Fascism

Stop that.

Also, Fascism is the evolved form of capitalism where the bourgeoisie mobilizes the most reactionary elements of the population to establish a naked dictatorship of capital. "Akschually, Mussolini said fascism is corporatist" is a weaksauce pedantic defence trotted out by fascists who don't want to be called that. There's no real difference between "corporatism" and capitalism, the former is just the latter but with more class collaboration propaganda. And in practice fascist regimes have been far more capitalist that their propaganda let on, launching wide-scale privatization programs and violently shutting down labor action.

Most fascist states start out very anti capitalist. Capitalism is a problem to nationalism because capitalism is for open borders, liberalism, and destroys tradition through commidifcation.
Eventually of course the economy tanks and the fascist rings up a capitalist economist and caves.
The mythical goal of all fascist states is autarky.

Mussolini actually did try to be anti capitalist in the beginning but ended up caving.
Hitler just killed off all the real socialists in the night of the long knives.

The most successful fascist was fransico franco and thats because he rendered the actual fascists irrelevant

Asser and Röhm weren't even close to being "real socialists." It was more like a mafia hit than anything else.

It's a slur and nothing more.

Pinochet is a American-controlled military dictator. Trump is a neoliberal populist.

No one here calls trump a fascist.
Pinochet was a fascist tho.

I see you just got off the Zig Forums boat

hi Zig Forums

Every Republican president in the past 40-50 years has been called a "fascist" here in the States. Those screaming it the loudest are just trying to keep people trapped in the orbit of the Democrats via fear.

Because in American politics, words have no objective meanings. They are labels for gut feelings, not ideas. Being a "conservative", "liberal", "fascist", "libertarian", etc, has nothing to do with platforms or ideologies, they are pop culture caricatures and personality stereotypes.

No, sorry, fascism is hyper-nationalist, while capitalism is globalist. Fascism tolerates markets to the extent they benefit the nation, capitalism tolerates nations to the extent they benefit the international bourgeois.

Test

Aren't all liberals considered "Social Fascists?"

Bullshit, fascism is a textbook example of how capitalism accommodates most cultural politics. Fascist Germany and Italy traded with the outside world all the time, liberal countries didn't give a fuck until WWII broke out (and even then the burgers were reluctant to get on board with the Allied cause). Companies like IBM even had a minor direct role in the Holocaust.
I agree that it is not "evolved" capitalism, but it is still capitalism. It is how the bourgeoisie defend themselves in an emergency. At no point in history were fascists ever populists or advocates of self-sustaining nations; it is unlikely the German economy would have recovered so rapidly without their warmongering.

In popular culture? Fascism just means antidemocracy, nationalist or ethnonationalist rhetoric, and a government that opposes civil liberties (under this definition you could just say authoritarian)
In Marxism?
Fascism is the common tendencies governments seem to develope in times of crisis to eliminate potential leftist movements. This can include just killing anyone who opposes the government, to doing a big road-building program to reduce unemployment.

Because leftoids know that it is better to endlessly slander your opponent than to engage with them in a honest manner.

go back to hell

There he goes again.

because they actually dont know what fascism is and dont know what it feels like to live under a fascist government. they may have one piece of the puzzle of fascism. it is true trump could be considered a nationalist but he is far from being authoritarian enough to be considecommunist.

READ PALME DUTT

Nationalism doesn't contradict capitalism, nationalism was spawned by the bourgeoisie revolution and serves to uphold capitalism. The fact that fascist governments have historically aimed to benefit national bourgeoisie over international bourgeoisie doesn't make them less capitalist. Private property still flourished, and class struggle was usually even more stifled than in liberal countries due to the brutality of fascist state repression apparati.

Neoliberalism is capitalism's evolved form, not fascism. Fascism/nationalism/protectionism hinders the advancement of capitalism.

"no"

Then why is The Economist and company all freaked out about the "rise of nationalism, protectionism and trade wars" ?

they were still driving for autarky and autarky required borrowing from international capitalists to fund rearmament with the intention of never paying back the wild debt racked up. This build up was then used in a war of conquest against capitalist countries but mostly with the ultimate aim of conquering a large self sufficient land empire in eastern europe so that Germany could be a genuine self-sufficient autarchical slave empire unto itself. So, no, fascists and nazis especially were not conventional capitalists by any stretch of the imagination

Define capitalism.

Because they were concerned with how capitalism was being maintained, not whether it was.

Porky uses nation-states like pawns, while Fascy actually takes nationalism seriously and is motivated by a desire to win the "race war".

I don't really care how conventional they were, it was still capitalism. Capital does not care how it grows so long as it is growing; in this case, instead of depending on international trade, Germany simply took other countries' means of production, resources and labor for itself.

you first? i suspect you're gonna say "fascism is when the bourgeois does stuff"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Umberto_Eco
planting my flag here and saying: social democracy is fundamentally modernist, fascism is not.

Pinochet was actually a fascist AFAIK. But it was used as a meaningless buzzword even in George Orwell's time: orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc

capitalism*

you haven't defined capitalism. and no, conquering other states, and then setting the conditions for a new racial slave system is not what is conventionally thought of as "capitalism". Unless you think Ghengis Khan and the Roman Empire were capitalist too

It by definition is because the existence of the bourgeoisie is presupposed by the existence of capitalism - a mode of production based on private ownership of the MoP and wage labor.

There's no respect for private property in a fascist state. Capitalists in a fascist society are like NEP men in Leninist Russia: they are tolerated to the extent they are perceived to be helping the cause.

tons of scholars have identified the relationship between fascism and modernism… while eco is nice and all he's a semiologist and novelist and isn't an ultimate authority on the subject

Attached: no bait please.jpg (661x949, 379.22K)

When the Fuhrer decides some capitalist's factory needs to be commandeered for the war effort, do you think there'd be any respect for the capitalist's "private property rights" ? Please.

Which is what makes fascists so useful to capitalists, they are perfect useful idiots. They do not care about the material basis of society or who runs it, only their idealism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_mode_of_production_(Marxist_theory)

So the Nazis weren't fascists? As in the political movement that literally invented the modern concept of privatization? And violently suppressed their leftist faction?
Capitalism is not "when the government doesn't do things". We aren't using American definitions here.

The fact that the government has the power to take the capitalist's position doesn't make a country non- or anti-capitalist, quite the contrary. Also both Hitler and Mussolini encouraged privatization.

Attached: nationaal 'socialisme'.jpg (3256x2808, 2.54M)

Sounds like any war-time economy you idiot. Or maybe I slipped into a timeline where the US never commandeered civilian owned infrastructure for military purposes.

I mean it's intra-class conflict. German Bourgeois used the Nazis as an opportunity to kick Jewish capitalists out of the country and loot their property. The racial ideology of the Nazis was a perfect cover to take Jewish owned factories and sack en mass jewish white collar workers and corporate board chairs.

It was a double edged sword. German capitalists benefitted a lot but as the War Economy ramped up private enterprises increasingly became subservient to the regime's orders. It was a faustian pact that actually robbed all private enterprise of actual independence as WWII develops. Of course it was crocodile tears cause the industrialists were still making their profits but it was still state directed.
While I don't doubt the authenticity of that picture. I think it's too often used unthinkingly and it'd be good if we had a more comprehensive investigation into the nature of what privatization was in the third reich. For example, it's known Hitler was dead bent on making the Germany people as "comfortable' as possible during the war to prevent the starvation of WWI and so a lot of people were given benefits and sufficient rations until the final year of the war when the system broke down.

What you are saying is fair, but it also doesn't contradict the central point, that fascism is capitalist. Like I insinuated before, "capitalism" is not a synonym for "Austrian economics".

I'll respond later I have to go wagecuck atm

Nazi Germany had commodity production which made it capitalist. The fact stuff could be stolen from people doesn't make it communist, you moron.

The US has some fascist aspects, although it is predominantly liberal-capitalist.

Fascism obviously isn't communist either, it's its own thing. You might say it's an amalgination of many economic and political ideas that came before it.

The definition of fascism I go by is influenced by Roger Griffin who sticks close to what fascists actually say and what they believe. It's "palingenetic ultranationalism."

Fascism attempts to solve the crisis of modernity (and related: capitalism) by destroying the existing order and replacing it with the "lost" mythic past that is reborn anew. It's both futuristic and forward-looking – and wants to create a New Order to improve humanity (narrowly defined) to build a New Man – and reactionary at the same time. The fascist regime is like a phoenix rising from the ashes of a degenerate society that eventually goes up in flames. (The phoenix that is reborn from the fires of destruction is not the same phoenix; it's reincarnated but is a new and distinct organism.) That is palingenesis.

Fascists also have a vision of an "organic" society in which individuals, race and nation are interlinked. Think "blood and soil" or the Zig Forums meme of "blonde Aryan girls in wheat fields." In the fascist imagination there is a racial connection the land – to the point where some fascists won't even eat tropical fruits because it's not considered Aryan. This is also why fascists prize physical fitness, healthy eating, non-smoking teetotaling, and organic foods. Just as you would purge the individual of toxins, you would purge the nation (toxins and parasites in this case represented by Jews).

This organicist vision of society also offers to solve class conflict through class collaboration. Capitalism is preserved because the bourgies and proles share racial bonds. The crisis of capitalism is displaced onto the Jews, who are blamed for all the ills of the society.

Very accurate. I heard Trump once described as an 'apartheid liberal' which sounds pretty accurate to me.

There's a book called 'Wages of Destruction' about the Nazi economy which I haven't read but want to, and I think goes into it. I know one point is that slave labor and the extermination policies were not only the entire point of the war, but economically required because the Nazis needed to kill off 10-20 million Soviets to feed themselves.

Attached: griffin_2.jpg (750x563 51.91 KB, 42.55K)

what did addie mean by this?

Attached: hitler glom.jpg (600x450, 52.58K)

Attached: e09.png (645x729, 68.74K)

Attached: 568725.jpg (196x257, 8.18K)

Hello Zig Forums, feel free to check out our stickied reading thread anytime

Sheesh. Useful idiots to the highest degree.

books on fascism for anyone interested. there are some marxist oriented ones in there if you need me to point them out
mega.nz/#F!xsRW0ARI!Zk6qqCyWDM2btX8pStp7JA
mega.nz/#F!0pJmnCjZ!2ocPnRDQxdrPvbKX-kmXhg

Well I have to agree it's capitalist, but this is a case of capitalist (or any terminology) being used to describe everything so as to be meaningless. Yes, in the strict sense, the means of production were still in private hands. But it ignores the fact that the NatSuc project was trying to achieve was a qualitative restructuring in the nature of society of their own and other countries through brutal conquest. This meant then the destruction of other capitalist powers in Europe, making it a kind of intra-national bourgeois country. The German bourgeoisie pillaged/cannibalized the industries and resources of other countries as it follow the Nazi conquest. The thing is though that Nazis were also creating huge pools of slave labor and also introducing exterminatory policies through mass starvation in the East. This to me does not fit a simple capitalist MO but subordination of capitalist to extreme nationalist goals. Hitler talked of eventually settling the East with Germans to secure it for a self sufficient economic bloc a la British Empire or America. A slave labor class of racial subhumans would be used to create and sustain this empire. This is more on the principle of some ancient slave regime than a modern capitalist one.

international bourgeois conflict*

also since mod delet all my posts everywhere I'll repost the link to the fascist books because we can all benefit from moving beyond buzzword discourse

mega.nz/#F!xsRW0ARI!Zk6qqCyWDM2btX8pStp7JA
mega.nz/#F!0pJmnCjZ!2ocPnRDQxdrPvbKX-kmXhg

Because they're fascist. So are the Clintons, Bushes, Blairites, etc. They are all fascists.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Except it absolutely fits the MO of capitalist societies. It's what colonial powers have been doing for centuries. Hitler simply didn't get a slice of colonial pie in Africa or elsewhere and directed his imperialism against Eastern Europe instead. Europeans being enslaved and slaughtered, rather than some exotic savages, just seems more barbaric to you but that doesn't make Nazi Germany more or less capitalist. I don't know why you think war and slavery do not benefit capitalists - they absolutely do.

*night of long knives happens*

Yes perhaps it's a matter of geographical proximity. I suppose it's the same problem people have conceptualizing Russia or America as historical empires because the lands they conquered were contiguous to their own.

I think the Nazi example, though, is different in regards to scale, magnitude and sheer velocity of conquest. I think what makes it so unique is the time compression made possible by technology and interconnectiveness of the European continent and the fact that, as opposed to historical cases, the Nazi conquests didn't just capture land resources and peoples on the peripheries of the world economic system but seized the means of production of developed capitalist countries like france, czechs, austrians and other minor countries. And while I also agree that slave and forced labor systems did exist in the European colonies the Nazis were planning on making the slave system the basis of their industrial economy itself. You had millions of Europeans forcibly working in Nazi factories, for example, whereas in the colonial peripheries you have slave and forced labor mostly in extractive industries (though nazis did this too and like colonies used forced labor for infrastructure building too). Perhaps I'm wondering then what distinguishes slave systems from capitalist systems….

Slaves are owned and not paid, workers are not owned but paid

Also there's no doubt that British colonies also had a similar valve to what the Nazis envisioned. Nazis (and Hitler) thought that there was a fundamental crisis in industrial society that could only be resolved by a war of racial conquest, extermination and subordination that would "secure" the territory and resources to prevent overpopulation, social conflict and the alleged cultural/social degradation of the german "race" all inherent in industrial society as seen by the nazis. Opening up eastern europe would allow for settlement of German populations from the overpopulated German heartlands. There was also the obsessive idea of securing enough foodstuffs to prevent mass starvation of Germany which occurred in WWI and settling germans in agriculturally rich Ukraine would secure this while also easing the tensions of industrial society.

While all this sounds crazy, North American and Australian colonies were set up for the same rationale- as "pressure valves" for overpopulation in Britain to prevent social explosion. Suburbanization in Industrial countries also had a similar rationale of easing class tensions through the fundamental restructuring of space so as to eliminate class tensions or any potential for workers organizing..

But what prevents capitalism from becoming an outright slave society had Nazis achieved their aims? Wouldn't creating a permanent helot class living on reservations to work on German farms and industries as many Nazis envisioned fundamentally change the nature of capitalist economy and social structures. In the Antebellum US South scholars have shown how compatible capitalism and slavery are, but ultimately this system was created to provide the raw material to the capitalist "core" in Britain and the US north to fuel the coal-power steam textile mills of Lancaster, England and Massachusetts

epic, you sure btfo me reddit. there couldn't possibly have been dozens of arguments explaining this previously on Zig Forums. Read Stalin, read Palme Dutt, read Georgi Dimitrov, read Lenin.

While I don't doubt that, this comment and your other one are intellectually lazy. At least cite the said debates or quote the relevant passages. It's not just a matter of btfoing me, but everyone would benefit if you actually explained your reasoning instead of expecting me to have faith in your assertions and your appeals to authority. Questions like this are discussed exhaustively and repetitively for many reasons. People are responding to their environment where fascism is increasingly discussed and brought up, and each successive wave of newfags needs to be educated. If you want people to learn and win recruits you have to go through the dull, tedious of educating them through the same lines of reasoning you have used in the past.

Isn't it the same as when right wingers call anyone who wants slightly higher corporate taxes commies?

I'll concede that, but this is because imageboards are an inherently wasteful medium. I've gone through the argument too much, and I don't have my old posts saved anywhere. I have told you to read Stalin, Palme Dutt, Dimitrov, and Lenin (his writing on Imperialism being inseparable from an analysis of fascism, you'll see why if you read the others), specifically their writings on fascism. I've read them and am reading them. So… don't be lazy. Go read before mouthing off and saying that Trump, Clinton, Pinochet, and numerous other blatant fascists are not fascist.

No, you can apply the same shit logic to us calling our enemies capitalists.
Maybe we call many things capitalism, and fewer (but still many) things fascism, because a scientific Marxist analysis proves it to be the case.

Attached: 1515544598122.png (350x420, 22.8K)

It IS fascism because there ARE a whipped up fanbase of fanatic maga hat idiots who do extralegal work of bashing minorities.
There IS fucking A SECRET POLICE called ICE (known as the SS in Nazi Germany) that breaks THE LAW in order to deport greencard holders and makes huge profits for private immigrant detention facilities.
It IS fascism because Sinclare reaches everybody and is a state propaganda machine, let alone the fact that the dictator figure is supported by the KKK and the alt-right, and uses a platform of tiny angry phrases which don't require any thought to process…
but let's not call a spade a spade and wait til we get rounded up one day. at least we used the correct 'term'.

Attached: Every_pol_meme.jpg (1024x685, 406.43K)

You're not going to like this but:

Real Fascism has never been tried.

How nationalist was Pinochet? Besides that and the more laissez faire capitalism compared to corporatism (but let's face it fascists are just pro capitalist porkies in practice) I think he'd fit the fascist dictator profile

Attached: hitler art.jpg (400x708, 85.23K)

ayy lmao

Attached: laughing baby alchohol.jpg (413x395, 24.81K)

You are mistaking the symptom for the disease. Fascism is a specific ideology, the mass psychology associated with it hardly unique to it.
It's also retarded to compare ICE with the SS. Illegal immigrants are technically criminals.

This is an example of thinking about facsism in emotional terms. If you want to know your enemy, you need to analyze them cooly rather than puff up their evil quality.

The nazi plan for russia was that they were going to annex and colonize it and hitler wanted to treat the slavs the same way the british treated the indians.
The specific orders towards russia were to be especially brutal.
Had the communists lost the slavs would have been genocided and enslaved

No it fucking isn't, one of the first rules of fascism is lying your ass off about everything, including what you believe.

So were Jews.

Pinochet wasn't a fascist. He was little more than a pawn of American interests in Latin America in the form of an authoritarian junta leader. He paid lip service to nationalism but that is not enough to qualify as fascist.

Just because private property can be appropriated by the state doesn't mean private property doesn't exist.

Attached: 31578130_1394941250651674_5341254220165152768_n.jpg (537x525, 23.26K)

I'm being kind of a dick but I think it's important for the sake of historical accuracy to highlight the fact that Italian Fascism didn't really have any racist or antisemitic component until Hitler forced it onto Mussolini in 1938. So a "generic" definition of fascism doesn't require hate for so-called lesser races or Jews — any external enemy can do the trick.

I say as much in my post tbf. Imo though the Nazis were carrying extermination far more systematically and purposefully than the British did.

no. that's the first rule of POLITICS

They had a name for it: the Hungerplan. They didn't just plan to genocide virtually all of Eastern Europe and the Baltics, they sought to do so through deliberate famine (and then enslaving the survivors).

aka a fascist, holy fuck you're stupid.

That isn't fascism, retard. By your definition all puppet governments are "fascist". Tell me, were the Armenian Client Kings of the Roman Empire fascists because they were a pawn of Roman Imperial interests?

The economic systems that arose after the Great Depression were essentially fascist systems. Kennedy was a fascist, Nixon was a fascist, Bill Fucking Clinton was a fascist. Whatever democracy you could attribute to America was turned into managed democracy, and after the '60s the façade of democracy has been eroded constantly, to the point where you have plebs begging for their freedom to be taken away and for daddy to take care of them, in one form or another. The only difference is that, rather than upholding the nation-state, 21st century fascism is transnational and pure, distilled ideology. Abstract notions like the nation-state are irrelevant; the fascists of today are purely about the appeal to brute power, the love of torture for its own sake, and so on. I mean, a good part of Americans are literally happy for Hitler-like measures of cruelty just so they can feel bigly and strong, and they would jump at the first opportunity to haul undesirables to gas chambers. It's going to get far worse than anything the Nazis could ever have hoped to do, and it will never stop.

That's so broad to make fascism meaningless. You should look at America in the 19th century to see some wild shit. Just to say "brutality + torture = fascism" doesn't make any sense. A lot of regimes have tortured people.

What you need to do to define fascism is to find the thing that makes it UNIQUE from everything else. And that's why you should read this:

That's not what fascism means, you ignorant twat. Why don't you fuck off and go read a book for a change? Suggested authors: Griffin, Gentile, Paxton, Mosse, Sternhell. Now shoo, shoo!

Attached: 23755261_10154924852971625_1704244978113150571_n.jpg (800x534, 65.85K)

Yeah, to your useful idiot constituents. That doesn't mean there isn't a core belief system in fascism.

The leaders of the capitalist, Western powers in the 1930s were watching the Nazi example, and just aped what the Nazis were doing, at least on economic policy. The only difference is that, say, the Americans, couldn't go out and say "Fuck Democracy and Fuck the Cripples, let's gas them!" There was still too much decency in the average American (for that matter there was some decency in the average German, which is why the Nazi exterimnation programs were relatively ineffective compared to what they could have been), so Americans had to be manipulated by a multi-decade PR project to accept fascist principles, to accept eugenics, and to accept the fascist underpinnings of our present economy. In order to do this, there had to be ample bread and circuses, so the lower orders would become dependent and distracted, until such time those social welfare programs could be revoked.

In many ways, capitalism after the Depression wasn't really capitalism, but a transitional stage between capitalism and a mode of production that wouldn't have capitalism's contradictions. Rather than socialism though, the new mode of production would still maintain class rule and privilege, just along redefined lines. The rough outline of this emerging order would be in the late 19th century eugenics movement, where "human betterment" (i.e. conforming humankind to eternal hierarchical rule and pressing on the nerve of power) was the pursuit, and ownership of property and rights would be entirely dependent on one's eugenic value. There will, sadly, be no socialism in a meaningful sense - the proles will (and have been) kicked down when they are no longer necessary for labor power, and now most people are just watching helplessly; there is literally nothing else to do except hide and eke out whatever existence they can in this hellworld.

Fascism centered around the nation-state is dead, but the heart of fascism was not the nation-state or the race. It really was about the brutality and torture as an end unto itself, ideological and systematized into a political theory. People in the past were certainly brutes and monsters, but there was a limit to how far that power could be imposed due to technological constraints. Fascism can only emerge as a movement when it is technologically possible, otherwise the closest you get is something like the Roman Empire.