I am a Fascist and i would like to hear you explain why i your leftist ideologies are better
everyone accept Anarchists can reply to this because honestly who takes them seriously
dont just see the word "corp" and think it means big companies run everything actually do research.
please no whataboutism or anecdotes and please cite sources and links for all info
If you had total control of a lefty nation what would you do to people like me? no larping please
Other urls found in this thread:
marxists.org
s3.jacobinmag.com
youtube.com
nybooks.com
marxists.org
marxists.org
twitter.com
Rule of the few, no direct or semi-direct democratic control, mean the elites will eventually fuck you over and you can't do nothing against it within the system i.e. mass migration to empower (global) capitalism and bolster the reserve army of labor.
Leave.
Although hierarchy is bad because it's a system of abuse.
Either die quick and painfully or if you resist or so much as trip on accident a slow painful death.
Bye.
Are you in terms with the workings of fascist italy or do you prefer early mussolini's fascist ideology? Becuse what he preached was not quite what happened and in the end big corporations were still pulling the strings under fascism.
also pic related.
Can't forget the original Roman fascists, some people still go for that and nothing else.
Fascist corporatism doesn't solve class conflict, it just says it does through class collaborationist rhetoric. Fascism is simply an evolved form of capitalism where the bourgeoisie establishes a naked dictatorship by mobilizing the most reactionary elements of society. Historical fascist states only prove this by preserving predatory capitalism, running privatization programs and crushing labor movements.
Why my leftist ideology is better? Because it actually seeks to change the world by seizing the means of production, instead of just saying nice words about how everyone should work for the common good and shooting everyone who suspects foul play.
i believe in democracy, president for life until retirement
but complete democracy on a local level
What are your disagreements with leftism? Can you answer the questions in pic?
same with fascism, "unionize it all" as the great Sir Oswald Mosely once said
people should be able to own private buisnesses its a right
monopolies are taken down in a fascist state, or they SHOULD be
...
you need a strong president so poor leaders are removed
just trying to branch out
this makes sense and is not inherently nonsensical
CORPRATISM IS NOT CAPITALISM
Capitalism leads to corporatism you know that right, and capitalism is in general how mop is controlled not anything else.
If corporatism preserves private property, it is capitalist, nor is there seizure of the means of production by the workers. Your proposed system doesn't solve the ills of capitalism.
Also lrn 2 post.
This is actually easier to address because he didn't even pretend that fascism wasn't a revitalization of capitalism. I already had to simply explain capitalism before, so I'm going to be lazy and repost that. Fascism does nothing to actually get rid of the capitalism itself and every Fascist governance relied heavily on playing inflationary economics and taking out foreign loans.
What are your disagreements with leftism
Me and my family had our crops that WE HAD GROWN taken from us and we were given a tenth of it
I dont care what chart you show me I WAS THERE i suffered and many people close to me suffered from malnuticion
Many people on this board believe that they can implement a unacheivable version of socialism they have in their heads into the real world
Communism is not?
And how?
Also, read the FAQ
Fascist unions were used to destroy the real worker movements, since they were controlled by the state and clumped with tons of bureocracy. And as always, the state being manipulated will always favor the bourgeoisie that's exactly what happened, fascis went away and the rulling class and companies stayed in power all the same.
Corporativism as described by mussolini never actually happened and was merely rethoric to keep the workers apeased. Italy, before fascism had one of the strongest communist movements willing to change something, guess what happened fascism destroyed it and the rulling class was ever gratefull.
The status quo is either capitalism or it is not. You cannot have both. If it is not really capitalism, you do not get to claim capitalism has done good for the world.
not to mention that whenever a fascist state is made, the former "revolutionaries" in the loosest sense of the word that helped form it are always the first to get the bullet at porkies' order, it happens every single time
Fascism is militarized capitalism backed by the petite bourgeoisie (middle class, if you like). It started as a reaction on changes in the society caused by socialists and communists as a fear of such changes causing petite bourgeoisie to lose power. Principle behind fascism is simple: channel the internal contradictions of society into external enemy, real or invented. Very convenient way to make workers forget about their day to day struggles to fight workers in other countries.
Class collaboration as a term is really misleading, because it implies there is a mutually beneficial relationship between classes, which is not a case, as workers stand to gain nothing from imperialistic wars.
Simple and plain Communsim has never done what it has promised
Honestly Italy can be viewed as a failure but it depends on if you consider the war
This
If i had a penny for every time an asshole starts losing here, and he suddenly was born in an eastern bloc country and starts sperging his feelings.
i'd have about 3 dollars.
You were in 30s Ukraine? Are you over a hundred years old?
You have to compare not with developed western countries, but with these countries before socialism.
Revolutions happen because something in the country was horrible in the first place.
First of all op, stop writing like a faggot.
Second of all, fascism presupposes a community of harmony that is fundamentally at odds with the reality of class societies. Every time we have seen the emergence of fascism it has simply been an extension of the ruling class, or the state acting to preserve the foundations of capitalism.
Workers will be forced to sell their labor, and have their interests be fundamentally against the interests of the capitalist class which intends to rule over them and exploit their labor.
Also, it's important not to mistake ideologies for economic systems. The whole point of marxism is to ground our analysis in material reality so we can understand our concrete possibilities. The reason socialism is possible is because of the already existing tendencies in capitalism that undermine its foundations.
If you are genuinely interested in marxism or socialism, maybe check out some of these links
marxists.org
s3.jacobinmag.com
youtube.com
Communism is against capitalism all in all. The point of fascism, historically, was to use a pseudo marxist rethoric but avoiding actual marxist to take power.
Take for example mussolini who was a "socialist" at his beginnings. At its conception fascism was anti capitalist (seen how it was derived from futurism), but later it was used by the bourgeoisie to save private property in face of a possible communist revolution (it's no coincidence that americans left a lot of fascists in power after the end of the world). Point is the Marxist theory is based on materialism while the fascist/futurist is based on aesthetics concepts. While I can't deny that fascism and futurism on paper are aesthetics as fuck, my cinicism comes from the fact that such doctrine could be coopted by anyone.
In italy historians call anti capitalist fascists "fascist prole".
rural 80s Ukraine if you were curious
Try harder
This.
Socialism developed countries way more than fascism did. All while being under constant international pressure if not atack. The international community always turns a blind eye to fascism, when they don't straight up support them.
my fucking sides
did
How is it not?
Name a single fascist regime that didn't have heavy police states, military control and and didn't defend rulling class interests.
maybe he did in the 90's
Yes, and once the threat to capitalism is deal with it would revert to your regular succdem. Fascism is not even sustainable as long term order.
Where's the argument though?
This refers to people who own some means of production but do not own them in the same capacity as a bourgeoisie proper (as in, large scale industrial means of production) and can only really support themselves with some extra profit on the side. Middle class does not refer to income level in this definition, and I actually dislike its use because it leads to confusion.
That's another thing that Italian fascists say, the war is inerenth to fascism both from a theoric level to a practical. The whole point of fascism in theory is social darwinism and the glorification of violence, not coincidentally most futurist got rekt in WWI because they enlisted.
From a practial point of view an arms dealer can use this to push a country into imperialistic wars. Mussolini was financed by arm dealers for this reason.
Plus the first years of fascism (and nazi germany too) were good because they threw all the money out of the window and made welfare reforms. There was a lot of employment because a lot of weapons were produced at the time. That's why they went to Ethiopia later, war/expansionism/imperialism is the only way they can adjust the economy after the mad spending of the first years.
People should see war in the case of italy as inerenth to the fascist system
You might find this interesting, its by a guy who actually lived under the Italian fascist regime
nybooks.com
Is there one class who control the means of production and the working class, lacking the resources to sustain themselves on their own, are thus forced to serve the ruling class in exchange for only a portion of the value they produce with their labor? Then it's capitalism, you can call it whatever the fuck you want but it doesn't change that fact
Are you sure you don't confuse with the 90ies?
Never trust those accounts "lived under the * regime", especially by NY times, even if it supports your point.
These are usually very affiliated and never objective. Analyze and think critically.
That's an article from umberto eco tho.
Umberto Eco is a legit political scientist though, he knows his shit.
Fug, you got a source on that?
Michael Parenti, not sure which speech.
Fill in the blank Zig Forums….
Class collaboration is wrong because ___
I'm waiting
..it runs counter to the class interests of the proletariat, subduing it to the class interests of the bourgeoisie through the use of violence by the bourgeois state thus epitomizing a bourgeois dictatorship.
Because it literally cannot exist.
Class collaboration = deluded elites thinking state apparatus can fully quell contradictions.
Because it's a logical impossibility. Class conflict is irreconcilable.
The white bourgeois do not give a shit about you, user.
thanks for keeping my thread alive commies
the 90ies were fucking awful BECAUSE of what the soviets did
so were the 80ies but not to the same extent
>>>Zig Forums loves bait
Nigger, HIID is not the soviet government.
Anything on this topic specifically? I've read the Communist Manifesto and State and Revolution, along with a few things by Stalin. I'm more of a Asserist than a Not Socialist though
Read Lenin too m8.
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Thanks, anons
Argentina and partially Estato Nova (hope i didnt butcher that)
that the entirety of the middle class is a sort of "petite bourgeoisie" is incorrect
Estado Novo
There were two though , in Brazil and Portugal but I presume you were talking about the Portuguese example?
If Fascism is bad for the proletariet then how come almost the entirety of Italy had jobs and steady paychecks?
How come the econemy boomed in Italy? (even more Germany but thats not what we are talking about)
yea Brazil was shit unfortunately
No no no they still had some success and protected the country from a lot of communist internal coups.
Portugal was just a case set apart
only because the leader was no Fascist nor a National Populist more like a autocrat
...
Brazil was modernized but the leader was still benevolent
Fascist = Populist
he was not one
I do like the fact that marxism was kept from south america (at least Brazil) but that doesent make up for alot considering every nation in the 30s and 40s had to do that
Brazil was more effective at it from the little that I heard from a lot of Integralists
He was nicknamed "father of the poor" how is this not populism?
The people ousted him in 45 and because of the peoples hate for him he committed suicide in 54
just because wiki says he is a kool kid populist does not mean he is
*51
but i suppose he was Brazils best option so it wouldnt be fair to compare to portugals success
Most likely
Why?
If Italian Fascism was the thought and deed of valorous men who dedicated their life to the Duce and the Italian nation, then why was their military such a fucking joke?
Communist movements were not as strong in brazil.
Vargas managed to shut them down by being more of a socdem than other fascists.
Learn some history befor talking shit like that
Vargas was removed from power by a bourgeois/ military movement. He stepped down voluntarilly from presidency. The reason he got pressed to leave was that the local bourgeoisie was getting tired of his statist politics and that after the defeat of the axis dictatorships were shunned uppon especially for US allies.
He still had huge popular support that's how he managed to get re elected, and his suicide (it was in 54) was due to military pressure. The millitary was already planning a coup 10 years before 64. The commotion from varga's suicide is what delayed it by 10 years.
Pic related is a popular mourning after his death.
Terrible leadership (Rodolfo Graziani) and untrained officers, old ww1 equitment i could go on, long story short italys military was emberasing.
Thanks for the info m8 just checked and i was wrong as hell
Fascist corporatism is still capitalism. It has all the trappings of capitalism, it just acts as a union for the workers.
Further, class collaboration is impossible because the fundamental aspect of class conflict in capitalist society, that is, exploitation of the working class by the bourgeoisie, still exists.
Exploitation here defined as the proletariat not receiving the full value of their labor, with the surplus value skimmed off the top by the unnecessary and parasitic capitalist class.
Based mods
When Fascists say "union", what they actually mean is "corporation". Corporatism is state-mandated class collaboration and is designed to squash class struggle.
So where monopolies under the New Deal. Fascism does not offer anything special in that regard, and in practice actually supported or tolerated corporate consolidation.
Thanks, user. It looks like I have a good deal of reading to do!
he was a semiologist and a famous best selling author. i still respect him but he wasn't a political scientist as far as i know