Is facism bad?

Yes, like every other left wing system.

>>1833630
Depends.

>>1833630
It's the spookiest of spooks

>>1833641
The enforcement of rigid hierarchy is by definition right-wing

File: mussolini-hanging-lamppost-along-claretta-petacci-other-fascists.jpg (117KB, 800x568px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 800x568px

>>1833630
>Is facism bad?

yeah it gets you hanged and stoned.

Totalitarianism is bad.

>>1833651
No one cares about what right-wing and left-wing actually mean anymore. What's important is to defend the side I arbitrarily chose and associate the other side with as much bad shit as possible.

You should know because you're living in it today.

File: 5e994970cd4476bf3263594eda973fea.jpg (43KB, 373x412px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 373x412px

>>1833641
>Yes, like every other left wing system.

File: IMG_0847.jpg (631KB, 1000x1163px) Image search: [Google]

631KB, 1000x1163px

>>1833630

>>1833800
>loberts siding with fascists
well at least they're showing their true colors

File: 1471748190079.jpg (249KB, 864x1105px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 864x1105px

>>1833655

Only if you are bad at Fascism.

I guess it serves a purpose. From what I can tell, Fascism can only ever really exist in a time of perceived crisis an economic downturn.

Economically it's pretty pig disgusting. Central planning is highly inefficient and in an already corrupt country like Italy, focussing power in the hands of people just exacerbates that.

Attempting to retroactively put things into the Left/Right dichotomy is retarded and you should all feel ashamed for doing so.

>>1833630

For the people, Yes. For the elite, No.

Fascism was a counter-movement to Communism, so no. It is not bad.

File: Facism.png (109KB, 609x563px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 609x563px

>>1833630
>Is facism bad?
Faces aren't all that bad.

File: 15ff156f6b736c708666bec1c2dd0239.jpg (153KB, 996x936px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 996x936px

>>1833630
No. It is the best way to organize the society, surpassing the opposition of the People and State libertarian societies struggle so hard with. Its spirit is laudable, and its spiritual aspect fascinating. Most of the criticisms of fascism come either from ignorance, or from the unability of the critic to remove themselves from the libertarian view of the relationship between the State and the People being inherently antagonistic.

>>1833954
(((the people)))

>>1833660
this.

It's great if you want to destroy your own country

File: 1473913504283.jpg (40KB, 576x472px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 576x472px

>my professor said that fascism comes from the root fascinatus, for fascinating

>>1834046
Didn't know Fascism was Communism.

File: H0046-L22491826.jpg (153KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 750x750px

>>1833954
An elementary and often repeated mistake. Fascism doesn't recognize elites - that is the primary reason it opposed capitalism. It instead seeks to unite all social groups that form the State (classes, ethnicities, religions, cultures etc.) in betterment of the society. The concept of the struggle between the "elite" and the "people" is therefore completely incompatible with fascism, as it is conflict within the state, with groups engaged in struggle with each other instead of cooperating as one.

>>1833630
If its not done by jews like (((Communism))) then no its the best way to establish absolute order in a country.

File: colectivos.jpg (94KB, 709x351px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 709x351px

Fascism is meaningless as a descriptive term, it's merely a slur to denigrate any right-wing ideology.

If you look at it objectively, for example, there is no way political movements like Peronism and even Bolivarianism aren't fascist. They are based on populism, nationalism and make plenty of use of paramilitary wings of parties to beat people into submission, while cooperating with their bourgeoisie in crony capitalist schemes.

But because they adopt left-wing rhetoric about inequality, they are deemed to be anti-fascist, while Pinochet, who was about as far from fascism as you can be politically and economically (unless, of course, you consider "fascism" to be just "bad people who kill their political opponents) is considered to be a fascist leader.

>>1833630
No, expansionist fascism is though. Most nations will ignore nations with fascist leanings as long as they mind their own business. But the second ll Duce decides his country's de jure borders include a bunch of territories from those around him people get their panties in a twist.

>>1834065
>my true fascism has never been tried

>>1833630
Every country that tried it ended up in ruins, substantially poorer and weaker than before, so I'm going to go with yes

>>1834046
>Implying Franco wasn't the best thing to happen to Spain in the 20th century.

>>1833630
COLAPSE

>>1834196
>What is Chile?

File: fascism at war.jpg (94KB, 285x733px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 285x733px

Fascism is bad at the thing it claims to be the best. Fighting wars.

As Umberto Eco said in his essay about fascism, the problem with these people is that they believe so hard in their own propaganda about their strenght, and about the weakness of liberal societies, that they constantly underestimate their enemies, they underestimate their capacity to wage war. So they always lose.

Really, it's ridiculous. The only war fascists have won is the Spanish Civil War, and that's only because all fascist powers ganged up against Republican Spain, while the liberal powers, France and the United Kingdom, refused to intervene. Everywhere else, the military history of fascism and similar regimes is pathetic, even laughable.

>>1834210
>Fascism is bad at the thing it claims to be the best. Fighting wars.

But that's not what fascism claims. That's what militarism claims. Fascism claims to be best at uniting people under a state, which it arguably does.

>>1834204
>Pinochet
>fascist
Only leftists who think everything they don't like is fascist say that dumb shit

>>1834217
Militarism was always an integral element of fascism

Facism is religion that actually works

File: niggest.jpg (152KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1280x720px

>communism
>Fascism

>>1834222
But it is not fascism itself. It is an element of it yes, but not the whole. Fascism claims to be the best at uniting people under a strong state, and one of the aspects of a strong according to fascism is its military. There is more to fascism than the military, and to imply such is incredibly reductive.

>>1834232
and to imply to the contrary is incredibly reductive*

>>1834180
Where are you from, anon?
Here in Chile academia pretty much agrees with you

>>1834011
Fascist societies impose a moral order, and thus inherently create a struggle between the people and state. I see it as impossible that you claim it "surpasses" that opposition. It creates the strictest moral order, and that's one reason that it is not inherently right-wing or left-wing.

I'm struggling to figure out whether you're criticizing libertarian social values or libertarian economic values. Most forms of leftism solve whatever issue you have here.

>>1834232
Yes, I agree. But you can't divorce fascism from its military ambitions either, so its utter failure in that sphere is significant

>>1834232

This post is utterly redundant for the simple fact that you're basically agreeing with him but trying to deny it because you're attempting to go soft on Fascism.

File: petistas agridem manifestantes.jpg (136KB, 635x487px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 635x487px

>>1834237
I'm Brazilian.

And the Academia here certainly doesn't see things this way. They keep calling the run-of-the-mill liberal conservatism of the middle class "fascist", while praising political groups that employ nationalist and populist rhetoric, direct violence against dissidents etc

>>1834244
But can you blame the some fascist nations military failings with as being a fault of the ideology itself, or the fault of the nations' leaders who dragged their nations into wars so clearly stacked against them in the odds?

Also, let's be fair here, outside of the Italians, the Axis powers of WW2 did spectacularly well given the circumstances, even if they did lose in the end.

>>1834210
This 2bh:
>muh Corfu
>muh Fiume
>muh Etiopia
>muh Albania

>>1834180
A lot of people, both right and left wing, consider peronism fascist.

>>1834250
>But can you blame the some fascist nations military failings with as being a fault of the ideology itself, or the fault of the nations' leaders who dragged their nations into wars so clearly stacked against them in the odds?

You absolutely can, when war was an essential component of fascist ideology. As well, fascism was based on the veneration of those same leaders. And >>1834210 citing Umberto Eco makes a good argument for fascism fostering those delusions.

>weakening the power and freedom of the individual and promoting the supremacy of the state is okay when it's the right wing that does it

File: 3.jpg (54KB, 900x393px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 900x393px

>>1834284
Really makes you think

>>1834210
Also republican Spain was incompetent

>>1833630

Nah Facism is fine.

Facists tend to be cunts thou

>>1833800
America is not a Democracy and libertarians are
a) a meme and
b) not similar to fascists at all
>/his/torians in charge of politics

>>1834196
True but only because of outside forces. A fascist nation has never collapsed from within

File: 2016-09-09.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>1834293

>>1834210
Fascists were only a part of the Nationalists.

My problem with fascism is that I am not fond of parties.

>>1834659
"Outside forces" being unwinnable they foolishly started

>>1834210
But Russia supplied Spainish republic

File: tumblr_lty394I0ty1qzqwzso1_500.gif (295KB, 500x276px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 500x276px

>>1834210
>Italy
>Strength: 331 aircraft at beginning
>Casualties and losses: 1,249 aircraft
>WHAT?
>WHAT KIND OF FASCIST MAGIC IS THIS?

File: mussolini.jpg (111KB, 656x455px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 656x455px

>>1833630
its fun

>>1834659
Fascism is inherently aggresive it will always conflict with outsude forces

>>1834719
>Comes from Wikipedia

>>1834659
>A fascist nation has never collapsed from within
Spain begs to differ

>>1833808
So far, fascism has never ended in peace.

>>1833800
I'm like, i agree with fascism it sounds fantastic but i don't feel attached to my own culture/nation. In fact i hate my culture and country/nation. I always fantasize about living somewhere else, all the time. So i kind of force myself to be libertarian

>>1834773
where do you live?

>>1833800
How does a libertarian country work without democracy ?

>>1834778
you "vote" by paying for things from different companies

>>1833655
>stoned

Sign me up, senpai.

>>1834284
Both sides are equally foolish. The difference was one cares too much about tradition and culture while the other one doesn't.

>>1834775
Indonesia. Which started with fascist beliefs (refusing to join the UN, trying to produce everything on our own, even putting english-lyriced band in prison) but now it's a mess. Plus i personally believe in secularism and i find myself able to relate more to other culture than my own.

>>1834815
its super muslim there right?

>>1834780
Can you explain more ? Like, how do you choose leaders ? How do you make regulations/policies ? How do you legalize/illegalize things ?

>>1834829
I think everything is legal as long as it only effects you. Im not a full on libertarian so I dont know

File: ib_p003_0_1.jpg (83KB, 626x510px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 626x510px

>>1834242
>Fascist societies impose a moral order, and thus inherently create a struggle between the people and state.
False on both counts. There is no imposition of a "moral order" which somehow turns the relationship between the People and the State antagonistic. The People are granted freedom (fascists considered that necessary, as freedom is a condition for the healthy developement of the individual, which is a condition for the healthy developement of the State-organism) with the obligation that they exercise their power for the betterment of society. See Alfredo Rocco's "The Political Doctrine of Fascism", it is an excellent essay, and also has a section dedicated to this question. I would quote it, but it is too long.

>>1834820
The regulations/rules/"movability" is pretty roomy/spacious/moderate but yes it's pretty muslim like there are lots of muslims so the atmosphere/vibe is pretty islamic but there are tons of clubs and bars/beerhouses etc etc so yeah.

File: ONXFQ.jpg (186KB, 1359x1133px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1359x1133px

>>1834242
>>1834834
The critique deals with both the social and economic aspects.
>>1834773
The focus of fascism is the State, not such intangible fantasies as the "Nation".
>>1834744
>>1834274
>>1834210
I realize why most people make a connection between fascism and militarism (Mussolini was a proponent of Italy joining the Entente as a way of pressing some territorial claims, and the only time fascism existed was a period of crisis and rearmament which is entirely the fault of German autismo (Mussolini attempted to prevent the war by cooperating with Britain and France, but failed, and thus joined Germany, which he thought would win, as a means of ensuring his country's future.), and also because futurists were fascinated by it), but militarism is not a part of the fascist doctrine. War is simply a tool of diplomacy, without any mystical value to it. If other diplomatic actions would be more appropriate, they will be used instead. Furthermore, the overestimation of their own ability has, yet again, nothing to do with the fascist ideology. Germany (although I would never call it fascist) has overestimated France and significantly underestimated the USSR because of their experiences in WW1. Italy knew that its army was in a horrible state (due to its poor industry) and actively tried to buy time until it at least partially modernises its army, but was eventually forced into the conflict by Germany. Franco didn't overestimate himself either, choosing to stay neutral. So, Germany and Japan are the only countries that overestimated their capabilities. Germany had a very long militaristic tradition (Prussia), and Japan was, in effect, a military junta. Also, Eco seems to have an exceedingly poor grasp of what fascism is, as evidenced by his 14 points, of which only several are part of the fascist ideology.

File: 1463179864223.jpg (26KB, 520x537px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 520x537px

>>1833800

>>1833641
This is how stupid Americans are

>>1833651
According to anarchist shills and stooges, sure.
But in the real world, fascism is yet another revolutionary ideology, which places it firmly on the left.

>>1834995

Facism is like conservatism taken to the extreme. Conservatism is left-wing compared to fascism.

>>1834834
>The People are granted freedom...with the obligation that they exercise their power for the betterment of society.

>Alfredo Rocco - Liberty = Not the liberal freedom to do whatever you want, politically, economically, and socially, but rather the freedom to do the things society wants you to do (and which you want to do because society wants you to do them). (And you're emotionally part of it.)

And who determines what is "the betterment of society"? An artist, a soldier, and an economist aren't all going to agree what collective actions are needed in society for its betterment, and all 3 are an important part of a healthy society.

Whether you're creating a private authority to maintain what people consider good for society, or you're blaring these societal messages through the state propaganda, the result remains that you're creating one cohesive order based on what is currently "good for the state".

Every political compass-type tool has Fascism on the top end of the Authoritarian Spectrum, and that is largely because one cohesive order of values is made for the people, and the people must abide by it. This seems to be largely motivated by private organizations enforcing this will, because it doesn't necessarily seem that the strong-arm government is the enforcer of this, rather just that the government is the sponsor of this moral order.

>>1835061
Depends on which country's Conservative values you're talking about, because Conservatism isn't inherently right-wing. If you're talking about American Consevatives, this is false, as you can't get much more right-wing than American Conservatism.

Fascism is generally actually to the left of much of American Conservatism (though sometimes it's close) as Conservatives hate DA BIG GUBBERMINT being involved in their issues. Conservatives would often rather detriment to their communities before government intervention (a shift to the left).

However, just because Fascism and American Conservatism are often close (especially so with Trumpism), it's incorrect to compare the two, because economically they can be similar, but on the social scale, Fascism is generally more Authoritarian.

File: 1474159583255.png (192KB, 501x445px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 501x445px

>>1833800

>Libertarians agreeing with fascists

What the fuck am I reading.

>>1834995

Musolini was an anarcho syndicalist you twat

File: pizap.com14438808430321.jpg (178KB, 934x767px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 934x767px

>>1834664

>>1835122
I think it's more of a
>dude we're opposite sides of the same coin!

It's really just because they're both trendy atm.

>>1833641
>>1833651
You're both fucking retards because Fascism isn't inherently one or the other.

>>1834150

>Fascism doesn't recognize elites

Nor does communism or socialism, yet to this date no socialist society has existed without elites. Usually represented as Party Elites.

In fascist society, Party big shots and Industrial Magnates are the Elites. Wether fascism recognizes them or not is irrelevant - they are still there.

>>1834905
Fantastic post

>>1833630
No of course not, what makes you ask such a silly question?

>>1834194
It has, and it worked splendily until it got blown to smitheerens by judeo bolshevism.

File: d10d44d516b0be557a010d18e944f910667e3b4d.jpg (1MB, 3548x2044px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3548x2044px

>>1835122
Lolberts and Ancaps going fash at the drop of a hat is as common as reactionaries stealing leftist imagery

Does anyone have that in depth explanation of 'true fascism' which is entirely different to what people generally classify fascism to be?

>>1834829
You don't do any of these things
The free-market does (according to them)

>>1833641
>>1833651
Are you two really arguin about this? It isn't right or left, it is third position.

File: 225px-Hans_Landa_IB_2009.jpg (12KB, 225x222px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 225x222px

>>1836221

Fascism is clearly very right wing, since it is by nature nationalistic and anti-multi cultural - which is the opposite of globalism. There are some socio-economic principles that could be considered left wing, however. Historically, fascism has been used as a tool by the few to sieze control and elevate their own positions to power. Often through populism and "us and them"-rhetoric.

>>1836053
No such thing, really. Fascism varies from country to country. But broadly speaking Fascism is;

A nationalistic, anti-marxist reactionary ideology that support a strong military arm. A fascist society will favour imperialism to benefit it's own nation, disregarding the cost to other nations with a reasoning akin to "Might is Right". It supports a class society with an idea that all classes need to exist for a nation to function, and frowns upon mobility within classes. This often includes race and sex as well, where women's rights are often curtailed in favour of an idea that their role is to be mothers and bearers of the future soldiers of the nation.

In essence, a fascist society is a nationalistic and highly militarist and authoritarian society with limited freedoms and rights. Often all policies are in place to serve the party and the military rather than the people.

>>1836250

Whilst I agree with much of what you say, I do implore that you move beyond the right/left dichotomy as many policies instituted by the Fascists seem to blur with the Communists (i.e Land distribution in the North of Italy in 1925).

Secondly, many Fascists profess to be globalist (obviously under their own system) and their endgame seems to be in domination. For instance Mosley in the UK would often call for a unification of Europe after his resounding failure to create meaningful political traction before WWII.

>>1836250

National socialism is clearly very left wing

>>1833641
>Contrarian just trying too hard
I took the bait.

>>1836053

Musolini himself admitted that fascism is basically made up and arbitrary, and can be stretched to mean anything

"Fascism is the merger of state and corporate power"

"The beauty of our economic program is that we have no economic program"

>>1836273
I agree that there are instances of Fascism that are borderline socialistic. But I'd also like to point out that both fascism and applied communism are both very authoritarian, which stands apart from the socio-economic left-right axis. But if fascism is anything on the left-right scale, it is very clearly right.


>>1836274

In name only.

>>1836280

I was reading Dennis Mack Smith's biography today on Mussolini and it was interesting to see how much he flip flopped on policy depending on what crowd he spoke to.

For instance, he tried to bring in liberal women and feminists by claiming that Fascism brought women into the workforce and allowed them to have the same rights as men in the work place. Then to Conservative audiences, he'd backflip and demand that all women return to the home and look after the children.

It was very much an ideology which relied too heavily on Post-WWI context and I don't see it successfully surviving outside of that time period.

>>1836281

There's literally no difference between national socialism and any other kind of socialism.

File: 300px-SBDs_and_Mikuma.jpg (17KB, 300x231px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x231px

>>1836288

You do not understand the history, policies or ideas behind nationalism or marxism very well if that is what you believe.

>>1836288

I guess the differences between class warfare and class cooption and class warfare and race warfare are pretty significant differences between the two ideas.

>>1834011
>>1834150
>>1834834
>>1834905
The only dude ITT who knows what he's talking about. Although with the caveat that it only fully applies to Italian fascism, maybe to a lesser degree phalangism and British fascism.

All the other anons are basically applying their second hand knowledge of 3rd Reich as regurgitated by liberal academia.

>>1836314

Turn your trip back on.

>>1836053
This one?
>Nothing is more relativistic than fascist mentality and activism [attività]. If universal relativism and action are equivalent, then we are fascist, we who have always boasted that we don’t give a damn about the nominalisms to which the bigots of the other parties always cling as bats on rafters; we, who had the courage to smash all the traditional political categories and to call ourselves from time to time: aristocrats and democrats, revolutionaries and reactionaries, proletarians and antiproletarians, pacifists and anti-pacifists—we are truly the relativist par excellence, and our movement calls upon the most current trends of the European spirit.

>>1836306

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and base all your opinions on American public school education.

>>1836307

There is no class warfare under communism either.

>>1836334

Good thing the post I responded to said "socialism" not "communism" :)

>>1836340

So then national socialism is communist? Ok. Well this thread is a trainwreck and I think we established from the first post that all ideologies are the same in practice.

>>1836327

I have read "The Myth of the 20th Century". Have you?

>>1836343

No because it's another liberal book that will help your liberal opinions. If you're a proud liberal then I guess I can't help.

>>1836342

Mate, you really have to brush up on your reading comprehension. I know you think you're intelligent but nobody even mentioned the word "communist" until you did. So I really have no clue what you're on about.

File: 6._The_Myth_of_the_Twentieth_Century_.jpg (95KB, 554x800px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 554x800px

>>1836346

Sure... Very liberal.

>>1836346

>I only read books that affirm my view of the world, thanks

Identity politics, everyone. The down fall of man before your very eyes!

>>1836351

Well anyway, Hitler supported mandatory unionization, economic stimulus, 95% corporate taxes, and every leftwing social policy you can think of- besides the racial stuff, but marx was racist anyway.

>>1836356

Hitler was very liberal. Were there any monarchs he didn't try to depose?

File: image.jpg (116KB, 1222x839px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1222x839px

>>1834905
>war has no mystical value
MATERIALISTS LEAVE!!!

>>1836360

Hitler actually destroyed the Unions, ironically on mayday. Economic stimulus isn't something inherently socialist, nor is it left wing entirely and the 95% corporate tax is something I believe you are lying about unless you can provide a credibly source.

>>1836370

He outlawed the private free market unions and mandated a state union.

>>1836360

>95% corporate taxes
Not true.

>and every leftwing social policy you can think of-
The nazis privatized state industries and denied wokers the right to protest.

>>1836346

If you don't know who Alfred Rosenberg is or even which book "The Myth of the 20th Century" is then you know next to nothing about nazism.

>>1836379

The 95% tax is true.

The Nazis didn't privatize a single industry.

Everyone was mandated to join a state union and no private union activity was allowed.

>>1836374

Yes, so destroyed the unions in favour of state work groups. It doesn't negate the fact that he shutdown unions which were run by socialists and social democrats.

>>1836383

I know those things, try again.

>>1836386

You mean national socialism?

>>1836385

Read Richard Evans.
The germans privatized lots of industries.

I don't know where you got the 95% tax from. It's just bullshit.

>>1836390

no... the unions before he shut them down were run by socialists and social democrats...

>>1836391

You're just making stuff up so it's obvious that national socialism was socialist. Have fun with your american public education based theories about things.

>>1836395

It's obvious that you don't really know anything about nazism, but sure Ok.

>>1836394

Not national socialists?

>>1836395

>You're just making stuff up
>Still claims a 95% tax rate with no source

Answer truthfully, do you actually think you come off as intelligent?

>>1836398

Why the fuck would he shut unions down run by his own party?

>>1836396

It's obvious that fuhrer was the supreme leader who, by definition, "nationalized all industry".

>>1836405

Unfortunately for you this just isn't the case.

>>1836407

Wow you're hell bent on arguing national socialism isn't socialist.

>>1836400

I've won the argument so yeah.

File: 1437906825998.jpg (50KB, 473x316px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 473x316px

>>1836414

I don't think there's any real arguing going on. You don't seem to know even the most basic things about national socialism.

>>1836422

Are you denying the 100% tax rate on Jewish capitalists?

>>1836416

You're a good troll. I'll give you that. I shouldn't have wasted my time.

>>1836324
I don't think he quite captures the spirit of what fascism is about, but the dude at least has some knowledge of actual Italian fascist program and doctrine.

In my opinion, the essence of fascism is to turn politics into what is basically a modernist, or even a post-modernist artistic performance. The quote >1836325
captures it quite well.

>>1836427

>more "stats" he made up

>>1836432

Have fun being a holohoax denier.

File: myfinalsolution.gif (4MB, 603x373px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 603x373px

>>1836427

Taxation according to race is not socialism.

>>1836431

As someone who studies Italian history extensively, I can assure you that despite the romanticisation of Fascism and a supposed "doctrine" it had to follow, it was nothing more than radical pragmatism and opportunism completely devoid of any coherency outside of its aesthetics program.

>>1836436

Yes it is. See for example the Ukrainian genocide.

>>1836435

1) I detest Nazism and Fascism
2) I completely accept the holocaust happened

What I detest as well is anti-intellectualism, lying, deceit and ignorance. All things you are displaying in this thread.

File: 1472934469100.jpg (665KB, 1997x1479px) Image search: [Google]

665KB, 1997x1479px

>>1836443

Another example of nationalism, not socialism.

http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/3/384.full.pdf

The Natonal socialists did indeed have a 95% corporate tax rate.

>first page
>Shortly after coming to power in 1933, the National Socialist government raised the statutory tax rate on corporate profits to 95%.

>>1836446

Then you admit that national socialism was socialism, you just don't realize it.

>>1836447

Then you're a trot. Learn what that is.

>>1836455

Ok, kiddo.

>>1836450

I don't doubt you if you've got a source for it.

>>1836452

I admit you are ignorant, yes.

>>1836464

You've demonstrated that you cant read.

>>1836250
>nationalistic and anti-multicultural
>makes it right wing
By your retarded idea, North Korea, Zimbabwe, the Soviet Union, China and Khmer Rouge were all far-right. Left means economic equality while right means economic individualism.

>>1836471

Actually, almost none of the concepts discussed on this site mean anything.

File: 1429296358934.jpg (709KB, 1920x1152px) Image search: [Google]

709KB, 1920x1152px

>>1836471

>North Korea, Zimbabwe, the Soviet Union, China and Khmer Rouge

No, these are all totalitarian, which is not a left-right issue.

>>1836482
I'm not saying totalitarianism is an only left thing as the right has had totalitarianism too but being left doesn't mean you can't be nationalist. Pol Pot was Communist and had a literal ethnic genocide.

File: 1472934330853.jpg (204KB, 834x1188px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 834x1188px

>>1836490

The extremes of both sides, i.e. left and right wing, have nothing that differentiates them except their rhetoric. A totalitarian socialist might as well be a totalitarian nationalist. There is virtually no difference except maybe their rhetoric.

>>1834905
>militarism is not a part of the fascist doctrine. War is simply a tool of diplomacy, without any mystical value to it
What utter bullshit. The writings of Mussolini and Hitler are rife with references to value of war in and of itself for strengthening the nation, and resentment over supposedly unfair peace treaties combined with expansionist territorial demands were vital elements of bringing fascist parties to power.

>Furthermore, the overestimation of their own ability has, yet again, nothing to do with the fascist ideology
According to you.

>but was eventually forced into the conflict by Germany
Italy was not forced into WWII by Germany, Mussolini chose to join in because he thought the Axis would win and wanted to get his share of the gains. Also, what would you call the invasion of Greece if not a massive overestimation of Italy's military capabilities?

>Franco didn't overestimate himself either, choosing to stay neutral
Franco wasn't really a fascist, so it isn't really germane to this conversation, but he actually did want to join the war, but Hitler wouldn't accept his extravagant demands for French colonial territory and material assistance.

Your whole argument is basically "ignore the actual practice of fascist states, and just focus on some definition of pure, true fascism I pulled out of my ass". Literally commie-tier

>>1836288
>There's literally no difference between national socialism and any other kind of socialism.
You should just stop posting for a while and open up a book. Try basic political theory or something that isn't strictly your propaganda kool-aid that you're slurping up.

File: 1463940407097.jpg (27KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x500px

>>1833630
Shills for big business rapped up in a futurist aesthetic. The main subsides of Mussolini and the March of Rome were owners of banks, lobby groups, land bodies and other racketeering companies.

Politician Matteotti was killed for revealing that Mussolini planned to give exclusive Italian oil rights to corrupt American Harry Sinclair (Sinclair Oil links to Standard Oil) with other juicy tax breaks. Other revelations included the bypassing of laws for the failed Banca Italiana di Sconto, making sure they didn't have to make good on the bank's losses. One large profiteer was Guglielmo Marconi (invented the radio), who was a member on the Sconto board, who suddenly joined the Fascist Party after the Musso the Duce waived his finical burden.

All ideas about anti-degeneracy, traditionalism, antisemitism and anti-Bolshevism are distractions. The biggest Italian business' from Fiat, Martini and Pirelli were all members of the Fascist Party. The July 1934 edition of Fortune Magazine concluded:

>The significant facts to hang on to are these, if you were an early Fascist, or contributed generously to the March on Rome, you are likely to enjoy the business benefits that accrue to a high position within the Fascist Party

It was only after Pearl Harbour that Fortune, Time and Life and the New York Times stopped applauding their love for Fascism.

>>1836609

Lol. The national socialist government ran huge budget deficits and only allowed private firms profits because they were required to reinvest in government debt. Stalin did the opposite, practiced austerity, and exported grain to pay off his Jewish creditors.

>>1836620

Did you mention the part where musolini then did a 180 and ran huge budget deficits

>>1836637
Can you expand

>>1836642

http://fascism-archive.org/books/fascistroadtoruin.html

> Rapturously Mussolini proclaimed in 1927 that the lira was back on a gold basis on a “sound ratio,” despite the opinion of American and European economists that stabilization at 19 lire to the dollar was insane. This brought about a deficit of 2,500,000,000; conservative British economists place the loss at 3,500,000,000 lire. It was certainly one of the most expensive gestures in financial history.

>>1836274
>>1836288
>National socialism
>Left wing
A talking point to keep working class Germans supporting the status quo.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00473.x/abstract

>>1836738

Well is there any actual difference

>>1836738

>national socialists privatize things
>implying Lenin didn't do the same

Can you make a better argument as to how national socialism is somehow different from non national socialism

>>1836749
Yes because national socialists don't give the workers the means of production or even pretend to.

Not to mention it didn't even have a pretence of democratic.

>>1836770
>implying Lenin didn't do the same
1. Lenin didn't invent socialism
2. Lenin even admitted that the NEP was decisively unsocialist, but that it was a strategic point of policy.

>>1836786

So your points are entirely semantic and meaningless

>>1836789
No, my point is that the third reich was literally not socialist by any definition.

One could make the case that the USSR's claim to socialism was entirely semantic and meaningless. But that doesn't make Nazi Germany socialist, it just makes them both not socialist.

>>1836749
in theory no, national socialism is simply socialism applied nationally rather than globally.

In practice, however, national socialism is a "something for everybody" incoherent hodgepodge of ideas meant to galvanize working class people through use of identity politics and scapegoating rather than the traditional Marxist methods of using ideological consistency and policy wonking to win over intellectuals and the social elite.

>>1836796

So you're a trot. Thanks for clarifying.

>>1836802

>consistency

So autists should change over from libertarianism to marxism?

>>1833641
fpbp

>>1836806
I'm not, if anything I'd consider myself a market socialist. I'm just pointing out that saying "Well the USSR did XYZ therefore XYZ is socialist" is a dumb argument considering the USSR is already dubiously socialist.

Not to mention that "You're a trot" is a non-argument.

>>1836811
Libertarianism (at least in its modern free market variety) is an interesting example of attempting to adapt Marxist methodologies for the purpose of promoting a right wing political agenda, particularly through use of ideologically consistent arguments to win over thinking people.

But as Rand Paul learned so painfully this election season, there seems to be an upper limit to how useful this technique is at actually building a political coalition necessary to take on the global oligarchy.

>>1836789

.. What? That doesn't even make any sense.

>>1836924

You didn't say anything substantial.

>>1836956

I'm not the one you were replying to. I'm just pointing out that what you're saying doesn't make any sense since you're just ignoring arguments and seem to have very little knowledge regarding the topic.

>>1836956
except that he did

For his first point, he demonstrated the practical difference between national socialism and Marxist socialism, particularly the point that while Marxists pretended to be distributing the means of production evenly, natsocs don't even make the effort. He makes a corollary point that most Marxists have abandoned the violent revolution model in favor of a democratic model, while natsocs remain committed to traditional hierarchy and are skeptical of the democratic process

His second point was to point out that you made a false equivalence: Lenin privatized because he was forced to, because his previous attempts at creating a command economy were failures. For Hitler, privatization was at the core of his strategy to win German business and financial elites over to the Nazi political machine, especially after the Night of Long Knives which purged the party of all its actual socialists.

>>1836977

He just whined about vague things.

>>1836977

> privatization was at the core of his strategy to win German business and financial elites over to the Nazi political machine, especially after the Night of Long Knives which purged the party of all its actual socialists.

Just like the NEP was at the core of gaining support from jewish capitalists?

>>1837007
Arguably.

Nonetheless Lenin was explicit in pointing out that the NEP wasn't socialist.

>>1837007
>Just like the NEP was at the core of gaining support from jewish capitalists?
Lenin needed foreign capital in order to industrialize Russia, especially after War Communism and total nationalization of the economy proved unworkable. He described the NEP as a mixed system aimed at easing the transition to true socialism, which was quite different from Hitler's ethno-supremacist dream of creating a global hegemony dominated by ethnic Germans and permanently destroying Marxism/bolshevism.

>>1837030

>Hitler's ethno-supremacist dream of creating a global hegemony dominated by ethnic Germans

Hitler's dream put nordic people at the head of the global hegemony, not ethnic germans.

File: images.jpg (6KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 225x225px

>>1833800
>critiques anarchism with an argument that applies to libertarianism

Fucking autism the ideology is at it again

>>1837146

According to Nazi doctrine, Nordics were considered the purest of Aryans but they were simply the purest of many forms of aryans. Hitler's reich was built for Aryans and germans and he wanted to incorporate nordics. There is a difference.

>>1834767
Nothing ends in peace. thats a factor in something ending.

File: 9551357_orig.jpg (26KB, 510x369px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 510x369px

>>1835080
I am afraid I did not understand your question. I would like you to repeat it.
If you were referring to directing the society, then the answer would be: Government for political direction (as is within any political system, really) and Corporate Councils for economic direction (these answer your question about different proffessions. Each of them is part of a corporation (in the fascist sense, not the capitalist sense) which benefits the society in its own way. A corporation of art creates artworks for the society to consume, a corporation of agriculture produces food etc. If you are talking about laws, that is the authority of the Government. And there will always be differing opinions on the direction the State must take within the Government. There is no blueprint for political organization within the fascist doctrine, so the extent of power the Government has on the People and the extent of power the People have on the Government may not be discerned. But you seem to think that the State needs to impose a moral instead of a legal order, implying widespread indoctrination, which would somehow turn the People against the State (for some reason). I fail to grasp why, and would like you to explain this. The conception of "using your power to benefit society" is simply benefiting it through your work (covered by the corporate organization of the State), through not creating dissent (strikes and protests were illegal, as they are viewed as acts of hostility towards the society. Strikes are to be made obsolete by the corporate organization, and whether the right of protest is made obsolete by any other means is strictly dependent on the way of political organization the particular fascist society adopts. The main fascist point on political organization is that democracy is not the only legitimate system, and that it is quite inefficient.), and through observing the laws of the society.

>>1833630
No, fascism is the future
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPGcPZiwDvY

File: tumblr_ngmvnl3sBa1r2qr2so1_500.jpg (133KB, 499x750px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 499x750px

Fascism is life.

>>1836250
Nationalism is not right-wing.

I would take it over Hillarism \0/

File: IMG_0384.jpg (45KB, 640x569px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x569px

>>1837821