Why do so many people think that national socialism is a form of fascism...

>unironically advocating for an ideology that has been tried and failed every time

>a country losing a war means that the ideology that country is based on is bad

Reddit get out.

It does since the ideology was inherently combative.

It doesn't because the country that employed it was weak to begin with, and it would've lost a war regardless of the ideology.

Thats the point dummy. If Italy wasn't fascist it wouldn't have waged war in the first place.

So if the USA became fascist and conquered all of its enemies, fascism wold be a successful ideology? That doesn't seem like a good test for an ideology, testing it based on what country chooses it.

>USA became fascist and conquered all of its enemies
seems to be pretty successful to me along with Israel

>He thinks fascism is a single ideology and not a worldview

"Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth … then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity... From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable."
From Il Duce

Spare me your hypotheticals. If an ideology plunges itself head first into self-destruction because it has an absurd value system it's not very sustainable.

>Spare me your hypotheticals

Says the ancap, whose ideology is entirely theoretical.

I'm not that poster so you're going to have to defend your position on its own merits instead of lashing out at phantoms.

Italy (the prime example we are discussing) would not have plunged itself into war had Mussolini not been in charge, and plenty of fascists (Italo Balbo being most notable) would not have gone to war and would not have allied with Hitler. Plus even Mussolini knew Italy needed more time to prepare, he was just overzealous when France was defeated.

So why did the fascists allow Mussolini to consolidate nearly unlimited executive power and lead them into self destruction? It's almost as if part of fascist ideology and practice is the exaltation of a leader who commands unquestioning authority because he, as fascist rhetoric suggests, has an almost 'mystical destiny' with his people & nation.

Because people are addicted to that asinine 'right vs left' political world view. It allows all arbitrarily defined "right wing" ideologies to be grouped together for convenience and talking points, and same with the "left". No, seriously, go onto /pol/, a lot of them hold views that would be described as very left-wing but they like using right-wing style talking points and see themselves as 'right-wing' for no reason other than aesthetics and group-think. You will find un-ironic "libertarians" who support closed borders and protectionists trade policies and liberalism, and other such weird things. I guess because they still like Ron Paul even after liking Trump, despite the two mixing as well as oil and water.

Not everything that happened in Italy at the time was directly connected to the fascist ideology. Political events happen and people seek power all the time regardless of ideology, and while the consolidation of power by Mussolini may have constituted 'fascism', I dont think the logistical and practical failures of Italy during the second world war can be attributed to the ideology.

>fascism is a Marxist-inspired ideology.
t. Friedrich Hayek

You can't divorce the central role of a "leader" figure in fascism from the ideology, that's a massive part of how fascism expressed itself. If you keep jettisoning these aspects of fascism that were responsible for its failure you're not arguing for fascism anymore, you're arguing for something else. Like some imaginary "reformed fascism" that only has a nebulous existence in your own head.

It seems to me that a lot of ideologies of today can only exist in a liberal society. Once revolutions such as the French and American ones created a liberal societies 'of the people, for the people', well, it created the sense that 'the people' own the shit and traditional ways of doing things like with monarchies and the church either bend to the new world order or be eliminated.

So fascism is just an expression of a liberal society that wants to 'take back' their property from whatever it is that 'took it' from them, its just that fascism involves putting trust in a powerful strongman that's 'on their side' to do it. And so does National Socialism.

Basically commoners create a liberal society, then complain about a liberal society when some of them become powerful and influential and some of them do not, and then trust a strongman to 'reset' things, and then they go back to liberalism once the dictatorships end (or degenerate into a hell-hole in North Korea's case).

not an argument.

How is that 'not an argument?' You're trying to distance fascism from its own failure by shifting it off onto Mussolini himself which is a fundamentally flawed way of looking at Fascism because of the primacy of "The Leader" is an inextricably important aspect of the ideology itself.

>lowercase fascism vs uppercase Fascism
This is the apex of newspeak

Truth
>Hitler hated shitty modernist art
You
>Hitler hates art

You are illiterate.

>Why do so many people think that national socialism is a form of fascism?

Americans.

iam both

some of it might be redditors who stuck around after the election. I have to say I was pretty surprised when I saw people on /pol/ arguing for a basic income.

Do you unironically support paramilitaries like Blackshirts and Milices?

>Mussolini denied that race even exists
He referred to Slavs as subhuman.
>Fascism is about everyone regardless of race
He wanted Slovenes and Croats wiped out.
>Fascism promoted progressive movements and art
Fuck no, most progressive art was seen as degenerate.

One of the biggest flaws of fascism that it's not even a defined ideology, Mussolini either kept changing his mind on everything 24/7 or was simply a pathological liar who was ready to say anything just to keep everything rolling. He switched stances frequently and gave conflicting statements about the economy, state, etc.

>this guy who wasn't actually a fascist is the representative of fascism
Maybe, just maybe you could pick up a biography of Mussolini?
He was as much a believer in Fascism as Stalin was in Communism.

>Fuck no, most progressive art was seen as degenerate.
You're retarded aren't you? Mussolini was a political progressive, fascism was his ladder. He should have had more time.

Keynesianism :^)

There's no discussion to be had if you're just going to arbitrarily pick and choose what Fascism is to suit your fancy. I'm not going to argue against an imaginary form of fascism that only exists in your head where you simply cherry pick whatever you like and ignore or dismiss whatever you don't.

>has no idea what he's talking about
>terrible reading comprehension
>calls other people retarded
Go back to your safe space.

Not him but didn't Strasser want something more like a oligarchic council leading the country? I think they would elect a central figure to "represent" the country, but it's still not the same as all power concentrated into one person.

If you mean his early life he was kicked out of the Socialist organizations for supporting the war as a form of accelarationism.

Wasn't he a socialist just because his family was? He struck me as someone who just wanted power and when it looked like socialism wasn't going to succeed in Italy he decided to make his own thing.

Yes, his father was a socialist and something of an anarchist. Mussolini jr. just wanted more power.

Then you call that Strasserism to differentiate between it and Nazism & Fascism instead of attempting to dismiss the actual expression of Fascism as it happened as "not actual fascism" because there were some theorists not involved in the government that disagreed.