Is Fascism Machiavelism in the purest form?

...

How do you figure

need a quick rundown, what's that about?

Machiavelism, Fascism or why is Fascism Machiavelism in purest form?

Is this even possible to accomplish? Fascism is collectivist if i ain't forgetting something, and machiavellism focuses in personal gain through cunning methods?

Just go read the prince. Its a really short book.

I'm reading the prince, that's why this thread caught my attention.

Fascism, at the risk of painting with a very broad brush, is right-wing collectivism. I guess from the perspective of The Fuhrer or Il Duce it was a cut throat political game like described in The Price.

Hitler was right wing, nor Mussolini, people that call Fascism right wing are illiterates

Fascism is not right-wing
We're third positionists

Fascism seemed undoubtedly right-wing in Italy. It stressed natural hierarchy & the primacy of the state and obedience to the leader, it allied with traditional conservatives in king and church, it used socialists and communists as scapegoats and legitimized violence against them.

No Machiavelli understood that the state of exception should not become the norm i.e. that a dictatorship's function is to return to the. status quo ante. Schmitt cites Machiavelli in this regard.

To properly understand fascism you need to keep in mind that its a system that does everything it needs to get in power. Inherently fascism can be either left leaning or right leaning but most fascists tend to go toward right wing tactics since the masses are much more appealed by it than left wing tactics. Fascism isnt right leaning because its a right wing system, it uses right wing tactics because thats what they find works. They of course mix it up with socialism too because that also has some widespread appeal.
Being enemies of communists doesent mean much since fascism always needs an enemy. Communists are just an easy escapegoat. Terrorists, foreigners or anything else works just fine too.
Itd be a really stupid mistake to think that a left leaning fascist cant be a fascist because he isnt using right wing tacitcs. No, he is simply using left leaning tactics because he finds that is the way he can get into power and keep it.

The problem I see with this is when you move beyond historical fascism, real world examples, you risk muddying the waters and diluting 'fascism' to mean any kind of populist authoritarianism.

The aspects unique to fascism like a pervading sense of decline or corruption, and an impetus to 'revitalize the nation' and rid it of enemies both foreign and domestic, a reaction against cosmopolitanism including both 'bourgeois liberalism' and 'communism', the legitimization of violence against political enemies, a sense that traditional political channels are broken or too weak, the alignment of the party with the nation itself--all these things lent itself to the right-wing because its interests are centered on the nation exclusively and always at the expense of 'the other'. Left-wing politics tends to be more 'open' or global oriented (focused on the rights of "man" in general instead of the particular citizen) so it seems there is a significant inclination for Fascism to always end up on the 'right' side of the spectrum.

So stalin was a left leaning fascist?

yes

t. Trotskyist

*Stalinist

I believe fascism is third position just like national socialism, both of which can take a more leftist or rightist approach depending on the country, now stalin was not a left wing fascist, know why not? Because fascists wouldn't just destroy the monarchy out of nowhere and abolish private property like the communists did, they are corporatists.
Now, after reading a little resume about "Machiavellist Fascism" I think I have an idea about it and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work just like Fascist Italy didn't. (taking in consideration how their military "Might" was shit, their industry was smaller than japan and their political scenario was a mess even after mussolini.)

t. never read any of his work

Machiavelli argued in favor of viewing religion and politics in terms of utility. Whether he lived under medieval catholicism, national socialism or marxist-leninism, he would feign support for them to establish a moral order among the general populace and propaganda to support his actions and hide his true motives.

I think looking at the 20th century he would see many of his theories playing out. He would view the democracies as republics with reasonably competent governments, he would view Stalin as good at staying in power though his system was less competent due to the purges and overbearing power, he would view Hitler as a tyrant who had risen to power in an otherwise decent republic, that the sudden moves at the beginning of the war which surprised the French republic show the strengths of a prince while him receiving amphetamines from a quack doctors, interfering with his generals and excessive risk taking show the potential weaknesses of a prince.

What he thought of their particular philosophies? I am sure he would love talking with Marx and Evola though I don't think he would be swayed much either way.

No. Jesus Christ, read a book you fucking brainlet.

Machiavelli, in The Prince, nostly describes how to gain power as an individual in general. This can be done in a fascist country, in a liberal one, or in a communist one.

The Prince was intended as a political survival guide in 16th century Italy, when political assassinations weren't uncommon. It's intention isn't (primarily) to help someone acquire power and influence, but to keep it.

No, Ayn Rand An-capism is.

You have no understanding of fascism whatsoever, even Mussolini's fascist doctrine presents why his ideology is antithetical to the left, fascism rejects class struggle and promotes class collaboration (an idea that came from the romans), it upholds the capitalist mode of production (private property and commodity for exchange value and not use value like soviet socialism),
I can see a little of Carl schmidt in the last paragraph you wrote about needing an enemy, but it completely ignores historical context, I have nothing whatsoever against fascism as an ideology (the italian model), however it is undisputably a right-wing ideology.

>Any form of libertarianism or anarchism
>Fascism

Nice try commie.

I didn't say it was Fascist. I said it was the purest form of Machiavelism.

Right-wing libertarians equate liberty with private property, to maintain their ideology they would rather side with fascists than leftists, just take a look at /pol/, or read Hayek, Hoppe or some shit

Fuck you. I wasn't implying they were Fascists. I implied the opposite.

Doesn't capitalism actually restrain technological progress for the sake of profit?

The opposite actually.

Did the oil companies stop the commercialisation of water-powered cars though