Fascism

Fasicsm is such a horrifically vauge ideology the closest thing you can pin on it is it being authoritarian, nationalistic and a reaction to capitalism.

Yeah there was a lot of futurism in Italian fascism however German Fascism was precisely the opposite looking to the past for its ideas and imagery whilst Spanish fascism was simply conservative.

This same confusion applies to it philosophically with fascist thinkers ranging from basic marxists all the to french revolution esq reactionaries

So fascism isn't really a concrete ideology then? What about it needs to change to be more concrete? I'm very fascinated by fascism as there seems to be potential, communism/marxism, capitalism, anarchism and libertarianism just doesn't do it for me, I think its good to have a free market but at the same time I feel like there needs to be some safeguards to protect it as well as safegaurds to protect the people

A government that exists only to protect the economy and the people

>What about it needs to change to be more concrete?

Either reclassification of rightwing politics (ie no longer considering Franco, Hitler and Muss ect as all being fascists and just pic one) or for a few particular texts and ideas to become standard among modern movements.

> I think its good to have a free market but at the same time I feel like there needs to be some safeguards to protect it as well as safegaurds to protect the people

That can be everything from contemporary social democracy and conservativsm all the way to the strasserites who wanted private property (land and the means of production) to be a conditional right ie if you didnt use it the way the government wanted you to it would take it.

>A government that exists only to protect the economy and the people

Every single government type aims to do this.

Also remember that ideology often means much less than tradition.

For instance Australia has no bill of rights and almost no constitutional protections outside of there needing to be "good governance", likewise there is no effective separation between the legislative and executive branches of the government and no term limits on the Prime Minister (whose office is not even mentioned in the constitution). Add on top of this its constitutional monarchy and you have the ideolgoical foundations for a shithole

Instead you have quite a free and prosperous society - indeed much more so that other countries whose constitutions and ideologies are far more liberal

>Every single government type aims to do this.

More like claims to do this. The American government stopped doing this in earnest decades ago. Just look at the immigration crisis.

Out of all the Fascist leaders I've read about, I've always like Franco the most, Pinochet comes up too but he's more of a Minarchist

I'm not so sure to be honest, I'm still learning about all this, neither of the men I mentioned were perfect and they killed a lot of people, all I know is that we can't keep going in the direction we're going

I think Codreanu was the best.

>More like claims to do this
Not only do the economy and the people conflict but so do seperate subgroups within each of these categories when governments play the balancing act some group is bound to loose out no matter what system. Its just different in each example.

>I'm not so sure to be honest, I'm still learning about all this, neither of the men I mentioned were perfect and they killed a lot of people,

Also consider that not one of them created a system that lasted beyond the death of its first leader or was able to emerge since the current system might not be perfect but it is durable.

>, I've always like Franco the most,

I think a more important question you might want to ask yourself is how would a simmilar movement look or happen in the modern day. A lot of fasicsts like a whole lot communists like to pretend we live in the conditions of 1918 were these kind of changes happened - which is a rank impossibility-.

See Hitler, Mussolini and Mosley all changed their ideologies and positions as they went around.

>separate subgroups
That is a funny way of saying middle and lower classes init.

I read Benoit's article on Fascism and it seems to me that Fascism was a natural reaction to the things that were going on at the time, despite how bad things seem to be I don't think we're there yet, to be honest I don't think we'll ever get there again

>how would a similar movement look or happen in the modern day

It wouldn't go well honestly, it seems that there are many safeguards set in place to make sure such a thing could never happen again, in short the right wing is dead until something happens to force the pendulum to swing back and if it does, it'll swing back to the right hard

mega.nz/#F!79FG3RZK!BkBVzB5aQgDU3wmv5U90FA
Still WIP, suggestions are welcome

You start with Italy brah

>That is a funny way of saying middle and lower classes init.

Nah it also includes things like the divide between the rural folks and the urban ones, manufacturing vs service based industries ethinic and religious divides and so on which goes beyond simple wealth.

>It wouldn't go well honestly, it seems that there are many safeguards set in place to make sure such a thing could never happen again, in short the right wing is dead until something happens to force the pendulum to swing back and if it does, it'll swing back to the right hard

So ask yourself what lessons can you learn that are relevant to your context and which are historical. For instance one cant rely on peasants, hordes of veterans and postive memories of absolute monarchy. Nor can you rely on economic isolation and powerbrokers putting fascists into power by accident

This is objectively the answer to OP's question. Feel free to disregard the rest of the thread.

Maybe you should go to Fascist sites to get a good idea? Ironmarch.org IIRC is one.

People often get confused why fascism isn't a monolithic entity. It's because fascism is inherently national, it adopts the ethnic character of the people that build it. National Socialism is the expression of German character, Iron Guard was Romania's, Falange was Spain's, etc.

Has anybody in this thread actually bothered reading about it?
Read Mussolini's Intellectuals by A J Gregor
There was more to it than MUH RHETORIC, it clearly developed over time in a linear direction
>inb4 someone calls me a /pol/tard

youtube.com/watch?v=vJO8xIySsEM

Fascism is the best ideology.

ropeculture.org/2017/01/13/zero-tolerance/

It should be of interest to you, OP. The site in general, but this article has a lot of quotes from Fascist ideologues.

Read The Ideology of Fascism by James Gregor.

Best book on fascism imo

Read to Joseph de Maistre if you really want to know of the origins of antirationalism and traditionalism that leaded to fascism. His writing skills are amazing if you can understand all the theology behind his theories

>Evola
he hated the fascists and vice-versa
he though they were plebs, and with good reason

He was against establishing relations with the catholic church and was very critic with lots of politics taken by fascist Italy but in the end he helped Mussolini's regime

didn't Mussolini ban some of his books though ?
Evola was very elitist and although fascists pretent to be, they really aren't, and will stoop to recruiting any scum to get to their ends

Mussolini had good impressions of Evola and I think he maintained him close to his side until the end

i've made this introductory chart to italian fascism OP. i was planning on making more charts on ideology, precursors and other things but i wont get to that for another month or so cause i'm busy

no need to defend yourself user it's a good choice
these posts are good recommendations

Fascism is about as concrete as water. Italian Fascism doesn't even match the average historians definition of fascism. But there are eight solid ideas that shine through every historical attempt at fascism: the idea of a crisis or impending crisis, veneration of the state, totalitarianism, nationalism, fitness, militarism, hostilityto other nations, and taking action.

Fascism is only good for war and industrialization, therefore, it could not and would not last in the long term.

Democracy always gives a chance for change, where in fascism, there is no wiggle room. While capitalism is inherently good, it has flaws. Flaws that can and should be fixed by government regulation, but not to the extent of full blown socialism. Fascism is inherently hostile and could never work long term.

What would the middle ground between Fascism and a Democracy/Republic be?

>democracy always gives a chance for change
democracy is the defenition of an eternal status quo
>capitalism is inherintly good
the most laughable of your false claims

Fascism is more about style than anything else. It's all about authoritarianism, nationalism, and a military-first attitude.

No surprise that Mussolini had a high opinion of Stalin, and said that what Stalin had achieved in the Soviet Union was the same as what they'd achieved in Italy.

How exactly would you differentiate an authoritarian nationalist communist regime like Stalin's Soviet Union from a fascist one like Mussolini?

Even harder- how would you differentiate a Juche state like DPRK from fascism? Everything is the same- extreme military lionization, extreme nationalism, extreme "cult of personality", extreme economic autarky, etc.

asd

I've read every single fascist text so far out of a personal interest, I study chemistry at the university but I dedicate as much of my time to the study of fascism because I think it is really fascinating. I've read everything from weirdos such as Evola to others such as Carl Schmitt.

Ok, so lets get started:
It's not all that complicated really. The core of it is actually extremely simple. Romans started the whole thing, and Spartans embodied all fascist principles before them.
Fascist symbolism should tell you all you need to know. A giant fucking axe. Zero fucking around, zero moth eaten scrolls, zero magic ballot boxes, zero words of some old rotting corpses, all legitimacy in fascism comes out of strength and nothing but strength. If x brings strength, x is good. Weakness is a sin.
Fascists believe that force is to politics what numbers are to mathematics, what atoms are to chemistry.
>tl;dr
Might makes right. If giving up a few personal liberties ends up increasing your might in the long run, than for a fascist it's a good deal.

It can be racial, but it doesnt have to be, it can be cultural. It can be a simple military drill like in Sparta, which allowed its slaves to give it a shot too.
>why the police state
Fascist does not believe in infinite human rights, or entitlement of any kind that he cant secure or protect himself. Meaning you had no rights in the first place; you'd drown in an ocean, and a bear could maul straight trough all of your human rights as well. Unless you have enough force to oppose such a fate.
>why are hierarchies so desirable
Because resources arent infinite either, and scarcity is a fact of life, and (somewhat) friendly competition should decide who will use these resources most effectively for the state.
>why the state
Well simply the state is your best bet at achieving this might I mentioned, your best bet at staying alive is to earn your place in the hierarchy and march on [cont]

[cont] one stick is easy to break and a bunch of sticks together with a giant axe sticking out of them simply put arent.
>why hate the commies
Because inequality is not only a simple fact of life for a fascist, it is even desirable. A commie believes he is magically entitled to everything, that he has some rights he cant earn or protect, and that everyone else has those rights too, regardless of his ability, he simply has all the rights. A fascist consider this to be false, a fascist thinks that resources on this Earth are limited and that we are all in active competition for them, competition to the death with the outsider, and friendly, learning type of competition with the ingroup.

>fascist symbolism
You are supposed to figure out by now why wolves and eagles are such common chosen symbols by fascists. Let's contrast wolves and rabbits. Wolves are predatory animals, they make few offspring, they mark their territory, they know exactly how much territory they can defend, they live in packs, and have hierarchies. They fight each other in mock battles inside the pack for resources, and they fight to the death with everything else invading their territory. Sometimes they will kill their own weakest members.
Rabbits think resources are unlimited, they do not invest in their offspring and make lots of them, they do not live in packs but in a giant commune, they simply eat clover and do not think about how much of it is there left, rabbits do not compete with other rabbits, and they also do not fight each other nor do they fight their hunters, they simply move somewhere else.

Damn this ended up long.
Basically resources are very limited, humans have no rights they cant protect themselves, and strength/might is in your highest interest cos might is right, that's it.
There's not enough shit to go around so you gotta work hard and compete hard for it.

A more limited republic.

Frankly you and many of the others in this thread seem to be suffering from third way fascination

This means: "I find current forms of government both boring and unable to deal with x and y problems, this I will look for a more cognitively a e s t h e t i c form of government and ask how it could be idealized as to solve x and y problems"

Of course this philosophy in real life resulted in extreme corruption, feuding result beuraucratic apparatuses, and the state becoming both strong and extremely brittle.

Nah, fascist regimes end up crushed from the outside. In fascism, trains always arrive on time, there's peace and quiet 24/7, and efficiency is absolute.
>extreme corruption
Fascists execute people who do not follow their ideals, and fascist ideals do not allow corruption.
Say you have a Spartan leader. That becomes fat. Yeah that guy is getting thrown off cliff.
>beuraucratic hell
Nah, the hierarchy must be merit based, extremely rigid, and without compromise.
>the state becomes weak
Well, fascism is kind of a last ditch effort, Rome would fall to barbarians regardless, Germany and Japanese empire were at war with the whole world, etc etc.

Overextension can become a problem because retreats, even if strategic or somehow desirable, are usually not what fascist leadership does.

>trains always arrive on time

>peace and quiet 24/7

>efficiency is absolute

lmao

You are doing it all wrong, that's internal policy.
Contrast Nazi Germany and Weimar republic. Contrast suicide rate, junkies per capita, prostitution all over Berlin index, etc etc.
Fascist regimes, that do not even believe in human rights or civil liberties, end up giving you more of it (as long as you are part of the ingroup) than even modern multicultural regimes. Example: police no-go zones, cars burning in the streets being a normal thing, feral minorities, etc etc. Fascists gun those down. And it's all legal because they are the law.

Foreign policy with fascistic inherent hothead characteristic end up in a disaster.

Dumbest thing ive read today. By definition killing people based on their status or alleged heritage is a violation of civil liberties. All your ""examples"" of burning cars and the like have little basis in reality and if they exist theyre far removed from important centers of economic political or social life. Your idea of in group, too, is so vague as to be ridiculous. All crushing all political organization and ipposition on the left and right is the destruction of civil liberty and free speech. In a word, youre a brainwashed /pol/drone

>How exactly would you differentiate an authoritarian nationalist communist regime like Stalin's Soviet Union from a fascist one like Mussolini?
>how would you differentiate a Juche state like DPRK from fascism?

You don't.
See pic.

>my specific flawless and imaginary brand of fascism has never been tried!

This. Its clesr his idea of sparta is gleaned from the movie 300. He also hasnt read anything about the workings of italy and nazi germany

>status quo
You're fucking joking right? Can you say that every Democratic country that has been a democracy for more than 100 years is exactly the same now as when it was started?

>capitalism bogeyman
The idea that you can take what is yours and sell it is fucking glorious and good. Capitalism has been warped and tainted by those with power. Capitalism is evil, for the most part now. So I'm gonna chalk this one up to your ignorance of the word "inherently".

It depends what qualities of each you want. If you want just the Socialist policies, then you've got a Democratic Socialism. If you just want fascism with democracy, I honestly don't know how that would work.

“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”
―John Maynard Keynes

This is the best answer OP.

It's best to distinguish between the people with ideas listed here, and the people who became known as fascists, because outside of Mussolini there was little connection between the two.

It's best to think of the latter group as being primarily anti-communism and anti-democracy above all else, as that's really what they all had in common. Beyond this the three biggest fascists had relatively little in common. Hitler was all about race, while Mussolini and Franco were not terribly concerned with race. Franco preferred to just sit tight in Spain while Mussolini and Hitler were expansionists. Hitler was into all sorts of loony pagan mysticism stuff while Franco and Mussolini were pro-Catholic. etc.

Modern usage of the term basically boils down to "bully" as it is used by both sides of the political spectrum. Essentially everyone has been called a fascist, so it's better if you just say what you mean rather than use this essentially meaningless term. Call people authoritarians, control-freaks, imperialists, racists, reactionaries, or whatever it actually is about them that you dislike.

>Is there any good reading for the actual philosophy behind fascism?

Fascism has no rational doctrine. It's bottom-up and emotional.

It's generally accepted that franco is not fascist. the falangists were actual fascists and their momentum halted when their leader jose antonio got executed by republicans in the civil war. the falangists were still a forced to be reckoned with and contributed to the nationalist side of the civil war. however, they got folded into franco's movement and their radicalism was tamed.

>Hitler was all about race
yes
>Hitler was into all sorts of loony pagan mysticism stuff
He did have a slight interest in it since his time in Vienna but he actually didn't care for (and even despised) Rosenberg's and Himmler's really wacky ideas.

>Franco and Mussolini were pro-Catholic.
Franco yes, Mussolini, no. Mussolini only accommodated the church because he never had the power to eliminate them. Throughout his rule he constantly tried to chisel away their influence in Italy.

The rest i agree with.

>It's generally accepted that franco is not fascist.
I know that I wouldn't count him as a fascist, but he gets called one by plenty of people. It's just a side effect of misuse of the word. Salazar, Sadam, Assad and Pinochet all get thrown in there too and they really aren't that much alike.

You're right about the other things. I was mostly trying to emphasize that all of these guys were quite different despite all having the same label. With Mussolini I'd say that he was better before his brother died though.

>reaction to capitalism
Communism.
Fascism only arose with the wave of socialist revolutions and attempted revolts that swept Europe from 1917-1921

That's National Socialism. Fascism is

user's idea of an in group seems sane to me. No go zones and burning cars are pretty much exclusively the result of shitty ghettos being created by the importation of outsiders against the well of the general public as far as I've seen.
>All crushing all political organization and ipposition on the left and right is the destruction of civil liberty and free speech
I think that that's the point.
>In a word, youre a brainwashed /pol/drone
This is Veeky Forums, nobody is /pol/ unless they say they are. Treat user's posts hypothetically rather than imagining a neo-nazi writing them and they might sound a lot saner.

Even if it was intended to be glib this is actually a very good point. Political irationalism is what unites the different fascists, who as a whole can seem like a very loose collection when measured by any other metric.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart

The quickest way to get a bare-minimum understanding of fascism is this page.

fair enough, accusing people of being /pol/ is bad form on my part

Gustave le Bon's "Mass Psychology" is good too

They're antithetical, there's no middle ground because they're both based around opposing philosophies of government. Fascism is characterized in part by how it's a single movement pursuing a single interest wheras Democracy is made up of a hundred interests constantly in combat with each other. Fascism spends a lot of it's time trying to destroy internal conflict, but a Democracy is only working correctly if there's always prominent and vocal opposition internally.

A quote by itself is not an argument. Keynes is a genius but he was half wrong. Man abuses and exploits man. Not capitalism. The same abuse happens regardless of the economic ideology. What I will not argue though, is that capitalism is not used to exploit. It is. But it's the people using and abusing it that are evil, not the system. Which is why it needs intense regulation.

>All these kids who never lived under a dictatorship thinking authoritarianism is a perfect "enlightened rule" and won't lead to widespread corruption, nepotism and police brutality

>Being so cucked you're willing to trade away all your freedom just because you're mad at abdul for shagging your sister

>projecting

Why waste your time on small brain ideologies like Fascism?

It is pointless to talk to bootlickers, they are deluded and believe they will always be the boot and not the one under it. They take so much for granted. Truly there is no person more ungrateful and undeserving of freedom than the free man who longs for fascism.

you're literally making an argument akin to "guns don't kill people, people do." it seems to make sense on the surface of it but then you realize that guns can kill quickly and efficiently and without too big a mess or physical or mental effort, whereas its harder to kill people with a knife, especially killing people en masse. so in other words, the easy access to guns creates a dynamic whereby there's way less a deterrent (say someone has murderous intent but doesn't want to stab someone multiple times and watch them choke on their own blood because its too brutal, where as guns basically eliminate this) and more incentive (less physical and emotional toll), meaning more people die. Now i don't mean to go on a tangent about gun regulation (i'm neutral on it, but with the cost of guns comes with inevitable costs), the point is that systems, say capitalism, create the conditions whereby people do what we perceive to be morally corrupt.

Except guns do deter crime. Towns where gun ownership is much higher have lower crime rates than towns where ownership is lower. You don't even realize your arguments about the ease and efficiency of guns is exactly what makes them a boon for peaceful society. Because without guns, the strong terrorize the weak. Those who have experience and training in fighting rule over those who do not. A thug in a town without guns can act with impunity as long as there is nobody stronger than him. As long as his gang is afraid of him they will do what they say. But if you give every person the means to lay that thug low with a squeeze of a trigger his power comes to an abrupt end.

"God created men and Sam Colt made them equal."

>deserving
>freedom
>free man

all spooks

Causation is not correlation, first of all. The most inportant statisic is that 30k ppl get killed in the US. About equal to car crashes and higher than many diseases. Again any alleged increase in safety gained by a community comes t this cost of lives. Second all your talk of violence is nonsense. We dont live in a social darwinist utopia with muscled thugs beating people up. Ours is a liberal society that is governed by laws and the recourse to law is what keeps us from settling scores by other means such as violence or intimidation. Tldr stop pretending theres no cost to guns. Yes its cool to have one and train to use it but in the aggregate it results in many accidental or intentional death

Robert O. Paxton's "The Anatomy of Fascism" goes into the philosophies underlying various fascist movements.