Are there literally any arguments that prove fascism doesn't work from a theoretical point of view?

Are there literally any arguments that prove fascism doesn't work from a theoretical point of view?
So far any confutation of it just boils down to saying Nazi Germany was a failure.
Communists always expect to not be associated with the USSR, but why shouldn't fascists deserve the same?

From a theoretical viewpoint, no, because its basically LOTR-esque fantasy. Any refutation that you could make would be smacked down by the fascist accusing you of being a cuck.

> LOTR-esque fantasy
How? There is a difference between aspiring heroism and being nostalgic of it. Fascists do the former while crybabies do the latter.

It's built on the nostalgia of a supposed greater past and bitching about how it was ruined thanks to so called undesirables.

Read Mussolini.

The reason why it failed is not because Hitler lost (although that's important to consider) its because when they put the fascist plan in place it still didn't work. Mussolini didn't get rid of the mafia and "make the trains run on time" despite what his propaganda will tell you, and killing the Jews accomplished absolutely nothing.

>It's built on the nostalgia of a supposed greater past and bitching about how it was ruined thanks to so called undesirables.
Source? Literally any fascist movement that ever existed shunned those who admired the past but didn't do anything. Tradition may be important, but it still needs to be incorporated into the modern aspects of life.

"In the Fascist conception of history, man is man only by virtue of the spiritual process to which he contributes as a member of the family, the social group, the nation, and in function of history to which all nations bring their contribution. Hence the great value of tradition in records, in language, in customs, in the rules of social life"

"Fascism is therefore opposed to all individualistic abstractions based on eighteenth century materialism; and it is opposed to all Jacobinistic utopias and innovations. It does not believe in the possibility of "happiness" on earth as conceived by the economistic literature of the XVIIIth century, and it therefore rejects the theological notion that at some future time the human family will secure a final settlement of all its difficulties."


"The years preceding the march on Rome cover a period during which the need of action forbade delay and careful doctrinal elaborations. Fighting was going on in the towns and villages. There were discussions but... there was something more sacred and more important... death... Fascists knew how to die. A doctrine - fully elaborated, divided up into chapters and paragraphs with annotations, may have been lacking, but it was replaced by something far more decisive, - by a faith. All the same, if with the help of books, articles, resolutions passed at congresses, major and minor speeches, anyone should care to revive the memory of those days, he will find, provided he knows how to seek and select, that the doctrinal foundations were laid while the battle was still raging. Indeed, it was during those years that Fascist thought armed, refined itself, and proceeded ahead with its organization. The problems of the individual and the State; the problems of authority and liberty; political, social, and more especially national problems were discussed; the conflict with liberal, democratic, socialistic, Masonic doctrines and with those of the Partito Popolare, was carried on at the same time as the punitive expeditions. Nevertheless, the lack of a formal system was used by disingenuous adversaries as an argument for proclaiming Fascism incapable of elaborating a doctrine at the very time when that doctrine was being formulated - no matter how tumultuously, - first, as is the case with all new ideas, in the guise of violent dogmatic negations; then in the more positive guise of constructive theories, subsequently incorporated, in 1926, 1927, and 1928, in the laws and institutions of the regime.'

Notice how everyone else except the fascist is an idealist even though later propaganda suggests otherwise. Notice how they see tradition as part of a growing narrative of their own history with which they have to contribute to because everyone doesn't understand tradition.

Its literally nonsense.

I feel like you're trying to make fun of Communists for assuming all criticism against them stems from the eternal Bolshevik.

>Literally any fascist movement that ever existed shunned those who admired the past but didn't do anything. Tradition may be important, but it still needs to be incorporated into the modern aspects of life.
Fancy way of saying fascism coopts the most superficial aspects of whatever traditional culture it arises in before proceeding to implement a mass sterilisation railroad industrial abortion war economy orientalist pseudoscience jewkilling hellscape

Fascism stems from a complete and total incomprehension of the structures that govern the world. It's basically trying to use its own inherent contradictions (free will being exalted under typical romanticist modes while living under an authoritarian dictatorship living little individual liberties) and some "inspiring virtue". Obviously this is the kind of reasoning that only gets more and more absolute until it turns into a little pile of sadness that vanishes in a poof of historical common sense.

>tfw i'm just even more convinced it's beautiful

Then there is no hope

That's because you cling to ideology that gives you a sense of manhood meaning without understanding that that meaning can be derived from more pertinent and honest sources. Fascism pretty much dies out with time (unless you're part of an edgy undercurrent of thought promoted by young, lost white men on /pol) - it's the capitalists who have been winning and continue to win. Consider that and realize the only way fascism can take root if it's in a capitalist guise and ding ding ding you have a very possible future development of American politics.

Gimme my PhD now.

Do you find meaning in anything you do in your material life?

Economists write about the dangers of the corporatist side of fascism. Having your government dictate economic policy and goals to companies is Venezuela tier bad, so that's a place to start.

How about corporations overtaking states? Maybe you should put off your Randism for a few minutes.

I'm well aware that "Fascism" is industrialized "tradition" that's been "mass-produced" in so that the entire state can be mobilized, which in its time took the form of war. Fascism in its time had a purpose which it does not have for us now, so our "being romantic for Fascism itself" is different from their "being romantic for the great past" or whatever as a reaction to the spasms of modernity. If Fascism (of the Mussolini kind) was a product of its time then i'm well aware we cannot just resurrect it without participating in the same globalized market economy that has assumed near total hegemony.

Doesn't mean that it isn't aesthetic as fuck. Yet the fact that it is futile makes it all the more *beautiful*, because what is more beautiful than striving for something you cannot have? Fascism answered the fall of monarchies (that was not going to go back) and the rise of communism with a third answer of their own. In that sense, Fascism itself is greater than our mere yearning for *historical* Fascism, so peering into the spirit of Fascism is like facing a double loss. They had an *answer* that we do not seem to have the strength to create. It's all very Nietzschean.

Why specifically ask me about the "material"? I mean if I get into one of my "materialistic" frames of mind I do get the sense that what I do is "meaningful" but it's because of a narrowing of the scope of my "expectations". Now I find friends and family meaningful but this isn't quite part of "material" life because the meeting of minds is something *immaterial*. Yet there's something missing yes. Don't you find that something is missing?

inb4 anons trying to refute me by means of "psychoanalysis"

I'm just giving the OP what they asked for. Marxist theorists also criticize a fascist economic model for being unviable and unsustainable.

>unviable and unsustainable.
Well the thing is that a debt-driven economy of any kind is founded on a theoretical promise for remuneration. Now fascist economies took this "promise" literally and promised the people remuneration in the form of conquered territory. On the other hand we take this remuneration in the form of displacing it into the future in terms of time and we have a system where you can theoretically "cash out" at any time if you're getting uppity (but not everyone at the same time!). So *theoretically* what we're doing is unviable and unsustainable but it isn't because it works, to which the "fascist economist" (ofc there was no one model of fascist economy but let's just use the term for the moment) would reply that if they were successful in war then yes it would be viable and sustainable.

>Fascism is fueled by the desire to conquer the other while we are fueled by the desire to conquer our own futures
I mean the most developed countries have a TFR below replacement rate, and it makes total economic sense because you can have two children or you can have one who will get it all. He/she is fueled by the absence of his/her sibling that never materialized. It's a form of self-cannibalism really.

Maybe its sustainability lies in the incentives for demographic suicide.

Why isn't this in ?

reading this post one immediatly gets understand two things:

1. you do not understand the difference between national socialism and fascism

2. you are either outright ignorant about history or simply swayed by your personal ideology. (this is perfectly coherent with the blatant marxist propaganda which infects this filthy board)

"your" opinion is thus completely devoid of value.

fancy way of saying absolutely nothing and still try to pass it as a valid critique of fascism

I find it funny how you people speak with absolutely zero tought behind the words you utter (or write, in this case). tell how the italian fascist or the german national socialist regimes restricted the liberties of their citizens (so not the jews for instance) in any way, making them antagonists of free will

seeing how you do not in the slightest understand that capitalism is part of fascism, your opinion can be discarded too without worries

jesus it's incredible how ignorant and downright retarded the critics of fascism are, those sad brainlets aren't even aware they are speaking words that are not even theirs, and still believe themselves to be indipendent free-thinkers

I only have one word for y'all: LMAO

>I find it funny how you people speak with absolutely zero tought behind the words you utter (or write, in this case). tell how the italian fascist or the german national socialist regimes restricted the liberties of their citizens (so not the jews for instance) in any way, making them antagonists of free will

You just missed my point entirely. Free will doesn't exist. Fascists state exalt total and blind obedience to some self-proclaimed authority as if it were a moral virtue when it's actually just cowardice and comfort.

And why should it be nonsense?

I didn't miss the point because you didn't say anything about what you wrote now in your previous post. you can't expect other people to read your deranged mind and understand what you think, learn to express yourself.

now go back to your being brave and daring in masturbating to trans loli pony porn in your mom's basement instead of being a cowardly comforted member of society

it isn't. these people are just so stupid and delusional that when they cannot make sense of something because of their intellectual limitations they simply claim those things to have no sense at all. notice how "his" "conclusions" at the end of his post are completely unrelated to the text above.

literally pic related

>Having your government dictate economic policy and goals to companies

This happened everywhere on Earth until the 19th century.

Randians never heard of mercantilism or history for that matter.

>tell how the italian fascist or the german national socialist regimes restricted the liberties of their citizens (so not the jews for instance) in any way, making them antagonists of free will

jews were previously citizens, so they are an example of citizens quite dramatically losing their civil rights in the instant they lost their citizenship. however, even the assumption that ethnic germans were unaffected is wrong - both theoretically and practically.

many legal civil liberties were abolished in the Reichstag Decree.
>Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [habeas corpus], freedom of (opinion) expression, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications. Warrants for House searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

lots of communists got arrested immediately following this. now you might say that they represented a legitimate threat to the nation, but they were dealt with by removing the inherent civil liberties of all citizens and were arrested for things previously protected under law like publicising their own political opinions.

before and after this, though, illegal and legal methods were and continued to be used on conservatives, traditionalists and clergy as well, if that makes you question the ethics of the laws more actively. one example I can think of is Friedrich Reck, author of Diary of a Man in Despair, who died in Buchenwald.

most churches and private clubs were brought under nazi control or banned. every youth organisation other than the Hitlerjugend was banned and its members forced to join. writers were banned from writing, etc.

basically, as a recognised citizen, you could do anything you wanted to, unless it was deterimental to the nation (such as propaganding communist ideas) and you could be investigated if the need arose.

all in order it seems, we can conclude that there is not a single reason not to have such a government if you are a not race-traitorous white person in your country.

There are only two races in the world, the rich and the poor.

i consider having a nazi government detrimental to the nation (see: starting dumbtarded war and losing - destroying germany's economy, culture, youth, prestige and nationhood)

i am a homosexual. would acting upon this inclination be race-traitorous? i can see a case for it being damaging to the nation, but if citizens like me could be sent to concentration camps it would not be in my interest for that government to exist. it would also not be in the interest of frederick the great, in that case.

the problem is that i think the existence and power of the nazi regime was veritably detrimental to the nation. its suppression of civil rights was protection of its own existence from acts that i would consider patriotic or otherwise noble - such as standing for your own religious convictions against worldly powers or writing beautiful works of art or saving others from being murdered at the risk of your own life. nazism in my eyes represents almost everything counteractive to what is good, noble and worthwhile in the world.

Klaus Theweleit. Also Anti-Oedipus. Fascism "works" because it's a psychological process projected onto politics. It also "doesn't work" for the same reasons, because it is continually breaking down when the line between psychology and politics gets blurry and the bullets are flying.

Now, if you're a Space Marine in the world of Warhammer 40K the fact that the Empire of Mankind is in a state of perpetual collapse and the Leviathan Hive Fleet is closing in is actually okay with you. You're a Space Marine (or something else), that's what you do.

So basically it depends on who you ask. Fascism probably is one of the inevitable political responses to industrial capitalism. Conceptualizing the state as nothing more than a war machine arguably makes sense. Especially if you're victorious (or have a bent for martyrdom).

This, can't wait till people realise communism is the only viable, scientifically and history proven ideology. We will finally share our wifes freely but don't worry, I don't need yours as observing is enough for me

>From a theoretical viewpoint, no, because its basically LOTR-esque fantasy
The most successful civilizations in history have been relatively far-right and authoritarian.

1- your first statement is pointless, because anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge and analysis capabilty knows that the war was going to happen even if germany hadn't started it.

2- of course your being a faggot makes you think that supporting such ideology would be against your interest. that is one interpretation. a better one could be that homosexuality is a mental disorder linked to all sort of other mental problems. statistics and studies show that faggots are more prone to depression, addictive behaviors and all-around unhappiness, so in conclusion a government that seeks to cure your condition instead of enabling it could arguably be the best thing for you.

3- its suppression of "civil rights" was a need born out of a state of all-out war, and these circumnstances were almost identical in the US, USSR, and probably most other countries actively engaged in WWII. also funny that you mention religious convictions since most religions would see you killed as a degenerate sinner (which you are) as an act of defense of their religion convictions. about beautiful works of art.... that's debeatable. you can still write an infinity of those without propagandizing values or ideas deterimental to the race, the nation, or the people.

...

>lowest number of casualties imputable to the regime
>fine equilibrium between socialism and liberalism
>resurrected the economy of a country in disastrous and desperate conditions
>even did this not by stealing from other countries or exploiting colonies (Libia and the horn of Africa were definitely insignificant) but through an efficient autocracy
>functional administration and no infightings
>balanced industrialization, monumental public works, remediations, improvements and archaeological excavations
>rapid innovation on all fronts
>restored peaceful relations with the Church
>wonderful flowering of the arts, culture and philosophy
>great respect for artists and intellectuals, in some cases even patronage
>respect for local and past traditions and yet with a constant look into the future
>respect and consideration for women
>tolerance for ideas opposed to the regime and all in all a pretty good freedom of thought
>great aesthetics

This is objectively the best dictatorship ever existed.

shhhhh don't present these degenerates with facts, they only care about their freedom to get punded in the ass by a horse or to watch "their" wife fucked by a pack of niggers

Sybaris was a city famed for its wealth and culture. But when a tyrant (Telys) arose, he incurred the wrath of neighboring cities by disrespecting supplicants at Apollo's altar, thus Sybaris was destroyed and the inhabitants sold into slavery.

The tyrant viewed the political fugitives as personal threats to himself, so much so that he jeopardized the state to protect his own interests, and in so doing provoked a war that would destroy the state. A tyrant always puts his own interests first, that is the difference between a classical tyrant and a Princeps on the Augustan model. We have to be realistic here, basically no politician is trustworthy enough to choose the latter. Look at our President, he is destroying our alliances, inching closer to war on all fronts, and we have to remember that what he does are no longer the antics of forced celebrity, but a reflection of our people in the eyes of the world.

with all your propaganda you forgot this thing that's called reality, where support for the mussolini regime dropped drastically and he had to start several wars to regain popular support but ultimatley failed miserably
So i guess the people didn't really approve of your "utopia"

>all these convoluted projections

Fascism is literally just socialism for non-retarded people.

Nazi Germany was not a failure. Nazi Germany failed because it took 3 of the world strongest military powers to bring it down, not because of its fascist policies. Hitler saved the German economy, completely got rid of unemployment, and created a great standard of living for Germans from 1933-1941. Losing the war should not effect how fascism operated during the time period.

>Hitler saved the German economy, completely got rid of unemployment, and created a great standard of living for Germans from 1933-1941

Woop-de-doo, a glorious EIGHT year period.
Now tell us about how his methods for accomplishing those results were completely unsustainable.

we don't know what could have been, and what kind of society Nazi Germany could have been 10+ down the road after a possible WW2 victory. National Socialism was just small-scale communism for ethnic Germans, it could have possibly sustained itself long term if propaganda convinced Germans to work for each other and their people

Nazi Germany was shit.
Hitler bet everything on military power. Mussolini worked on culture, progress, local administration, economy.
If there wasn't war, we would consider fascist Italy far greater than Hitler's maniacal arms race.