/Thread, I'll be disappointed if there are any more replies Musso and Ayodolf Ohitla were constantly making shit up as they were going along. You can pigeonhole ANYTHING into being "fascist" >anti-democracy? fascist! >anti-socialist? fascist! >anti-capitalist? fascist! >anti-cleric? fascist! >anti-materialist? fascist! Etc. Worthless discussion.
humanity cannot advance or evolve or exit this planet without accepting that warfare and hardship is central to existence, there's nothing I see flawed with that just a dark inevitability or realization
current societal ideologies that embrace hedonism, infidelity, peace, avoidance, and general non-conflict are doomed to fail in the end
any civilization that embraced latter ideologies were wiped out, people who experience more conflict were usually more successful; this is just an observation of course
Fascism died after the second world war, when governments in Europe became more proactive and involved through state intervention, pioneered by necessity through the war.
Fascism was a desire for a government of men of action, those who wished to serve their country out of loyalty, not out of desire to make it big through the political machine - hence why the British Union of Fascists advocated a government without parties, and the people voting for those from their profession rather than career politicians. It was a movement of the war generation who felt betrayed that nothing changed, in Britain it was the promise of the 'Land fit for heroed' that was never delivered on.
As others have pointed out fssicsm is incredibly difficult in not possible to define as an international ideology like communism, as ironically one of the few international tenets of fascism is a rejection of internationalism, movements developed independently in different countries, with sometimes multiple movements existing too. In Britain there were the British Union of Fascists born out of the radical left, the British fascisti from the reactionary right, and the Imperial Fascist league taking inspiration from German Nazism.
"[Fascism] was an explosion against intolerable conditions, against remediable wrongs which the old world failed to remedy. It was a movement to secure national renaissance by people who felt themselves threatened with decline into decadence and death and were determined to live, and live greatly."
What's very intersting is Mosley's (Leader of the former British Union of Fascists) use of the word 'was', taken from 1968 suggesting Mosley shared the view that fascism no longer existed as a movement, and that it really did die off at the end of the Second World War.
>>673044 Again remember that the two fascist states which arose did not represent the entire movement, fascism had no economic system, national fascist movements did, but they did not share one universal system.
The Oxford dictionary defines socialism as: 'A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.'
Note 'or regulated', the means of production do not need to be entirely owned to create socialism, high state regulation (which Nazi Germany opted for), and partial state ownership (the Italian model) still both constituted socialist systems, with the British suggesting a model where private enterprise became state owned with the workers owning at least a 50% stake in any organisation reaching a certain size, the idea of it being servile to the state reminds me of a relevant quote
>35.) What is the difference between Fascism and Capitalism, since both admit the system of private enterprise?
In brief definition, Capitalism is the system by which capital uses the Nation for its own purposes. Fascism is the system by which the Nation uses capital for its own purposes. Private enterprise is permitted and encouraged so long as it coincides with the national interests. Private enterprise is not permitted when it conflicts with national interests. Under Fascism private enterprise may serve but not exploit. This is secured by the Corporative System, which lays down the limits within which industry may operate, and those limits are the welfare of the Nation.
>>673070 >Basically your country and its inhabitants are more important than that other country and their inhabitants, with varying degrees of how much better your country and your people are. pretty much every country thinks and acts this way
Here is where "ownership" becomes a semantic clusterfuck.
Do you really own capital if you are allowed absolutely nothing in way of directing it (beyond servicing the greater good of the community, or your workers)
Proxy property is not privately owned property
Fascist states were generally pragmatic in economic policy, with only circumstantial exception. interpolation and episodic mandhandling is not the same as principled ownership of capital, or proxy ownership.
Socialism as a matter of definition must have a theory of property and economy, and contrast itself with capitalism. Fascism can be best described as neither socialistic or capitalistic, as it is discernibly non-materialistic and pays no mind to the ethics of property. I was arguing that it was capitalistic in brute nominal terms, but I will say it wasn't so in substance.
>>673039 it seems really obvious to me that an Italian guy tried to remake Imperial Rome or a modern system of it, you can clearly see the imagery of it in parades in Germany
the idea of creating a system for an Empire in an ancient sense that had a permanent army working year around expanding its borders and had all the carrot on a stick tricks that made ancient Rome so long lasting
it simply lacked Traditionalist systems of blue blood families, equestrians, plebs, and other classes and replaced it with whatever the modern equivalent was which is where i'm hazy,
I can kinda see that maybe Mussolini perhaps wanted to move in that direction but couldn't just immediately implement it, but rather gradually
>>673070 >Basically your country and its inhabitants are more important than that other country and their inhabitants
I think this is a poor way of describing the viewpoint. In general, it would be most accurate to say that fascism, or really any nationalistic group doesn't consider its country more significant than others, but prioritizes its needs and those of its people above other countries.
>>672863 >genuinly flawed ideology Fascism is entirely based around the strength of the own nation and the domination of weaker countries, you can conclude that perpetual war or the the perpetual ambition for war is inevitable which is bad since it has only two outcomes either the state defeats pretty much everyone (which is unlikely) or it simply loses.
>>673013 >any civilization that embraced latter ideologies were wiped out Uh, but so were the ones that embraced the prior, and the those that have seen a lot of conflict but are more successful are so due other factors such as being an economic power house for example
>>674017 >Francisco Franco in Spain Authoritarian conservative government >António de Oliveira Salazar in Portugal Authoritarian conservative government >Pinochet in Chile Authoritarian conservative government >Fucking Baathist like Sadaam all over the goddamn middle east Authoritarian 'Arab socialist' government
To clear it up for you Nazism = Fascism Fascism =/= Nazism Authoritarian rule = Fascism Fssicsm =/= Authoritarian rule
What about those reigimes was fascist? For the the large part they ruled and maintained themselves through traditional structures in society, and performed no major upheavals of society, with the exception of Saddam's nationalisation of the oil, if anything Franco and Salazar were Reactionaries with loyalty to the church wishing to see its power restored, Franco going as far as restoring the old monarchy.
How are these governments fascist at all based on the criteria outlined in that post, from what I can tell you haven't read any of those thread, or done any basic reading into ideology, and you just use fascism as a loaded term to refer to any reigime seen as oppressive or Authoritarian, was Lenin a fascist then? Were the wartime govemrents of Roosevelt and Churchill fascist ones then?
>>674093 You've clearly read nothing about fascism if you gneuimelh believe it's about domination of Wesker countries. Yes it was based around the strength of the nation, but not relative or in relation to others. Fascism overall was a movement designed around national renaissance, to revive the nation and achieve effective autarky, indepdence from international finance. The only reason you assume it promotes war is that the only two states where Fascist govemrnet were established were two nations which saw irredentism and expansion as key to their national rebirth and restoration, and the concept of perpetual war only came about as the result of Hitler's foolish economic policy which would have ultimately led to a crash without continual capital injections through conquest, even Italy had set expansion goals revolving around the Mediterranean, constant war is never mentioned. While fascist movements in countries such as Sweden, Belgium, the USA, and Turkey never encouraged war, and the British Union of Fascists even promoted pacifism only to fight in defence of their own country, going as far to suggest they would support Multilateral disarmament if the opportunity ever arose. Nazism does not define the entire movement, just like a communist will and should argue the Soviet Union does not define communism.
>>674093 >which is bad since it has only two outcomes either the state defeats pretty much everyone (which is unlikely) or it simply loses
the same can be deduced from a pacifist society, they can hope everything remains peaceful and no one goes to war with them or someone inevitably gets into a disagreement with them and does in which case they will be unprepared
>>674236 Well, if the only two fascist states in existence saw it as their duty to dominate the surrounding weaker states for their own survival then we have little empirical evidence that any other hypothetical fascist state wouldn't have acted the same way, therefore I rather stand with my position that war is crucial for fascism >>674248 The key here is that the fascist state is the actor and not just passive bystander, of course everything can be reduced to either "live or die" >>674260 No, not really, are you sure you aren't just a butthurt fascist advocator?
We're descended from both peaceful and warlike men. Every one of our ancestors was successful in passing on their genes for different reasons. You can't make a meaningful statement about the collective personality traits of your ancestors when you know almost nothing about their circumstances or how they dealt with them.
Sure, maybe your ancestor from 10,000 years ago was a stone-cold badass who lived for war and passed down his genes because he was too great a soldier for anyone to kill him. But maybe a few generations before him, your ancestor was a proto-hippy who was never into the whole violence thing, and passed on his genes because he was out gathering berries and smoking weed while the rest of his tribe was getting themselves killed in wars over retarded bullshit.
>>674302 >Well, if the only two fascist states in existence saw it as their duty to dominate the surrounding weaker states for their own survival then we have little empirical evidence that any other hypothetical fascist state wouldn't have acted the same way, therefore I rather stand with my position that war is crucial for fascism
There is empirical evidence in the programmes produced by parties such as the British Union of Fascists, their economic programmes are radically different from those undertaken by Germany (programmes that made war a necessity to the survival of the Nazi reigme), not to mention Fascist Italy existed for 18 years before entering the war in 1940, and in those 18 years only a single major war was fought in Africa against Ethiopia, and this alone can't be taken as evidence of war being key to fascism since African Imperialism had been accepted by all the Great Powers at the Congress of Berlin in 1880 to actively encourage African imperialism. But again making the generalised statement that fascism relies on war, when fascism was an ill-defined ideology, that developed based on national requirements doesn't stand.
>>674542 Considering the Labour government of 1945-1951 took much of their economic policy and applied it(their leader proposed his policies while still a minister in the 1929-1931 Labour minority government) you cant' totally discount such works, and ignoring the writings of a party just because they never reached power is discarding evidence just because it doesn't agree with the narrative you're producing. The argument was never over practical fascism, but the ideology as a whole, and as I've already stated it is impossible to define fascism based on the governments of Hitler and Mussolini alone, owing to fascism being an anti-internationalist movement developing independently on a national basis.
>>674352 >We're descended from both peaceful and warlike men.
if there were any peaceful men who have actually managed to survive they were being protected by warlike men which is morally reprehensive or bleeding their societies dry trying to pay people off delaying the inevitable
you simply can't make the argument that peaceful men evolved by themselves because every region of the earth that has people living on it has had a recorded conflict on it as well and recently at that
Thread replies: 45 Thread images: 9
Thread DB ID: 516956
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.