May I ask why people here dislike fascism so much?
I'm not asking it in a "FUCKING LIBTARDS" kind of manner, I am genuinely curious.
It incorporates many elements that are praised on Veeky Forums when discussed individually.
Do you despise it just because /pol/ gives it a bad reputation?
People associate fascism with national socialism.
Nazies don't have the best reputation all around.
You don't want to associate with them.
But natsoc=/=Fascism
It destroyed my country.
Much like communism, it's failed in the real world.
People dismiss it, because 90% of the time it's a "lmfao numale cucks btfo" poltardians incapable of civilized discussion or logical argumentative reasoning. Those who are not almost inevitably devolve to the very same level in a matter of several posts. Constantly spending time in a shithole for edgy teenagers changes people.
I can't reconcile my love of Vonnegut and Dostoevsky with treating people like they aren't human beings
Indoctrination from birth that Nazism/Fascism are the absolute evil and FDR was the hero of civilization.
You're probably not American OP, but we're taught every year from first grade on about the Holocaust and how WWII happened for no reason other than "Hitler hated Jews".
This results in some people having a literal gut reaction of unease when they see the Swastika or Fasces.
Not what fascism is about. Fascism is about order and hierarchy. The aristocracy of life and nature. This does not particularly imply, however, that the gifted have a "right" to treat others badly. Oftentimes, fascist movements are accompanied by deep and profound religious beliefs, like hardcore Catholicism (see Primo di Rivera and falangism or even Evola). As you are probably well aware, Christianity has quite a bit to do with compassion.
Cool, cool. Define "gifted".
Because fascism is an incoherent ideology that by it's very nature is violent and anti-intellectual - consider reading Paxton's anatomy of Fascism to actually understand what the ideology is.
The Left won the cold war. It's not surprising.
I've yet to see a fascist movement that does not incorporate some form of systematic hate and discrimination into its ideology. Even proto movements like Boulangerism had anti-Semitism at its core.
>May I ask why people here dislike fascism so much?
What are you basing this assumption on
I've barely seen any direct criticism of it on this board
Virtuous. The Greeks would define a virtuous man as someone beautiful and intelligent, physically capable, intellectual, capable of public speaking, and pious. By today's capitalist definition, a gifted person would be someone like Donald Trump, able to make enormous amounts of money. To a fascist, that isn't enough, it requires nobility. Trump is a bit far from possessing a noble nature, unfortunately.
It's an incoherent mish-mash of beliefs that came into being when capitalism was under threat.
Nowadays the term is only useful to document a trend that happened in the early to mid 20th century.
As a concrete political term the term is useless as, Italy, Germany and Japan weren't all that similar and the fundamental structure of their system's were not especially unique.
Discrimination is not necessarily bad, it depends what you want to mean by it. As for anti-semitism, well, look into the history of the Weimar Republic.
If you wish to remain unconvinced, I would read about Sir Oswald Mosley.
>or fasces
What? They're pretty prominent in American symbolism
Because liking Plato's Republic and Seneca's life choices is the most beta of beta shit, and never held up by the true philosopher kings. You might as well tell us that you prefer Latin because you didn't have to learn a new alphabet.
t. /pol/
Amerikkka is full of borderline Nazis
A valid point, friend. There are still underlying similarities that connect them all, though. The fact that they are different is because fascism is extremely specific to the country it is applied to, but that is kind of what it's all about.
t. I have no understanding of 20th century american history
I know about both, and I fail to see exactly what you mean. I had my own brief flirtation with the ideology, but at its core are fundamental contradictions which removes any shred of legitimacy from it.
I'm familiar with the Weimar Republic and so I don't know what you're implying by suggesting I look into it. 24-29 was a golden age Renaissance for Germany under the republic.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Can communism do this
Show that photo to 100 Americans, and you'll get 100 Americans who see two pillars, not fasces.
Oh, noble, so like Nelson Mandela, Albert Einstein, or Harvey Milk. Gotcha.
>The fact that they are different is because fascism is extremely specific to the country it is applied to, but that is kind of what it's all about.
Idealism.
The differences between the 3 states wasn't some conscious choice on the part of each country's respective leaders in how to "adapt" fascism - the Japs didn't even treat it as their "ideology" - it was simply an authoritarian defence of the ruling class in a time of economic crisis.
The Italians and Germans gave some handouts all the while cracking down on any attempts at organised labor and scapegoating random sections of the populace. And Japan massacred organised labor and blended its military and corporate cultures.
>m.
Can we autoban phoneposters?
I mean if that's what you define by noble, sure. I don't really think so at all though
In my school we learned about the danger of communism too. I'm not sure why /pol/ always dismisses that part of the curriculum
>shock therapy and mass privatization are features of fascism
poltardian teens never cease to amaze with their stupidity
Not much of an argument now is it
Why not? I'm all ears.
It's hard for me to look into an ideology that seems promising when every one in existence has multiple books on it that completely shit on it.
Fascism is not very Veeky Forums, its the dumbtards philosophy. It sways mass men to it by impressive, if vulgar, aesthetics and meagre rhetoric. The best kinds of people associated with fascism are those bombastic personalities with the same kind of explosivity of fascism at its most extreme, idealised temperaments - Ezra Pound, Gabriele D'Annunzio, Louis-Ferdinand Celine, Knut Hamsun, Wyndham Lewis and so on. In other words, true modernists of the most experimental, firebrand calibre.
I really prefer the austere reactionaries who saw fascism for its repulsive, self-destructive and reductive nature though. Spengler, Friedrich Reck, Jünger etc. Thomas Mann, maybe, though his offsprings moralising, Americanised liberal attitude toward Germany is off-putting and pathetic - though Klaus Mann's Mephisto is a very cogent and prescient analysis of Nazism.
The Nazis banned Kafka, Musil, Heine, Freud, Hemmmmingway, Proust, Brecht etc.
not cool mang
>miracle of chile
>fascist
It was work of economists like Milton Friedman who are textbook Classical Liberals. Fascism in actuality doesn't promote free markets and that's why the "miracle" resulted in the demise of fascism in that country.
I don't have any more of a problem with fascism than any other failed political idea. I find some of the ideas behind it quite admirable.
I just know too much about economics to ever endorse what is still, in essence, a socialist government, even if it's more an exaggerated crony capitalism than a totalitarian state. I just know it doesn't add up.
I would have no problem with an isolationist foreign policy, but militarism is pretty much the norm with fascism and there's nothing justifiable about that.
Still it's probably less shit than Communism.
Tell me then, how does your definition of what fascism means make any difference at all?
>uhuhu it uses a different economic principle so it automatically makes everything else irrelevant
No, but neither can fascism since Pinochet's entire reign is the shittiest period on the graph. Ending fascism is what caused the miracle.
Because it is the most radical form of collectivism and I am, above all, an individualist.
What if a fascist government promoted intellectual thinking?
After all I'm sure the Dictator of some Fascist country would want to show off with all his philosophers, scientists, and chess players.
>GDP is all that matters
Okay, bud.
So an ultra authoritarian police state that likes chess.
That's the best fascists can offer?
Because futurism was better and you don't even like the good fascists. The problem isn't with the movement so much as with your taste within the movement.
I don't believe that, but rising GDP is the basis on which the miracle is claimed, and if it has anything to do with fascism, it's a reaction against it.
No. Science, philosophy, math, engineering, overall being well educated.
>fascism
>the most radical form of collectivism
But right-wind ideology is rooted in emphasizing the differences between individuals (regarding race, gender, and so on) and therefore in encouraging different treatment of people based on those differences
Nelson Mandela, while being virtuous, left SA in a worse off state than before he came into office.
Albert Einstein is virtuous, but his ethnic group tends not to be.
Harvey Milk is a homosexual. That is just a personal thing as a catholic though.
None of these are unique to fascism nor are the overwhelmingly negative aspects of fascism necessary to achieve these things.
C'mon user, sell it to me.
Because it depends on dishonesty. I'm all for autocracy but prefer an autocracy to which the people submit knowingly, even if not necessarily willingly
Fundemental misunderstandings due to sheep mentality and social conditioning.
Also not literature.
You are right but it still incorporates some form of collectivism
>>uhuhu it uses a different economic principle so it automatically makes everything else irrelevant
When we are talking about economy it is irrelevant, you imbecile.
This isn't debate club. Kill yourself, phoneposter
Fascism means you never have to grow up. Your entire life, your only responsibility is to do what daddy tells you to do!
People know who's in charge, though. It's a smidge better than being told what to do by the media, don't you think? They're all smoke and mirrors. A dictator is right there, in front of you.
Yes, however. He does lie, and he even uses media to deceive where necessary, but that's politics for you.
Fascism is just a romantic ideology.
Marxisim is a science.
>his ethnic group tends not to be
Way to undercut everything else you have to say by admitting you're a bigot
It can't because fascisms "success" was fundamentally tied to it's anti-intellectualism.
Yeah I'm a bigot, and?
This is dumb. Lots of people have weird views they use as metaphors - like people having crazy rare religions - and we blink past those. Just keep talking to the user, and don't focus on that. You could yet learn something from each other
Then maybe politics itself is worthless
That realisation is part of growing up my dude, well done.
>Christianity has quite a bit to do with compassion.
Yeah, those faggots from La Falange sure know a fucking lot about compassion.
cos it's spooky af, my property.
>just don't focus on what your conversation partner actually says and believes
Can I get some of that dank ideology?
The whole point is: fascism's got everything bad democracy has, but in even higher doses.
>but that's politics
No. That's democratic politics. An actual leader has mandate. The law of lèse-majesté is what's required, a policy of: 'It will be done, because the king has ordered it'.
When the media and the people are powerless, they're also free to do as they please: no need for these information-Haijins then.
It's the opposite of ideology, babe. But hopefully you'll break through some day.
>they're also free to do as they please
Yeah, it's not like they're gonna be tortured and/or murdered if they do.
While we're on the same boat I don't think that is sufficient enough in this day and age.
The opposite of ideology is a different ideology. Don't oppose, transcend.
Those who do not wish to pursue activities harmful to their nation need not fear. The problem I think, is that it's very easy for that harm to be defined by someone who only wants total control. It is safer to opt for religiously based rules
And kill off all the heretics.
It's a turn of phrase, asshat. I obviously meant 'not ideology'. But Marxism is the wrong outcome of materialism. If you wanna transcend, try reading some pre-19th century history.
Like?
To clarify, it is not directly a theocracy, you won't have your head cut off for being a homo. What is being implied is that laws ought to be based off the divine truths outside man and not the dictator, who is a fallible human.
>laws ought to be based off the divine truths outside man
God I can't wait for this pretentious alt-right fad to end
It's so fucking cheesy
What could they possibly, as in physically possibly, do to warrant that - when political agitation is denied them? Maybe go out alone in the street and start shouting at a security guard who won't let them into one of the king's properties? A simple arrest would cover public nuisance, honestly. If they stepped it up to attacking and trying to kill the security? Then maybe death or exile, yeah.
But that doesn't sound like the kind of person I'd even be okay with one of my friends being friends with, nor with having at my parties or in my house - why would I want them in my country?
As an outcome, it's far less likely than your fascism, I'll admit that. But it's necessary we reach that - because fascism is always unstable when not in a vacuum.
but it does equal small f fascism. Even fucking Richard Evans says that it was a phenomenon that grew out of Italy, and that the racial aspects in Germany or the religious aspects of Franco's spain are tiny deviations in the spectrum.
You fell right into his trap, you fucking idiot. He picked those examples specifically because they fit your definition in the most loose way, and then by displaying bigotry to discredit them, you set him up with a perfect strawman.
Every single historical fascist regime incorporates the "other" as common enemy.
>Believing the scientific socialism meme.
I actually like Marx, but it's pretty obvious that Marxism is not a science.
It is successful if the country does not face war. Spain, for example.
Through the secret services and their shady deals with big corporations, backdoor access etc. USA could be considered a malicious fascism.
It's not exactly a strawman. Pointing out how 'blacks and hispanics' is just a U.S.-prog stand-in for 'workers and peasants' does go some way toward showing that the USA is still a communist country.
Ok
I think that all ideology fails. Free market principles are fatalism, communism is hellish and fascism is bland.
Do you even know what the word "bigot" means
Strasserism and the left wing of Fascism aren't like that though.
Best answer
fascism is built for the plebs, otherwise you cant get in power.
"Do you know why you are a miserable NEET? ISLAM"
You are just pointing out THE defining tactic for gathering up people into a cohesive force of what they believe is good. This is used in all political and even religious efforts, from Antifa opposing the right, to libertarians opposing communists. To say it is only limited to fascism is fallacious.
I don't like fascism because I don't like being told what to do.
The idea of being assimilated by force into a culturally monolithic entity does not appeal to me.
Don't get me wrong I would love the Queen to have her power back but it's rather hard to conceive, and I don't think fascism will always guarantee that we have a road paved for monarchy in the first place. It is damnsome risky
It's not really a coherent political or economic model beyond just repeating slogans and worshipping the state and dictator. The Nazis didn't even have an agreed upon economic system before getting into power.
Yeah man its another thing when you get fucked in the ass to get that white guilt removed from you, speak up!
>I don't think fascism will always guarantee
I think fascism-to-monarchism very unlikely. My preference - advised by Rome's example - is republics as a path to monarchy (so-called). All I want at the moment is some kind of institution or popular (but consciously elite) movement which advocates and outlines the reasons for this change, so that when its necessity becomes obvious enough, our republics will be ready to institute it.
To fascists, economy and money are not the point of it. People are, and the economic system does not matter as long as it benefits the people. Also, it's rather arrogant for a populist to assume that he knows a lot about economics. This he is aware of, and employs real economists to do a good job.
>you won't have your head cut off for being a homo
Fascism has always been pretty rough with the homos. Specially Christian fascism (like Federico García Lorca getting shot in the ass for being a homo).
"Simple arrest"? Fascist atuthorities tend to do way more than simply arresting, just because it's fun to do so and nobody wil stop them.
A sexy idea desu. But as far as I know, that change came to be from a decaying constitution, worsened by Sulla, worsened by Caesar, and then worsened by Octavian. It was no conscious decision, but a selfish move towards more centralised governing. Funny thing is that it wasn't that bad an idea
History* has been rough with homos
It's the strongest and in many cases only defense against Communism. Any ideology which doesn't address the jq is useless.
t. "Ex"-libertarian
dailycaller.com
Nick Land spells it out nicely. After WW2 the two remaining powers of the world each used fascism as an ideological boogeyman to consolidate their power and abuses of state. We live in a quasi-fascist state while convinced we are the antithesis in America.
A designated lifelong autocrat - whose kingdom is not in a vacuum - won't just let idle torturing go on. They'd want to avoid attrition for the course of their life, and through inheritance, to arrange things in such a way as will enable their children also to manage a stable, cohesive kingdom. But yes, punishments on the whole would be more severe.
There's a quote that goes like this: 'Every city in the world has the death penalty for stepping in front of a bus. How do we live with this draconian, irrational, and instantly enforced rule? By not violating it.'