How did fascism go from a movement that was spawned out of abstract art to banning it...

How did fascism go from a movement that was spawned out of abstract art to banning it? It's kind of ironic and silly if you think about it

no idea but god damn that's aesthetic

That's because fascism and national socialism are two different things.

It didn't. In each country it took root, fascism took a unique form. It's worth noting that fascism does not have a definitive intellectual spine the way Liberalism, Marxism, or even Reaction do. It had thinkers, but not one of them can really be considered the spine of the movement. So each movement was building off a very generalized notion.

HItler being autistic and Mussolini playing along with his autism.

Mussolini was an opportunist, and the futurists had precisely zero appeal to the average Italian. This is also why he made up with the Church and gave them the Vatican City.

fascist =/= totalitarian
stalin, hitler, mussolini, franco, are totalitarian dictators who's flavors of despotism get their own names.

>National Socialism
>Fascist

Even you split hairs fair enough to make Hitler not a fascist (which is the iconic example of not seeing the forest for the trees), the fact remains that fascism took a unique form wherever it took root. Compare the ideology of the fascists in Austria to the ones in Italy for an example.

About 70 million dead people give or take.

Italian Futurism

>aesthetic
Can everyone please, for the love of God, stop misusing this fucking word? It is NOT a synonym for beautiful.

my dictionary says otherwise

Kill yourself :)

I hate fascism but futurism is great. Nazi aesthetic is garbage though.

>Fascism will always be remembered as the ideology of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco

>It will never be remembered as the 3rd position between capitalism and communism, where the interests of labor and capital are subordinate to those of the state

Because it was never a viable alternative to either, nor "the" alternative to either.

Sounds like you might be retarded. I'm of course using that word with its original definition, which is to mean slow and backwards.

>muh reasonable centrist 3rd position
It was tried and failed get over it dumbass

even if it wasn't viable, it was by far the most significant attempt

fascism was totalitarian everywhere it took root. its ideological underpinnings were deeper than a simple policy agenda; a huge theme of all fascist movements was 'revitalizing the nation' and bringing everything in service TO the nation. It sought to eliminate the private aspect of society and move it into the service of the public which is why you see fascism either co-opting or replacing traditionally private clubs with state-controlled ones (the party oriented youth groups being the most famous example).

I fail to see how any fascist nation could end up being anything but totalitarian since the primacy of the collective (the nation/people/state) over the individual is such an integral aspect.

I'm not defending fascism, but you could say the exact same thing about communism

No aesthetic is in relation to view, look, or in certain cases beauty. IN RELATION TO being the key operating phrase. Aesthetically pleasing would be the generic way to use that word.

For example, something can have a soviet bloc aesthetic, but that very rarely means beautiful. And you wouldn't say, "Yo, that peacock is aesthetic," like the retards on that sight if you see a pretty bird.

You. Dumb. Fucks.

America is a communist country

It's obvious to everyone except you that when people say "this is aestethic" or something similar they're using it as a short for "arstethically pleasing" or "beautiful."

I still venture you're retarded, but this time I'm using the modern definition of "mentally challenged."

It'd be nice if it was just a meme, but you dumb assholes moreso just don't even know what the fuck the word even means, nor how to use it, and then celebrate your own damn ignorance. You're a prime example.

>don't even know what the fuck the word even means
Meaning is defined by usage. In this case it rather seems to be you who's ignorant and/or slow.

...

By taking a nuanced and unique word which doesn't truly have a synonym, and ruining it by dumbing it down into one for which there is already a multitude of words for?

Well bravo!

Words change meaning over time. If the old definition truly is unique and necessary then another word will change to mean that or another word will be invented to fill the void. Language is at no risk of being ruined.