What are some good arguments for/against fascism?

What are some good arguments for/against fascism?

It's not capitalism or Marxist socialism

If you can't come to power without resorting to intimidation or violence, you're probably not that good to begin with.

Agreed. Communism is bad. They've hardly ever won a nation through democratic election unlike the NSDAP.

NSDAP didn't win in any real sense though. They came to power by burning down the parliament.

National Socialists aren't fascists, they're National Socialists.

But that's the entire point. The Fascist doesn't seek to be elected whatsoever - it's all about the will triumphing over all; the assertion of force is what solidifies the movement.

Make problem when dictator is dying.
it results in struggle among his closet people, and
destabilizes the country.

Liberalism has failed. The system that prizes individuality over all other things is doomed to ultimate collapse due to a lack of social unity and the clashing desires of individuals.

The problem, at its heart, is the system of values that liberalism is based on. Personal liberty is not an ideal in and of itself because its full application (ancap) is anti-liberty.

Thus, a new system of values - a collectivist system of values based on those with a common history and social code - is all that remains. The national state has already arisen - the twentieth century saw to it that empires have now collapsed. Every attempt at one has failed.

On the back of the national state, we have a perfect opportunity to create an alternative set of values that make us more cohesive, equal, and happy.

The cons of fascism is that it's mostly a bunch of spergy assholes who end up taking power and killing everyone that they don't like, which is the problem with all modern authoritarian systems.

>dude, let's allow that guy to have power of life and death over us lmao
>I am willingly putting on the chastity cage right now!

If tyranny is inevitable they might be the lesser evil in some situations. It might be possible to temper it down to nationalism over the years, assuming they don't drag you into a pointless war.

>the nazis came to power after the burning of the Reichstag
>the nazis burned down the Reichstag

We get it, the nazis were bad. Doesn't mean you can just make shit up.

I don't like being told what to do

That's when you transition to constitutional monarchy.

this

>If you can't come to power without resorting to intimidation or violence, you're probably not that good to begin with.
Like the French Revolution, I know, right?

>a bunch of spergy assholes who end up taking power and killing everyone that they don't like, which is the problem with all systems.
Fixed.

Uhh yeah, last time I checked, the French Revolution was terrible.

pros-looks cool

cons-its a failed ideology for goober nerds who are 2edgy to just LARP as communist instead

>looks cool
looks like a tacky display at a theme park

Pros: It's not Capitalism/Socialism

Cons: It's not Absolute Monarchy

Fascism is pretty much absolute monarchy with some cool military parafernalia and god tier aesthetics.

Fascism violates individual rights by definition.

boo hoo

boo fucking hoo

...

Omg boo hoo stupid idiot

Boo shiteating hoo

well, with a proper system of checks and balances that happens more rarely, but point taken

Pro: Your country can be strong
Cons: Most fascist states collapsed when it leader died, becose his generals/advisors wanted to get on his place. Absolutistic monarchies dont have this problem, but most monarchs are avarage or bad leader.

So basically ANGSOC/Oceania is only one type of working fascist system.

>In the first round of the German presidential election of 1932, held in March, Hindenburg emerged as the frontrunner, but failed to gain a majority. In the runoff election of April 1932, Hindenburg defeated Hitler for the presidency.[19]

Hitler assumed presidency upon Hindenburg's death, he was never elected

The Nazi's did not win the election in any sense

Power and violence are synonymous.

The concept of individual rights as the ultimate goal of society is flawed and ultimately runs up against internal divisions and the necessary restrictions that must be made on them.

You neglect the other core liberal values in your analysis. Liberalism's values are those of thhe french revolution: liberte, egalite, fraternite, and liberty is the least if these.

Modern liberalism fails not because of a commitment to individual liberties but because it curtails these liberties in the pursuit of "equality" and "fraternity".

These values as used as an excuse to wall off entire ideologies as thoughtcrime. They allow the liberal to claim the moral high ground.

Unfortunately, equality and fraternity will be the modern system's undoing because it rejects essential facts of life; people are neither equal nor peaceful. It is only a system which embraces the inequality and conflict endemic to the human experience that can hope to prosper and succeed.

Those aesthetics! Mpfffff

this
also they abused extremely stupid holes in the constitution, like only needing the majority of those who are present, so they just bullied everyone they could out of parliament and threatened their lives and families if they could.

By the time the nazis were "winning" "elections", they had already effectively taken controll and were VladimirPutin-ing around in the votes. Surely all those people that were actually killed in the Nazi eugenics program all voted for Hitler, nothing to seeee move along!

The problems with all the /pol/-tards is that they are all too stupid to actually learn the history they base their demented thoughts on

Why is it that fascists are often weak, fat morons? Sure they often snag the tall, aryan ubermensch on occasion, but only through absolutely indoctrination. The fascist ideal of half-monk, half-soldier, whether it be in italy, nazi germany, or civil war spain, describes more anti-fascists than fascists. Fascism is the ultimate bootlicker ideology.

I stand with the strong, and oppose the weak. That's why I'm anti-fascist.

How does fascism differ from communism?

I find it amusing that these very similar groups hated each other so much.

>create an alternative set of values that make us more cohesive, equal, and happy
What makes you think I will agree with this set of values? If I refused to follow them, then what what are going to do about it?

I don't see how communism the ideology has much to do with fascism, BUT communism in reality has pretty much consistently just been fascism calling itself communism. You know what I mean?

The nation is an imaginary concept meant to gather support for the ruling class. Every nation is the homogenized, Disney World destruction of its former authentic cultural makeup. All nationalism is childish, and workers who are nationalists are distracted from pursuing their own interests.

Autocratic states are never as successful as democratic states because there's no accountability pushing politicians to provide short-term benefits to citizens. Moreover, the concentration of power into few hands hinders rational decision-making and leads to adventurism in pointless aggressive wars.

This is the memorial of the Völkerschlacht which was completed in 1913.

Stay edgy, cuckrade.

>Autocratic states are never as successful as democratic states because there's no accountability pushing politicians to provide short-term benefits to citizens
That's the opposite of true

>Moreover, the concentration of power into few hands hinders rational decision-making and leads to adventurism in pointless aggressive wars.
This is true

Famines don't happen in democracies. Politicians need to feed their constituents if they want to be reelected.

...

True fascism has never been tried.

...

>Surely all those people that were actually killed in the Nazi eugenics program all voted for Hitler, nothing to seeee move along!
Cringe.

Communism, in practice, is the antithesis of fascism in that it generally uses the same tactics to achieve opposite goals.

Fascist economics are God tier

I love where you can see the gap in US GDP caused by FDR slowing down on the new deal in '37

>big government doesn't work
>free markets are the only way

Not really, no. Fascism isn't even a coherent ideology, it's basically just 'whichever dictatorships were friends with Mussolini or Hitler.'

>see the gap in US GDP caused by FDR slowing down on the new deal in '37


That's a myth pushed by Keynesian hacks and establishment shills

The establishment of the US is generally anti-Keynesian though.

And here come the excuses.

>muh big government never works
>Hoover was the best
>cyclical panics aren't a natural feature of free market economics, I swear

Mixed economics master race.

>Fascism isn't even a coherent ideology

False. There are certain themes and principles that inform fascist economics.

Keep in mind that "pundits" and think tanks didn't exist in the inter war period. Just because there is lack of information doesn't mean the people in charge were just making stuff up as they went.

>Mixed economics master race.

Only if you accept Keynes as your mixed-economics waifu.

Well, technically neo-Keynesian and post-Keynesian economics are the new hotness.

>Just because there is lack of information
There isn't. There's a buttload of information about the period.

>doesn't mean the people in charge were just making stuff up as they went.
Didn't say or imply that.

kek

Oh wait you seriously believe that? WTF? Even the main economist of the IMF Olivier Blanchard is a Keynesian.

>parafernalia

you have a good point there, but your spelling is atrocious. read a book you goddamned troglodyte

economically yeah but for the general happiness of the people, not so much.

It's really not that atrocious, especially considering he spelt aesthetics correctly, he was just spelling a word in a somewhat phonemic manner. He probably knew it mainly from speech, and not writing, which is hardly a thoughtcrime.

Class collaborationism isn't something to be celebrated.

"People of all classes united under the flag" just means the struggles of the working man are cast aside in favor of imperialist distractions.

*tips fedora*

>dat pic
Lookin' a bit Scandinavian there...

Fascism doesn't have any coherent economic principles.

Kinda works If you don't kill to many people and start an uprising

Fascism is a form of government, not an economic system. Most fascist societies used standard Keynesian mixed economics. Except the Soviet Union, of course, which used a full socialist command economy.

Mussolini is the closest thing. Hitler fucked it up with imperialism, which, I will contend, is not an intrinsic quality of fascism as an ideology.

Anything post-Roosevelt is Keynesian by default bruh bruh

Autarky is not a coherent economic principle?

>Autarky
Why utilise utilise when you can use use?

a fully autocratic government will never work unless you have a homogenous group of people with similar beliefs and socioeconomic standings. Hitler tried to do this, and failed partly because of Anschluss and because he was a stupid fuck that couldn't handle jewry, and misinterpreted everything he read, but Mussolini was relatively successful. most people in post-WW1 Italy were poor as shit but also had a burgeoning national identity, they wanted a strong leader to point them in the right direction, and society was roughly homogenous enough to convince them to rally around him, so they were relatively content with tyrannical shit like the Acerbo law

>I can't verbalize why you're wrong so here's a picture of an ugly person

aesthetics

- fixes everything
- endless prosperity
- strong army

cons
- bad goyim

USSR can't be considered fascist. Its entire existence was to facilitate the establishment of a stateless and classless democratic society.

National syndicalism and/or corporatism.

>- strong army
laughingallies.jpg

fascism is effay as fuck

>- strong army
guffawinggenerals.gif

>- strong army
gigglingGmen.webg

What I meant is that your marxist critique of fascism is worthless and irrelevant. What's next? Criticism of fascist economics from an anarcha-feminist trans*anarchist polyamorous demifluid queer liberation vegan perspective?

>syndicalism
>but with a huge fucking state

too bad they left in the
>but we need an autocratic asshole leader to facilitate the change, so have fun eating lichens and tree bark until we figure it out
clause

>- strong army
drolldebts.dmsg

>- strong army
playfulpartisans.ppt

And also because it wasn't a nation-state and didn't aim to become a nation-state.

Italy had no reason to fight alongside the eternal Teuton. Prove me wrong.

Yes, and?

>Italy had no reason to fight alongside the eternal Teuton.
That doesn't mean they had to not fight against them. When an army attacks you, you're not supposed to run away like schoolgirls.

>USSR can't be considered fascist.

Yes it can. They had secret police. They concentration camps. They had the death penalty. They had state-run media with severe punishments for dissent. You can go down the checklist and there is nothing missing from the fascist toolbox.

>Its entire existence was to facilitate the establishment of a stateless and classless democratic society

Hahahaha......maybe that was the original idea......it didn't work out that way.......

>literally worthless

Explain why. Nationalism is literally just feels over reals. No concrete benefit is brought to the citizen if the government that rules him gains some more territory.

A system based on constant expansion is, by definition, not endless.

They weren't corporatist or integralist.

Checkmate.

>fascism=expansionism
The (authentic) Spanish falangists weren't going to expand anywhere.

They just wanted better relations with Latin America.

>They weren't corporatist or integralist.

But they were fascist.

Checkmate.

The problem with fascism is that it means whatever edgy right-wing autistic leader wants it to mean.

>corporatist
They were so corporatist their corporations were state corporations.

>integralist
They were so integralist they thought they could have socialism in one country.

Right, but by this standard every authoritarian state is fascist. The German Empire fits all those criteria.

>Nationalism is literally just feels over reals. No concrete benefit is brought to the citizen if the government that rules him gains some more territory.

1. Nationalism is not necessarily expansionist.

2. Sometimes expansionism does benefit the citizenry. Imagine if the US hadn't expanded into the west (displacing the various pre-American tribes in the process). Americans would have much less room to live.

They also wanted to murder or imprison anybody who hoped to provide the working class with a more liberated existence

How does fascism differ from other forms of authoritarianism? Isn't it all the same at the end of the day whether you call it communism or fascism?