Define Fascism

user, again, do we really want to play this game?
Do I have to upload for the nth time all the screenshots of surveys of socialist places showing that faggots and trannies and freaks like that make up like 20% of those movements?

My best: far right revolutionaries.
Since they are not conservative, they are revolutionary. But I find Hitler's movement more far right as Mussolini's, the latter who started as a socialist and wasn't so much of an ethnocentrist. Correct me if wrong.

I base this on the following books:
- Our Political Nature
It defines the far right as ethnocentrist and the far left as anti-ethnocentrist; meaning exclusion in the first, and incorperation and nonexistence of ethnocentrism in the second
- The Anatomy of Fascism

To a lesser extent:
- Predisposed
- The Righteous Mind

The idea of revolutionary vs conservative came from a Dutch book covering conservative thinkers, and based on "The Anatomy of Fascism" I think it is a good fit, since both Hitler and Mussolini used paramilitaries and violence to gain power, though both did seem to make use of existing power structures

I think in most cases the way we classify ideologies results in social constructions, which might be useful but might also not reflect reality, so hence I look for biological interpretations - which a few of the books I mentioned do. Those biological underpinnings are only part of the picture, and it has limits: I don't see how psychological quirks or biological quirks could explain primitivism.

When it seems that threat bias, big five personality, mate value, upper body strength, can explain how right-wing and left-wing ideologies develop quite well. The moral foundations theory is useful as well, though in that case we need to reduce it to something smaller - the moral foundations seem to develop out of cognitive and biological traits that we haven't discovered.

I'm also hoping for research in mental disorders, there is some consensus that very mild autism and very mild schizotypy exist in the healthy population and research has shown that people with more maladaptive autism and schizophrenia/schizotypy, have cognitive quirks, such as those on the autism spectrum thinking more logical.

authoritarian populism

(Cont)
People high on openness are more prone to psychosis, a charasteristic of schizophrenia, and tend to be more creative and liberal.
There was at least one research that claims that creative people see the world differently, so from what it could follow that this shaped how they see the world ideological wise as well.

If somebody is curious about some I wrote I didn't mention all my sources and could give them if necessary - though I don't have them all on the device I'm currently on. I admit that some of this is speculative science and thus does not reflect consensus science and might turn out to be wrong.

(Cont)
I see I made several typos, sorry for that. Here some sources:
- From the Bedroom to the Budget Deficit: Mate Competition Changes Men’s Attitudes Toward Economic Redistribution
- The Ancestral Logic of Politics: Upper-Body Strength Regulates Men’s Assertion of SelfInterest Over Economic Redistribution
- Threat bias, not negativity bias, underpins differences in political ideology
- Bodily attractiveness and egalitarianism are negatively related in males
- Spiritual but not religious: Cognition, schizotypy, and conversion in understanding alternative beliefs
- Seeing it both ways: Openness to experience and binocular rivalry suppression
- Emotional decision-making in autism spectrum disorder: the roles of interoception and alexithymia
- Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder Show a Circumspect Reasoning Bias Rather than ‘Jumping-to-Conclusions

Reminder that some of it is speculative and not consensus science. Time will tell.

Fascism is Communism without giving the means of production to a bunch of peasants to muck it up.

A nationalist totalitarian movement that was a direct reaction against both communism and liberalism.

Doing bad things.

Yea, you do, faggot.

Right-Wing authoritarianism

A system of government based on the legal reinforcement of hierarchy, valorization of authority, suppression of democracy and popular organization, and mass mobilization of society toward internal or external groups.

Conservative authoritarianism is all fascism

Hey buddy, you look rather old and your granddaughter mighty fine.
Would be a shame if something happens to her.
*teleports behind you*
Now to make sure you remember this
*puts out cigarette he just lit out i your armpit*
Nothing personnel pa
*walks away*
It's for the good of the people that you [insert action for insert name regime]

what did he mean by this?

Too much beer + long shit
>Best shitpost this month

Fascism, as should be obvious by the etymology of the word itself, is an ideology that promotes strength through unity.

According to fascist ethics, classical ideas of strength, honor and purity are cardinal virtues. Society is viewed as an organism with both material and spiritual aspects, and social cohesion is of primary significance. This focus on cohesion, however, exists in continual tension with the worship of individual heroism.

>the nation the supreme basis for a state and its people's identity; often accompanied by a sense of national supremacy
>totalitarianism; or the state as socially omnipresent
>rejection of liberal democracy in favour of one-party authoritarianism
>theoretical support for corporatism (i.e. the organization/representation of organized groups within society), with limited application once in power
>glorification of war, honour, and sacrifice for the nation-state
>a tendency towards irredentism (and thus expansionism) and pan-nationalism
>application of socialist policies (i.e. state control of industries, workers' rights) while rejecting its notions of class as key to identity - hence 'national socialism'
>generally a reaction to liberalism, communism, organized religion (apart from state/nation/leader-based cults), and capitalism
>social conservatism/traditionalism (i.e. hierarchy, deference to authority, strict social roles), but not necessarily monarchist or for the restoration of pre-modern order; hence 'reactionary modernism' as a catch-all for fascism and its affiliates

the best I can do

'fascism' is a little wonky, since it comes in many different forms (Italian Fascism, Austrofascism, Falangism, Brazilian Integralism, National Socialism, everything going on in France that's hard to consolidate as one movement)
and it's often used as derogatory term for any sort of right-wing authoritarianism or ultranationalism (similar to 'liberalism' for anything remotely left of established right-wing views in the US)

Well yeah, both are true. Fascism hypocritically/ignorantly disdains modernity while at the same time being a modernist movement. It's the same with most "conservative"/reactionary movements. They are progressive movements in disguise, looking back to a past that never existed except in fantasy, using this mythical past as an excuse to actually try to create their own preferred future.

If it's true of socialism, that doesn't make it any less true of fascism. And at least socialism doesn't hypocritically pretend to be traditionalist, the way that most flavors of fascism do.

communism realized through actual workers instead of being just this idea in the heads of ivory tower types.

Anyone who denies the connection between fascism and socalism is literally "HITLER WOULD HAVE KILLED YOU FOR NOT HAVING BLUE EYES" tier

meme propaganda for a dictatorship

(You)

There's nothing hypocritical or wrong about trying to preserve/reintroduce the best elements of the past.

>let me just ignore that Mussolini based his entire philosophy off of socialism!
>let me just pretend the fascist and communist regimes were polar opposites!

...

taking a bunch of objects and binding them together

Absolute monarchy isn't the same as fascism.
Communism isn't the same as fascism.

So is Fascism left-wing authoritarianism?
Are they liberal?

edgy Socialism

what is that thing hes holding other than the arrows?

>So is Fascism left-wing authoritarianism?
it trends left in terms of economic policy (without full-blown 'seize the means of production'), and its definitely authoritarianism

>Are they liberal?
absolutely not
as anti-commie as it is, fascism was also a reaction to liberalism

a yoke - you put over the necks of animals pulling a plow

>a yoke - you put over the necks of animals pulling a plow

whats the meaning behind this with the arrows? War and agriculture? Why does it look like the Rothchilds symbol of the 5 arrows?

Fascism is definitely a right-wing orientated political identity

>liberal
yes I know they are not liberal, that was a joke

Reactionary (as in reaction to a perceived outside threat) nationalism that defines itself based on rebirth, the elimination of internal corruption and decadence, and the destruction of external foes by any means necessary.

Dumb generalization, the word "privatization" was coined to describe Hitler's economic policies

A yoke, representing control and domestication of the population

holy shit, this might as well be the symbol for a new fascist party then

Fascism is a radical right-wing ideology that is unique and distinguished from classic nationalist authoritarians (like Salazar, Pinochet) by belief in a myth of national rebirth. That's the unique characteristic, I think its called palingenesis if you want to look it up.

People saying it was left wing are morons, it just took what was (at the time) a centrist economic platform as part of its opposition to communism and internationalism; especially international finance which was viewed as the engine of globalism.

The radical economic bits in the early manifestos tended to not happen in reality, because it was more important to keep the middle classes on side for the social platform.

Here's Gentile and Mussolini's definition:
worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

I think the 'left-wing' designation stems from the nationalization of industries, opposition to int. finance/capitalism, the glorification of workers - but in terms of nation and the proletariat, elements of syndicalism (which were rarely applied), and Mussolini's socialist background which led to some of his policies

I've heard fascism get called 'right-wing socialism', and that's not a bad assessment
the whole left-right things is kind of a mess...nationalism was seen as 'liberal' in the mid-19th century ffs

indeed, fascism saw itself as 'syncretic' and beyond that whole paradigm (at least in Italy) since the 'right' typically meant old-school conservatism and aristocracy. Fascism was instead revolutionary.

True. But again, I think the rhetoric about workers and so on was mostly just that.

I've never understood how Mussolini et al. had such a hard-on for Julius Evola though, when he was really harshly critical of mass action and glorifying the working class etc. Like I get how Codreneau and him saw eye to eye but Germany/Italy seem a bit at odds with it

the intersection of extreme nationalism, authoritarianism and autocracy. Nazism, a subset of fascism, includes all of the above as well as imperialism and extreme traditionalism

well, Hitler was just an egomaniac. He turned the Nazi party into "just do whatever I say"

>left-right
This is not so much directed to you only. The idea goes that the left and right wing divide does indeed exist as I described somewhere above, and there are several competing theories, that might get falsified or not. When I say it exist that means that there are certain traits that humans have, which can be negativity bias for example, or something as odd as more susceptibility to a certain taste (bitterness if I remember correctly), and these sort of things make the likelihood that people end up being rightwing or leftwing more likely. Another factor is the big five personality test, which I still find questionable, but it has a large consensus within the field of psychology. Those on the right tend to score higher on conscientiousness, while those on the left higher on openness.

So it is not only a social construction, it has a biological (including a cognitive) basis and that makes right/left political leanings partly heritable.

That having said, it is of course also socially (or culturally) constructed, which we cannot reduce to biology alone. But to emphasize the likelihood that you end up right or left is determined partly by your genetic make-up.

So while certain tendencies have a biological (or genetic) basis there is also ideas which do not or barely have this, and that makes it not essentially rightwing or leftwing, in the way I view it.

While I showed some research that seemingly correlates with views on redistribution, there are enough economic policies and other ideas that can socially develop and then be associated with the right or left, when they could really be adopted by both, as there is no biological bias directed us into one view or another.

I will remind again that this research is ongoing, so it could turn out to be different as we thought in the long run, but I think it is save to say that we have certain predispositions that interact with our social environment, and this directs, and ultimately shapes our ideology.

(Cont)
So there is not a genetic determinism, and from the research that I know few people believe such a thing, it is all about gene-environment direction. But to make the point once more, we have certain biological traits that make us more likely to adapt certain views.
That is what I want to share.

As I said earlier, I think it is useful to make the difference between the revolutionary (against the status quo) and the conservative right, but that might well be a real social construction.

I hope I'm not coming across as a know-it-all, I find this research very interesting and I just want to share it. And to be repetitive once more: some of what I said could turn out wrong, so if people are interested see those books and papers I shared, and come to your own conclusions.

I'll mention some other books as well: "the dictators handbook" which is more about the practical side of politics, and "big gods" which is about religion, trust and politics - some of it allegedly already wrong (the idea that Big Gods are important for a civilization to properly function)

Jordan pls go

Jordan does indeed do some research on this. That reminds me of another hypothesis about parasites and authoritarianism.
I highly enjoyed his personality lectures focusing on the big five, but I rather not listen to him when it comes to metaphysics or religion, and his stuff on the frog and kekistan are embarrassing.
Anyway I posted already too much but I am hoping someone will appreciate it and find it interesting.

based, redpilled and epic

I wish Hitler had won the war so Reddit fags such as yourself didn't exist

fascism is when my dad makes me re-paint the siding on the house even though I had plans to play digital devil saga 2 all day

do whatever i want or i kill you

Read Bardeche you muppets:
counter-currents.com/2013/09/what-is-fascism/

palingenetic nationalism tbqh

did you read his post? as he said, most of those "best elements" attempted to be reintroduced or preserved were NEVER EXISTED in the past as imagined by reactionaries. What these "elements" come down to are just dichotomies of what reactionaries perceive as "bad" in modernism and then assume that everything good is diametrically the opposite to this bad trait and therefore, given their idealization of it, assume that this "good trait" existed in the past before the forces of modernism destroyed it. Its a fantasy like religion to help explain why the world is shit, and reactionaries simply implement a bizarro world that is just a flipside of the modernism they so detest.

As silly as it sounds, he's not wrong. The Hitler Youth was a hotbed of homosexuality (led by Rohm, a raging bearmode faggot himself) before the night of the long knives purged the most blatant gay elements in it.

That's the whole point of fascism, right? Traditional hierarchy reshaped to fit modern times. This is why the Italian fascists went crazy for modern art and brutalist architecture while preserving the monarchy and upholding the memory of Rome. Meanwhile, the Germans forced women into traditional gender roles and prohibited modern art while simultaneously promoting rampant promiscuity as long as it made more German kids.

>Traditional hierarchy reshaped to fit modern times.
yeah true. but ironically the blatantly negative consequences of hierarchy such as sexual abuse were totally ignored by the fascist because they believed the hierarchy would improve society and rid it of degeneracy. then again you can argue for all the abuses of hiearchy social "degeneracy" is even worse when its sanctioned and allowed in the open.