What is fascism?

Bad

>>2483950
corporate economics
Conservative social policy
authoritarian government

Ultra nationalistic and authoritarian right-wing reactionary movement opposed to communism, liberalism, marxism, and anarchism.

when the government considers the citizen's it's property

Government done for the sake of the people, not "universal principles" like property, justice, diversity, or any other such spooks. Care is taken to ensure that the populace actually cares about each other. It's also not materialistic like most mainstream ideologies; the Fascist realizes that a person can be happier with less, they just need strong social bonds.

Corporatism follows basically directly from these principles, and it's of course of incredible importance, but barring that, it's a pretty flexible ideology. It gets a bad rap because the people who advocated for it in the 20th century also happened to be imperialist scum and suppressors of dissent but Fascism need not be imperialist or suppressive. In fact, modern Fascists (there are such people out there, they just don't call themselves that outside of Taiwanese motorboating forums) are often advocates of direct democracy.

>>2484353
>are often advocates of direct democracy.

so most fascists are retards?

Being obsessed with faces.

>>2484349
/thread

>>2483950
anything that leftists don't like

totalitarianism and corporatism

>>2483950
Baby don't hurt me

>>2484342
Fpwp

>>2484351
That's communism

>>2483950
Georgi Dimitrov, one of the more productive communist philosophers, says fascism is a capitalist reaction of desperation.
Seeing that the workers are enacting communism through revolution, capitalists make this in-between state, trying to sedate the workers with religion/nation and channel them against other states rather than other classes, or something like that. Google for work, most commies cite it as a definition - "capitalist reaction to revolution".

>>2483950
Whatever system of government you dislike the most.

>>2485684
Exept he is wrong, the workers didn't fall for international Communism.
Staying had to push for nationalism FFS

>>2485684
What do you mean by "in-between" state?

>>2485894
>Exept he is wrong
Explain how and why.
>the workers didn't fall for international Communism
What does this have to do with it? Is this statement even correct? Prove it.
>Staying had to push for nationalism FFS
I don't understand this line of your post at all. Rephrase it.

>>2485907
>What do you mean by "in-between" state?
Between "capitalism" and "communism". I can't be arsed to write in a 4chan post what people wrote whole books about, if you care read some of that academic material, if you don't care stop pretending to.
This reads like its mean, I don't intend it to be.

>>2485911
Workers did not embrace the international socialist movement in favor of nationalism. The Soviet government realizes it and goes from anti nacionalist to nationalist. The reactionary nacionalismo is clearly the Soviet's

>>2483950
>>>2483950
>Georgi Dimitrov, one of the more productive communist philosophers, says fascism is a capitalist reaction of desperation.
> capitalists make this in-between state

By wich means?

>>2485939
>Workers did not embrace the international socialist movement in favor of nationalism.
Some did, some didn't. Either way, it didn't influence politics much.

>The Soviet government realizes it and goes from anti nacionalist to nationalist.
The USSR never went nationalist, because its multinational. It has many languages and cultures in it, much of it was muslim, there was some Baltics, some Finland. And of course when talking about USSR, we also talk about the Warsaw Pact, since it was in practice a part of it, though not on paper.
There was a unity of ideology, and people struggled for that ideology, but not of nationhood and struggle for the nation. The USSR wasn't the Russian Empire, and it wasn't a Russian nationalist state. The different nations in it were celebrated, pride was built up and promoted for each. They even had the different flags all over the place, not just the one USSR flag. They had army corps named after the nations of the peoples included in it.

>The reactionary nacionalismo is clearly the Soviet's
Even if that is nationalism, and I said I don't think it can be called that, it happened last in the USSR. How can it be a reaction starting there, if it happened last there?

>>2485907

Fascism is neither Communism or Capitalism. It takes a state in-between these two ideologies called Corporatism; Mussolini famously stated that 'Fascism should have been called Corporatism'.

Basically, it is the best of both worlds. You have a certain degree of Socialist policies such as Keynesiam deficit spending to level out consumer demand with production rates to create an economically neutral one-class State whilst also retaining private ownership which is well regulated through the banning of a stock market and where all agreements must be in the benefit of the State rather than the benefit of a sole person.

>>2483950

To put it simply, Fascism is the next step in political evolution in the Western world.

Despite taking a Conservative Social stance within Fascism it retains very liberal principles especially for the time period in which Fascism spawned;

>Proportional Representation (Regional Governments)
>Equal Suffrage for Men and Women (Voting Age - 18)
>Electoral Office Eligiblility for Men/Women at 25 years of age
>Economic Sectors (Private/Public etc) given representation politically in Executive Councils
>The Abolition of the Italian Senate (Appointed by the King; usually rich men)

All of these were Mussolini's policies to reform the Italian Kingdom.

National Socialism (Hitler's version of Fascism) reformed divorce rights and made the female equal to the male in divorces. He improved environmental care, protected animal rights and even protected the citizens right to hold personal opinions, freedoms and religious faiths.

All business is allowed to remain private, with the exception of the Armaments Industry, although stock marketing is banned as it is a risk to the economic security of the State.

>Most Fascist countries are isolationist. They do not seek out war.

>>2483950
>What is fascism?

To crush the left.
See the illegal aliens driven before you.
Hear the lamentations of the SJWs.

>>2483950

In it's most base essence, Fascism emerged as a reaction to the class warfare rhetoric promoted by Communists of the time period.

The characteristics of Fascism include the glorification of military power and the employment of the use of force to further the ends of the country, as opposed to 'capitalist diplomacy' such as trade agreements.

Fascism, unlike communism or socialism, is explicitly paternalistic rather than egalitarian in its view of the working class, and rejects concepts such as universal human rights, free trade, Bolshevism etc that emerged in the 20th century.

However, outside of opposing radical Bolshevism, Fascism doesn't really care about left or right wing, syndicalists for example can be fascists for example if the trade unions support the regime, capitalists can also be fascists if they do what the regime says with regards to their industries.

Ultimately, fascism is about transcending class to unite the nation under an extremely strong nationalist sentiment, which is why they perceive communists who seek to drive a wedge between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as their greatest threat.

Technically no because of how decentralized Italy was

>>2485911
Not him, but from the way I see it, International Communism shot itself in the foot early on with exceedingly violent uprisings and terrorist attacks that made them easy to demonize by the regime as violent anarchists (anarchist essentially meant the same thing as Communist for a long period of time). It's also why Social Democrats and Progressives became so popular and influential, as they were seen as more moderate versions of the Communist movement mixed with more traditional academic understanding of the world through a humanist/Christian lens rather than a Marxist one ("We need to help the poor because it's the Christian thing to do").

>>2485087
So how is that any different from communism in North Korea, Soviet Union, and China?

>>2485997
>The Abolition of the Italian Senate (Appointed by the King; usually rich men)

So did Mussolini change it so the senators became elected or he just completely got rid of the senate?

>>2486246
>North Korea
No real corporations that aren't state owned entities.
>Soviet Union
See above
>China
PRC has changed significantly over the decades. It's less authoritarian now and more technocratic, as the President is still ultimately beholden by the Communist Party.

>>2486116
This is mostly true but I'd word it differently. Fascists aren't out to "defend" the bourgeoisie; they agree with communists that the idea of there being people out there with enormous amounts of power and wealth despite not actually doing anything is fucking stupid, but while the Communist sees this in a zero-sum "bourgeoisie wins, proletariat loses" sense, the Fascist realizes that the bourgeois, himself, is victimized by the stupidity that is Liberalism/Capitalism, his life's work amounting to this utterly meaningless exercise. The Fascist thinks by uniting the nation, one can give "spiritual" (Fascism can be secular, but it must be romantic and non-materialistic) fulfillment to both bourgeoisie and proletariat, as well as the material abundance to the proletariat that is the Communist's sole goal.

Now, one might think that this would mean that Fascism is a more ambitious and thus less realistic exercise than Communism, but one has to realize that while the Communist has his sights set world-wide, the Fascist is solely concentrated on the nation around him. Moreover, the Communist thinks all happiness comes from wealth, which must come from resources and labor, but the Fascist thinks he can make do with less wealth if he has a more vibrant culture, which doesn't necessarily need resources or labor to work.

Also, "glorification of military power" is also close but not quite accurate. The Fascist is fascinated by the state of total war where the citizenry is united and prepared to sacrifice much to accomplish some greater goal, and wants to channel that energy into doing something that actually benefits society rather than simply fighting others.

>>2486703
>they agree with communists that the idea of there being people out there with enormous amounts of power and wealth despite not actually doing anything is fucking stupid

Key word "not doing anything with it". Fascism is fine with having a class of plutocrats as long as they aren't sitting on their money. Everything is subverted to the whims of the nation-state, its entirely up to fascist leadership as to what becomes of said wealth, whether it be towards destructive or productive ends.