Fascism

>>shortsightedness
>Fascist leader of Greece predicted exactly how the war would've gone, sided with the Allies, beat the Italians and built defenses exactly where the Germans attacked

This. Fascism doesn't have an intellectual spine the way Liberalism, Anarchism or Marxism do. At its core, it's basically just militaristic despotism.

How is it in any way not a Conservative revolution?

>return to tradition
>anti moral decay
>go back to past glory
>mobilise
>hierarchal values
>rule in the form of singular leadership in a single party or person (monarchism)

it is ultimately an ideology for dissatisfied conservatives who can no longer associate with modern conservatives and must therefore go to the extreme

>not knowing fascism didn't have a racial aspect and aimed at preserving the state
>not knowing this why national socialism was born to give it a racial aspect

This board fucking blows.

minorities is just an example, it could be put in place for something else

this is true, although italian - styled fascism was not anti-semitic and many jewish italians were supporters of the fascist party before hitler came into power.

fascism can be criticized for its bad policies and shit, but a fascist government can pull ANY country out of the shithole it descended into.

>it could be put in place for something else
You can say that about any system.
>Marxism: muh bourgeois
>National Socialism: muh failing Germany
>Anarchism: muh oppersive state
>Libertarians: muh government regulations
Liberals: muh conservatives

>fascism can be criticized for its bad policies and shit, but a fascist government can pull ANY country out of the shithole it descended into.

Yeah tell that to all the Cold War countries outside the West who, by Truman Doctrine, we were forced to pay from everything to coups to contrras, to get at the bare minimum far right nationalist to oppose this one system the US government was against.

They're mostly very very leftist now for a reason, or they're complete shit holes. I think Uruguay is a good example of a South American nation which pulled itself from American intervention in their own politics to get a leader, to be fair a lot wanted, but really was not good for their nation or their civil liberties. They realized they're mistake and now people from all over Europe are moving there, more than any South American nation.

20th century history has proven again and again these nationalistic governments and fascism just do not work out and are needlessly cruel, but the evidence is convoluted and complicated and hard to argue so hush hush

yeah, you're right, it's all ideology like slavoj says, but with fascism there seems to be a more discernible basic pathology that goes on

>rightist dictatorships
>fascism

Not really.
>Marxism: muh working class rights
>Fascism: muh radical tradition
>Liberals: muh freedom from oppression
>Anarchism: muh FOA
>Libertarians: muh rights

Every ideology has a basic piller of thought, all else depends on how radical the implications are to achieve said goal without subversion.

Even if fascism does not embrace all traditions, they seek to create a set of traditions that will persist for ages to come.

Yes but those modes of thought have long histories with varying academic opinion, thought and traditions.

With Fascism, it is far more grass roots and cannot function on its own, it needs something ELSE. That is why I believe the Nazis introduced Occultism and Hinduism into their ranks. Fascism needs the concept of the big other or the separation of the individual from the action in a way that doesn't occur in these other ideologies.

Actually no, Duce II saw that cultural and racial admixture in a country changes over time, so he put more emphasis on preserving the state - but he did aim to preserve traditional means of the state itself. You're thinking of National Socialism who aimed to preserve the Nation - Volk - through radical tradialism.

>Nazis
>Fascist

Some of them were. Especially in Africa and Central America. There's no other polite way to describe it.

>return to tradition
National socialism is inherently a progressive ideology. The return to tradition is only to appeal to the masses. German idealism played a big part in national socialism. But I believe personally that idealism of any stripe implies imperfection in a people in contrast with the state. The state should never be seen as the standard.
>anti moral decay
Having an over legalistic society actually encourages moral decay.
>go back to past glory
The only conservative thing
>mobilise
Colonialism? Pretty much anti-conservative at its very core.
>hierarchal values
Natural conservatism is always bottom up, never top down; hierarchical values that come from the top aren't actually "conservative".
>rule in the form of singular leadership in a single party or person (monarchism)
Again, honour comes from the bottom, not from the top; the foundation of society is its people. A leader comes about naturally. There's nothing conservative about assuming leadership by force.

>it's a "in defense of fascism and reactionary thought" episode

Eh, what?

Read this and tell me the Nazis weren't Fascist:

worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

You're looking at the situation from a modern perspective. You do realize that what is "tradition" is fluid?

The Nazis were not reactionaries as you imply, because then they would have supported the "return to tradition" and "anti moral decay" ideas of their days I.E monarchism.

The Nazis were quite (if we take the word literally and not with modern connotations) progressive actually.

>With Fascism, it is far more grass roots and cannot function on its own, it needs something ELSE.
Fascism was not a system that was meant to stay around - Oswald Mosley had stated in 100 Questions for Fascist that the state would desolve into a Republic - BUT! it would be up to the people to choose every 5 years if they wanted Fascism to continue by voting Yes or No. As for Nazis, Goebbels stated in Nazi-Sozi that latter on the public would vote on if they want a Republic or Monarchy.
>That is why I believe the Nazis introduced Occultism and Hinduism into their rank.
Just wanted to tell you, Fascism =/= National Socialism. They have way too different philosophical grounding.
>Fascism needs the concept of the big other or the separation of the individual from the action in a way that doesn't occur in these other ideologies.
Of course, because when trying to preserve the state, you can't have David over there thinking it's okay to fuck over his fellow countryman.

Progressive?

>banned non-classical music
>destroyed modern art pieces and held bad art exhibitions
>banned particular races from marrying
>literally made jews legally non-full citizens

You're kidding, right?

Idealism is naturally progressive.
They wanted more technologies, more scientists, better genetics, etc. They wanted to make humanity better, as if humanity wasn't perfect before. They implied imperfection. Idealism is incompatible with tradition.

And just because they banned non-classical music, or destroyed modern art, doesn't mean that they're "traditional"; it means that they idealize only GERMAN culture.

Are we comparing politics without context from past to present now, again, for the three hundredth time. Without any self awareness/

I never said it made them traditional in doing so, I question whether it made them progressive and banning modern art pieces is literally the anti-thesis of progressiveness.

Consider this.
If you believe in an idealistically better future and believe the means of which should be attained for "the greater good", then that makes you progressive in every sense of the word.

If you believe your country and your country's achievements are progressively better than everyone else's, then destruction of primitive culture could be seen as "progressive".

The reason i don't like idealism, is because it's naturally convergent. Anytime a society becomes idealistic and progressive, it ceases to look at itself as "standard". Idealistic people have a habit of disparaging others as "living in the stone age". Religion and society altogether will eventually be disparaged by the idealistic political class, hence modern progressivism.

>not acknowledging the shift in political power to the left
>not understanding that left wingers are the establishment now

It's almost like you don't know the definition of revolution

...

Oddly familiar

>he doesn't know about the flag bearers

hello decadent leftists from reddit

No, I do. I was just making a joke about what kind of posters use them at this point.

>Idealism is naturally progressive.
You've obviously never met a libertarian.

They're some of the most idealistic people you'd ever meet who would straight up curse you out if you accused them of being progressive

>flag-bearers
What is this, /int/ ?

Look at the libertarian party..
The liberal nature of free markets and protected trade, always inevitably turns into liberal progressivism. There are three instances of this happening; the last one in which libertarians started becoming progressive or idealistic (Stephen Molyneux, Ayn Rand, etc); the 60s where the industrial boom in trade led to entitled liberal shits; and then there was the French revolution where the left wing itself was birthed out of the idea of republicanism, abolition of the monarchy, free trade, etc.

historically speaking, fascism is a reaction against popular leftist organisation in italy from 1918 to 1920, culminating in the bellino rosso when workers were taking over factorie in the north, and things like sarzano where the squadrists and fasci di combatimento got btfo by local militia
so mussolini gathered up the congress and made it one unified organisation and movement, which it wasnt till then, it was a sort of popular armed reactionary movement, and marched on rome

even the name fascism was recent at that point

it was a reaction against capitalism only in the sense that it declared itself 'the third way', like a sort of socialism with a capitalist economy, class cooperation as a alternative to class struggle, even tho autarchy functioned like somesort of buerocratic centralised mercantilism that did its best not to work, which is why central in the grand plan were colonies

but realy fascism wasnt that conservative at all, it was sort of avangard modernist, the seemingly traditional sets of values and roles it promoted was realy just a reflection, on one hand the machistic attitude and basic nationalist demographic policy, on the other of the militarism and the notions of organising a new society like a efficient bio-power system, the rest was all radical futurism and jingoist myths about imperial glory, like while nazi notions of nature were all mythological and sentimental, fascist idea about nature was asically rape it to death then blow up the corpse, the main points were that no fucks are given, might makes right, violence, armed mechanised violence especialy, had a almost sublime, poetic status, life is a fight, war was like a ritual that gave the whole birth-death cicle a purpose ''childbirth is to woman what war is to man'', ''war is the hygiene of the world'' etc... there realy wasnt much laying blame or going on about decadence or race, the main fault of their enemies and victims was that they were alive and free, both easily fixed

>The liberal nature of free markets
perhaps you are referring to neoliberalism but most libertarians consider themselves paleoconservative economically

>and protected trade
Libertarians generally favor free trade and free immigration but that can vary and is only a small part of being a libertarian.

> inevitably turns into liberal progressivism
Ayn Rand would have scoffed at you for accusing her of being a type of liberal progressive. She far more readily appealed to people on the right throughout her career.

they weren't fascist you fucknut

So, is just >>>/leftypol/ ?

>fascism is a reaction to capitalism
Rhetorically this is true, only if "capitalism" is contextualized to mean "finance capitalism" (ie banking and investment) as opposed to producer capitalism. The National socialists were keyenseans, and the Italian fascists were as well, but more nominally so. Strasser wasn't indiciative of national socialism mainstream, and he was the only actual "socialist" strain of national socialism. They were purged fairly quickly.
>but in no ways is it a "Conservative revolution", because it's not conservative.
There is a sense in which that's true, if you were to view fascism as a "traditionalist revolution", but many of them were preoccupied with ancient, even pre-christian traditions (see Himmler's quotes on atheism and "waralda" vs Hitler's quotes on Christianity). However, the pagan revivalists were also a minority of these movements. The vast majority of fascist/natsoc support was drawn from the working class and petit bourgeoisie, and the vast majority of them were religious and culturally conservative.

So the mass of the population that supported fascist parties were themselves very conservative, owned small businesses or were skilled tradesmen, and saw the cosmopolitan or collectivist politics of the Left as culturally foreign. Even most words originating with Marxian socialism were redefined by the natsocs: "socialism" came to mean "Germanism" or "Volkism, and was redefined as "etho-nationalist interest", etc. All identity through economic class had been removed, which is hardly Marxist or socialist as anyone in Anglo and Francophone politics understood it.

Even Marx admitted as much in his critique of German Socialism. In a sense, he foresaw national socialism when he argued that Germans were culturally incapable of "true socialism" as he saw it. Which makes perfect sense, because Marx's concept of socialism was very Kibbutz-like.

>So, is just >>>/leftypol/ ?
No.

It's just not a hug box, where people actually have opinions different from you.

>Fascism doesn't have an intellectual spine the way Liberalism, Anarchism or Marxism do.
Typical leftist dilettante who never bothered to read any right wing authors. Here, let's fix that so you can stop being a basic-bitch:

>Politically Incorrect Books Archive:
mega.nz/#F!B4dB2SzQ!h_pMC30v2a_y31iD0dy0sg
>The New Order - Collateral Reading
pastebin.com/za2P7xX9
>Tomislav Sunic - Art in the Third Reich: 1933-1945
archive.org/details/ArtInTheThirdReich19331945
>A. James Gregor - Mussolini's Intellectuals
press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7870.html
>The Triumph of Reason - The Thinking Man's Adolf Hitler by Michael Walsh
archive.org/details/TheTriumphOfReason-TheThinkingMansAdolfHitler
>Arthur Bryant - Unfinished Victory (1940)
>Prominent British historian writes a fairly objective prehistory of WWII
archive.org/details/ArthurBryantUnfinishedVictory1940V1
>William Joyce – Twilight Over England
>Twilight Over England compared the evils of Jewish-dominated capitalist Britain with the successes of National Socialist Germany.
archive.org/details/WilliamJoyceTwilightOverEngland
>Jewish Domination Of Weimar Germany 1919-1932, Eckart-Verlag
archive.org/details/JewishDominationOfWeimarGermany1919-1932
>Arthur Pillans Laurie - The Case for Germany: A Study of Modern Germany
>a view of National-Socialist Germany by a Scottish scholar inside Hitler's Third Reich.
archive.org/details/TheCaseForGermany
>Percy Stephensen - The Foundations Of Culture In Australia: An Essay Towards National Self-Respect
archive.org/details/TheFoundationsOfCultureInAustraliaAnEssayTowardsNationalSelf-respect
>Leon Degrelle - Campaign in Russia: the Waffen SS on the Eastern Front
germanvictims.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Campaign-in-Russia-Leon-Degrelle.pdf
>David Duke - My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding
archive.org/details/MyAwakeningAPathToRacialUnderstandingByDavidDuke

>David Duke

>It's just not a hug box
ooooh, someones MAD lol
>where people actually have opinions different from you
Sounds like you identified the "foreign thought process" fairly quickly, so I highly doubt that's actually true. If there were a high difference of opinion around here, you'd need to speak to me much more than that to judge whether I was your enemy or not.

>I thought this wasn't a hugbox
trggered

>Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf (English)
Hurst and Blackett: archive.org/details/MeinKampf_472
Ford: nationalactionlondon.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/adolf-hitler-mein-kampf-ford-translation.pdf
Stalag: endchan.xyz/.media/a18332e643d7cb83515627b693496fc0-applicationpdf
Kindle: my.mixtape.moe/ktzprb.azw3
EPUB: my.mixtape.moe/uucnjk.epub
>Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf (Deutsch)
archive.org/details/Hitler-Adolf-Mein-Kampf
>Adolf Hitler - The Words of Adolf Hitler
archive.org/details/WordsOfHitler_201307
>A Squire's Trial - an introduction to National Socialism
laraj.ca/AGwiki/uploads/Contemporary/IronmarchOriginals/IronMarch - A Squire's Trial.pdf
>Adolf Ehrt - Communism in Germany
archive.org/details/CommunismInGermany
>Adolf Ehrt - Bewaffnetter Aufstand!
archive.org/details/BewaffnetterAufstand
>Gottfried Feder - The Program Of The NSDAP The National Socialist Workers' Party And Its General Conceptions
archive.org/details/GottfriedFeder_TheProgramOfTheNSDAP
>Gottfried Feder - Das Programm der NSDAP (Deutsch)
archive.org/details/Feder-Gottfried-Das-Programm-der-NSDAP
>Gottfried Feder - Manifesto For The Abolition Of Interest Slavery
archive.org/details/GottfriedFederManifestoForTheAbolitionOfInterestSlavery1919
>Gottfried Feder The German State On A National And Socialist Foundation
archive.org/details/GottfriedFederTheGermanStateOnANationalAndSocialistFoundation

>George Lincoln Rockwell - White Power
archive.org/stream/WhitePower_189/White_Power#page/n0/mode/2up
>George Lincoln Rockwell - This Time The World
jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/This_Time_the_World.pdf

youtube.com/watch?v=FaCHBmGWcBc

>Adolf Hitler
>intellectual

Until you can quote Mein Kampf, you can really say, can you?
If that doesn't bother you and make you curious, don't call yourself "intellectual".

On the charge that Natsoc was "socialist" as Leftists define it:
>“’Socialist’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency.
>Our adopted term ‘Socialist has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. ((((((Marxism)))))) is anti-property; true socialism is not. ((((((Marxism)))))) places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
-- Adolf Hitler 1938

>Against the Mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930's Germany (Germa Bel)
ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf
>townhall.com/columnists/brucebartlett/2004/01/16/hitler_and_keynes
>jstor.org/stable/4401913?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
>mises.org/library/three-new-deals-why-nazis-and-fascists-loved-fdr
youtu.be/pKnFN8P21-0

Holy shit nobody is reading this garbage shut the hell up

>>“’Socialist’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity’.
>He literally changed the word's meaning to fit his taste
>This is supposed to be an """intellectual"""

I only take one definition, mostly because I only read one book on the definitions.

But fascism is "palingenetic populist ultra-nationalism".

It is not conservative, it is revolutionary and seeks to create new institutions and a new man, it is not just an ideology of turning back the clock.

>When did you realize Fascism is just a Conservative revolution that uses blame tactics on minorities in order to obfuscate from the fact they are really against Capitalism but do not attack it knowing full well it is a necessary evil?
It doesn't need to have scapegoats. It just need certain conditions.

-Capitalism's decay
-Absence of mass worker's movement or party
-Middle class sides with the capitalists and starts attacking the workers
-Fascism gets popularity

>nobody is reading this garbage
That's the ideal response to the charge "fascists had no intellectual foundation". I provided a bibliography. You reacted by telling me to leave your hugbox because no one will read any of it.

There are no intellectuals here, you have to admit it now.

;^)

Stop spamming your shit and argue out what you think.

>Stop spamming your shit and argue
Well, if the argument was that the right wing has no intellectual foundation, or no intellectuals, and one provides a bibliography, it serves as a very direct counter-example. Providing counter-example is one of the pillars of argument.

Admit it, Veeky Forums loves to scream "hugbox", but only people who realy hide in hugboxes scream that word so often.

There are only pseudo-intellectuals here, hiding from a real challenge.

>Well, if the argument was that the right wing has no intellectual foundation, or no intellectuals, and one provides a bibliography, it serves as a very direct counter-example

No it doesn't because if you cite these sources you're going to be laughed at ny any professional

>no leftist would consider these intellectuals to be intellectuals
well, that's might be true generally, but notable exceptions like A. James Gregor would prove you wrong:

>A. James Gregor - Mussolini's Intellectuals
press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7870.html

Gregor is a liberal, and he wrote an entire book debunking your attitude.

Even if we take your claim as true generally, it's not surprising; we expect leftist academics to pretend that the RIght doesn't exist. That's their most commonly parodied conceit. Subjective partisan attitudes aside, you can't judge the existence of intellectuals by appealing to authority; their existence isn't subjective.

It's an objective fact that the Right had an intellectual foundation. You can reject it or not, but it exists. Sorry. Maybe pick a better tree to bark up, you can't gaslight us into believing the Right had no intellectuals.

Just like every other leftwing ideology.

>Typical leftist

>David Duke

>Jewish domination of Weimar Germany

>The new order

Really stimulates your brain cells, eh?

>all these non arguments an smug anime faces
Veeky Forums is fast on it's way to becoming irrevocably pozzed

You might as well cite Rosenberg with those kind of titles, you dimwit

Someone tell me the meaning behind the symbol here?
I like studying flags and this symbol appears on some of the more fantasy-tier fascist flags. Anyone explain it?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces
>United we are strong, but don't you dare to do anything against the state, or we will fuck you up

They are called fasces. Roman Senators would carry them around to show their standing in society. The Axe symbolized that they commanded armies as well.

That's pretty neat.

Fascism is the radical mass political movement of the right, with its underlying tenets poorly appropriated from leftists

I fail to see how syndicalist-inspired Italian corporatism was in the complete economic interest of the bourgeoisie. It was much more the attempt at a social compromise inspired by the aforementioned syndicalism and Catholic distributism. And I am saying that as a free market endorsing anti-fascist.

nice cherry-picking sonny-boy jim

>short sightedness

>tryed to create a 1000 year empire and help human evolve to their next stage of being

>Italy trying to restore "Roman Empire" to achieve self sufficient

If anything they were way too far sighted.

>So, is just >>>/leftypol/ ?

yes, I imagine it's because of the amount of britbongs here, maybe when god-emperor nigel bring out the guillotine will britbong posts improve finally

maybe it's something in the water that gives them low test which leads them to decadent leftism

>Typical leftist dilettante who never bothered to read any right wing authors. Here, let's fix that so you can stop being a basic-bitch:

It having a bunch of thinkers isn't the same as having an intellectual spine, moron. Anarchism has Proudhon, Liberalism has Locke, Marxism has Marx. These thinkers form the intellectual spine of these movements, and latter thinkers of the movements draw either on these thinkers themselves, or other thinkers that drew on those thinkers.

Fascism ideologically has been all over the place, from futurism to reactionism, to state-capitalism to socialism, to syndicalist democracy to fuhrerprinzip. This is because it isn't a cohesive intellectual movement rooted in a solid ideal; it's a mishmash of veteran's movements that share only the unifying feature of despotism.

Also your post is some grade A asshurt.

Fascism itself was flawed, two dimensional really.

NatSoc paired with Fascism, now we're talking. If it wasn't for fucking Bolshevik jews spinning lies, brainwashing and concocting the early globalist mindset, they wouldn't have bled the Nat out of the Soc. Of which I might add that they also permanently painted into the psyche that it's ten shades of racist to even factor it as a practical political and civic system.

>Adolf Hitler 1938

He wasn't the sole thinker of national socialism (or even much of a thinker at all). He was considerably less socialistic than Rohm or the Strasser brothers.

No there's just a growing number of communists tired of all of you actually

Fascism was a movement of reactionaries who were placated by conservative and bourgeois elites who used the fascist policies to enrich themselves, create cheap labor, create new industries all while collecting a bunch of government money.

>So, is just >>>/leftypol/ ?
>yes, I imagine it's because of the amount of britbongs here, maybe when god-emperor nigel bring out the guillotine will britbong posts improve finally

Centrist here. It's really not. There's actually a considerable diversity of opinions here. I suspect it's because of the board's philosophical bent, which is a field with very little consensus and no empirical way to disprove its doctrines.

I'm pretty sure there's a name for this, but I've noticed a tendency of the ideologically committed to vastly overestimate the presence of opposition to their ideas. The reason you find Veeky Forums to be so left wing is because the presence of left-wing ideas is more noticeable to you.

Reminder that fascism was a progressive ideology and most of its adherents were almost entirely irreligious.

>Reminder that fascism was a progressive ideology

Stop comparing unlike ideologies out of context decades after the fact

how old do you think progressiveism is?

The way you're using the term, it's changed the past ten years even. It's not even a concrete term or ideology, it's an advertisement for American political platforms

Can i get some help here? It might help this poor stupid shit if more than one person tells him he's an idiot.

...

Hey, jackass. and are witty. The emblem literally looks like a faggot (meaning "bundle") of sticks.

As mankind is, probably more

Just because it's been ubiquitous in the west for centuries doesn't mean it's that old. Most of the world didn't see the future in terms of improvement and positive change until fairly recently.

Belief that techonological progress improves human life?

Yup that must be pretty recent thing, those hunter gatherers surely through fire and javelins will bring them nothing but deppression and degeneracies.