Can we replace "fascism" with "militarism"?

The term "Fascism" does not resonate with Americans and even people outside of Italy. It was a distinct movement in 20th century italy based on their Roman imperial heritage and a promotion of that mythos in order to push their social hierarchical agenda. Can we start calling the "right" a form of militarism? Or do people suck too much soldier dick in this gay country?

Attached: 1521170734555.jpg (1280x545, 166.98K)

By that logic the nazis weren't fascists, if you're going to reduce fascism to just Italy.

Ignore flag

Fairly sure it's not about us militarism not being fascism but the word "fascism" not really working for proles

What do you mean by "not working"?

Well according to OP, the link to violent, authoritarian and intolerant political movements isn't working in the mind of american ppl

What did he mean by this?

Attached: 1500907291938.png (1080x1190, 572.25K)

I think that depends on the worker. I think it goes without saying that workers in the US are more likely to choose fascism over socialism but at the end of the day, I doubt most of them are willing to fight in a revolution or any type of war.

This looks suspiciously like red cryptoliberals pushing for a move to a term which allows conflation of socialist states like the USSR with fascist Italy or Imperial Japan.

"The Left That Was contained many pacifists, but its most radical tendencies eschewed nonviolence and committed themselves to antimilitarism rather than pacifism as a social as well as a combative issue. In their view, militarism implied a regimented society, a subordination of democratic rights in crisis situations such as war or, for that matter, revolution. Militarism inculcated obedience in the masses and conditioned them to the imperatives of a command society.

But what the Left That Was demanded was not the symbolic image of the “broken rifle”–so very much in vogue these days in pacifist boutiques–but the training and arming of the people for revolutionary ends, solely in the form of democratic militias. A resolution co-authored by Luxemburg and Lenin (a rare event) and adopted by the Second International in 1906 declared that it “sees in the democratic organization of the army, in the popular militia instead of the standing army, an essential guarantee for the prevention of aggressive wars, and for facilitating the removal of differences between nations.”

This was not simply an antiwar resolution, although opposition to the war that was fast approaching was the principal focus of the statement. The arming of the people was a basic tenet of the Left That Was, and pious demands for gun control among today’s leftists would have been totally alien to the thinking of the Left That Was. As recently as the 1930s, the concept of “the people in arms” remained a basic tenet of independent socialist, not to speak of anarchist, movements throughout the world, including those of the United States, as I myself so well remember. The notion of schooling the masses in reliance on the police and army for public safety, much less of turning the other cheek in the face of violence, would have been regarded as heinous.

Not surprisingly, revolutionary anarchists were even less ambiguous than socialists. In contrast to the state-controlled militia that the Second International was prepared to accept in the 1906 resolution cited above, the anarchists sought the direct arming of the masses. In Spain, weapons were supplied to anarchist militants from the very inception of the movement. The workers and peasants relied on themselves, not on the largesse of statist institutions, to obtain the means for insurrection. Just as their notion of democracy meant direct democracy, so their notion of antimilitarism meant that they had to countervail the state’s monopoly of violence with an armed popular movement–not merely a state-subsidized militia." - Bookchin, The Left That Was

Attached: 1e30dd8d64605a00c41b8fe6ba123afeba9ea8164116c84f5d1029f6fbca0378.jpg (711x570, 47.06K)

How about just not using the word about every run-of-the-mill rightie?

Militarism is too associated with the "militant [ideology]" phrase, e.g. militant atheists or militant vegans. You'd be better off using "militarization" which is associated with "police militarization" and dystopia like Judge Dredd and is a more accurate descriptor. The problem isn't just the advocacy of militant power in the hands of the government and private sector, but the escalation per se.

Arming the poor/workers/marginalized groups isn't militarism because there's a lack of formal structure - to wit, a military. You're talking more along the lines of bersonal freedumb and militia culture.
Too much to make them pivot on "militarism" being something for the people, but there's also a fetishization of the burger revolution and minutement. That would be a good angle to use to contrast with muh stronk army men world police faggotry, so the militia approach makes much more sense.

WWII is barely within living memory at this point, and fascism rose in a different part of the world. Burgers never had their towns bombed to rubble by Germans.

We need an entirely new insult to describe the economically-far-right people that run this world. None of them really subscribe to fascist policy, even if some of them hold sympathies because "fascists killed commies". For example, many far-rightists don't care one bit about nationalism, compared to orthodox fascism which held the nation in the highest regard. There is no room for borders within the megacorporate structure. For another example, just look at their views on economics; everything should be private, everything should hold the individual in the highest regard and nothing should be done for the collective of society or for the public, therefore public lands should be privatized.
I think we should just list words that describe various groups of people on the far-right (negative terms describing their economics) and then vote or something for the best insult. We need something disgusting-sounding, and guttural, something you'd say and it would immediately make someone recoil from just hearing the word. Unfortunately these words are hard to come up with, and it's probably easier to just find descriptors of these people on wikipedia, so i'll starts with those. If anyone wants a nasty sounding insult that people would immediately know is bad, i suggest searching through street slang or something. That stuff's usually nasty.
I'll start;
At this point it's a good idea to just try to compare rightists with gangsters and hooligans. It'll upset people and that's what we want.
alternatively, we could just mix words describing rightists with insults like "cuck" or "fag". That'd work just as well as finding new words to describe them.

t. Body Odor

some words to describe classcuck workers;
they're union terms.

honestly I don't think I can bother sourcing right now, but I am pretty sure the original italian fascism had nation as its highest value only in the period before it fully established its power on italy, when he begun instead to praise "the state" as the highest value of fascism: the nation was important but the state was everything ("Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State") and in the later "imperialist" and early war period it even theorized about the obsolence of nations.
I think mussolini in a sense was an intelligent man but also a sort of a dumbass, He understood that the state was actually what gave nations their appearence into the modern world, but he pushed this shit too hard and ultimately made "italian fascist philosophy" less appetizing to the right wing public

10/10 would laugh again

Attached: aa6.jpg (1000x989, 106.41K)

Attached: porky pronouns.jpg (480x426, 34.32K)

Behold the new argumentum ad hommium theory.
Motherfucker bitch in your ass nigger

It’s not the same.

Yes. It would be great marketing.

No because militarization or militarism sin’t inherently right-wing. The Soviet Union for example was incredibly militarized. And if revolution will ever succeed the left needs to be militarized. There is nothing wrong with militarism.

I like Credit Slave, or some other term that describes an unthinking religious devotion to the status quo.

Like Antifa?

for the millionth time
antifa isn't a political movement or a political entity but a form of organisation
and calling it authoritarian is quite strange since it's rather horizontal structurally
it is certainly intolerant of fascism and typically also employs violence if necessary, but these are only problems for naive liberals

Like your mom tbh

How about bootlicker? I think it makes people re-evaluate their stance on blind acceptance of authority.