Facism

Sounds like the ideal form of governance honestly

What you're teacher said is not really defendable but what I can say is that the republican party is more hard right now than it used to be, if you can even call it a real party anymore.

Well unless you saw it in action

And the Democrats are more hard left than they used to be.
A Republican clone of Bill Clinton with the exact same political positions would probably be called a fascist by the media.

>no freedoms of speech, expression, information, ect
>get killed if you aren't part of aryan race, western European, Mediterranean, or far east Asian
>get serialised if you have a disability or your child has a disability meaning that you carry a shitty gene (including autism far)
>can't breed with other races even if you find your waifu 4 laifu
>if you're a dude then you will go get killed fighting some sub human somewhere
>if you are a chick then you shit out babies till you die
>have to love the state even if the state is shit
>have to love the leader even though he is a right cunt
>can't be a neet
>probably get rid of luxury foods in favour of protein smoothies and lentils to ensure each subject is the the pinnacle of fitness not that it matters if you are jacked because you can't have sex with whoever you want

It's Hegelian collectivist capitalism that formed as a response to Marxism.

The democratic party is also not a real party anymore, it is in a factional struggle right now and the hard left does seem to hold the momentum there. But their politics really have amounted to defensive acts, it doesn't have to be hard left to do that
Not sure what you're getting at with Bill Clinton, you talking about his Third Way politics? Or just a random stab at the state of the media

Again. It sounds like an ideal form of governance honestly.

Look at this

realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/01/24/dnc_chair_candidate_my_job_is_to_tell_white_people_when_to_shut_their_mouths.html

...

Each to their own I suppose.

Nah. Fascism is the Hegelian synthesis of nationalism and Socialism

>candidate
again, factions

What would the woke media say about Bill Clinton?

nytimes.com/1992/06/17/us/the-1992-campaign-racial-issues-rapper-chided-by-clinton-calls-him-a-hypocrite.html

Hint:

slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/hillary_clinton_s_reverse_sister_souljah_moment.html

>being jacked to have sex with women
You're not gana make it brah

>And the Democrats are more hard left than they used to be.
Ahahahahaha. What is the Third Way or Clinton Democrats? Hell Obama had a perfect opportunity to be FDR 2.0 but noooooo

>My point being imagine getting to the literal peak of your physical and genetic self but living in a society where there are no sloots

J U S T
U
S
T

>wasting your hard fought gains on some undesirable, slooty gains goblins with no self respect
Again, not gana make it.

Do me a favor.
Go to a Democratic rally and say that "I support strong unions, a high minimum wage, but I disagree with gay marriage. Intact, strong families are important for the working class".
Or, be as hard-left as Bernie on Economics and then make a speech about the importance of being color blind and treating everyone like individuals, instead of looking at their race.

See how they react.

>muh dick
is not a good way of life.

>A Republican clone of Bill Clinton with the exact same political positions would probably be called a fascist by the media.

We already see something similar today with Trump.

I always thought that Zizek explained it quite well.
youtube.com/watch?v=FQHoGwnXpYM&ebc=ANyPxKot749owqHyY2bvHI1F2o2dXwCp8zexomlgCIon7haXe1SUOJOkbelD4QBQu1X9INLF0m7sku_xn_aBxqLUkS6Qjzl4xA

Nah fashitsm is banks backing authoritarianist pseudo-monarchists against Russia.

Identity politics =/= Class struggle

This. Good summary user

Hard to say, since the term "fascism" kept changing throughout history.

In Ancient Rome, it basically meant "strength through unity" (or so some historians will tell you). But it's used to describe virtually any type of authoritarianism or dictatorship. The reason why you see it "thrown around" a lot is because the exact nature and definition of the word is hard to pinpoint.

Fascism has been a buzzword since Mussolini's time. Even fascists didn't define it.

subtle /pol/ is subtle

Uhh, okay?

Seems like you meant to reply to the previous post because this doesn't seem to relate to the factions in the democratic party

The modern left is not about class anymore.

Except all the commies

Yes, all 5 if them.

Fascism is what happened when the right appropriated nationalism and socialism in the 1920s.

>Are the people being called fascist in today's day and age actually fascist?

Mostly aren't. Libertarians, classical liberals and conservatives in the U.S., or liberal conservatives and right-wing populists in Europe, are very obviously not fascist but they are called so nonetheless.

I blame postmodernism

As do all forms of governance when on paper.

This is true. We can see this in the UK as well. The traditional working class areas swung right wing in our recent election (poor ex-mining areas like mansfield) whilst the richest areas of the country (Chelsea in London for example) swung to the left hard.

The middle class are now more left wing than the working class becuase left wing parties have gone full retard on identity politics and mass immigration.

marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm

What part of the modern left? The Clintonian moderates? The antifa anarchists? The social democrats? The working-class unionists?

What most people forget to remember is that, thanks to the miserable abortion of a system we have, each party has dozens of demographics huddling under the same umbrella. Identity politics are extremely important for progressive younger democrat college retards, but only given lipservice by crotchety boomer pseudoliberals for easy votes.

If by 5 you mean 88,76 millions and by all you mean registered members of Zhōngguó Gòngchǎndǎng, then you are correct.

The left here unironically call the UK conservatives fascist.
This is the party that legalised gay marriage and keeps mass immigration.
The modern left is fucking retarded.

>today's China
>Communist

That's a really nice graph OP.

Fascism is literally just nationalistic authoritarianism.

It's not hard to understand.

>en.people.cn/206215/206216/7997750.html
Marxism-Leninism reveals the universal laws governing the development of history of human society. It analyzes the contradictions inherent in the capitalist system that it is incapable of resolving internally and shows that socialist society will inevitably replace capitalist society and ultimately develop into communist society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels cofounded the theory of the proletarian political party, in which they expounded the basic tenets of the Marxist theory of party building and laid the theoretical basis for building the proletarian party. This constitutes the first monument of the Marxist theory of party building. In his practical work of leading the socialist revolution and construction in Russia, Lenin both adhered to the basic tenets of the Marxist theory of party building and creatively solved a series of new problems arising in the building of the proletarian party. His foremost achievement was the creation of a preliminary theory for the building of the proletarian party in office, which constitutes the second monument of the Marxist theory of party building.

Also work on your reading comprehension, mr. Animegirl. State being communist and the ruling party subscribing to communist ideology are two different things.

last time I checked the communists were still in power
last time I checked the free trade zones were still limited to parts of the country

No fucking shit senpai

>implying Brexit didn't divide the working class coz of nationalism
>implying pic related didn't surge in the polls and the South due to his pro working class manifesto
>implying Kingston doesn't have a sizeable poor population
I mean pic related is more into identity politics but he doesn't forget about the class struggle. He also did some politically smart move with regards to Brexit desu

The one who controls big media and large companies. The modern left is capitalistic and based on identity politics. They even feel contempt for the working class.

The problem with fascism (and authoritarianism in general) is that it only works if the leader is literally perfect. If there was a way to insure that every fascist leader was infallible in every way, then yes, it would be perfect. However, this rarely pans out, and most fascist dictators are only good in a couple of areas (they are only human after all). This leads to two options: either he will run areas out of his expertise (and screw them up) or he will enlist others to assist him in those areas. If he chooses the latter, then it will inevitably lead to a corrupt oligarchy of individuals trying to sieze power for themselves. This is why fascist governments are so cannibalistic. While I know it doesn't always work out, history has proven that letting people mange their own affairs (with a few exceptions) will put people who actually know what they're doing in charge of industry. If you're still not convinced, read Plato's "Ion".

tldr; the people in businesses know how to run their own affairs better than dictators do

The left has always been antagonistic towards the working class and lower classes in general.

I'm pretty sure even Marx wrote that the Lumpenproletariat should just be annihilated by force.

I fail to view fascism as even a thing desu, or at least something that needs to be specifically defined as a thing, it just seems to be most governments already work more or less, and I don't say that as an edgy anarchist teenager either desu

Look at even a person like Trump theoretically he's controlled by checks and balances by the us government by on the other hand he has unilateral control over the nukes and the Marines and can do whatever he likes in theory with them. And that's not even a knock against Trump all of his predecessors had the same exact powers.

Fascism is here, it's never going away, it is simply the default organizing principle of governance.

>snifman
>relevant

thnx bae.

Wouldn't suprise me if this is true since americunts don't seem to have any standard on teachers

Lumpenproletariat is by definition not part of the working class.

It's the kind of people everyone is antagonistic against, except maybe for women who read about them in pink coloured books.

>Nazism=racism
>Nazism=fascism
>Fascism=racism

Why krauts riun everything

>Lumpenproletariat is by definition not part of the working class.

Yes it is.

>Lumpenproletariat is a term that was originally coined by Karl Marx to describe *the layer of the working class* that is unlikely ever to achieve class consciousness and is therefore lost to socially useful production, of no use to the revolutionary struggle, and perhaps even an impediment to the realization of a classless society.[1]

>Fascism is just nationalistic authoritarianism
Nice try. According to you, the Soviet Union, the British Empire, Cuba, Iran, and every other authoritarian state with strong national sovereignty is fascist.

Nationalism doesn't simply mean "having a state with boundaries" you fucking moron.

>In short it is between Capitalism and Communism in regards to the means of production.
1) State ownership of the means of production is suppose to be a transitory phase. Marx wanted to abolish political economy in general.
2)Fascism is literally just Keynesianism. Nothing about it is new.

I think I am pretty fucking autistic
Let me explain, I find the obsession with using the word facist and nazi really triggering nowadays, mostly because it just makes no sense to be used nowadays
How can there be nazis without a fucking nazi party? how can someone be a nazi if there is no germany nazi anymore?
Same with facism, is there even a facist goverment nowadays?
It's like entertainment and media demonized these terms so much that people just use it to excuse whatever shit they are throwing at someone
People say "oh words can change with time you know!" but I find it pretty fucking retarded that someone suddenly feels like changing "rape" to someone throwing garbage on the floor

There's clearly some confusion about fascism on an economic level. As someone who's studied economics, here's my take. Fascism is a mixed economic system that utilizes both socialism and capitalism depending on the state's will. The state will utilize capitalism if they approve of the output of the business in question. However, if they disapprove of the business, they will utilize socialism to control the market to their will. They will use their power to give favored businesses advantages while shutting down/regulating businesses they disapprove of. They borrow elememts from both while choosing neither, which is why fascists despise both systems. There's a reason they call themselves "third-position". It was not the fault of either system and I'm sick of socialists blaming capitalism and capitalists blaming socialism.

>2)Fascism is literally just Keynesianism. Nothing about it is new.

Then you can say Ussr "socialism" was just a socdem with guns too

>today's day and age
25 year rule

Nationalism generally means weighing the needs of your own people above the needs of the rest of the world. So, yes, strong national sovereignty, both geographically and legislatively, is nationalism.

>is just a transitory phase comrade trust me, I'm expert in dialietics.

I'd agree 100%. Lenin said it was the nature of the transition from state capitalism to socialism that gave the USSR the right to call itself socialist. He never claimed it was socialist. Neither did Trotsky.
As to cooperation with other socialist the Left SRs deserved being squashed.

This post is unironically woke.

wait so is fascism economically more capitalist or socialist?

This guy has an incredibly biased view of fascism. He casually dismisses the concerns of conservatives as either non-existent, or completely misguided, then immediately points the finger at capitalism like it's the generator of these problems, as if those problems can't exist outside of it. Then, he says that fascism is a right wing movement, yet admits at the end that fascism has left leaning ideals, but instead of actually saying that fascism leans left in certain areas, he says that fascism "took" those ideas from the left, as if the left can claim ownership of those ideas, and that the right has to take full responsibility for the creation of fascists.

>Nationalism generally means weighing the needs of your own people above the needs of the rest of the world

No it doesn't. Nationalism means that the state uses violence and coercion to destroy anything that doesn't conform to the current ideological manifestation of what the nation means.

E.g, if you're Saddam Hussein, you gas the Kurds, because they aren't Arabs.

Zizek never really says anything, literally every time I hear him say something he says two extremely polarizing things then contradicts them and ends up on some milquetoast middle ground.

The kurds were constantly at war with the Iraqi nation state though. They were a fifth column.

>implying Saddam didn't grant the Kurds autonomy and that they didn't have a history of chimping out in the region.

Fascists had capital enterprises, but they had to have the approval of, and be submissive of, the state. Fascists believed that unregulated industries could lead to the moral decay of the nation, and the exploitation of the consumers and workers. Not quite capitalism, and not quite socialism.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the state had no direct control over any particular industry

>fascists believed unregulated industries could lead to the moral decay of the nation, and the exploitation of the consumers and workers

What? For real? That's not even a "policy", that's just common sense.

Fascism have a state directed economy, not a state planned economy.

>Tankies for Saddam and the Ba'ath Party on Veeky Forums

Shocking. Back to your hugbox lefty/pol/.

Zizek is just "thought provoking" not a serious analyst

It's because the fourth Comintern decided that fascism meant "Anything that isn't us", and their fellow travelers picked up the term. Said fellow travelers have a lot of influence on media and academia, so the term ultimately lost meaning

>me
>tankie or /leftycuck/
Lol no Saddam dindu nuffin wronk

Doesn't that mean a violent revolution is necessary for a communist society? I mean, if the state has control, it's not going to just let go of that, and is in all likelihood become tyrannical and oppressive by nature

Well you're right. Even Engels admitted that the state is always a capitalist machine. There's no reason to think the dialectic of class struggle ceases with proletariat versus bourgeoise. That being said a state that embodies the positive characteristics of the spontaneous Soviet (instant recall of delegates, industrial democracy, etc) is a step forward in the right direction.

Exactly.

But soviet government not was very democratic (and I'm not talking about stalinist period). The thing is socialism require centralism (economic/political), and centralism necessarily require coercion of any level to ensure collaboration af all. So I can't see how communism (a stateless society) can emerge in that environment.

identity politics isn't exclusive to left or right. It's used by both parties for different reasons, meaning that it's a historical trait. If anything it can be conservative because identity groups are just another type of interest group who are using the political system to pressure parties into defending their interests or expanding their rights at the cost of others.

its not "left" then. They can call themselves "leftists" but its just a misnomer to fool traditional economic leftists into thinking they share interests with a racial interest group.

>But soviet government not was very democratic
True but that was largely a result of the Civil War and the foreign invasion.
>The thing is socialism require centralism
If you're a Marxist-Leninist (Stalinist) sure since they need a strong state to squeeze surplus value out of the workers and think socialism is state ownership+nominally proletarian party. But countries across the globe have experience the rise of spontaneous and democratic soviets.

>implying identity politics aren't just a way to distract the attention to the class struggle.

> But countries across the globe have experience the rise of spontaneous and democratic soviets.

Like this countries?