Why Don't Us Fascists and Communists Collaborate?

Look, I do understand that many Fascist thinkers like Mussolini and Hitler believed that Communism - and by extension Socialism - were the worst thing since smallpox. However, I think that Fascism and Communism could exist in - albeit uneasy - alliance. Think about it; a lot of Fascists were usually former Capitalists then "Socialists" (Usually for basic to mild worker's rights.) turned Fascists due to both sides rejecting them and their ideas. Mussolini was a former Socialist.

Look, I know that last time this shit happened it went horribly wrong for specifically "my" party. But then again, not everyone who's Fascist is a Nazi. And before you bring up Skinheads, they're not proper Fascists. They have no class and/or manners and believe that in a country like America - founded upon SOUTH-ANGLO immigrants and Black/Asian slaves - there should only be Nordic people.

Now, think about it. Both of our parties have common enemies and interests; an overthrowing of a State based upon Empiricism and the Enlightenment, we're against Identity politics both Left and Right, we are for Workers Rights, so why not try to work together?

(Pic not related BTW.)

Attached: HITLA.jpg (640x853, 141.67K)

Other urls found in this thread:


fool me once, von Ribbentrop…

We have no interests in common at all. Fascists (however much they might say they’re don’t want to) want to maintain capitalism, destroy democracy and triumph class-collaboration. One form of bourgeois dictatorship replaces another. Communists are anti-imperialism, fascists are pro-imperialism and imperialists themselves.

if you're pro-imperialist then it's kinda obvious that you're an imperialist yourself.

I insult how you say things because I have no other way to rebuttal you.

Ok. We tell you what to do, and you do it.

Last time that happened you got fucked by some guy who shares first names with Ronald McDonald.

As long as you're on our side when the revolution comes, we'll collaborate. Turn your back on us, however, and we will become enemies again.
No guns will be pointed at you if no guns are pointed at us. However, once the revolution ends and the Capitalist neocons and neolibs are removed, it is back to war once more.

Communism destroys everything that Fascists set out to preserve!

That's just an example of all state apparatuses which are to be overthrown, even if it's the most natural form of the modern state.

Well, most fascoids seem to get off to identify politics nowadays, but then again so are all those radlibs who've never read Marx.

"Workers Rights" are an immediate demand, not the final goal, which is the abolition of private property, wage system and so on. Social-democrats were in a way also champions of "Workers Rights", after all they were the ones building the post-war Keynesianism.

Communism kills its own people, while capitalism exports its death.

I'm sure that the SocDems will be happy to at least.

this one is often misunderstood. Mussolini was expelled by the socialist party because he "joined" the other leftist parties of europe in turning against the international (this because almost every european socialist party backed their respective government in WWI). He followed a rather common position in europe that was a rather uncommon one for italy, due to the specific qualities of italian socialism. Its kind of ironic how the guy, a former rigid internationalist, became a nationalist because of the left passing through one of its darkest hour and when in the 20s socialism began to spring up again he was a hardcore nationalist. So one can say that mussolini while he was indeed a socialist he came to realize that he had to reject the left totally to further his nationalist statist dreams. The problem here is that the exact argument "mussolini was a former socialist" is problematic in this kind of "communist and fascist collaboration" stuff cannot be supported by this argument; in fact it is against it, mussolini was a leftist that chose to reject leftist principles and developed an ideology which had among its key component the elimination of leftist movements. It doesn't matter his (very weak) early coopment of vague left resembling buzzwords in 1919, since it was so fuzzy and quickly abandoned that it does not stand up to coherently balance the actions of completely disarticulating the left and communist movement. Fascism was always hostile to leftism, and only bad faith, desperate or clueless individuals would shill this typeof allegiance.
tl;dr: Mussolini was a socialist, but he was mostly an antisocialist. And he was also a fat dead person. A collaboration with "fascists" and "communists" is basically self contradictory

Attached: h_24.2979071.900x600.jpg (414x600, 86.68K)

Despite you being a Muslim, I can stand firmly with you as long as we're attacking ☘️them.☘️

Fascism is capitalist


We must stop the Hibernians

what about Codemonkey?

how about no?

I prefer neoliberalism to your trash

Attached: nazi hitler shoots himself.jpg (906x572, 26.69K)

Fascism is romantic mysticism and a complete rejection of empiricism and the enlightenment.
Fascism is literally constructed around identitarianism.
You're for sublimating the antagonisms caused by class conflict into a biopolitical project which diverts the revolutionary potential of the proletariat onto the working class of those countries deemed enemies of the state/people. You're an enemy of the working class.
Because fascists are useful idiots for capital.

colaborate with what? we want the total most extreme liberation from authority to happen you want authority to remain.

we're not friends, you only try to hinder back the inevitable.

Attached: communism.png (1366x395, 33.01K)

t. faggot

Huh wonder what Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc. were doing.


Herping derp

Kicking ass


Yeah this is enough evidence for me.

Socialism isn't against empiricism and the enlightenment.

The LOWER STAGE of communism or moving towards it

There is a wing which would be better riding with you, and I respect the Fascists more for admitting they're something different.
OTOH, I don't think we have all that much in common. I mean….
…there's two ways to read that sentence.
Ah, well. You're better than the red fash which plague us. May whatever deity you believe in bless your travels…

by that I mean the State is based off of those two traits.

fuck that.
i would rather join some ancap uprising

…whereas based on empiricism and the enlightenment, I seek the total abolition of states.
You can see how there might be a bit of a difference there. Good luck taking the ones that need to go with you anyway, though; we both will benefit.

The liberal state is based on bourgeois Lockean ideals. While those were born of the Enlightenment, they are absolutely not empirical in nature. The idealistic nature of "rights" is proof enough of that.

You are far more obsessed with your very own kind of IdPol rather than the liberation of the working class. Your kind are far more willing to side with capitalists to opress the proletariat, as long as you get your way.

Long-story-short: You're tools and useful idiots of the bourgeoisie, much like SJWs are. Neither of you care about the underclass.

You're basically two sides of the same coin.

Mussolini didn't. He stated his goal as destroying 'plutocratic and reactionary democracies of the west', and did not care much about destruction of Communism.

I do respect Mussolini somewhat, like Lenin did, too, and if there were no Hitler, there would no antagonism between him and the USSR. I do not believe any alliance in good senses is possible, neutrality is as far as it goes. Alliance with communism is possible (and existed permanently since 1917) with conservative Imperialist nationalists.

Why work together? But I say that modern, let's say, American Antifa is nothing but a Neoliberal subversion (as anyone who fights 'against' and not 'for'), and all efforts of the Left should be focused either to bring down the ruling class, or empower and expand their existing "state within a state". Thankfully, I'm not in America, and there is no such problem, and then again, barely any Nazi thugs too.

Attached: 97369a57dfb58860d1fa9555c45e6ba9.jpg (1024x576, 110.98K)

Why does so many, even on this board, has this spooky concept of rights?


Stop with your useless shit and address the thesis with proper counterargument if you can.

Liberal concept of human rights ARE idealistic and contradictory.

It's not the Americans' fault, but it is and will become an unmatched pit of decadence and Reaction, with zero chance of a proper Socialist movement.

I'm not arguing that they aren't.

Other than the standard arguments how old fascists groups were funded by the banks and helped them out in return, or how skinheads are mindless LARPers that just want to punch colored people, or how fascist leaders tend to go "ends > means" in Nietzschean ways (grab all power for ourselves)…

Maybe? But how are you against rightwing identity politics?
I thought you guys were white supremacists?

Either way, if you want to help the people in your country fight for their own independence and power against corporate and state power, you're free to help out.
Just keep any stuff that would turn others off secret. And if someone talks about some side issue you disagree with, redirect the focus towards workers' struggle.

You should check out integralism, which I know nothing about except its meme-tier tenet. ;)

It arises from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of a state. People mistakenly believe that the state is capable of acting above private influence when in fact it can only ever function as the legitimization of the current economic reality. Thus they imagine that the state is capable of enforcing its guarantees of rights against the economic interests of the ruling class despite the evidence to the contrary that a critical eye reveals.

Not all Fascists are *racists.* (See dictionary for definition of Racism.) See George Lincoln Rockwell - Leader of the American Nazi party, Chuck Crate - Leader of the Canadian Union of Fascists, or Oswald Mosley - Leader of the Canadian Union of Fascists for examples of non-racist Fascists. And yes, Rockwell DID view Blacks and Whites equal; they just had to live separately, in separate Countries because their races had land belongings, which isn't racist. See dictionary definition.

So are you saying that if the people and corporations are ingredients then the State is the broth? Am I in the ballpark here?

Also, being an edgy social democrat doesn't make you a revolutionary, it just means that you are a poor fag who hates niggers.

The dictionary is a tool for people who don't English so good. It is not a guide to understanding complex concepts.

That reminds me of Frantz Fanon's notion that there should be a seperation between black and white people so that the twin concepts of "whiteness" and "blackness" would have time to disintegrate at which point both races could reintegrate on equal terms.

true galaxy brain thinking

Attached: accelerationism red blue.png (756x732, 44.93K)

The Black Panthers preached the same idea. I can't say that I agree, but it is not a concept that is unique to the right.

Never said it was, but it's retarded either way, pretty much "can't have racism if there's no interaction between the races". Because that worked so great back when people on other continents were just unknown savages, no violence back then.

Attached: 09-roll-safe.w700.h700.jpg (700x700, 65.87K)

That is not what Fanon's theory was about. It was about dismantling the social concepts of "whiteness" and "blackness" as he describes them in his books.

Well, I'm no expert, I'm just going by what other user described.

Well either way, that does support my idea so uh… you supporting me?

Honestly, I do not think that Fanon's plan is necessary. Blackness and whiteness seem to me to be curcumstantial. Remove the economic institutions that reify "whiteness" and "blackness," and the distinction between them disappears. Take, for example, particular industries in which white and black people are required to work together to complete a common objective (eg. the military). There is absolutely no functional difference between white and black in such an institution even when the individuals are drawn from a society in which there is such a difference. Intangible social difference evaporate immediately when the underlying economic differences are removed.