What are some good arguments for/against fascism?

It's not capitalism or Marxist socialism

If you can't come to power without resorting to intimidation or violence, you're probably not that good to begin with.

>>1760744
Agreed. Communism is bad. They've hardly ever won a nation through democratic election unlike the NSDAP.

>>1760755
NSDAP didn't win in any real sense though. They came to power by burning down the parliament.

>>1760774
National Socialists aren't fascists, they're National Socialists.

>>1760744
But that's the entire point. The Fascist doesn't seek to be elected whatsoever - it's all about the will triumphing over all; the assertion of force is what solidifies the movement.

Make problem when dictator is dying.
it results in struggle among his closet people, and
destabilizes the country.

Liberalism has failed. The system that prizes individuality over all other things is doomed to ultimate collapse due to a lack of social unity and the clashing desires of individuals.

The problem, at its heart, is the system of values that liberalism is based on. Personal liberty is not an ideal in and of itself because its full application (ancap) is anti-liberty.

Thus, a new system of values - a collectivist system of values based on those with a common history and social code - is all that remains. The national state has already arisen - the twentieth century saw to it that empires have now collapsed. Every attempt at one has failed.

On the back of the national state, we have a perfect opportunity to create an alternative set of values that make us more cohesive, equal, and happy.

The cons of fascism is that it's mostly a bunch of spergy assholes who end up taking power and killing everyone that they don't like, which is the problem with all modern authoritarian systems.

>dude, let's allow that guy to have power of life and death over us lmao
>I am willingly putting on the chastity cage right now!

If tyranny is inevitable they might be the lesser evil in some situations. It might be possible to temper it down to nationalism over the years, assuming they don't drag you into a pointless war.

>>1760774
>the nazis came to power after the burning of the Reichstag
>the nazis burned down the Reichstag

We get it, the nazis were bad. Doesn't mean you can just make shit up.

I don't like being told what to do

>>1760786
That's when you transition to constitutional monarchy.

>>1760798
this

>>1760744
>If you can't come to power without resorting to intimidation or violence, you're probably not that good to begin with.
Like the French Revolution, I know, right?

>>1760798
>a bunch of spergy assholes who end up taking power and killing everyone that they don't like, which is the problem with all systems.
Fixed.

>>1760979
Uhh yeah, last time I checked, the French Revolution was terrible.

File: 1472139645992.jpg (195KB, 1200x920px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1200x920px

>>1760693

pros-looks cool

cons-its a failed ideology for goober nerds who are 2edgy to just LARP as communist instead

>>1761008
>looks cool
looks like a tacky display at a theme park

Pros: It's not Capitalism/Socialism

Cons: It's not Absolute Monarchy

>>1761126

Fascism is pretty much absolute monarchy with some cool military parafernalia and god tier aesthetics.

>>1760693
Fascism violates individual rights by definition.

>>1761165
boo hoo

>>1761165
boo fucking hoo

File: pol.png (175KB, 700x646px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 700x646px

>>1761172
>>1761183

>>1761165
Omg boo hoo stupid idiot

>>1761195
Boo shiteating hoo

>>1760983
well, with a proper system of checks and balances that happens more rarely, but point taken

>>1760693
Pro: Your country can be strong
Cons: Most fascist states collapsed when it leader died, becose his generals/advisors wanted to get on his place. Absolutistic monarchies dont have this problem, but most monarchs are avarage or bad leader.

So basically ANGSOC/Oceania is only one type of working fascist system.

>>1760868
>In the first round of the German presidential election of 1932, held in March, Hindenburg emerged as the frontrunner, but failed to gain a majority. In the runoff election of April 1932, Hindenburg defeated Hitler for the presidency.[19]

Hitler assumed presidency upon Hindenburg's death, he was never elected

The Nazi's did not win the election in any sense

>>1760744
Power and violence are synonymous.

>>1761165
The concept of individual rights as the ultimate goal of society is flawed and ultimately runs up against internal divisions and the necessary restrictions that must be made on them.

>>1760798
You neglect the other core liberal values in your analysis. Liberalism's values are those of thhe french revolution: liberte, egalite, fraternite, and liberty is the least if these.

Modern liberalism fails not because of a commitment to individual liberties but because it curtails these liberties in the pursuit of "equality" and "fraternity".

These values as used as an excuse to wall off entire ideologies as thoughtcrime. They allow the liberal to claim the moral high ground.

Unfortunately, equality and fraternity will be the modern system's undoing because it rejects essential facts of life; people are neither equal nor peaceful. It is only a system which embraces the inequality and conflict endemic to the human experience that can hope to prosper and succeed.

>>1761147
Those aesthetics! Mpfffff

>>1762245
this
also they abused extremely stupid holes in the constitution, like only needing the majority of those who are present, so they just bullied everyone they could out of parliament and threatened their lives and families if they could.

By the time the nazis were "winning" "elections", they had already effectively taken controll and were VladimirPutin-ing around in the votes. Surely all those people that were actually killed in the Nazi eugenics program all voted for Hitler, nothing to seeee move along!

The problems with all the /pol/-tards is that they are all too stupid to actually learn the history they base their demented thoughts on

Why is it that fascists are often weak, fat morons? Sure they often snag the tall, aryan ubermensch on occasion, but only through absolutely indoctrination. The fascist ideal of half-monk, half-soldier, whether it be in italy, nazi germany, or civil war spain, describes more anti-fascists than fascists. Fascism is the ultimate bootlicker ideology.

I stand with the strong, and oppose the weak. That's why I'm anti-fascist.

>>1760693

How does fascism differ from communism?

I find it amusing that these very similar groups hated each other so much.

>>1760798
>create an alternative set of values that make us more cohesive, equal, and happy
What makes you think I will agree with this set of values? If I refused to follow them, then what what are going to do about it?

>>1762409
I don't see how communism the ideology has much to do with fascism, BUT communism in reality has pretty much consistently just been fascism calling itself communism. You know what I mean?

>>1760693
The nation is an imaginary concept meant to gather support for the ruling class. Every nation is the homogenized, Disney World destruction of its former authentic cultural makeup. All nationalism is childish, and workers who are nationalists are distracted from pursuing their own interests.

Autocratic states are never as successful as democratic states because there's no accountability pushing politicians to provide short-term benefits to citizens. Moreover, the concentration of power into few hands hinders rational decision-making and leads to adventurism in pointless aggressive wars.

>>1761008
This is the memorial of the Völkerschlacht which was completed in 1913.

>>1762392
Stay edgy, cuckrade.

>>1762642
>Autocratic states are never as successful as democratic states because there's no accountability pushing politicians to provide short-term benefits to citizens
That's the opposite of true

>Moreover, the concentration of power into few hands hinders rational decision-making and leads to adventurism in pointless aggressive wars.
This is true

>>1762712
Famines don't happen in democracies. Politicians need to feed their constituents if they want to be reelected.

>>1762744

True fascism has never been tried.

File: image.jpg (476KB, 857x1400px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 857x1400px

>>1762744

>>1762356
>Surely all those people that were actually killed in the Nazi eugenics program all voted for Hitler, nothing to seeee move along!
Cringe.

>>1762409
Communism, in practice, is the antithesis of fascism in that it generally uses the same tactics to achieve opposite goals.

File: fascism superior.gif (5KB, 449x307px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 449x307px

Fascist economics are God tier

>>1763182
I love where you can see the gap in US GDP caused by FDR slowing down on the new deal in '37

>big government doesn't work
>free markets are the only way

>>1763182
Not really, no. Fascism isn't even a coherent ideology, it's basically just 'whichever dictatorships were friends with Mussolini or Hitler.'

>>1763191
>see the gap in US GDP caused by FDR slowing down on the new deal in '37


That's a myth pushed by Keynesian hacks and establishment shills

>>1763203

The establishment of the US is generally anti-Keynesian though.

>>1763203
And here come the excuses.

>muh big government never works
>Hoover was the best
>cyclical panics aren't a natural feature of free market economics, I swear

Mixed economics master race.

>>1763195
>Fascism isn't even a coherent ideology

False. There are certain themes and principles that inform fascist economics.

Keep in mind that "pundits" and think tanks didn't exist in the inter war period. Just because there is lack of information doesn't mean the people in charge were just making stuff up as they went.

>>1763218

>Mixed economics master race.

Only if you accept Keynes as your mixed-economics waifu.

>>1763223
Well, technically neo-Keynesian and post-Keynesian economics are the new hotness.

>>1763222
>Just because there is lack of information
There isn't. There's a buttload of information about the period.

>doesn't mean the people in charge were just making stuff up as they went.
Didn't say or imply that.

>>1763210

kek

Oh wait you seriously believe that? WTF? Even the main economist of the IMF Olivier Blanchard is a Keynesian.

>>1761147
>parafernalia

you have a good point there, but your spelling is atrocious. read a book you goddamned troglodyte

>>1763182
economically yeah but for the general happiness of the people, not so much.

>>1763247
It's really not that atrocious, especially considering he spelt aesthetics correctly, he was just spelling a word in a somewhat phonemic manner. He probably knew it mainly from speech, and not writing, which is hardly a thoughtcrime.

>>1763036
Class collaborationism isn't something to be celebrated.

"People of all classes united under the flag" just means the struggles of the working man are cast aside in favor of imperialist distractions.

File: leftcucks 11.jpg (71KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 960x720px

>>1763260

*tips fedora*

File: 1403351940394.png (23KB, 575x544px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 575x544px

>>1763268
>dat pic
Lookin' a bit Scandinavian there...

>>1763182
Fascism doesn't have any coherent economic principles.

>>1760693
Kinda works If you don't kill to many people and start an uprising

>>1763277

Fascism is a form of government, not an economic system. Most fascist societies used standard Keynesian mixed economics. Except the Soviet Union, of course, which used a full socialist command economy.

>>1762751

Mussolini is the closest thing. Hitler fucked it up with imperialism, which, I will contend, is not an intrinsic quality of fascism as an ideology.

>>1763210
Anything post-Roosevelt is Keynesian by default bruh bruh

>>1763277

Autarky is not a coherent economic principle?

>>1763301
>Autarky
Why utilise utilise when you can use use?

a fully autocratic government will never work unless you have a homogenous group of people with similar beliefs and socioeconomic standings. Hitler tried to do this, and failed partly because of Anschluss and because he was a stupid fuck that couldn't handle jewry, and misinterpreted everything he read, but Mussolini was relatively successful. most people in post-WW1 Italy were poor as shit but also had a burgeoning national identity, they wanted a strong leader to point them in the right direction, and society was roughly homogenous enough to convince them to rally around him, so they were relatively content with tyrannical shit like the Acerbo law

>>1763268
>I can't verbalize why you're wrong so here's a picture of an ugly person

File: 777.png (53KB, 777x777px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 777x777px

aesthetics

>>1760693
- fixes everything
- endless prosperity
- strong army

cons
- bad goyim

>>1763293
USSR can't be considered fascist. Its entire existence was to facilitate the establishment of a stateless and classless democratic society.

>>1763277
National syndicalism and/or corporatism.

File: 1426293816377.jpg (234KB, 653x925px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 653x925px

>>1763329
>- strong army
laughingallies.jpg

>>1763327

fascism is effay as fuck

File: 1426293707259.png (43KB, 483x767px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 483x767px

>>1763329
>- strong army
guffawinggenerals.gif

File: 1426293592206.png (32KB, 487x601px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 487x601px

>>1763329
>- strong army
gigglingGmen.webg

>>1763325

What I meant is that your marxist critique of fascism is worthless and irrelevant. What's next? Criticism of fascist economics from an anarcha-feminist trans*anarchist polyamorous demifluid queer liberation vegan perspective?

>>1763337
>syndicalism
>but with a huge fucking state

>>1763336

too bad they left in the
>but we need an autocratic asshole leader to facilitate the change, so have fun eating lichens and tree bark until we figure it out
clause

File: 1426293526671.png (37KB, 480x719px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 480x719px

>>1763329
>- strong army
drolldebts.dmsg

File: 1420188586609.png (115KB, 319x489px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 319x489px

>>1763329
>- strong army
playfulpartisans.ppt

File: JOSE-ANTONIO-PRIMO-DE-RIVERA (2).png (11KB, 275x391px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 275x391px

>>1763336
And also because it wasn't a nation-state and didn't aim to become a nation-state.

>>1763339
>>1763341
>>1763345
>>1763353
Italy had no reason to fight alongside the eternal Teuton. Prove me wrong.

>>1763348
Yes, and?

File: 1416176992952.jpg (72KB, 339x500px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 339x500px

>>1763358
>Italy had no reason to fight alongside the eternal Teuton.
That doesn't mean they had to not fight against them. When an army attacks you, you're not supposed to run away like schoolgirls.

>>1763336

>USSR can't be considered fascist.

Yes it can. They had secret police. They concentration camps. They had the death penalty. They had state-run media with severe punishments for dissent. You can go down the checklist and there is nothing missing from the fascist toolbox.

>Its entire existence was to facilitate the establishment of a stateless and classless democratic society

Hahahaha......maybe that was the original idea......it didn't work out that way.......

>>1763347
>literally worthless

Explain why. Nationalism is literally just feels over reals. No concrete benefit is brought to the citizen if the government that rules him gains some more territory.

>>1763329
A system based on constant expansion is, by definition, not endless.

>>1763365
They weren't corporatist or integralist.

Checkmate.

>>1763368
>fascism=expansionism
The (authentic) Spanish falangists weren't going to expand anywhere.

They just wanted better relations with Latin America.

>>1763377

>They weren't corporatist or integralist.

But they were fascist.

Checkmate.

>>1763377
The problem with fascism is that it means whatever edgy right-wing autistic leader wants it to mean.

>>1763377
>corporatist
They were so corporatist their corporations were state corporations.

>integralist
They were so integralist they thought they could have socialism in one country.

>>1763365
Right, but by this standard every authoritarian state is fascist. The German Empire fits all those criteria.

>>1763366

>Nationalism is literally just feels over reals. No concrete benefit is brought to the citizen if the government that rules him gains some more territory.

1. Nationalism is not necessarily expansionist.

2. Sometimes expansionism does benefit the citizenry. Imagine if the US hadn't expanded into the west (displacing the various pre-American tribes in the process). Americans would have much less room to live.

>>1763377
They also wanted to murder or imprison anybody who hoped to provide the working class with a more liberated existence

>>1763386

How does fascism differ from other forms of authoritarianism? Isn't it all the same at the end of the day whether you call it communism or fascism?

>>1763396
>How does fascism differ from other forms of authoritarianism?
Fascism has Art Deco.

>>1763381
>The problem with autocracy is that it means whatever edgy right-wing autistic leader wants it to mean

>>1762392
Geroge Orwell comments on this when he compares the average young Germans to the ugly Nazi elite, the ugly baboon-like generals in Imperial Japan with old traditional Japanese sages, and even comments on the ugliness of Churchill and De Gaulle.

File: Gabriele_D'Anunnzio.png (7KB, 261x370px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 261x370px

>>1763380
Fascism is corporatist.

The Soviets weren't corparists.

Ergo the Soviets weren't fascists.

>>1763381
>right-wing
Explain.

>>1763382
>making your own definitions
Corporatism: dividing society in various semi or fully independent bodies. These bodies, in the fascist system, represented each a part of the workforce.

Integralism: everyone collectively aims for the enrichment of the nation.

>>1763396
Fascism is a specifically irredentist type of authoritarianism, that seeks to enforce a rigid social hierarchy, return to pre-enlightenment ideals, and promote the strength of the state above others.

>>1763403

>Young people tend to be more attractive than old dudes.

That's deep stuff there Mr. Orwell. I'll have to ponder that.

>>1763407
i would argue that return to pre enlightenment ideals isn't necessary

>>1763407
>return to pre-enlightenment ideals
Futurist ideals (speed, machinery and violence) were anything but pre-enlightenment.

>>1763407

Now we're starting to get somewhere.

>>1763404
Rejecting enlightenment ideals, enforcing inequality, and removing democratic elements from society is objectively right-wing.

>>1763404
>>1763381

it's right wing because no fascist rise can succeed without military control, which is typically associated with a society's conservatives and upper class, the latter being more of an association made in the 20th centruy than it is today, but the point stands

>>1763419
Violence is pretty pre-enlightenment.

>>1763419

futurist ideals are more associated with art and culture than with fascism

>>1763421

What are "Enlightenment Ideals" and how did Mussolini reject them?

>removing democratic elements from society is objectively right-wing.

Was the Soviet Union right-wing then? They sure weren't no democracy.

>>1763430
The USSR was in some regards a right-wing society in its expression. Marxism-Leninism believes the imperial vestiges of the state must be adopted to quickly transition from capitalism to state socialism and then to anarchic communism.

>>1760693
>Khrushchev
>Fascist

>>1763421
>Rejecting enlightenment ideals
Then every intellectual in the early 20th century was right-wing?

>enforcing inequality
Changing the workday to 8 hours is pretty inequal.

>removing democratic elements
So Mosley and D'Annunzio weren't fascists?

>>1763429
They both had a deep connection. In fact the guy who wrote the futurist manifesto also co-wrote the first fascist manifesto.

>>1763440

>Marxism-Leninism believes the imperial vestiges of the state must be adopted to quickly transition from capitalism to state socialism and then to anarchic communism.

Is there any evidence at all that the Soviets ever planned to embrace anarchy?

>>1763404
>Corporatism: dividing society in various semi or fully independent bodies. These bodies, in the fascist system, represented each a part of the workforce.

>Integralism: everyone collectively aims for the enrichment of the nation.

Those sound exactly like the USSR.

>>1763445
ML was a shit ideology and nuclear arms have pretty much killed any feasibility of statelessness.

>>1763449

>Those sound exactly like the USSR.

Bingo.

>>1763449
>the USSR was corporatist
Source.

>the USSR was a Nation
No.

>>1763460
>>the USSR was a Nation
>No.
They were ethnically serfs.

>>1763455

>Marxist-Leninism was a shit ideology

It was a form of communism so that goes without saying.

>nuclear arms have pretty much killed any feasibility of statelessness.

You can't have any form of national defense without a state. This was true before nuclear arms. Hell, you can't even have basic civilian infrastructure without a state, much less military stuff. This is a core problem of "real" communism and is a big part of why "real" communism can never manifest itself.

File: 1424127990001.jpg (72KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 850x400px

>>1763465
>Nation=ethnicity
Fuck off, racist.

>>1763412
I also mentioned old Japanese sages, or even old powerful people compared with regular old people. Franco was a manlet

>>1763473
>ethnicity = race

>>1763468
>This is a core problem of "real" communism and is a big part of why "real" communism can never manifest itself.
No it's not. Post scarcity means people don't need to fight over that shit.

File: franco.png (39KB, 1298x186px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1298x186px

>>1763480
Franco wasn't fascist.

http://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/tribune/AsIPlease19440107.html

>>1760979
You're right.

>>1763473
was Benito actually a decent person? the more I read about him the more I feel like he gets a bad rap for being associated with Hitler

>>1763480

I think you could argue that leaders of democratic nations are more physically attractive on average because....well....they actually have to get elected. And it is a lot easier to get elected if your face is photogenic as fuck and looks good with an American flag behind with an inspirational quote attached somehere.

>>1763504
George Bush was hunky man.

>>1763489

Even if post-scarcity were possible (unlikely) you'd still likely need to have some sort of state at that point to handle things like murder cases. And somebody needs to build the roads.

>roads, frustrating anarchists since Rome invented them.

>>1763503
>was Benito actually a decent person?
Of course he wasn't. Sure, he wasn't a meth-head like Hitler (that I know of), but he was still a fucking dick.

File: 1452527667501.jpg (142KB, 450x699px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 450x699px

>>1763503
You should read his Autobiography and judge for yourself.

>>1760798
>The system that prizes individuality over all other things is doomed to ultimate collapse due to a lack of social unity and the clashing desires of individuals.

Seeing as how liberal democracy has existed in the West for hundreds of years and is the dominant form of government, and arguably the most successful and prosperous, your statement that such societies are necessarily doomed to failure seems to warrant further justification, especially considering that the only fascist states, by comparison, quickly collapsed within decades.

And while individualism is a defining value of liberalism, the promotion of it over and to the exclusion of everything else certainly isn't a necessary tenent, and in practice, liberal societies, like all societies, still obviously have many social values that bind them together.

File: uIvNePc[1].jpg (193KB, 1112x772px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1112x772px

>>1763503

>the more I read about him the more I feel like he gets a bad rap for being associated with Hitler

He didn't have an autistic obsession with race like Hitler did. So there is that. He did really like putting his face on buildings though. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

>>1762292
>The concept of individual rights as the ultimate goal of society is flawed

Everything humans do is flawed.

But just because we do flawed shit doesn't mean you should create an even more shit society than we already have.

>>1760798

>Liberalism has failed. The system that prizes individuality over all other things is doomed to ultimate collapse due to a lack of social unity and the clashing desires of individuals.


The USSR prized society over individuals.

The US prized individuals over society.

Guess who collapsed first?

The results of WW2 and the Cold War suggest that liberal democracy is actually the strongest form of government there is. When the people feel that they are represented in their government, they are more inclined to take risks for their government's survival. Democracy is strong because it is weak.

>>1760693
Pros:
-Works on paper
-Might bolster the hopes and dreams of a downtrodden populace
-Effective in getting the economy rolling, building shit and making war

Cons:
-Has proven to be historically as disastrous as state run communism
-Harsh policies and use of scapegoats in order to unify create enemies within and abroad
-Unyielding ideology makes it hard to change course, even in the face of disaster and ruin

Conclusion: It's a pretty bad idea all in all. Better to be a bit more flexible and a bit more humane

>>1763395
Do you seriously believe that?

>>1760798
>Liberalism has failed.

No it hasn't. Liberal democracy has been the most successful form of government for more than a century. Parliamentary, representative democracy with a mixed economy has lead to the greatest standards of living in the world. It's not massively prospering currently but there isn't any immediate threat to it's functioning.

>>1763607
I always wondered, who did the Italian fascists use as a scapegoat?

>>1763624
The Slavs and the Jews mostly, though obviously not to the extent of the Germans.

>>1763655
But what group did the Italian fascists use from the start as a scapegoat for the Nation's ills?

Because they began hating on Slavs and Jews after joining the Axis.

File: 1343391616994.jpg (340KB, 1000x675px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 1000x675px

So called "racist" of the past warned of a bleak future for mankind. Don't allow blacks to vote. Don't allow blacks to mate with white women. Keep Muslims out of Europe. Kill the Jews. Keep women out of the workforce. LOOK AT OUR WORLD TODAY! It's gone to complete shit. Hitler was right, now we're fucked.

File: article-0-0065890C00000258-345_233x388.jpg (25KB, 233x388px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 233x388px

>>1763731
Maybe next time don't destroy Europe, filthy Teuton.

File: article-0-1F7BAD2A00000578-293_634x896[1].jpg (125KB, 634x896px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 634x896px

>>1763510
>>1763510

>George Bush was hunky man.

He was indeed.

>>1763731
Your autism is showing

>>1763763
superb argument

>>1763731

If Hitler was trying to save white people why did he kill so many of them? His actions actually killed more whites than jews. By his own standards, he was a massive failture.

>>1760774
The Nazis didn't burnt the Reichstag, Marinus really did it, look it up

>>1760693
>90% of people have no idea what fascism actually is. You won't get much good discussion considering this fact.
>>1762642
>The nation is an imaginary concept
Wrong, the nation is an expression of the inherently tribalistic nature of man.
>meant to gather support for the ruling class
Wrong again, fascist movements overthrew the ruling class and the current ruling class deeply opposes fascism.
>Every nation is the homogenized, Disney World destruction of its former authentic cultural makeup.
If nations are imaginary, how can they be destroyed?
>workers who are nationalists are distracted from pursuing their own interests.
It is not in the interests of the workers to pursue communism, the destruction of his heritage and community.
>Autocratic states are never as successful as democratic states because there's no accountability pushing politicians to provide short-term benefits to citizens.
Democratic states aren't as good as autocratic states because democracy inherently incentivizes pandering short-term policy, and disincentivizes long-term policy.
>Moreover, the concentration of power into few hands hinders rational decision-making and leads to adventurism in pointless aggressive wars.
America, which is undeniably a democracy, is the biggest warmonger on earth. This alone disproves your claim.

>>1763801
Didn't mean to greentext my first sentence

File: uncomfterble doggos.jpg (30KB, 480x490px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x490px

>>1763442
>every intellectual in the early 20th century rejected enlightenment ideals

>>1763825
So the far-right, like Pinochet, is the same as the far-left?

I don't get how this is relevant to the thread.

Please take this non-sense to /pol/, thank you.

File: horseshoe theory.png (157KB, 960x419px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 960x419px

>>1763825
truly makes u think

>>1763801
>communism
>destruction of community
Whether it works out well is questionable, but the entire point of it is a focus on the community. It's literally in the name.

>the current ruling class deeply opposes fascism.
Most people do in general. Empirical evidence shows it leads to some pretty undesirable consequences.

Democracy actually provides for accountability which incentives representatives to appeal to appeal to most of the people who are being governed rather than a few people to whom the law doesn't even apply.

>America, which is undeniably a democracy, is the biggest warmonger on earth. This alone disproves your claim.
It's also the biggest superpower in the world by a fairly large margin, and has been profiteering off neo-colonialism for decades. Evidence shows that the majority of people in the US have very little impact on policy decision. It's one of the worst democratic systems (presidential and FPTP) while having a ton of issues in the structure of the government itself due to the inherently liberal nature of America.
Most other democratic countries in the world are rather peaceful and have been so since the 40's. The majority of current day conflict is happening specifically in countries with theocratic and authoritarian governments.

>>1763840
>>Whether it works out well is questionable, but the entire point of it is a focus on the community. It's literally in the name.
Communities are formed of families of different classes serving their functions in life. Communism supports the destruction of classes and the destruction of the family.
>Most people do in general. Empirical evidence shows it leads to some pretty undesirable consequences.
You're ignoring my point. You claimed that fascism is a vehicle for the ruling class. If that was the case, why has the ruling class almost always violently opposed fascism?
>It's also the biggest superpower in the world by a fairly large margin, and has been profiteering off neo-colonialism for decades. Evidence shows that the majority of people in the US have very little impact on policy decision. It's one of the worst democratic systems (presidential and FPTP) while having a ton of issues in the structure of the government itself due to the inherently liberal nature of America.
First, the fact that America is a powerful country means nothing to whether or not it's democratic. Democracy does not inherently preclude colonialism of any sort. Second, voters have little impact on policy because they're stupid and vote for the status quo over and over again. It's still a democracy.

>>1763833
What you say out loud you believe in =/= What you actually do when you get power.

>>1763860
So when they get into power, communists and fascists did the same things? Interesting. I hadn't heard of the Soviet racial eugenics program, or the Nazi punishment of kulaks.

>>1763536
>>1763564
>>1763622
Reactionaries and monarchists will never recover from this

File: Treno Blindato, 1915.jpg (497KB, 1515x2000px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 1515x2000px

>>1763866
>sucking the cock of the status quo
You're as bad as reactionaries.

>>1760693

>tfw your ancestors aren't smiling down on you.

>>1762251
power may measure a capactity for violence
{amount of money to be spent on weapons, aamount of followrs to die or fight/defend you with their life(
but is not itself a measure of it.

there is personal power

>>1763864
So you think that it really matters *who* people annihilate or oppress when they get state power?

Well I don't really.

>>1763896
So you think all groups of people are inherently innocent of wrongdoing?

>>1763853
>Communities are formed of families of different classes serving their functions in life
That's a pretty vague interpretation. Communities are formed based on the context they're in and families have had a variety of structures in different cultures, it's not just the nuclear kind. I don't see why strict classes are necessary for a community either. Usually it just means that the communities are segregated, have different goals, varying amounts of power, etc. It's not really a prerequisite to communal living.
Also not convinced that communism supports destruction of the family. There wasn't a strong association between the two concepts until feminists synthesized it in the 70's.

>You're ignoring my point. You claimed that fascism is a vehicle for the ruling class.
Actually wasn't the anon you were replying to, I'm someone else pitching in

>why has the ruling class almost always violently opposed fascism?
I don't know what time you would consider "always". Even past the dissolution of feudalism most ruling classes were still fairly autocratic and reactionary. Fascism grew as a reaction to increasing pressure from socialist groups and worked in favor of the ruling classes since it consolidated their power, secure some stability, etc.
The ruling class started opposing it more after it all of the atrocities associated with it were uncovered. The fact that democracy has become the most popular (and successful) form of government means that the ruling class can't just use fascism since it usually means oppressing citizens. People just won't vote in favor of it (although there's probably more now that would)

>First, the fact that America is a powerful country means nothing to whether or not it's democratic.
It just means that it's a bad sample size to look at when considering democracies impact on world peace. You provided just one example of a democracy being violent (even though it's not functioning democratically). It doesn't prove your point.

>>1763898
Look. Both the USSR and the Nazis persecuted Jews. The Nazis did it worse and more.

The Nazis controlled capitalists in order to gain wealth for themselves, but the USSR did it more.

Both of them did things that were so similar, that it doesn't work to say that they were on opposite sides of some scale.

Stalinism has a lot in common with Nazism.

Capitalism and communism are the same because they both strive for the same goal, globalism.
Did I create a new horseshoe theory?

>>1763908
I could argue all day about how the Nazi and Soviet economies were totally different, but that'd be a waste of time. Your fundamental problem is that you view everything from a wholly materialist perspective. You cannot comprehend the deeper motivations behind the ideologies, and instead focus on their material similarities.

>>1763908
Not all fascism is national socialist.

>>1763905
>Communities are formed based on the context they're in and families have had a variety of structures in different cultures, it's not just the nuclear kind.
Well we're obviously talking about Western society here, which has always had the nuclear family.
> I don't see why strict classes are necessary for a community either.
I wouldn't say "strict classes", but the mere existence of classes. In an organic community, individuals will naturally gravitate towards and excel at different things than other individuals. This natural inequality is what leads to class stratification. In fascism, the classes all rely on and feed into each other. This leads to trust and co-operation between countrymen. Communism leads to violent economic distrust between countrymen. Which sounds better for a community?
>Also not convinced that communism supports destruction of the family. There wasn't a strong association between the two concepts until feminists synthesized it in the 70's.
Also not convinced that communism supports destruction of the family. There wasn't a strong association between the two concepts until feminists synthesized it in the 70's.
Communism has always been anti-family. Engels himself claimed it was a product of capitalism. Furthermore, since communists believe in absolute equality, they must be anti-family, since the family specifies roles for men & women according to their nature.
>Actually wasn't the anon you were replying to, I'm someone else pitching in
Fair enough.
>field too long

>>1763905
>I don't know what time you would consider "always". Even past the dissolution of feudalism most ruling classes were still fairly autocratic and reactionary. Fascism grew as a reaction to increasing pressure from socialist groups and worked in favor of the ruling classes since it consolidated their power, secure some stability, etc.
I'll admit fascism was supported by some sectors of the elite originally, like elements of German industry. But that was just out of pragmatic anti-communism. Look at Romania, where the king and his allies tried their hardest to destroy the Iron Guard.
>It just means that it's a bad sample size to look at when considering democracies impact on world peace. You provided just one example of a democracy being violent (even though it's not functioning democratically). It doesn't prove your point.
But it is functioning democratically. Democracy is just a poor system.

>>1763916
>You cannot comprehend the deeper motivations behind the ideologies

I can comprehend them fine, but the point is that they don't matter.

>>1763961
If you truly comprehended them, you would care.

>>1763943
>Western society here, which has always had the nuclear family.
Families used to have different structures though, with various forms of communal living among grandparents, aunts/cousins, siblings all raised in a single house. Slaves were considered part of the family structures in some societies.

>Communism leads to violent economic distrust between countrymen. Which sounds better for a community?
It's distrust for the bourgeoisie which are only a small part of the overall community. There is very much a focus on the workers and community members. I think that it's global focus kinda detracts from engagement at the local level, so I could see how it might be worse for a community. Still, I don't think that communism is inherently anti-community since it requires a sense of solidarity to begin with.

>since communists believe in absolute equality
I think this is just an oversimplification of communism. The most accurate basic portrayal would just be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". It doesn't suggest "absolute equality" or even equal treatment.
In it's actual implementation it was never particularly promotional of feminism or the dissolution of the family. If anything women had less political power in the countries which implemented socialism in the 20th century compared to democracies with suffrage.

>>1763944
>Look at Romania, where the king and his allies tried their hardest to destroy the Iron Guard.
I'm just not convinced that ruling class disprove of it any more than most regular people do. Fascism benefits the status quo for the elite families so there is incentive for them to uphold it, both in the short and long term. The reason fascism is not popular is not because the ruling class disproves of it, it's because most ordinary citizens do

>>1763985
>Families used to have different structures though, with various forms of communal living among grandparents, aunts/cousins, siblings all raised in a single house. Slaves were considered part of the family structures in some societies.
I totally agree. But the Western family has always included a man & women in masculine & feminine roles raising a child, even if other people were around.
>It's distrust for the bourgeoisie which are only a small part of the overall community. There is very much a focus on the workers and community members. I think that it's global focus kinda detracts from engagement at the local level, so I could see how it might be worse for a community. Still, I don't think that communism is inherently anti-community since it requires a sense of solidarity to begin with.
In the actual attempted communist state the USSR, the bourgeois ended up being a pretty large share of the population. The kulaks, simple farm owners, were mercilessly persecuted. And the only solidarity is between workers. Workers are only part of a community. And as I said, a community is composed of multiple sectors, including workers, managers, artisans, artists, and so on.
>I think this is just an oversimplification of communism. The most accurate basic portrayal would just be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". It doesn't suggest "absolute equality" or even equal treatment.
I was referring to their belief in absolute genetic equality between individuals, genders, and races.
>field too long

If fascism benefits the status quo (which are Enlightment ideals) and the ruling class, why do most governments conform to capitalist and/or socialist ideologies?

>>1763985
>In it's actual implementation it was never particularly promotional of feminism or the dissolution of the family. If anything women had less political power in the countries which implemented socialism in the 20th century compared to democracies with suffrage.
Women were encouraged to work and abandon being housewives. If that's not feminist, I don't know what is.
>I'm just not convinced that ruling class disprove of it any more than most regular people do. Fascism benefits the status quo for the elite families so there is incentive for them to uphold it, both in the short and long term. The reason fascism is not popular is not because the ruling class disproves of it, it's because most ordinary citizens do
Of course the average person disapproves of fascism, the ruling class (through the education system) has been brainwashing them with pro-capitalist democracy material for decades. That has no bearing on how beneficial or not fascism would be for them.

>>1764027
>absolute genetic equality between individuals, genders, and races.
Again, the axioms of communism never actually claimed this. There is a certain 'equality' in terms of respect for workers of all kinds but it was never about absolute equality. Feminism and anti-racism did not become associated with communism until many decades after it's inception.

>the ruling class (through the education system) has been brainwashing them with pro-capitalist democracy material for decades. That has no bearing on how beneficial or not fascism would be for them.
Why do you think the ruling class is so invested in diverting fascism? It doesn't really hurt them in any significant way in terms of social status, and if anything it helps to consolidate and stabilize their power. I think it's a desirable development for them.

>>1760693
Did he really make the trains run on time?

>>1764025
Because those have proven to be successful in terms of increasing quality of life and economic development. They're elected democratically by people who prefer those types of systems.

Well it gets shit done.

>>1764047
So there's no oppressive ruling class that I can use as a scapegoat for every thing I don't like?

That sucks.

>>1760693
It's big biz racket invented in masonic lodges.

>>1764056
Wasn't Mussolini anti-Masonic?

>>1764036
>Again, the axioms of communism never actually claimed this. There is a certain 'equality' in terms of respect for workers of all kinds but it was never about absolute equality. Feminism and anti-racism did not become associated with communism until many decades after it's inception.
Communists didn't outright say "everybody is genetically equal", but it's implied. The idea that bourgeois positions are inherently unearned and exploitative implies that nobody can reach a higher position through genetic superiority.
>Why do you think the ruling class is so invested in diverting fascism? It doesn't really hurt them in any significant way in terms of social status, and if anything it helps to consolidate and stabilize their power. I think it's a desirable development for them.
Fascism would be completely ruinous for today's ruling class. Because unlike in the 1930s when certain sectors supported the nation, today's ruling class and economic elite is 100% anti-nationalist and pro-globalist. On any fascist forum there's endless talk of lynching wall street, congress, Apple, etc.

>>1764060
In rhetoric perhaps. I think he banned lodges as well but you can't simply ban secret society and expect it to not exist anymore. However if you'd check 10000 famous freemasons you'd see ENORMOUS amount of freemason fascists for "some reason".

>>1764069
>Communists didn't outright say "everybody is genetically equal", but it's implied.

No.

>The idea that bourgeois positions are inherently unearned and exploitative implies that nobody can reach a higher position through genetic superiority.

Actually it implies that there exist power structures meant to preserve these positions of power through force and nepotism.

Further, Marx suggested that communism would come about largely due to the workers being fed up with such a system, and that a communist state would be a potential future alternative. Though he didn't talk about the end point of communism much at all. You'll note that this process has nothing to do with people being perfectly equal and more with the fact that people tend to get sick of being shat on.

>>1764075
Well a lot of people, like Italo Balbo who used to be a republican, were Masons before becoming fascists.

Maybe secret societies attract political dissidents.

>>1764075
For example:

>Italo Balbo Fascist leader and aviator of international fame.
>Alberto Beneduce Economic Architect of Italy under Fascism, and beyond.
>Gabriele d'Annunzio - writer associated with Arditi's who while not exactly a fascist himself had quite a lot of influence on the movement

and so on and so on.

File: 1469135306570.png (96KB, 1160x420px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1160x420px

>>1763772
To save the village, you must burn down the village. C'mon, skippy, don't you trust ol' uncle Hitler?

>>1764087
Gabriele D'Annunzio was a liberal (and then a socialist if I'm not mistaken) before becoming a fascist.

It just shows that dissident intellectuals are attracted to secret societies.

>>1764092
>fascism flakes
>has a picture of Hitler

>>1764102
>Hitler wasn't a fascist
>Man, I bet I could split that hair at least two more times.

He was a fascist in every way that counts. Especially since his regime basically excised every last element of the "socialism" part of national socialism.

File: 1442377760209.png (723KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

723KB, 1920x1080px

WHY YOU HAD TO FUCKING INVADE US RRRRRREEEEE
YOU ARE OUR BORTHERS RRREEEEEEEE

>>1764107
I know that, it's just so banal to associate Hitler to fascism that to the average person fascism just seems to be a subset of national socialism rather than the opposite. I'd just like some change for once.

>>1764116
I call it Racist fascism personally. Fascism isn't necessarily racist, but it usually either turns into pure racism, or at least some form of aggressive intolerance towards other ethnic groups and cultures.

>>1764116
To be fair, if a company was gonna mass-market something called Fascism Flakes, you know damn well that's the picture they'd go with.

ITT:
>Tankies
>Not closet fascists

>>1763536
>>1763622
>>1763564
Fuck off, Fukuyama.

File: death.jpg (16KB, 315x251px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 315x251px

>it just werks

File: 9780713997200-us-300.jpg (14KB, 300x461px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 300x461px

I want to learn more about fascism. This book any good? Will read it anyway, but interested in /his/'s opinion.

Also is it me or is there a kind of elitist fascism and populist fascism?

>>1760693
some people are really sure it works.

it doesn't work.

>>1762448
Because then you get killed by spergy assholes

>>1763801
Nations are constructed identities meant to unify disparate groups based on select shared characteristics.

Sometimes it's ancestry, sometimes it's language, sometimes it's religion, and sometimes it's just living on the right side of the border.

>>1763396
Fascism is partially defined by the fact that it is an anti-bolshevik ideology. Like, it literally exists to oppose Marxism. This led to the fourth Comintern to declare that anything to their right was fascism, directly leading to the way it is used as a pejorative today

The only reason fascism failed was because of the Getman's nature to destroy everything they touch.

>>1764635
If you want to learn about fascism, you should read the theory that influenced it first. I'd suggest reading Sorel, the Constitution of Fiume and De Rerum Novarum. There are many more, of course.

>>1762448
Depends. Collectivism doesn't require your personal agreement. If you disagree with the fascist state, then go and find another. If you work to destroy the fascist state, then the fascist state will work to destroy you.

>>1763536
are systems of government businesses? If not, then why are you attempting to justify them based on the amount of revenue that is produced under them?

Is a government responsible for the prosperity that is produced under it?

Historically, the most successful forms of government were empires with largely decentralized control. Where are they?

The fact that liberal society still has some social values is corroding, and with the corrosion of these social values comes the inevitable collapse of the societies themselves.

>>1763564
Are you suggesting that the reason the USSR collapsed was because of its collectivism? I'm sure there are economists out there who would complicate that view.

The results of one century do not dictate the strength of forms of government. The governments that exist today were unthinkable four hundred years ago. The governments of tomorrow are unthinkable today.

>>1763622
Liberal democracy has been successful for a time. From an historical perspective, it's a single blink.

>>1764483
Fukuyama himself no longer believes the end-of-history narrative

Doesn't mean that it has already failed or that other systems are better.

>>1766407
>From an historical perspective, it's a single blink.

It's been working fairly well for a few centuries now. I don't doubt that will change eventually, but I don't think that's happening soon either.

>>1761008
This is from a movie

>>1766728
fukuyama abandoned the end of history narrative because not only was he wrong, he was so fantasticaly wrong that basically the opposite of what he predicted happened

worldwide it is the liberal democracies that are failing, and decentralized free market systems, or centralized state market systems, which are prospering.

fukuyama's thesis was that concerning democracy, TINA. but he was wrong. because there ARE alternatives, and there's evidence they probably work better in most, but not all, respects, but crucially the ones he loves tom asturbate over, such as satisfaction, violence, education, infant mortality, etc.

>>1760780
>nazis aren't fascist

>>1766784
>worldwide it is the liberal democracies that are failing, and decentralized free market systems, or centralized state market systems, which are prospering.
I don't quite get your point here. All liberal democracies are some type free market/state market system.

>>1766806
I don't know if you assessment is accurate.

the OECD average for gov spending of gdp hovers around the low 50's. that's not a decentralized market system.

when you look at how spending is allocated, about half of it is centralized, which would be entitlements, and then the other half is bid on on a rolling basis, which amounts to a cartel system, which ends up being pretty unplanned. maybe planned economy was what I should have typed though.

very few of the OECD countries are decentralized market or planned economies. switzerland and hk count mostly to the former, japan and korea are among the latter.

democracies have uniquely different economies, though we might disagree with the words being used.

fukuyama was simply wrong.

>>1766824
I agree that liberal democracies are some sort of mish mash and that fukuyama was wrong. I don't see how liberal democracies are failing worldwide like you said in >>1766784. Its possible they may be replaced by something else in the future but for now they show no sign of immediate collapse.

>>1766784
>worldwide it is the liberal democracies that are failing, and decentralized free market systems, or centralized state market systems, which are prospering

Ehhhhhh

Only as a percentage of total world GDP.

Per capita, liberal democracies still beat the shit out of everyone else easily.

>>1766843
I said failing, not immediate collapse, though you made a reasonable jump between the two because people on this board speak in hyperbole

when I, personally, say failing, I mean that collapse or restructure is likely in say, a 20 year average for most of them.

you cna't really deny that they're failing. for the first time in 50 years, europe is undergoing election fraud (austria.) the majority of the governments are in debt, violence is rising, educational outcomes are falling, unemployment is rising, living standards are falling, RIOTS are breaking out, free speech is collapsing.

do I REALLY need to go on? that's failure, right there.

>>1766864
I'd hate to see you during the 70s

>>1766852
I don't think that's an accurate assessment.

if you look at europe, the majority of the states are in a state of failure. basic services are beginning to fail, life outcomes are declining by the year, etc. INCOME IS FALLING. america is a similar situation.

in fact, liberal democracies are BETTER in terms of GDP but worse in every other outcome.

state markets or decentralized markets actually tend to deliver LESS overall wealth, but superior human development, when you look at all of east asia.

a better way to look at it would be by grouping likes, though. because comparing the west to east asia is dicey.

when you look at more market friendly states in america, they have LESS poverty, BETTER education, LESS murder, but a lower income.

when you look at europe, market friendly states have LESS murder, LESS poverty, etc, and a HIGHER income (compared to stronger democracies.)

when you look at asia the pattern is the same in europe for market friendly states. when youlook at planned economies income is slightly lower, and violence is lower, and education is better, compared, again, to democracies.

democracy has been a disaster. compare like to like. thailand is a dictatorship without free speech, and it's the safest in ASEAN. the philippines is an AMERICAN style democracy, and its the most dangerous in ASEAN.

democracy has failed because it runs on faith.

>>1766869
I'd hate to see you in public office

>>1766889
You're going to have to define "market friendly."

Because the Nordic states are defined by high taxation and low regulation.

The US is somewhere in the middle.

East Asia ranges from full-on Laissez faire in Hong Kong to full on state capitalism in China, to Keynesianism in Japan and South Korea.

>>1760774
Let's put it like that: They only came to power because the parliament burned down

>>1766907
I don't think there's any single configuration for market friendliness. but as you said, nordic states are low regulation, that helps.

latin states are high reg AND high tax, and they're falling apart because their primary institutions are democratic, and those institutions co-opt economic ones.

in both "free" market systems and state run systems, the markets remain a primary institution, not simply something the bureaucrats siphon from, and so they end up relatively successful to various degrees.

the problem with democracy is, once again, it runs on faith, and consumes nonrenewable market institutions. almost all of them are currently in a state of failure, which defeats the assertion that "more people" are servied well by democracy. real outcomes are declining very quickly.

>>1760744

Unlike your choice between TWO amazing candidates, right?

If you can't come to power without being the only choice you're probably not that good to begin with.

>>1763358
>And also because it wasn't a nation-state and didn't aim to become a nation-state.

What

Did you miss the part where the Soviet union genocided and mixed all the other nations until they had no identity of their own, which was replaced with the russian language, culture and character?
It might not have aimed to become a nation-state, but it sure as hell took the action to become one

>>1760693
viva il duce

>>1763339
italy is bad at war.

>>1766970
>the problem with democracy is, once again, it runs on faith, and consumes nonrenewable market institutions.

Can you expand on this? How does democracy "run on faith" any more than a monarchy or some other system?

>>1760693
None of them successfully transferred power.

>>1764635
Just read mauras or material pre war for a real understanding.
Paxons book is shit desu. He is the reason people think Fascism and 'bullying' are synonymous.

He couldn't separate the difference between strong arm tactics and fascist political goals and dogma.

>>1767553
The power transition of fascist Portugal was peaceful.

File: 1469352658761.jpg (55KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1024x576px

>tfw people who hate Fascists and people on /pol/ who claim to be Fascists think that Fascism is right-wing

Suffering. Mussolini and Hitler both sought to create a Third Position of politics that was centrist.

>>1766728
>It's been working fairly well for a few centuries now. I don't doubt that will change eventually, but I don't think that's happening soon either.

What is "it"? If you're talking about the modern liberal democratic/semi-socialist state, then it hasn't.

The United States didn't have universal suffrage until a few decades ago. Other democracies were largely formed after the first and second World Wars.

The early histories of modern "democracies" were usually privilege-based republics in practice, and that's why they worked.

>>1767579
>>1766117
I will read the book and will look into the suggestions and use them as companion pieces.

If anyone has more recommendations to understand fascism let me know.

>>1768725
Masse unt Macht

But It´s more about understanding why people would follow fascists, rather than the ideology itself

>>1763366
>No concrete benefit is brought to the citizen if the government that rules him gains some more territory
Firstly, how is gaining more territorty and hence more living space for the populace not beneficial? But that's beside the point. You are assuming that nationalism somehow leads to expanionism which it doesn't. Nationalism is simply the idea that people who share the same language, culture and values should live together under one nation.

>>1760693
Same as communism
It doesn't work
>inb4 asspain

>>1763430
>Enlightenment Ideals
Liberte, egalite, fraternite

>>1763426
The French revolution was really obscurantist then

File: pol can into cross-board colonialism.jpg (201KB, 596x772px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 596x772px

It values natural law and ethnopluralist models of the nation-state, and seeks to not only preserve national cultures, but enhance them. It also gets through the dilly-dallying of democratic politics (but there are obvious dangers to this aspect).

>>1766800
They aren't. Fascism is more economic, merging corporations/syndicates with the state, and the state needing to be all encompassing of every aspect of life, in order to create "National Rebirth". National Socialism is really just nationalism on steroids. Fascism was the game-plan for Europe after the First World War, so Nazism became a lot like fascism, but was still distinct from fascism. Much more of a state socialism than corporatism.

>>1760693
I don't want to sacrifice my freedom for the sake of the collective
That's reason enough

File: Bundesarchiv_Bild_119-1721,_Gregor_Strasser.jpg (71KB, 471x796px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 471x796px

Reminder that Real National-Socialism has never been tried.

>>1760693
Against? WW2, I suppose.

>>1763210
yeah fuck Keynesian economics!

let's deregulate the market starting with the financial sector what's the worst that can happen?

File: no thank you.png (5KB, 193x200px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 193x200px

>>1768751
>German book about fascism

>>1769711
National socialists started WW2.

>>1760693
Hitler is a great example both for and against fascism. He did a lot to build up Germany then his own arrogance and incompetence with the military brought Germany to greater ruin.

>>1768725
The ideology of fascism by James Gregor.
Fascism by Roger Griffin

If Hitler was right does that mean that /pol/ is right.

For example, 4chan moderation right now is wanting to make more profits with shekels while they say /pol/ should be deleted.

Conversely, the Allies of WW2 were Jews who wanted to make more money and shekels and they thought fascism/nacional socialism should be destroyed.

It makes you think doesnt it.

>>1766800

>This anon is going to actually sit here and explain to you why the nazis were not facist

Bruh. You spend way too much time online.

>>1767104
they're lovers, not fighters

>>1771758
The argument against /pol/ isn't an economic one, pol serves as a high traffic board which contributes to the economic viability of 4chan. The argument is a moral one in that "bad things" are coming out of pol (eg it serves as a hub for white nationalism, and it goes after targets which hurts 4chan's rep).

And lol if you think the allies were just a bunch of jews. That's neo-nazi propaganda on the level of "the holocaust is a hoax....but I want a holocaust to happen gas the jews". It's complete double-think to encourage people towards their movement and to delegitimize the criticisms against the movement while arguing for the exact same thing that they're saying didn't happen. I don't really care if nazi germany was a summer camp for jews, the point is that neo nazis want to make a state where the stereotypical image of nazi germany comes true and is successful.

That said, more on topic, people should get more educated about fascism because it is a fascinating ideology (and nazism is not fascism. Italian fascism before mussolini let hitler corrupt it was a much more interesting subject than the foolishness of "fuck this scapegoat, we're succeeding because we're fucking this scapegoat" when you're fucking your scapegoat out of existence. Eventually you'll just move the goalposts and go after slavs/blacks/italians/anyone who doesn't conform to the narrowest group you can make until there is no group you can scapegoat anymore. It isn't like hitler had any understanding of genetics or actual evolutionary fitness anyway)

>>1760693
>For
Made the only straight streets in Rome
>Against
Had to do it all over the place

>>1762392
faggot

File: fascism_flakes.jpg (157KB, 1106x367px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1106x367px

>>1764092

>>1763564
>Guess who collapsed first?
By trying to act like the other

File: Italy_WC1938Away.png (37KB, 807x470px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 807x470px

>>1772268
I have a book about the architecture and art of Rome and it praises Mussolini, it's really weird.

I think the original edition was from 30s.

>>1760693
>against
Launches retarded wars.
Highly dependent on strong leadership.
Short lived.

File: download.jpg (10KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x168px

>>1760693
>for
Indian Sex Magic and vague occulty rituals. Stolen art and general classy decadence that gommunism can't provide.

>against
tends to ruin countries and the people living in them.

>>1774708
Are you The Independent Ego?

>>1770927
All the fascists lost.

File: Sack_of_Rome_by_the_Visigoths_on_24_August_410_by_JN_Sylvestre_1890.jpg (275KB, 841x1498px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 841x1498px

>>1774761
Yes. Fascism, a Mediterranean ideology, was crushed because of Germans.

History truly does repeat itself.

>>1774658
If you've been to Central Rome, then the most modern buildings are the ones commissioned by Mussolini's regime.
And they're very pleasant to the eye at that. Functionalism of the sort you'll see being built today. But it still doesn't change the fact that they and the large parade streets were built on top of old medieval (and God knows what was under those) structures.

>>1774776
Can Latins portray men with clothes or are they just all gay?

>>1760744
So literally every thought in human existence, save maybe pacifism?

>>1763321
>Italy
>homogeneous

>>1774718
>Are you The Independent Ego?
don't know what that means famalam

PROS
> sounds good in theory
CONS
> COLLAPSE in practice

>>1774838
that painting is romantic not roman.

>>1774875
It's Academicist, not Romantic.

>>1774872
real communism has never been tried

>>1760693
Good argument against it is the Second World War desu

>>1768046
They called it third position because it was outside of western political concept of left-right. Fascism was modeled after ancient Rome which predates it by long time, NS was a revolution against western civilization.

File: Bombardamento aereo, 1932.jpg (906KB, 1473x1055px) Image search: [Google]

906KB, 1473x1055px

>>1775147
>Fascism was modeled after ancient Rome
Explain.

Any political system that presumes to create a stable and indefinitely-lasting state is inherently flawed.

The seeds of revolution grow even within a utopia.

>>1774841
Precisely, history is full of fucked up people screwing it up for everyone else

>>1763873
The status quo isn't always bad you fucking child

>>1760744
Power doesn't exist without violence.
The use of violence may be necessary to establish good governance, the same as it was necessary to eliminate tyranny.

File: 1392352449255.png (88KB, 734x223px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 734x223px

>>1763622
An argument like this ignores the general upward trend in living standards as technology becomes increasingly sophisticated and infrastructure is built.
It doesn't matter the political system. If your government has military primacy and technological sophistication, and extensive infrastructure, there is going to be a high standard of living.

The average life expectancy used to be 30, and birth used to regularly kill the mother. Democracy wasn't a magical pill that made things better for everyone. Take a good look at how well it's worked out for our nation building efforts. Take a look at India, which fucked up even without our helping hand. Or South Africa. Or Federal Russia. Or the Weimar Republic.
You can't haphazardly cast off all of the flaws of liberalism and democracy because things have gotten better over time.

Furthermore you can't tell me that liberal democracy inherently facilitates equality in living standards either, when the U.S. has higher fucking income inequality than fucking notfascist Russia.

>>1760755
They did in numerous countries, such as Cyprus, Nepal, Mozambique etc.

More so, even in Russia, SRs, Bolsheviks and Mienshevniks dominated the parliment. Commies did take over Russia via elections. The rest was just infighting.

File: 1428994297099.png (113KB, 334x389px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 334x389px

>>1776589
>Commies did take over Russia via elections
Good joke, comrade.