What are Veeky Forums's thoughts on this book? Are fascists left-wing?

Do explain how a state-run economy is right wing then, my fine young, currently unemployed, political science graduate friend.

/thread

Fascism tried to break way from the false left/right dichotomy as a Third Position, but if it must be placed in it, it's authoritarian centrist.

This.

Just bought this book

No but Hitler was left wing. The only reasons nazis are associated with the right is so the right can be associated with stupidity and evil. Nazis cared about animal rights and had envirtonmental initatives. It was a Bernouts wet dream minus all the eugenics stuff.

>Today's world sees the term "fascism" deployed as an ambiguous ad-hominem, containing no more descriptive value other than "I strongly oppose and despise this politician and/or legislation." The left decries the right as fascist, the right answers that it is the left who are in truth the real fascists. And both are to some extent correct.

Yes, that's true...in today's world.

During the 20's and 30's when fascism was a vital ideology it was unambiguously considered right-wing by all.

Neoliberalism is an economic concept and does not refer to left leaning politics. Please consult a dictionary before using words you don't know.

Which is more fascist, the left or the right?

fascist economies that have existed still had industries, a market, bourgeoisie. IBM, Volkswagen, Fanta. Huge military industrial complex. Individualized rights based on nationalist sentiment. Right v left isnt a scale of authoritarianism you dense fucks

You might like this overview of how the word has changed throughout time.
He discusses different historical schools of thought on fascism;fascism as a right and left wing movement ;fascism as a form of totalitarianism;
fascism as a disease,etc.
He also discusses left-leaning influences on fascism thought,although he rejects it as an leftist movement.

Here's an idea, let's look at the central tenants of Fascism and examine how closely the modern liberal correlates:

>Authoritarian

Some modern liberals favour censorship, but some do not. What they do not favour is strict law enforcement, harsh punishment for criminals, paramilitary organisations, or anything similar.

In other words, calling modern liberals 'authoritarian' in the same way one would call fascists 'authoritarian' is to have completely lost sight of what 'authoritarianism' actually means.

>National Syndicalism

Modern liberals tend to favour free market with tax contributions used to pay for public services. This is not national syndicalism.

>Anti-liberalism

So no.

>Anti-Marxism

Some modern Liberals are sympathetic towards Marxism. But it's a spent force for the most part, with next to no influence post USSR.

>Conclusion

It takes some serious mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that modern liberalism is fascistic.

What's the difference between syndicalism and corporatism?

The corporation is an all encompassing term that includes labor (which may or may not be represented by a union), capital (both tangible and intangible) and management that comes together to provide goods and services at a profit. A corporation is owned by stockholders (providers of the capital). Labor is, for the most part, employees and not owners.

A labor union is a collective bargaining unit for a segment of the corporation's labor force (e.g. pilots, auto workers, baseball players, etc.) Unions are exempt from any monopoly regulations even though they may be thought of conceptually as monopolies.

>Goldberg

>considered

And there is not necessarily more truth in their considerations than in ours.

>progressive social programs in Fascist Italy and nazi Germany

Nazi Germany pretty much brought back serfdom for the working class: Their wages were lower than during the great depression, there were forced contributions to "charities", unions were abolished (except for the state run union), the ability to strike and protest were rescinded, academia was monopolised so they could pretend that racial science was legitamate and that general relativity was bullshit, Jews were evicted from any job of prestige, there were government organised book burnings, even before the war and the extermination camp they still had concentration camps for political dissenters, all forms of artistic production was heavily censored and controlled

>Progressive

Left/right is nonsense and there are no political axes or spectra.

If you'll allow me to grossly simplify. 'Fascism' is an outgrowth of Romantic nationalism, and together with Liberalism and Marxism represents the three still living ideologies.

Romantic nationalism and Marxism both have the potential to become totalitarian. Marxism because it seeks to universalise what is actually particular, that is, their present understanding of their place in history; and Romantic nationalism which, because it justifies itself through a mythic past, must exclude that which is differentiated from it (this and not that) and reject as part of its definition foreign 'contaminants.'

Liberalism on the other hand is not totalitarian but has nevertheless the potential of becoming tyrannical by basing its political system on individuals acting in their own rational self-interest, which bases the society not on a community but on the different wills of individuals, and can in the long term degenerate into corruption and economic inequality.

>left wing
>right wing

Lol. Fucking pleb.

Most self described liberals in the 2010s are at least vocally skeptical of industry and commerce to be quite fair. The age of the 1990s New Democrats this is not.

Fascists are obviously not left-wing.

But anyone can be sufficiently authoritarian, to such an extent that the divide between left and right doesn't really exist anymore.

Compare National Bolshevism, with National Socialism for example. They are supposedly extreme left-wing, and extreme right-wing ideologies respectively, but in practice? They're identical.

They're both shit tier ideologies desu

Also the left/right dichotomy varies so wildly from culture to culture, even person to person, it's not even worth using

>They're both shit tier ideologies desu

Not gonna argue there.

Mussolini born and died as a socialist.

What did you meme by this?

>Are fascists left-wing?
Yes.

aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/fascism-nazism.html

aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/fascism_and_communism-socialism.html

>aynrandlexicon
>aynrand

>minus all the eugenics stuff

>Ayn Rand lexicon
lol

OP read this and decide for yourself:
nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

Left wing = big intrusive government = fascism

it's pretty simple actually

With a right wing ideology and literally no fucking idea about the actual definitions of words, anything is possible!

Gottfried is based. The American Roger Scruton, except he's a Jew and more racist

American political dialogue is now geared towards the kind of people who would vote instead of sleeping or going to work. Unfortunately, that demographic is mostly older people, or younger people who are emotionally vulnerable. The kind of people who either don't have anything better to do, or believe that their votes will make an actual difference in the ballot count, or are swayed enough by emotion to vote.

Therefore, politicians & 'pundits' appeal to these groups. Not the intelligent, not the educated, not the professors of economics and political science (those get Government posts, depending on which party they support). They appeal to the kind of people who comprehend news based on headlines alone, or books based on titles and/or authors.

That's why American political dialogue has degraded to the point where every politician someone doesn't like is fascist. Trump doesn't want illegal immigrants? He's a fascist. is politically correct? Fascist. Obama used Executive Action to forward Obamacare? He's not just a fascist, he's also communist.

American liberals aren't fascists, and neither are conservatives. No one pushes for a single-state, authoritarian autarky. No one pushes for a society based on an organized and integrated economic and social system, we're too individualistic for that.

We're a society of assholes, not a society of fascist assholes. Funnily enough, that's why we call one another fascists.

fascist landed on mars, better of NASA and other shitty organizations like that

Or lollipops and cakes are both "sweets" because they are sweet...

During the 20s and 30s, most of the west was still relatively free market. Obviously as that would develop, so would the political spectrum. US didn't even have social security. Now social security isn't even considered a socialist policy.

haven't read it but let me guess the arguments
>librulz hate freedums
>fascists hated freedums
>ergo librulz are fascist

are 21st century americans retarded?

in Syndicalism the industries are run by the workers and the factory owners, in corporatism they are also run by the government

yes. it's a bunch of whiney shit about how you can't smoke in hospitals any more, etc

define "retarded"

lethal syllogistic logic m8
aristootle be smile

21st century americans

>greentext

do your grandparents agree that social security is socialism? how about the unskilled workers of the third world who will work until they drop dead? finally, what about the neoliberal chairmen of the fed or the lords of finance capital, what are their thoughts on social security social security?

It either is and always will be socialist, or it never was. Socialist isn't a relative term, like extreme or radical are.

>"Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production."

legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp

Since there are no degrees of relatively, as there is no obliteration of market processes nor removal of the means of production from private control then social security and welfare safety net programs are not socialist.

Fascist is just a buzzword that we use for people who disagree with us. It no longer has meaning.

Can i save this user? i really like it

>respecting arbitrary property rights
lol what a cuck

Nah. Neoliberalism is not authoritarian at all in itself.

But as a good leftist, I will give you that neoliberalism will inevitably lead to other things, of which many can be defined as authoritarian, it won't survive without that. Laissez-faire capitalism and deregulation and so on will create social problems which will need to be solved etc, and it'll end up concentrating all relevant power in the hands of the rich. You'll get police instead of progressive social programs, probably, and in a worst case scenario, when shit hits the fan, the popular opinion will be on the neonationalist populists rather than the good old left.

Yeah, nazis were "on the side of workers" only in their words really. Kinda like, leftists be like "give them unions and rights", national socialists be like "yeah dude you're really important to us, just work now, its good for the nation, we're on your side dude".

Not identical, though both deadly and horrible.
But still, you can find those ideological differences that our most beloved meme philosopher (Zizek) likes to point out.