Serious Fascism discussion - LITERALLY HITLER!!

[The best and greatest]

Would this make India of yesterday and its caste system a fascist country?

Probably. It would probably make the entire monarchic system which 99% of the world lived under for most of the world's history fascist as well considering that the ideological and philosophic underpinnings of those societies were that some were deigned to rule over others. It'd also probably make the Soviet Union and China fascist as well depending on who's arguing ironically enough.

 

[Caz]

Imho, fascism should only be used for Mussolini's political movement and regime. The term got thrown around so much and so liberally that it's ridiculous.

 

[дядя Боря]

Probably. It would probably make the entire monarchic system which 99% of the world lived under for most of the world's history fascist as well considering that the ideological and philosophic underpinnings of those societies were that some were deigned to rule over others. It'd also probably make the Soviet Union and China fascist as well depending on who's arguing ironically enough.

SU and China are socialist. I don't know much about fascism, but to rally around specific race or ethnicity would make sense, meanwhile socialism is totally opposite to that, multiculturalism and inclusion of all races is paramount to a socialist society.

Please forgive my lack of knowledge on fascism, I don't know how long the theory and practice lasted, really, but with socialism, one important factor is development of the theory over time. Even Lenin's early work drastically differ from later works. So when someone speaks of socialism, they need to clarify what branch and what time period, otherwise it's mumbo-jumbo, cherry picking.

Did fascist ideas develop over time? Who were the main drivers to evolve those ideas, what documents if any exist on the idea?

 

[Lemmingwise]

Shut up Fascist.

SHUT UP CRIME.

Still the best worst catchphrase of any vigilante.

------

I've been sitting here and trying to come up with an alternate definition of fascism, but I find that I really can't get there. Would third position result in something similar to nazi germany or fascist italy? Maybe.

In some sense it's a strange bit of theorycrafting for me. I tend to want to look at practical examples of something and we don't have that much to go on in practice.

I mean, I'm not too opposed (just mildly opposed) to the idea of monarchy or constitutional monarchy in principle, but there is such a chasm of difference between monarchies where I would and wouldn't choose to live, that it's hard to judge systems on merits.

And due to it's high political value it's very likely to be deformed by people on each side; @
RedRightHand earlier mentioned that fascism sold itself by opposition to an unhealthy society, but all systems have a similar kind of emotionally charged language to support it. Communism is for equality, liberal democracy for freedom and choice, fascism for strength and cleanliness. It would be pretty stupid for any system not to have a emotionally persuasive message to accompany it. And of course each adherant has interest in tearing down its enemies. Sharia adherants might call each haram for different reasons.

I try to think of these things broadly rather than precisely as it seems to be a useful tool and as such I would see third position as another type of fascism and also evola's purpoted superfascism.

I've tried to shed light, but I find myself poorly equipped to define any bit of this. I've written 4x what I've left up here, deleting large amounts of text. I'll shut up now, and will read and think more on it.

 

[The best and greatest]

SU and China are socialist. I don't know much about fascism, but to rally around specific race or ethnicity would make sense, meanwhile socialism is totally opposite to that, multiculturalism and inclusion of all races is paramount to a socialist society.

Please forgive my lack of knowledge on fascism, I don't know how long the theory and practice lasted, really, but with socialism, one important factor is development of the theory over time. Even Lenin's early work drastically differ from later works. So when someone speaks of socialism, they need to clarify what branch and what time period, otherwise it's mumbo-jumbo, cherry picking.

Did fascist ideas develop over time? Who were the main drivers to evolve those ideas, what documents if any exist on the idea?

Stalin and Lenin subverted the newly established socialist democracy to seize power and install themselves as autocratic directors of the state that frequently engaged in acts of mass scapegoating entire classifications of people and their subsequent mass murder-torture-imprisonment-enslavement-and general subjugation to maintain control on the reigns of power, all along the way designating these peoples as "Enemies" not deserving of the true legal freedoms and privileges that the "Loyal people" all bask in (but didn't really.) That's about as Fascist as you can get.

I wont speak much on Communist China as that's not an area I know too much about but I speak of my observations of modern China. They don't seem very socialist or communist.

Anyway I was not speaking of socialists generally but marxist-communism very specifically which was advocation for complete and total equality between all peoples along all aspects of society. Realistically no society has ever succeeded in creating a lasting communist social order and most if not all attempts to do so have ended in tragedy and the devolving of the state into fascist autocracy. Frankly I can't imagine being a genuine communist that actually adorns themselves in symbols of the soviet union given what it ended up representing is everything they supposedly don't.

 

[Kalishnakov]

3 - They see violence as inherently good, in itself, to purify the soul of men. Both Hitler and Mussolini believed that men (and only men) could only be shaped by war, and that war itself was necessary for greatness and the building of a man's character. This is different from other extremist movements just endorsing violence as a means to an end. Fascists believe, much like the Thuggee cult, that violence and killing strengthens the soul on a spiritual level. For the Fascist, a perpetual state of war strengthens and purifies the body politic

The END GAME: WHY the WEST is LOST

⚫ Support BPS via Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/blackpigeon ⚫ Tip Jar: via PayPal to: navyhato@gmail.com 💥 Your SUPPORT of this Channel is GREATLY appreci...

www.youtube.com

What do we call the current Orwellian state of affairs?

 

[Lemmingwise]

What do we call the current Orwellian state of affairs?

Clown world.

Though it's more Huxlian than Orwellian.

 

[ulsterscotsman]

I believe Mussolini and Italian Fascism was not as racy as Hitler and National Socialism but was more culturally imperialist very similar to the Roman empire. British fascist Oswald Moseley was very similar to Mussolini in that regard but wasn't as expansionist nor pro war and wanted to peacefully create a fascist EU.
The thing with Fascism is it changes and manifests its self differently in every country, however Italian Fascism is the original form of Fascism and the best way to define the core principles and ideas of it for the most part.
One thing I find interesting is quite a few leading Fascists such as Mussolini and Oswald Moseley were once Socialists.

 

[Kalishnakov]

I believe Mussolini and Italian Fascism was not a racy as Hitler and National Socialism but was more culturally imperialist very similar to the Roman empire. British fascist Oswald Moseley was very similar to Mussolini in that regard but wasn't as expansionist nor pro war and wanted to peacefully create a fascist EU.
The thing with Fascism is it changes and manifests its self differently in every country, however Italian Fascism is the original form of Fascism and the best way to define the core principles and ideas of it for the most part.
One thing I find interesting is quite a few leading Fascists such as Mussolini and Oswald Moseley were once Socialists.

Wonder what his take would be on this if he were still alive.
No one talks about the fact that in sharia courts, British Muslim women have fewer rights than women in Islamic countries
Doubt that was what he had envisioned the EU to become.

 

[ulsterscotsman]

Wonder what his take would be on this if he were still alive.
No one talks about the fact that in sharia courts, British Muslim women have fewer rights than women in Islamic countries
Doubt that was what he had envisioned the EU to become.

He got more against immigration as he got older.

 

[дядя Боря]

Stalin and Lenin subverted the newly established socialist democracy to seize power and install themselves as autocratic directors of the state that frequently engaged in acts of mass scapegoating entire classifications of people and their subsequent mass murder-torture-imprisonment-enslavement-and general subjugation to maintain control on the reigns of power, all along the way designating these peoples as "Enemies" not deserving of the true legal freedoms and privileges that the "Loyal people" all bask in (but didn't really.) That's about as Fascist as you can get.

This is what I was talking about. Early Lenin was a lot like Bernie, I shit you not.

Late Lenin, as bolshevicks were encountering problems, they took more drastic steps because their vision did not come to pass, so they forced it. The vision was that spark in Russia would ignite "world revolution" - this is a term that's he used a lot. They planned that proletariat in UK, USA, Germany would rise up against their oppressors, and they didn't. So Bolshevicks started to "liberate" neighboring countries, including Ukraine, a bunch more down south, also venturing almost to Warsaw, taking Baltic states.

The Ukrainian hunger was designed to fight people's unwillingness to join collective farms. Not many wanted it. So they starved everyone. This is in contrast to some elements that were planned to be exterminated, church, capitalist oppressors etc. The difference is that the ring of terror increased to encompass the proletariat itself, because they resisted the new order. This is how socialism always starts as a bunch of good ideas and turns into terror.

I wont speak much on Communist China as that's not an area I know too much about but I speak of my observations of modern China. They don't seem very socialist or communist.

They are internally. What we see is a different perspective, but they were, are and will be a bunch of pinko commies. Western companies don't want to admit it, because it's like IBM admitting that they were optimizing concentration camps to kill jews more efficiently. It's just business and profits.

Anyway I was not speaking of socialists generally but marxist-communism very specifically which was advocation for complete and total equality between all peoples along all aspects of society. Realistically no society has ever succeeded in creating a lasting communist social order and most if not all attempts to do so have ended in tragedy and the devolving of the state into fascist autocracy.

North Korea has. Kim Er Sen was actually a Soviet Union Army captain before coming back. They are basically are as Soviet Union was up to 50s-60s. China also still going strong. The country is still ruled by Politburo.

Norks are probably more fascist with China kind of, given again that ethnically Chinese is a very diverse group.

Frankly I can't imagine being a genuine communist that actually adorns themselves in symbols of the soviet union given what it ended up representing is everything they supposedly don't.

I can. I was a communist youth member. The perspective from the inside is different. Most Western commies today are completely clueless. Doning a Che Gevara shirt isn't the same thing.

 

[Spunt]

Fascism to me is the merger of state and corporation, intense nationalism and militarism, the silencing of dissent against the state, and viewing the country through the prism of a doctor. Have you noticed the numbers of analogies made by fascism either analogising society as a body or calling enemies vermin, disease, infection.
It's emotionally charged language that appeals to people, that is one reason why Nazism was popular.
All I want to say is that I agree with your scoring.
But.
Fascism in my humble opinion is the wrong word for North Korea, I'd say fascism is a word that is inappropriate for describing the East, kinda like why you wouldn't call Confucianism a religion, because the word is too westernised.
North Korea can be called fascistic, but I really think totalitarian is more appropriate, it isn't descended from Benito Mussolini or any of the descendent philosophies in any overt way, unless Kim secretly hides (DOCTRINE OF FASCISM) under his pillow at night.

I think this analysis doesn't give enough emphasis to the racial aspect of Fascism. The reason that Fascism doesn't spread as a doctrine the way, say, Communism did, is that ideas of racial superiority/purity come from within a country, rather than being imported from without. This is because you have to believe in the superiority of your own people, yet import an ideology from elsewhere in order for Fascism to spread in the way Communism did. For countries with ethnic ties to each other, this can happen (say the spread of the original Fascist ideology from Italy to Germany and less successful movements elsewhere in Western Europe), but it's a bit of an intellectual stretch to be, say, a Zulu and think "Hitler was wrong about Aryans being the master race, it's actually Zulus - otherwise he was 100% right."

So any movement with the characteristics of Fascism that is not created by white people is going to have its own regional flavour, because it's going to be home-grown. Juche is an example of that, it is, on the surface very different from the regimes of Mussolini and Hitler (it calls itself Democratic, it has Communist iconography etc.) but in terms of the key tenets, it is in my view a localised version of the same phenomenon that produced those regimes. The ideas of racial purity and the superiority of the Korean people are what sets it apart from Stalinism or any other Marxist-descended dictatorship and from my point of view is what qualifies it to be genuinely Fascist. I think arbitrarily deciding that Fascism can only be a Western phenomenon is an unhelpful and artificial limitation on the definition. If it looks like a duck etc.

I do not regard Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot to be Fascists. Again, (unless there are sources I am unfamiliar with), these regimes lacked the focus on race and backwards-looking imperialism (trying to recreate your race's glorious past, real or imagined). That's not to say there were not racist elements in the actions of these regimes, China's ongoing genocide against the Uighurs and Stalin's hatred of Ukrainians being two examples, but they were not at the core of those regimes' ideology. Horseshoe theory dictates that both Class Struggle and Racial Struggle look awfully similar in practical terms, but they are still different things that need to be studied as two different movements with very different histories, even if their outcomes in terms of mass-producing death and despair are very similar.

 

[Kalishnakov]

Your last paragraph is a little misleading though. The question of the Uighurs is not race, but religion.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

I'm of the opinion that any definition of fascism that goes passed Mussolini's definition is merely an offshoot of the genuine article & can't be counted as an actual definition, you can't create a friendly or non-oppressive fascist regime the way Oswald Mosley apparently wanted to.

 

[GethN7]

I'm of the opinion that any definition of fascism that goes passed Mussolini's definition is merely an offshoot of the genuine article & can't be counted as an actual definition, you can't create a friendly or non-oppressive fascist regime the way Oswald Mosley apparently wanted to.

I'd concur.

I'd also say any movement or ideology with a fascist aspect or core revolves around the concept of fighting for something.

Both Mussolini and Hitler espoused in different ways their people were fighting in an eternal conflict for their survival and that to prosper, they had to continue to fight, and while it's possible have fascist beliefs without killing people in the short term, long term the glorification of warlike themes all but guarantees blood will spill in the service of such a creed.

Communism ironically also tries to rally people around one cause for perpetuity, but focuses more on "let's all become one big collective" as opposed to "let's fight together as one". Both ironically want a lot of the same goals, but they have different means of motivating the masses to play along.

 

[Kalishnakov]

And neither of the two are as powerful as religion, which we can see the damaging effects of in Europe at present. And is also the reason the Uighurs are not tolerated.

 

[Tasty Tatty]

Imho, fascism should only be used for Mussolini's political movement and regime. The term got thrown around so much and so liberally that it's ridiculous.

Ditto for Nazism. Funny how these very specific ideologies that were formed in also very specific eras after very specific events that triggered them is used so randomly to sanction everything overly offended people don't like, but Communism, that is more universal, is never actually Communism.

Truth to be told, considering that we aren't having real Nazism or Fascism, I'm all for throw those aside and simply call it all Authoritarianism, which can even include the Left and Communism.

 

[Slap47]

Pretty much all states place their interests above that of individuals, though. None of them really care if you'd prefer not to pay taxes, or be drafted and die for them, or take substances or fuck someone or buy land or travel where they don't approve of, or retain your existing property if they declare eminent domain, or operate your own attack helicopter, et cetera.

Meanwhile the actual literal Nazis were pretty successful at what they set out to do, recovering from a crippling economic disaster and not merely rebuilding but establishing a war machine that gave the rest of Europe a run for its money. Losing a war isn't exactly a spontaneous failure of ideology.
And that ideology was in large part modelled on a contemporary perception of the traditions of the Roman Empire and Holy Roman Empire, who you might be familiar with.

The Nazis basically just had a policy of massive deficit spending that was unsustainable. Instead of living it up like Japan in the 1980s they focused on the military and used propaganda and mass mobilization to sweep aside the high mortality rates from the terrible pro-corporate work conditions and human rights abuses.

 

[GethN7]

The Nazis basically just had a policy of massive deficit spending that was unsustainable. Instead of living it up like Japan in the 1980s they focused on the military and used propaganda and mass mobilization to sweep aside the high mortality rates from the terrible pro-corporate work conditions and human rights abuses.

Not to mention, true to fascist doctrine, it was intended to be ultimately sustained by conquest of other nations to make up the shortfall.

As an economic system, fascism wants all economic power harnessed in service to the state and Germany did not have enough to absorb it's expenses at the rate they were spending them.

Then again, if they followed Hitler's book and conquered their neighbors, then they could make up the difference quite a lot better for a lot longer.

It wasn't until late 1942 when the gas they were burning from trying that strategy started running out, which is around the time their war fortunes started going south.

 

[Zersetzung]

The Nazis basically just had a policy of massive deficit spending that was unsustainable. Instead of living it up like Japan in the 1980s they focused on the military and used propaganda and mass mobilization to sweep aside the high mortality rates from the terrible pro-corporate work conditions and human rights abuses.

Britain were also big fans of military, human rights abuses, ludicrous corporatism and awful working and living conditions. Japan aren't comparable with Germany and were legally prohibited from investing much in military anyway moreso than they were "living it up", and countries naturally get an economic benefit from being freed from that responsibility (Costa Rica for example), but there's a lot more to those stories that's out of scope here.

Criticising Nazis is easy, but you have to move the goalposts into fucking space to claim their form of government "failed" when they both achieved their economic goals and were initially very successful militarily.

But that was an aside and wasn't even the point of my post, which was a reply to the much broader claim you made about governments which put their interests ahead of ours, that you've ignored.