If fascism is a good thing, why do most countries which experienced it absolutely hate it?

If fascism is a good thing, why do most countries which experienced it absolutely hate it?

bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-24014501

>According to the poll, 55% of Chileans regarded the 17 years of the dictatorship as either bad or very bad, while 9% said they were good or very good.

Only 9% of Chileans have a positive view of Pinochet, one of the most beloved figures on the "alt-right". That's pretty damning.

The fascist dictator of Spain, Fransisco Franco, is also hated by the majority of the population in Spain:

theguardian.com/news/blog/2006/jul/18/post181

In contrast, countries which experienced communist tend to feel a lot of nostalgia for the old days.

Romania:

romanianjournalist.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/survey-66-of-the-romanians-would-vote-for-ceausescu/s

Hungary:

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2010/04/28/hungary-better-off-under-communism/

Pinochet was not even remotely a fascist, he was a neoliberal.

>If fascism is a good thing

It's not, whoever told you otherwise?

He was both. Fascism isn't an economic system, it's a process of violently reinforcing social hierarchies and limiting democracy to protect the interests of the ruling class.

So apparently the communists were fascists, only the ruling class was different.

>If fascism is a good thing
But it's not. Try going outside sometime.

>So apparently the communists were fascists

And that's why they call it horseshoe theory.

>The Guardian
>The Guardian
>romanianjournalist.wordpress.com
>Poll that says only a minority "disapprove of the move away from communism"
>Pinochet and Franco were Fascist

Horseshoe theory is a spook and your definition of fascism is a gross oversimplification. Where do things like hero-worship and nationalized competitive enterprise fit into your definition?

fascists were a dictatorship and communism ended up as a dictatorship, the horseshoe theory is basically true

According the Guardian 98% of the US wanted Hillary Clinton

>fascism isn't an economic system
It actually is. It's syndicalist economics combined with autarky and corporatism.
>le fascism means militarism and autocracy
No. Only fascists get to define fascism, and they don't define it like that.

Communists wiped out the ruling classes in their countries. Fascists defended the privileged classes and entrenched interests through violence. They are polar opposites.

>t's a process of violently reinforcing social hierarchies and limiting democracy to protect the interests of the ruling class.
>to protect the interests of the ruling class.
are you literally retarded? Do you bealive that statement "fascism supports inequality" is true?

He literally thinks that Marxists are allowed to define what fascism is. They aren't.

They are, but their definition is wrong and comes from the works of Internationale in 1920´s and 1930´s when they overestamitaded support of fascists among little businessman and thought it means Jewish Industrialists are going to take over country when Fascists win. (this happened in Germany when Shitler betrayed the National Socialism tho)

95% of all humanity through recorded history existed under some form of dictatorship, I guess literally every single one of them was the same thing right? Might as well call it the pyramid theory and have democracy on the top and everything under the capstone be the same bullshit.

No, they literally aren't. The definition of fascism isn't describing the laws of physics, it's describing a social construct. So the ones who created this construct get to define it the best. The Marxtard's definition is triple wrong because fascism isn't conserving the status quo, it's not a conservative movement, it's a progressive movement, aimed to unite the classes.

That's oligarchy/monarchy

No, that's retarded. Before the enlightenment effectively every society since the Greeks was some kind of dictatorship

Thats my point, but i imply that that definition comes from overestimation of burgois influence on Fascist parties by Soviet union and by Shitler selling industry to the Jews (rich) + implying that Shitler was a fascist, i think this is simply caused by the fact fashista is easily pronounced unlike something like natsista in Russian

Fascism has absolutely nothing to do with syndiacalist economy, because under syndicalism all firms are collectively owned by the workers.

...

not all fascists supported corporativism tho, general Gajda supported "You own what you controll" (like bakery) and rest should be owned by state, especialy industry while agriculture should stay in private hands.

>Fascism has absolutely nothing to do with syndiacalist economy
You're saying that because you're retarded enough to believe someone like Pinochet was a fascist.

Uniting the classes is an incredibly conservative prospect you dumbass, because it means covering-up class divisions through mass mobilization and nationalism without actually erasing these divisions.

Fascists are sometimes more open to limited social democracy than liberals, but that's only because fascists recognize that prioritizing economic growth over all else can lead to instability.

>Uniting the classes is an incredibly conservative prospect
It would be a conservative movement only if classes were united beforehand you communist cretin. Is sub-100 IQ a requirement for becoming a communist?

>Fascism isn't an economic system,
this kills the Mosley

>yet another idiot who ignores the "democracy" part of social democracy and thinks it's purely an economic system
Suicide please.

Not remotely, because communism involves the overthrow of the ruling class and the abolition of classes.

A fascist movement really exists to crystallize class hierarchy through some kind of bottom-up pressure, gaining the support of the ruling class in exchange for violent protection of their property. Italian fascists, for instance, began as strikebusters in the Po valley who helped local elites beat the radical labor unions. In Germany, the conservative establishment and much of the business community saw the Nazis as a trustworthy bulwark against the communists, who had launched a botched insurrection about a decade earlier and were now growing fast as a legal political organisation.

Fascists ITT don't like this definition because they incorrectly identify the ruling class as a few thousand powerful Jews, thus denying the reality that power is held by the tens of millions of elites who run our economic and governments. This systemic model of fascism is the most logically consistent and universally applicable.

From this understanding, we can identify many other popular bulwarks of power, such as the Orange Order or the Ku Klux Klan or the Tsar's Black Hundreds were proto or Ur-fascist movements, which really only differ from the Brownshirts or Iron Legionnaires in that they failed to capture state power. Literally the only reason you'd deny this is because they didn't use the word "fascist".

Unity means dog shit, dude. Literally all it amounts to is an oppressed class allowing elites to fuck them over.

Do you really think it's progressive for a slave and a slave owner to be "united" in the drive for higher cotton yields?

It's very funny that you call me stupid when you can't recognize the function, and expressed purpose, of class unity -- to lubricate the gears of class society and protect private property.

>they incorrectly identify the ruling class as a few thousand powerful Jews
That's still less autistic than the Marxist definition of ruling class which is more or less "the guys who own factories and shit".

We don't give a shit about your definition. No one takes marxists like you seriously.

The purpose of class unity is to have society function like a human body. Fascists are saying that the brain is the most important part that organizes and directs things, but a brain can still die if the heart dies or if the lungs die, so the brain has to take good care of them. Whereas commies just go full retard and claim you can only achieve a perfect body by killing the brain.

>muh oppressed vs oppressors narrative
>muh hierarchy inherently means slavery
Nigger nobody is catching on to your autistic newspeak, give up.

Fucking how? People who have money are the politicians and the backers of politicians. In every country on the planet, moneyed people are in charge. All economic policy, even in so called socialist countries, is meant to increase performance on the global capitalist market.

You don't, but you're a fascist, and you don't have any worldview beyond an impotent irredentist anger at the perceived course of society and have no toolset for analyzing global conditions beyond "certain groups I don't like are trying to take over the world."

I'm presenting a much more developed and coherent way of understanding your ideology tan you yourself can provide, and this makes you angry because you don't like being schooled and smacked down by somebody you hate.

But that doesn't work because the ruling class doesn't do very much thinking. Usually they employ technocrats, who have much less material investment in capitalism, to run their companies and factories and governments for them. This has been the case since feudal times.

Class unity definitely helps the body of capitalism function, but only because without some kind of force and propaganda and bribery passive and active resistance by the working class harms capitalism.

Not money, nigger. If Marx said money defines class that would actually make a lot more sense, but Marx defines ruling class as people who own the means of production, just to retcon and give some sense to his equally autistic and baseless alienation theory.
To put it short a football coach earning 10 million a year for telling niggers how to chase a ball is "proletarian" since he's selling his labor and doesn't own production means, therefore he's a member of the oppressed class and not getting his fair share, while some stupid fucker owning a tiny sandwich shop and employing his retarded wife as part time helper is "petit bourgeoise" and therefore a member of the class of oppressors. It's a tiny bit more complicated than that but the general gist of it is correct, Marx's class theory seriously is THIS retarded and out of touch with reality, created just so he could justify the labor theory of value and subsequent wage alienation.
It isn't any wonder that the original fascists were people who used to be Marxists but eventually realized what niggerbrained truckload of horseshit Marxism is.

How does this contradict the horseshoe theory?

The differences between theocracy, monarchy, dictatorship with a communist ideology, dictatorship with a fascist ideology and oligarchic or dictatorial republics involve shenanigans amongst a tiny elite, it affects the rest of the population about the same. They are all very different from the liberal democracies we have today.

Someone with the same ideology as me who believes that my rights should be violated is a bigger threat than someone from a different ideology who would speak up and oppose that. I'd rather argue with someone over an electronic meme dispensary than have to deal with a bunch of thugs sent over to bash me until I do what they say.

At best you can argue some ideologies are better at causing a society to liberalize, however one look at history and it is obvious that socioeconomics is a far bigger factor.

>irredentist
You're like a random word generator. I'm not sure what you're even trying to babble about but you clearly have no idea what irredentism means.

You are literally incapable of operating outside of the marxist box/marxist framework so you'll be forever wrong and anyone who calls you out on your retardation becomes a fascist as that's the only way you can maintain your belief. So there's really no point in arguing.

Also, Sieg heil and all that, you pseudo faggot.

...

>You're wrong because I say you're wrong
>I cant explain why you're wrong, you just are

>Unity means dog shit, dude. Literally all it amounts to is an oppressed class allowing elites to fuck them over.

This can apply to any system whether a democracy where money from the upper class takes precedence to communism where tye state allows only one party and the party bosses are the new elite.
>It's very funny that you call me stupid
It isn't funny at all, you are stupid.

This would be more relevant to the real world.

If there were an anarcho-capitalist extremist state they would operate like any other dictatorship rather than apply anarcho-capitalism in its abstract form, just as communist extremist states operated like any other dictatorship.

This dichotomy between theory and practice seems to be something people have difficulty understanding.

I explained full well why you're wrong; you're a Marxist

>he thinks the "centrists" aren't just as murderous as the "extremists" in practice
Tell that to Yugoslavs or Iraqis.

>irredentist anger at the perceived course of society

chili now is the second-richest south american country thanks to Pinochet, it doesn't matter what biased the grauniad polls say about it

>1960s
Chile poorer than Romania and Hungary
>Communism implemented
Chile richer than Romania and Hungary

q.e.d.
also pinochet wasn't a fascist

You're getting at why most Marxists recognize that the USSR was still a capitalist society

Bro 90% of what you guys do is yearning for the good old days when being a white American guy came with more tangible benefits. That's very irredentist.

Here's how it seems to me:
Both fascism and communism replace the existing political elite with a new one. The difference is that fascism tries to work with the existing economic elite, whereas communism tries to replace the economic elite, too, with a new one.
Also, fascism openly proclaims the virtues of hierarchy but promises that the non-upper classes will be taken care of. Communism proclaims the virtues of equality and promises that the non-upper classes will no longer be non-upper classes.
In both systems, the people who genuinely care about equality get screwed over or worse, and the new elites are at least as bad as the old ones.
It should be pointed out that in about half of known cases fascism, too, eventually destroyed the nation's economic elite although inadvertently - by getting the nation into ruinous wars.

>Do you bealive that statement "fascism supports inequality" is true?
Not him, but isn't it obvious that the statement is true?
How could it even be argued that fascism doesn't support inequality?

>Bro 90% of what you guys do is yearning for the good old days when being a white American guy came with more tangible benefits. That's very irredentist.
Jesus christ just look up the definition of the word you moronic donkey

I'm not American you mental midget. And you're confusing irredentism with reaction, further proving what an uneducated mongoloid you are. Irredentism is about lost territories.

I'm not even american, fuck off you dumb nigger faggot.

>inb4 he claims he was just trolling

Irredentism, as in the desire to reclaim lost power or prestige, is just a typical element of reactionary ideology.

If we're going to call fascism a progressive movement aimed at uniting the classes, then we should be impartial and also say that communism is all the wonderful things that its supporters say it is.
I mean yes, it is genuinely interesting what supporters of fascism say fascism is and what supporters of communism say communism is. These are fascinating theories and one can enjoy studying them in depth.
But when it comes to figuring whether these are worthwhile ideas to apply to actual politics, then it does not matter what these theories claim. What matters is what happens in practice, in reality.
And in practice, fascism is not a progressive movement that aims to unite the classes.

>lost power or prestige
Lost territory you idiot.

Except that's not what it means, otherwise "Italia Irredenta" (y'know, where the word comes from) wouldn't have been irredentistic, which is fucking ridicolous.

In practice you're a lolbertarian retard hemorrhaging his milquetoast centrist faggotry all over the thread.

>as in the desire to reclaim lost power or prestige
What drives people to be this stubbornly wrong? Literally five seconds googling "oxford dictionary irredentism" proves you wrong.

Fuck are you talking about, their entire platform was making Italy more powerful and prestigious

>I'm just pretending to be retarded

>Horseshoe theory is a spook
Horseshoe theory is obviously accurate. Horseshoe theory doesn't claim that far left and far right are the same, it claims that they are the same in certain very important ways.
If you really think horseshoe theory isn't accurate, you're probably a far leftist or a far rightist who wants to believe that his political cult is better than the other political cults.

>We don't give a shit about your definition. No one takes marxists like you seriously.
If you're a fan of fascism, then this comment of yours is profoundly stupid. Who, other than sociopaths and idiots, take fascism any more seriously than they take Marxism? Fascism is just as bad as Marxism, maybe worse.

Ah, here are the usual insults devoid of argument.
I will correct you in this regard, at least: being neither far-left nor far-right does not make you a centrist. I use "far-left" and "far-right" as convenient widely-understood terms, but in reality the political spectrum is not one-dimensional.

>being neither far-left nor far-right does not make you a centrist
Actually it kind of does by definition.

How the fuck can you not recognize that "let's take back some land to regain status" and "let's take back our monopoly of power to regain status" is the EXACT FUCKING SAME social dynamic?

>this is your brain on marxism
Just admit you were wrong and you wanted to say reactionary instead of irredentist. And move on.

Only if you think that the political spectrum is one-dimensional, which it isn't.

Left-right dichotomy can refer to more than one spectrum.

user you can't just make up new uses for words

That's what they do all the time. Marxists somehow managed to redefine the word bourgeoise from "city people" to "capitalists who own the means of production". I used to think it's just a deliberate attempt to police language, but I'm starting to believe it's a sign of some underlying mental disorded. Perhaps it's autism.

I will spell it out for you, otherwise you'll just kep going embarassing yourself.

On the 17th of March 1861, Cavour proclaimed the Kingdom of Italy. At that point in time, Italy didn't control Veneto, Istria, Friuli, Dalmatia and Trent and Latium.

During the 3rd War of Italian Indipendence, Italy conquers Veneto. Afterwards, it gets Rome. At no point here does Italy get Trent, Friuli, Dalmatia and Istria.

In this time, the rhetoric of "Italia Irredenta" is born and, wih it, irredentism. This rhetoric argues that Istria, Dalmatia, Friuli and Trent should be part of Italy, not because they used to be part of the political entity of Italy born in 1861, but because the population there spoke Italian and was of Italian culture. At no point does lost glory and lost prestige factor in.

You can't do anything except call people fascists when they call you out on your marxist class based view of the world so go ahead and go fuck yourself, pal

From what I understand of the term's history, it wasn't Marxists who redefined it away from the original definition. Marxists may have added the "who own the means of production" part, but "bourgeoisie" meant roughly "the capitalist middle class" before Marxism.

Who did I call fascist? I said "if you are a fan of fascism".
Also, I'm not a Marxist. It just so happens that I'm also not a fascist.

Urban middle class. They didn't have to be capitalists.

Then stop implying people who call out marxist bullshit fascists or implying so. I don't have to be a fascist to call out commie faggots living in university campuses.

Because the international media and academia of the fascist countries are run by leftists, who constantly shill the idea that fascism is bad in order to protect their Jewish masters and shore up neoliberalism in their countries so the wealth built up by the "evil" fascists can by sucked dry by globalists.
Communist nations, on the other hand, are mostly still run by Jewish communists (ex. Putin), so the communist brainwashing already put in place by the Jews is let be.

Sure, patchily and inconsistently. It's still a simplification.
Example: Let's say we're looking at the "populist"-"not populist" spectrum.
Which side is "left" and which is "right"?
Communism and fascism are both populist in nature, so clearly they both fall on the "populist" side of that spectrum.

I didn't imply anything. This board often has fans of fascism come through, so when I phrased my comment, I wanted to cover both the case of the person I was responding to being a fascist, and the case of him not being a fascist.
Any "implying" being done was purely in your mind.

>Because the international media and academia of the fascist countries are run by leftists
wut
>Jewish communists (ex. Putin)
wut

True, I guess shopkeepers and the like qualified.

Yes, it was "purely in my mind", that's you mentioned fascism, right? Dishonest little shit the phrasing "if" was intentional so as to deflect from the fact you intentionally brought fascism into discussion and attempted to align it with critics of communism. I never said or implied being fascist so bringing fascism into the discussion could not have any other intentions and you admitted this by claiming you were "covering both bases" in short you believe I'm, and everyone else, is a fascist until specifically refuted.

Vladimir Putin is an ex-KGB agent born to a Jewish mother.

Fixed that for you

>an ex-KGB agent
Yes, which doesn't mean he is a communist or even that he used to be a communist back in USSR days.
>born to a Jewish mother
Proofs?

I'm a critic of communism myself. I'd never deliberately imply that criticizing communism makes you a fascist. Far from it. It's just that there are many fascism-sympathizers who come through this board, and many of them use your abrasive style of commenting. If you're not a fascist, that's great.
Keep the context in mind. This is Veeky Forums Veeky Forums. We have retards from /pol/ come here every single day making the same retarded arguments in favor of fascism.

Neoliberalism is predicated on inclusive political institutions, something a dictatorship cannot have.

>Being this insecure
>Being this unreasonably fuck-ass mad
Geez you fascists sure get angry when we insult your little Reich dontcha ?

>The Guardian is bad
Would Breitbart, the Daily Mail, or the Mises Institute be better?

98% of germans in 1939 thought jews were bad, why are all jews bad?

no

>Fascism isn't an economic system
What the fuck am I reading?

I'm fascist and I don't care about german "reich".

Probably not but Guardian is British, that alone relegates it to toilet paper tier.

As opposed to the toilet tier US media?

Speaking as a Brit, can confirm, our press is fucking garbage left or right (though the right does seem to have a higher quantity of rags)