Jose Antonian falangist third positionist here...

Jose Antonian falangist third positionist here. I just foun out about this board and how you actually dont ban differing opinions here, I wanted to ask you, why do you think my position is capitalism in decay since its anything but that, yes I know mussolini's corporatism sounds like capitalism ( its a bit more deeper than that) and "muh hortler"
What about labour focused, rather left leaning fascism like falangism, peronism and the ba'ath, tell me how we are just capitalism in decay
I hace to confess, you lefties are the ones that recognize what is wrong with the country(at least in economy) we just acnkowledge it and tried to go for a different solution rather than communism, we see it as innecesarily corruptive since you want to destroy things like race, family and states and that turns off a whole lot of the workers
My great grandfather was one co founder for the Falange Española, a really smart man, I wont say his name though

Attached: jose antonio 2.jpg (3840x2160 82.25 KB, 3.03M)

Other urls found in this thread:

btw, I am a huge fan of Thomas Sankara and Quadaffi and Bashar al Assad. They are literally the only people that have effectively stood up against the ( ( ( elites) ) )

Attached: OP his thread.jpg (317x699, 175.22K)

Check em'.

Kill yourself fash

i don wanna

What is "fascism?" I would define it as protectionist, extremely vertical capitalism in which a distinct faction within the ruling class of a particular society takes direct control of the economy by means of a state predicated upon fundamentalism. The reason that it gets called "capitalism in crisis" is that it is only viable when investment abroad no longer produces sufficient resources to maintain capital production. Fascism, as I have defined it, arose to maintain bourgeois production through the theft of resources and the destruction of production in outlying capitalist systems. Fascism can never rise again, because there are no longer any outlying systems but rather one global horizontal capitalism.

then tell me why we all are opposed to capitalism or atleast its uncontrolled current form?
Why do we still exist even though we clearly are against the workers and want to suck cap cock even though most of us are workers ourselves

and why does capitalism fervently oppose us, do they want to keep a facade just because. Do you think we want to keep having them hurt not only the nation but the world since most of us either are working class people but also self made men?
Do you think we jack off to the thought that our """"""""masters""""""" have more money than us?

You aren't.

Maybe you personally are opposed to capitalism but that is irrelevant. As soon as Fascism is necessary, i.e. when porky fears a revolution is going to happen, your organization will suddenly receive more media attention, more donations, etc. It will be taken over by Porky's slaves and if you stay you will inevitably get Night of Long Knives-style killed if you actually try to push for anti-capitalism.

Oh please. If anything we are the ones that are getting constant slander, harrasment, deplatforming, we simply are just too stuborn to let ourselves be silenced.
And you think that we wont learn from the mistakes of Night of the Long Knives. That instead it wont be the Night of the slaughterhouse, that you really believe that its all just caps against comms and everything else is just caps in denial?

And we know you get harrasment too, just that ( ( ( porky) ) ) doesnt see you as a threat, hell they may even see you as useful idiots.

First tell us what "fascism" is. If it is an alternative to the capitalism (commodity production, wage labor, absentee ownership, private ownership of the means of production) then what characteristics differentiate it?


Attached: dac2926f18fe0da0b2cb83d4279364256e724bdf4df82905ab820e2daae5ef78.png (668x760, 381.16K)
and here is a fashy Sassenach saying that the USSR is preferable to ( ( ( capitalism) ) )

Welcome to the board! We want to destroy exploitation. In other words one class, the bourgeois( better known on this board as "porky") living off the labour of another, the proletariat.
Anons what is the best introduction to the Labour Theory of Value to recommend for Jose?

you could say the economic aspects are different from nation to nation, but the general tenets we can agree (atleast) a form of socialism wereas the workers have more say in the economy and the nation, the workers would organizer themselves in trades wherein the State owns the company but the workers manage everything else (atleast in theory and depending if you prefer more socialist economics) , most of us also argue for a "wealth tap" that is aimed to prevent individuals from getting too rich or too poor

how does porky manipulate the family so as to jerk off to more money
and how does preventing cheap labour from entering enrich ( ( ( porky) ) )

and we dont deal in just economics, we also have a philosophy to it.

this might seem as a suprise but you guys are actually a lot more respectable than Zig Forums

I know this is the last place to say but. You might be suprised to know that Jose Antonio didnt actually want to kill anyone, hell he didnt like killing other Spaniards even if they were communists, he preferred compromising so as too prevent some of the deaths the revolution would bring, he didnt see the ideological divides as real divides, but fabricated ones to divide the Spanish people from achieving the Syndical State


Attached: 077.jpg (305x368, 17.04K)

nice bait

Zig Forums can't into right wing, for the love of God let's just stick to reading our theory and simply being against fascism because it's not us. That's it but oh my God seeing this hurts.

Attached: pardonmyvomi.jpg (700x432, 51.95K)

You do not have to go through life without the ability to comprehend what you read. There are classes that you can take that will help you with your learning disability.

^Answer this, OP.

Nice deflection.

No, I directly addressed the fact that you cannot comprehend what you read, which is obvious now to anyonefollowing along.

Then explain how I didn't understand it because
If he meant
'The state under fascism takes control of mop and preserves capitalist aspects under it.'
I don't need reading classes he needs writing classes to specify. Like wise fascism is not inherently a reaction. It can be reactionary inherently but it was not devised as a reaction to stopping socialism even if nowadays that is one of it's core tenets. The left's image of fascism is a misconception at multiple points.

Please point us to an example of a 'fascist' state actually maintaining broad popular mobilization and public support beyond their first few years of existence.
Please point us to an example of a 'fascist' state actually proactively addressing the contradictions and failures of capitalism (i.e. tendency of the rate of profit to fall, centralization of capital, immiseration of the working people, etc.) in ways that could not be done by a generic liberal democracy.

porky relies on you impregnating your missus, and your missus churning out human progeny, moar WAGE-SLAVES! to replace worn out and dying ones.
This is part of what is referred to by Marxists as "the reproduction of labour power."
But the reproduction of labour power is also the idea that the worker, or rather, the workers labour power (ability to keep working) is a commodity - equivalent to food, rent etc. Just like machines need oil and maintenence to keep going so does the worker.
Where exploitation comes into it is what porky pays for is this labour power, but what porky gets is labour *time*. A worker employed by porky works for longer in a day than is necessary to maintain their labour power, and pay for porkys raw materials, etc. What's left over is porkys profit, which he/she gets just for owning the means of production, basically. What if the means of production was common property, instead?
Fair question. I'm work in an industry in Britain which has seen a lot of migrant workers come into it. I have a somewhat "autonomist" Marxist view, however, that any undercutting of us natives isn't really a factor , not when compared to the level of militancy (wildcat strikes), in determining what wages we can demand from porky. If you're honestly concerned about cheap (badly paid) labour you'd be best off supporting the IWW's campaigns, imho

>( ( ( porky) ) )

Working in *anti-Semitic brackets*Jonathan's *anti-Semitic brackets* bagel bakery, or on *sig runes*Richard Spencer*sig runes* family plantation, it doesn't make any difference.

No, that is clearly not what "a distinct faction within the ruling class of a particular society takes direct control of the economy by means of a state" means. It is not that complicated. The ruling class in any given society is broken into factions (eg. manufacturers) that share a particular set of interests. During a crisis in the broader economic system (eg. The Great Depression), one of those factions may sieze control of the state (eg. the Weimar Republic) in order to direct the economy to serve their interests (eg. weaken nearby competitors, sieze resource extraction nodes from other empires, acquire slave labor, stave off revolution).

Attached: NaziCapitalism.jpg (3638x1308, 845.67K)

Then define it already.

Because Fascism retains class and wage labor while only attacking superficial aspects of capitalism. You fags are the less palatable version of social democrats who claim to be rebellious but will serve the interests of the bourgeois if you gain power.

Attached: 1497295749994.jpg (2160x1215, 161.07K)

I love how the fascist pretends to hate capitalism, then when prodded to explain his disagreements with capitalism, attacks it in the most superficial and vague way possible. For example the Youtuber Cultured Thug always says
while thinking glorifying Nazi Germany and Italy as non-capitalist societies. These people never touch on the class struggle (defending class-collaboration), defend private-property, exploitation, imperialism – i.e. capitalism in its entirety and have in every instance been propped up or empowered by the bourgeoisie they claim to despise, dropping any and all anti-capitalist rhetoric. I know I’ve said nothing new but it astounds me how often I hear this shtick. It proves that fascists are nothing more than no-theory retards spooked out of their minds

Attached: 1BFF37B2-261C-4C4F-9291-B9E129CCB7FD.jpeg (618x410, 71.22K)

By your inclination i'm guessing Ramiro Ledesma?

Goddamnit, why can't fascists define fascism?

Okay your general description of the traits of fascism are correct however a few different things.
1.Hitler wasn't a fascist.
2.Your examples don't portray those points properly, those aren't the aspects specific to fascism.
The USSR and other leftists have done this. This is not what capitalism is and for the record, neither is privatization, you're contradicting yourself in multiple places.
I'm only replying because I can't sleep so I probably won't reply until hours later.

I'm not op but usually the defense of non socialist practices in a society centered around a systemic state, however usually in the absolute fashion. Look to modern day the United States if you want an example, it's always been fascist. And for the record fascism is bad. I'm not defending it, I'm saying a major chunk of people here are mixing in ideas that are lies about it. It's still preservative of capitalism.

fucking wot m8?

What makes you think Hitler was and the US wasn't?

Abolition of bourgeois democracy is one of the indications that a country has gone fascist. Calling any bourgeois democracy fascist shows you don't understand what you're talking about.

What. Define your version of fascism then because being anti democracy is not fascist.

And likewise being a republic is not anti fascist.

As for why Hitler is fascist, the reason is obvious. He checks off all the boxes.

- Abolition of bourgeois democracy
- Destruction of all independent worker organizations, unions, etc.
- Suppression and execution of leftists
- Abolition of liberal democratic rights
- Economic policy directed by the bourgeoisie

All the above is needed to strangle a revolutionary situation, which is the only purpose of Fascism.

Examples of fascist states:

Chile under Pinochet, Germany under Hitler, Italy under Mussolini

Examples of non-fascist states:

America, Somalia, China, Russia, Sweden

Just "being authoritarian" or being a warzone or being a shithole country like America is not enough to qualify a country as fascist.

Yeah sure that's why all fascist experiments ended up as either military juntas or one party states lmfao.

Is that why multiple anarchist branches are also anti democracy?
- Abolition of bourgeois democracy
If the bourgeoisie (spelled it wrong by the way.) Are still in power regardless then why does the illusion of choice make a difference when the results given by fascism with the exact same motivation are still there.
- Destruction of all independent worker organizations, unions, etc.
So like multiple leftists have done?
- Suppression and execution of leftists
So like multiple leftists have done to each other?
- Abolition of liberal democratic rights
Yes because liberal democratic rights (by the way you can misuse democracy as a term all you want, it's actually republic.) Does things to stop capitalism.
- Economic policy directed by the bourgeoisie
Checks out for America. If your definition of fascism is "I don't get to choose between Bourgeoisie A or Bourgeoisie B this time." Then you don't have a very good definition.

It doesn't matter what he called himself; Nazi Germany was a fascist society by the definition laid out in .

No, they are not. Altogether, however, they constitute fascism.

Yes, imperialism is a practice that has thusfar been common to every mode of production since the Agricultural Revolution created surpluses.

Again, you are failing to follow along. We are talking about fascism specifically in this thread. If you want to talk about what capitalism is and is not, boy, have you come to the right place. You could say that it is our second-favorite passtime after shitposting.

That all could mean anything or nothing at all. I mean, you could stuff every human society from Sumeria to the USSR (t. leftcom) into that definition. It is vague to the point of uselessness.

The United States has been aggressively shoving "free trade" into every harbor that Americans could pilot a gunboat to since Thomas Jefferson was the president. Its ruling class is profoundly fragmented and divided, even though wealth has been consolidated into an ever-shrinking number of hands. Calling the United States "fascist" is absurd in the extreme. If anything, it is the epitome of horizonal globalism.

Multiple aspects of the things he said there pertain to non fascists and especially when not done for the same reasons as fascists which Hitler didn't.
But then it's not fascism.
Arguable as actions≠results, intent.
Except you can't. Socialism arguably arose later than even communism or anarchism.
Which Mussolini set out to do before Hitler literally told him "Stop."

No state of any mode of production has exclusive claim to any of its individual qualities. Why would you expect that it would? What makes a category is a given set of qualifications, all of which it must meet to be called such. Not every instance of imperialism is fascist, but fascism always features imperialism. Not every system that features private ownership of the means of production is fascist, but fascism always features private ownership of the means of production. Not every protectionist economy is fascist, but fascism always features protectionism. etc.

Not all imperialism is fascist, but fascism always features imperialism.

Intent is irellevent. When defining a real thing, all that matters is what its actual qualities are.

All you said was "non-socialist," not that it arises at the same time as socialism in order to supress socialism. I would never use that distinction anyway. It is vague and predicated upon the perceived intentions of an active agent.

Mussolini set out to take East Africa and use it as an imperial province. That is the plain old vertical imperialism that is typical of fascism. A horizontal globalist imperial power would have brought its navy to the border and demanded special trading rights before allowing private entities that invest from the center of the empire to set up subsidiaries in the host country that the local state would be bribed or threatened into protecting.

Oh, and absolutely nothing arose earlier than anarchy.

no, a more obscure figure

lol that guy supressed its fascists

Are you retard

your definition of fascism is flawed and you

Next question, why do you still believe in the "muh equality"meme when no one is truly equal

and arguably speaking there are more fascist forces that are rather left leaning. Strasser for example wanted to liquidize the german industries owned by bourgoise. Falangists wanted to institute worker owned industries and the Iron Guard wanted Christian Socialism

pic related is why most of us dont take communism

Attached: third position.png (530x687, 173.5K)




That's not the problem with this image the problems is that Nutional Succism and Fascism both made people give up culture, give up land, and well, I wouldn't say they gave up people but the first to they definitely did. The image becomes obsolete when you realize it still does what capitalism and communism do just for different reasons like all political systems do.

They did give up people, several million of them in fact. Fascists only care about the ideal "people," people in the abstract. Actual people are treated like cattle or cannon fodder.

Attached: Rekt.jpg (1403x1008, 342.2K)

They didnt and as if you cummunists care about culture
You people support giving up your land, does property is theft ring any bells
You dont care about anyone that isnt a misserable factory worker working for 5 euros a day

Attached: 4747d544-f5ce-4089-a754-e48b401fee9a_sl300.crop_300x225_0,3.preview.jpg (900x530 19.34 KB, 44.94K)

Dont talk about giving people up when Stalin sent literal human waves at machine guns with practically no guns. You won by virtue of having expendable manpower and the capitalist west at your back giving you money for free not because you were better at everythinh

looks like it's time to dig something out of my shitflinging folder again

Attached: cdeb1eed2b1dcf5bd2be2e4173ba750905ebcdbd718d363bdddcce4f3a6cd78f.jpg (2676x2024, 774.79K)

Okay time for the thread to die before it just turns into another autistic screeching general.

OP was trying to start the vapid shit-flinging from the very beginning, but he got tripped up when people actually started defining terms and demanding that he do the same. When he got cornered on the subject of what fascism is he predictably bitched out and began throwing memes at the thread.

Hey, OP, give us a working definition of fascism already!

Attached: ConcernedCitizenSpidy.jpg (266x189, 8.54K)

Gee, it was kind of stupid to start an unwinnable war with fucking everyone at once then, huh? What kind of a system allows a tiny ruling cabal to do something that fucktarded in the first place? Oh yeah, fascism.

Attached: Pwned.jpg (770x492, 81.44K)

Zig Forums hates neonazis too, that image is wrong

Attached: how-you-think-you-look-how-you-actually-look-bmepea-23131585.png (580x387 73.47 KB, 64.05K)

I just did

There, is this enough of a definition


What war are you even talking about?

And I didnt even want to make this into a shitfligging contest I just wanted a calm comfy AMA, but thatd too much to ask now is ot

The cold one

kek, he meant the Cold War–an era of political jockeying between superpowers–not an actual war.

We did ask you something: what "fascism" is.

Fuck no. That's a bunch of "some argue"s with absolutely no description of its definative properties. A definition is a statement about what a thing actually is, not a collection of individuals' conflicting opinions on the spirit of it.

And if you want it on economic terms:

There, thats as much as a definition as I can give you, I am still educating myself on it and on marxism since taking lessons from both sides is High IQ

But a Tl DR is basically nationalism(integral to be exact) mixed with syndicalism, yellow socialism or other types of leftwing economics or other types of economies like Corporatism or Distributism or Christian Socialism, that combined with either a big state or a small but strong state to manage the country and economy and too promote the betterment of the people to create a 'New Man"

Mind you not a nationalism for a pur country as it is, but nationalism to the idea for our nation, for example, I am a nationalist in the sense that I want a better country free from influence of anyone, not in the sense of superiority but in the sense of protectionism to the country and its people, I dont feel any attachment to the current system and if presented with the opportunity I would tear it down and create the Syndical State

What else do you feel needs to be covered?

Oh come on now that I calmed down and actually defined fascism for you guys now you leave? Oh well, this went better than I expected

And this shit is from a supposed fascist philosopher. Jesus H. Fuck, does any self-described "fascist" have any coherent notion of fascism? A communist can tell you what communism is. A liberal, excepting the most basic of bitches, can tell you what liberalism is. How does anyone get as invested in their ideology as those halfwits without even having an actual system in mind?

facepalm.jpg. One thing that I do gather from this nonsense is that "fascism" seems to be government policy, to wit something that the state does, and that the state is supposedly controlled by "the people… or rather the leadership" by way of some unexplained mechanism.


This is a better attempt at a definition than those silly videos offered. It is still inconsistent, but it's what we have apart from .

The problem there is that all of those concepts are mutually exclusive. They are qualitative states, not pieces that can be mixedand matched. Syndicalism and distributism are oil and water. "Corporatism" (just capitalism) and any kind of socialism are fundamentally opposed (private ownership vs. collective ownership).

That is one quality that does seem to be universal to fascists' vision of fascism: a state that will act as a benevolent steward and not merely in the interests of a given segment of the population. Of course, states never act in such a manner, because they are only useful abstractions as opposed to active agents. A thing without independent agency can never be rightly expected to act of its own volition.

A country will always be influenced for the afore-mentioned reasons. It is an instrument that is employed as a means to an end by individuals with the ability to do so, not a thinking being. There is no national geist.

Attached: Fascism.jpg (800x581, 239.96K)

Thats why fascism differs from country to country, why one fascism looks more leftist or rightist
Then what other solution is there, the USSR Stalin era comported itself in that manner and you would praise it, not that it is bad since Stalin rolled back on the deplorable and in some instances downright autistic reforms of the earlier days
When I mean foreign influence I mean my culture and the politics being influenced, you guys are also against it, and the State being viewed as a tool is used other fascistic circles like Asserism or other circles like not socialism.

Then it makes no sense to call any particular thing "fascism," as the term never means the same thing twice.

To what problem?

Culture and politics are always under the influence of one group or another. What difference does it make whether the guy cutting checks to influence state policy is an American like Warren Buffett or a Russian like Vladimir Putin? Neither has your interests in mind. Being native does not make state actors any less corruptable.

You know, you would probably like Theodore Adorno. He is too concerned with cultural shit for my tastes, but if "genuine" culture is your thing you could do a lot worse. That is if you can get past the Frankfurt School stigma and the suspicious support that his fellows received from CIA-funded publications.

Of course the state is a tool. It could never be anything but. The issue is who wields it and to what end.

The ruling class needs a state to subjugate the other classes and to put society into an order that benefits them. Fellows like Marx and Lenin postulated that the lower class could sieze the state from the bourgeoisie, just as the bourgeoisie had from the aristocrats, and employ it to ensure proletarian dominance until the proletariat ceases to exist. The jury is out on whether or not that can work, but one thing is certain: the state always serves the status quo, whatever that may be. If you look to it for your guiding light, then you will go nowhere fast.

Attached: Transition.png (1024x646, 215.72K)

There is a certain amount of consensus to that since the similarities to italian fascism are superficial at best when it comes to other
To the state being too totalitarian, then again you do have the same problem with stalinism and maoism
Nyeeh, the Frankfurt School has that stigma for a rather good reason but okay
But how would the state dissolve? Unless honor is very ingrained in the culture of the workers no one would voluntarily step down

Oh and I remembered the philospher who wanted to align the fascists third position to the USSR
Its Francis Parker Jockey, he wanted a United Europe to oppose capitalism and marxism, of course later on he would postulate that since Stalinist Russia wasnt really Marxist he would then advocate for an alignment to the Warsaw Pact