by definition), a fascination with mechanization and a love of movement (as opposed to laxity).
I don't get why many people see fascism as some down to earth, pragmatist reactionary ideology.
I didn't know low-brow peasants were so avant-garde.
>fascist """aesthetics""""
t. Marxshit
>I didn't know low-brow peasants were so avant-garde.
errr
>He is best known for his 1911 Futurist work, The Funeral of the Anarchist Galli. Carrà was indeed an anarchist as a young man but, along with many other Futurists, later held more reactionary political views, becoming ultra-nationalist and irredentist before and during the war. He supported fascism after 1918.
>le everyone who disagrees with me with is Marxist
Because fascism as various social movements was mostly about pandering to stupid people looking for easy answers to complex social problems and damaged veterans of ww1. Which meant it had to pander to the values that both stupid people of the time and damaged veterans cherished.
It was also never a cohesive social movement with an actual intellectual spine. This can be evidenced in its continual cribbing of the rhetoric and aesthetics of other social movements and its complete lack of an actual coherent ideology beyond the somewhat unified elements of basic cronyism and despotism.
>passion for violence and war... everything just seems so appealing and natural to a man.
Feminism, is that you?
>complete lack of an actual coherent ideology beyond the somewhat unified elements of basic cronyism and despotism.
kek'd hard
good post. sad but true
>>nationalism is reactionary
>an essential part of the French Revolution is reactionary
>what many kings tried to eliminate during the 19th century is reactionary
>le everyone who dislikes Marxists is /pol/
>>>/reddit/
That pic is of Futurist aesthetics. There is no such thing as Fascist aesthetics, as there was never a clear "party-line" as to what those were supposed to be. Fascist Italy adopted a number of different styles but mainly sort of hobbled between Historical Eclecticism and Futurism.
>the meaning of "reactionary" is independent of time-period
>>le everyone who dislikes Marxists is /pol/
I never said nor implied that. Logic isn't your strong point.
You L I T E R A L L Y redirected a guy that said marxshits to /pol/.
Are you that divorced from reality?
You understand that being nationalist in the 20th and 21st century is reactionary but progressive in the 18th century right? Do I need to dig-up the definition of reactionary for you, or do you want to google it yourself?
>LITERALLY implying that isn't fresh as fuck
To be more precise, it is a picture of Fascist propaganda that is using Futurist aesthetics.
Same way that Soviet and Nazi aesthetics didn't exist either.
So you agree that nationalism is not an inherent "reactionary political view" as Wikipedia puts it, right?
lol you're like an Otaku that thinks Japan is honestly like anime and asks why Japan is so appealing. Have you ever read through the sadder sides of fascism?
ISIS headquarters
You can't be this stupid.
>weasel wording this hard
You added the "inherent" part because it suits your retarded argument.
Remove it and yes that definition is correct. Nationalism is reactionary by today's standards.
>Are you that divorced from reality?
No, you are divorced from logic, or the English language.
People are smarter now than before.
en.wikipedia.org
I anticipated that argument. Their IQ is indeed higher - their ability to look after their rational self interest is however much lower. "Smart" only has a meaning in context.
>doesn't agree with my political philosophy
>stupid
oh wow great definition there
>that status quo ante in Italy weren't separated independent states
You added the "by today's standard" part because it suits your retarded argument.
But even then, nation-states are the status quo, but not the status quo ante.
So you could say that nationalism is conservative, since it's neither reactionary nor progressive.
>this is a fictional poll made up by uncertified autists to make people who try and take this bar graph seriously look like idiots
ftfy
No I added it because that is the only standards by which wikipedia articles are written. Articles like the one on Nationalism or the one on Carra. If the article doesn't say "by the standards of 1910s Italy, Carra was a reactionary", then it's pretty fucking safe to assume it's using today's standards.
What other standards would you expect wikipedia articles to be written according to,18th century France? Stop posting and using latin to make yourself appear less retarded.
>Veeky Forums or Veeky Forums
>intelligent
>/k/
>even close to that high
Also, you clearly don't understand english
Evidently it's a matter of perspective. Nationalism is more reactionary than Anarchism, and that is exactly what the Wikipedia quote in says.
The user before (you?) posted an image of Carrà when he still was an anarchist and said it was fascist aesthetic - I pointed that out.
It's not that, but awareness of power structures. Many people of today have no clue how their countries are run and who has the special interest. Back then they knew, it was the nobility, the capitalists and the bankers.
>le buttmad /pol/tards
stay mad.
>>le
>>>/reddit/
Why are you shitposting, this isnt related to history
I have never read an article that said Garibaldi or even the French revolutionaries were reactionaries.
>Stop posting and using latin to make yourself appear less retarded.
The definition of reactionaries are that they seek the status quo ante.
Yes, it's entirely a matter of perspective. People seem to think that politics is a static field.
But even back then, Italian irredentism proponents were mainly revolutionary politicians and artists.
And in my first post I didn't meant to imply that Carrà's painting was fascist, it was more to show what futurism was.
And also, not entirely related to the discussion, but people seem to forget that proto-fascist theory developed in-part near anarchist groups. I find that pretty funny.
i thought that's what liberation ideologies were supposed to do?
I like it in a dystopian kind of way
heh
>oppression is good
wew lad
Because you have daddy issues
oh lord
Veeky Forums, intelligent and unbiased discussion
Hitler-sama would have called this degenerate art
>Fascism
>not part of history
Because Hitler was a shit tier spiritual, political and military leader
Mussolini was absolutely gone-tier militarily, mediocre politically but had some great artistic and ideological vision
This isn't shitposting and it's both history and humanities
You're an idiot for immediately dismissing an art because it's associated to an ideology that was associated to another ideology that was demonized
Hitler was a dumbass.
The decorations were only suggesting people what to vote for in the plebiscite