When did fascism stop being left-wing...

bretty gud post

Here is an image of the first fascist, you should ask him.

now thats ideology

Ultra-purified and magnified a million times, this image appeared.

A philosopher king, or authoritarian if you prefer is central to communism. Without a philosopher king there would not be direction, or guiding hand for the people. Without the secret guiding hand and iron fist of the philosopher king all would become entropy. For example, your pacifism and egotism.

Class cooperation > Class warfare

Indeed, comrade, and that can only be achieved by the secret guiding hand of a philosopher king. Without it and his iron fist, all would become entropy.

That sounds pretty and all but is actually not the case in the real world, far from it

fascism has always been right-wing you idiot
literally the definition of fascism:
fas·cism
ˈfaSHˌizəm
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

fascism cannot be left-wing, BY DEFINITION

Oh well if the 🍀🍀🍀dictionary🍀🍀🍀 says so I guess that settles it. No need for scholarship or critical evaluation of history.

sjsu.edu/people/james.lindahl/courses/Hum2B/s2/Mussolini-on-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf

4 u niga

It never was. From the very beginning its main enemy's were working people, communists, anarchists and the like. Why dosnt anyone ever talk about how fascists were greatly inspired by Lenin, they both advocated a revolutionary ideology, believed in the necessity of a vanguard elite, had disdain for bourgeois values, and had totalitarian ambition.

I don't think you can say its enemies were working people, accurately. But there are some very deep similarities, which I think were buried in the subsequent reaction against "totalitarian" scholarship by the increased stanglehold of the Marxist-heavy, apologist academic faction. I think it's safe to say anarchists were the enemies of Leninists too, not to mention other communists of various stripes.

That's a main issue with left wing ideology, it's tendency towards extreme sectarianism, that resolves to which sect was stronger, more ruthless, more militarized… The others are liquidated. That is seen here and in the ever shifting and fragile "alliances" of identity-oriented leftism.

They beat people to death who were on strike, murdered trade unionists, socialists leaders ect, thats what they did, they murdered and beat people constantly along with the help of the police (many of who were either supportive of the fascists or were in the organization themselves.) Really they only managed to gain power without causing a full scale civil war because they acted primarily in the interests of Capitalists by breaking up strikes and killing organizers.

Because sucking corporate dicks gave them more money than union dicks.
And because people with a military-industrial complex are easier to bent and form than sturdy workers.

Authoritarians are always attached to hierarchical systems, dreaming themselves on top of it one day. That's what authoritarians find fascinating about the Mafia and other criminal organisations with lots of "honours", and that's what authoritarians find fascinating about a movement, that is organised like a military unit.

all of you are wrong

Quit false-flagging as a tankie when your obviously one of the anarkiddies who has been here forever. Your fucking keyword and writing style gave it away.

Trade unions were brutally suppressed under Communism as well.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_Congress_of_the_Russian_Communist_Party_(Bolsheviks)

The historical background of fascism proper was due to possible immanent Communist revolution and civil war, where many trade unions were under Communist control, which they saw as foreign-backed subversives.

There are often massive differences between ideology and practice. The futurism and collectivism of fascism, its obsession with creating a new man of strength, intelligence and virtue, is very similar to Lenin. There were a great variety of scholars who adhered to some form of fascism, both left and right.

I think there are strong comparisons to be made with various forms of Communism. It's easy to claim this was all Stalin's fault, and act like there was a wider rejection of Stalin than there was, even post-Kruschev.

History is buried when you refuse to examine it carefully, when you've characterized ideology into broad camps, and refuse to read the others' view with honesty as you feel they are poisonous and only there to trick you into something you reject at a basic level, and had that distinction pushed at you by ideologically motivated scholars and media, who themselves were told how to characterize "the enemy", and who's motives are obscured by the past.

...

Fascists want a class collaboration under the idea of The Nation™, while leftists want to get rid of classes. How can you have left-wing fascism?

Nice ancap-tier ahistorical rhetorical trick.

Communist states, their ideology and methods, their basis of legitimacy, as accepted by vast numbers of Leftists around the world, was premised on "building" towards the end point of communism, which was their way of saying anarchism-via-state dictatorship, which would only last for an always indefinite and unspecified period of time, barring various mishaps, counterrevolutions, takeovers and collapses, that somehow always occurred, surprisingly, yet also justified their "temporary" exigent measures of massive brutality and callousness.

The end point implies the pathway, or it would just be called anarchism.

Communists want class collaboration under the idea of the security apparatus and nomenklatura. They are anti-capitalist on a technicality, but they still need to find an excuse, for example, to eliminate the labor surplus created when moving from old agrarian production to industrial. Can't have a reserve army of the unemployed…

The moment it was invented. It was when Mussolini stopped being a socialist to come up with fascism. He rejected reason, the future, and international cooperation to embrace aestheticism, the past, and nationalism.

Thus Think Rebel Join, once turned upside down, became Believe Obey Fight.

You mean like the guiding hand of the freemarket?

Fascism was never 'left wing'.

It was a broad church movement with policies ranging from liberal 'left' to extreme right and the occasional socialist policy that was then dumped when gasp, it turns out an organisation that exists to maintain the interests of the bourgeois isn't a workers movement after all.

Fascism was never left wing

fascism was NEVER left wing.

Marxism has been authoritarian almost from the beginning. Or did we forget about the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and state monopoly on the distribution of goods?

Explain Rojava. There's clearly the guidance of Ocalan's works - which are taught throughout society - but no autocratic figure.

The original strains of fascism actually came from French Marxist syndicalism (Sorel, which the followers dropped after getting crushed and they opportunistically joined more reactionary alleys to promote their ideology. This is when you started getting this mixture of revolutionary language to cloak reactionary agendas.

I appreciate a lot of this pre-fascist, pre-reactionary syndicalism: a revolutionary strategy of general strikes, skepticism of democracy and a favor of organic organization, integral necessity of an almost Leninist 'dual power' idea (centralized oversight, decentralized universal militia and planned distribution). It's worth a read.

It never was

This thread calls for me to read a book on the History of fascism as an ideology, anybody know one? Preferably a sympathetic one not a scathing Liberal one

Mussolini was not the first fascist, nor does the dictionary give an accurate definition for words all the time. Especially when dealing with political, or social terms.

Mussolini's Intellectuals is pretty good. It goes through a lot of the syndacalist and nationalist thinkers/movements that lead to Italian fascism.

fascism didnt grow out of syndicalism, it stole from syndicalist theory.