Why does Holla Forums hate Fascism so much?

I'm a fashcom tbh

Fascism was from the begining a left wing non-anarchist Syndicalist ideology. I wish that ideology was still around.

I probably wouldn't mind them all that much if they actually did what they originally claimed they'd do, but in reality they just sold out to industrialists and conservative elements and became a snazzily dressed weapon to protect bourgeois interests.

There were corporations. The miners' corporation for instance was the equivalent to the miners' union, except unlike the union they had political representation. The workers corps were very weak in the beginning though (compared to industry corps), and Mussolini only tried to strengthen them very close to Italy's defeat but the idea of the system is very interesting.

Mussolini basically went full Stalinist near the end. He even got an ex-commie to write the new Fascist program.

Trash trash trash.

That was just a sham to keep workers pacified. In practice, it favoured bosses every time, just like social democracy.

"Social Fascism" was a very accurate term.

And he rightfully got strung up alongside Benito.

Nicolas Bombacci who was probably the world's only genuine National Leninist.

I've read a text on Bombacci some nazbo posted here some time ago
Bombacci was to pure ideology what smirnoff is to vodka, so destilled and so pure

Lol at the star on Mussolini's collar.

Corporations didn't refer to capitalist corps.
americanblackshirts.com/single-post/2016/10/25/Capitalism-and-the-Corporate-State
americanblackshirts.com/single-post/2016/09/18/Some-Thoughts-on-Corporatism-and-Syndicalism
americanblackshirts.com/single-post/2016/12/25/The-Syndicates

i dont i love gay people

...

To be completely fair, the word "corporation" used to connote "a group of people come together for a single purpose". In an old Dickens book I read, it referred to a group of people who ran a countryside village; just as government, with no aim of making profit.

Corporatism in the political sense is essentially having special interest groups within politics.
It's similar, though not exactly the same, as one would lobby for an interest group in the USA, which iirc is considered 'liberal corporatism'.
Fascist corporatism, in theory, would allow for special interest groups for workers in the various fields (like agriculture, industry, tech, medical, etc.) to have a say in the political sphere.

t. somebody who still doesn't like Fascism.

I consider myself sympathetic to them. I would identify as a Asserist.

Fascism was practically born from Socialism.

You can see this in the original Nazi party, the original Italian fascists, the national syndicalist of the falange and the Asserists.

*Strasserist

I don't see the distinction user.

Both involve labour representation within mediated political fields.

...

All those were middle class, petty bourgeois capitalist movements.

youtube.com/watch?v=1_2XyoxK-uE

Even when they claim to be "against capitalism and communism", they only moan about bankers and target communists and trade unionists.

Fuck "3rd positionism"

...

*Strasserism, not Asserism

zionists OUT

People need to understand that fascism is not tied to any economic system and it will indeed be around after capitalism. People like to quote Lenin here but he did not live long enough to see Fascism sufficiently develop in order to fully understand what it was truly capable of.

People really underestimate how much of a flexible ideology it can be, what fascist foremost care about is being top dog in a totalitarian state, so everyone including the porkies/oligarchs are underneath them. Fascists would break them at times to make an example of if they ever cross them, mistreat or refuse to give crumbs to the working class, as a means to earn and maintain their popular support.

For this reason, this time around the oligarchs would rather back a hard center leftish social democracy, than to go with fascism for it being a fairly less powerless and dangerous alternative for them.

Its a very bad idea to forget the sheer unethical opportunistic nature of fascism and in the end they will do anything to gain popular support, and if they need to completely ditch capitalism as a whole, I wouldn't gamble on them not. Let's not forget that some got very to close real "NatSoc"(Italians, Nazis purged/killed off their socialist members etc).

Even on social issues they can be very flexible, they don't necessarily need to be ethnic nationalist, some fascist parties done this in the past and more are starting to do so as time goes by. PAP(a party that has been ruling for 60 years unopposed) is one example of not being ethnic-nationalist, while even being multiracial at that. Due to current trends some fascist parties even seem to be accepting gays now.

The phase where democracies around the world are coming to a point that their democracy fully erodes away(similar to the fall of roman republic thus becoming the roman empire), either becoming oligarchic kleptocrat police states, or ruled by a Caesarist style kleptocrat(think Russia). Which will then be around for some stretch of time before you can probably expect to see nationalist authoritarian socialist states to emerge if by that time real deal socialists have still not got their act together.

Authoritarian politics shapeshifts overtime, and will haunt us long after capitalism if we fail to stop it now, we shouldn't be naive that with the end of capitalism it would just cease to be.

Nazis aren't normal fascists, they were very weird.

I'm not really a zionist. I'm just saying that though I dislike the fact that Asser was willing to basically ignore the plight of the jews in Hitler's Germany, I am still rather keen on his ideas regarding the second revolution (i.e. destroying the established order once power has been seized and stabilized.)

that was all just bullshit to dupe German proletarians into siding with their bosses

$trasserism is the Trotskyism of fascism; a defeated man's way of striking back.

Fascism can't exist without the state. How can it be around after capitalism and private property have been abolished?

Becuase I enjoy fookin freedom ya wee doaty cunt

youtu.be/ciPu4DnKBuM

States existed before capitalism, even if capitalism goes doesn't mean states will cease to exist automatically. There are a lot of unknowns on how things will take form after capitalism, but I'm not really willing to gamble and let authoritarians take me for a ride. When we move onto the next economic system, it would be best if it was on our terms unless we want to fight with authoritarians for many more decades.

...

Wat about modern China and 48-84 Japan?

They're heavily totalitarian, basically a one party state, and extremely nationalistic, also their flag is literally fascist.

Seriously.

Walter Audisio did nothing wrong

A lot of ideologies have this
See above
When your neighbor is red China, u better be on your fucking guard.
They were Brit owned. They were also edgy as fuck in the start.
Same as Pinochet's Chile. If you think Pinochet was a fascist you are a lib sinner.

Are you by chance an American?

They're about as fascist as NK bruh.

Also, many do consider Pinochet a fascist dictator.

Yes. I only meant in the regional context. China is practically the reason ASEAN exists aside from the U.S. Which spooked them a bit too.

>Fascism – the strength behind Singapore
newbritishunion.co.uk/onewebmedia/Singapore.htm

Going to leave this here.

He sold out to big oil tho.

NBU. Even the FOM shits on them.

Doesn't change from the fact that everything in the article is common knowledge to anyone who has looked into Singapore's politics.

BUT ITS NOT FASCISM! THIS IS FASCISM!

worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

singaporedissident.blogspot.com.au/2010/06/singapore-fascist-one-party-state.html

From a former Singaporean.

Fascism can evolve and change form like with any other ideology.

Fascism is specific. Integral/Union movement, Falangism, etc. are children of fascism.

Hardly the main reasons that it exists is economic and social in nature. Both China and USA are too militarily strong for ASEAN to figth against and they know this, the ASEAN are not retarded.

Fuck you Trot.

Then it wouldn't be a highly debated topic on what it is then.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

Fascism in nature is a incredible incoherent, and contradicting ideology, which never looked exactly the same as it did before when it reared its ugly head throughout history. Its a very young and unfleshed out ideology, and it already has various thought like anything else.

Neo-facism is very apparent of this.

Fascism isn't just autoritarian right wing.
Pinochet had neoliberal economics something Fascism has always been against

Governments will always exist. I think this talk of abolishing the state is utterly delusional. At most you'll just stop calling it that, much like AnCaps would call their dystopia a voluntary business association or something retarded like that.

Pinochet wasn't Fascist, and any Fascist should be utterly disgusted by him. He was a puppet who whored his own people out to foreign interests for his own profit and those of American corporations. There's nothing Fascist about that.

Some fascists are cool. The falange was alright, same with the Asserists. Not to mention, proto-fascism is literally national-syndicalism.

His son Romano made some cool music:
youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=F0dfSM5xJgc

Its spooky.

This.

Come to think of it, why do nationalists/fascists worship Pinochet when Franco exists?

He didn't implement free market reforms like Pinochet

But he still managed to fuck up everything that Rivera had built.

no personal liberty.
see also megacorps, and mass surveilance

memes and only memes

...

They were pro-Porky corporatists.

But, more importantly, they were nationalists. Nationalism is antithetical to leftist goals and ideals.

this

>They were pro-Porky corporatists.
>But, more importantly, they were nationalists.

I'm not a trot

From an ideological perspective, nationalism is worse than simple liberal pro-business attitudes.

...

Way to misinterpret my post

I was saying that fascists are worse than pro-business liberals, largely because of the nationalist element.

I wasn't using "corporism" in the lolbert way of saying "bad capitalism", but genuine corporatism, like what Mosley invisioned especially.

No such thing.

Kys immediately neoliberalism a shit

Just was mentioning that some scholars do consider him one, but the thing to note though is that fascism is known to be machiavellian, corrupt, unprincipled opportunistic and ideologically dishonest, and for these reasons is why you could never expect them to follow their ideology 100% or do what they say they will. Even if they said they were against doing something, does not mean they wouldn't do it.

Fascists will do anything to fulfill their goals, keep their livelihood, power, and mass support. Even going far as to sell out their country to save their own skin.

t. butthurt first worlder

Neoliberalism is shit, nationalism is worse.

At least neoliberals pay lipservice to something that might be called progressive, emancipatory values if you looked at it sideways and squinted. Nationalists openly fetishize their chains.

Fuck you, at least nationalists give gibmedats. Neoliberal just take them away.

Another thing to note is that fascism isn't ideologically pure either like with any other ideology out there. Fascists have shown well enough that they're willing to take ideas from everything, which is more than proof of enough that the ideology will continue to evolve in many wide varieties as time goes own.

Nice spook

Actually, most nationalist regimes were marked by privatizations and little to nothing in the way of expansion of the welfare.

The primary function of any nationalist regime being upholding muh natural order, not serving the people.

...

Stalin,Mao, and Castro (among others) want to have a little chat.

National liberation is not the same thing as nationalism.

National Liberation REQUIRES nationalism.

...

Great example, though we still have to see what way Cuba will go.

Stirner wasn't opposed to all abstract concepts. The point was fixed ideas that control you, rather than you controlling them.

How many levels of revisionism are we on here?

And spooks aren't spooks if they serve you.

So you're saying you're a moralist and society and its values serve you? I assume not as this would make you rather conservative. Explain your method of determining which of the spooks are your servants.

Are you trying to tell me the USSR wasn't a Communist revolutionary state? When did it go full reactionary? Or was Octobyr a reaction?

It's almost like this kind of "reasoning" (rhetoric) is… oh I dunno, entirely circular.

Stalin.

Oh so Stalin was just a crypto-nationalist all along? Except when "Socialism in one country" was actually just what was necessary because the full world revolution didn't exactly go as planned. Why didn't Lenin pick up on his latent national-reactionary vibes even when he entrusted him in his last days? Are all revolutions vulnerable to such hidden menaces? They seem pretty hard to detect ahead of time.

Basically, "Make the union russian again!"

Stalin reignited the Russian nationalism which Lenin rightly despised and mixed it into the already existing soviet patriotism causing the whole union to decay into a reactionary mess. Deporting over 13 nationalities, ethnic cleansing(Crimean Tatars, Holodomor etc) racist policies(anti-Jewish etc), brought back the Russian Orthodox church to help intensify Russian patriotism and now last but not least, stopped moving the union towards socialism so as to keep the means of production in the hands of party bureaucrats.

Lenin is but a mortal man and as such was not omniscient.

...

...

I was pointing out the circularity of ideology. But on point: exactly. So how exactly do we prevent eternal recurrence of the same?

the same could be said about most "communist" leaders to you know

Socialism is not inherently democratic.

This!

Because it's spooky af

youtube.com/watch?v=1_2XyoxK-uE

D E M O C R A C Y
E
M
O
C
R
A
C
Y

[email protected]/* */ didn't really have a problem with Jews.

Socialism is by default a democratic ideology, movement and system. It's inherent to it. Fucking kill yourselves.

I wonder why communists might hate fascism

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

True but he was more than willing to use it for political gain. That's not cool.

Then why is there the separate democratic socialism?

Because #ourguy hates it too.

Wat?

Wat?

It's a retarded expression of the death instinct. Basically, mass enslavement and suicide dressed up in mock heroic imagery

He's dialectics in motion.

why, oh why am I not surprised?

Isn't democratic socialism an interface between socialist principles and bourgeois democracy?

...

I didn't know that Trump advocated fascist corporatism. I'm being ironic of course.
The fact is, fascists wouldn't put up with the fact that he's putting international bankers in his cabinet. Holla Forums is already turning on him.

I WONDER WHY???????????????

I dunno.

Here is some interesting reading.

americanblackshirts.com/single-post/2016/10/29/The-Unholy-Alliance

Class collaboration is the most cucked tenant of any ideology ever.

Authoritarian capitalism. There is nothing more horrible than that.

But what about na1ional socialism?

That is the best of both worlds wouldnt you agree?

No. Why is nationalism good?

Hard mode: your answer can't include 'shitskins'.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract
Ethno-nationalism (as opposed to, say ,the nationalism of a made-up nation, which is in itself is a spook) is needed to maintain the levels of trust and cooperation necessary for any socialistic society. Without it, social capital and cooperation plummets, and you're just going against nature trying to force cooperation. People aren't abstracta, they are flesh and blood.

Not to mention, it's a pretty good emergent evolutionary strategy. Whether or not a humanist is aware of ethnic differences is irrelevant to the ethocentrist. That's why ethnocentrism beats humanism as an evolutionary strategy.
jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Nice word soup

nice spook

American fought against the fascists you fucking idiot.

Welp, can't say I didn't try. So long, spook-boys.

he did actually in the 50s

No, facism is not capitalism. Learn what 'spook' means because you keep saying it despite not knowing. This is why everyone thinks this is a troll board and comes here to shitpost.

...

Top kek faggot

Nazbol you heathen

Bunch of evo psyche nonscientific garbage

Lol the most successful societies of all time: America, post ww2 germany, modern brazil, ancient india, islamic empire, holy roman empire, roman empire (hispanic, germanic, italian, north african emperors), persian empire, alexandrian macedonian empire were all multicultural

History is on our side faggot

Can anyone tell me why Holla Forums is so against the idea of an all white country? If everyone is equal in their eyes, why does diversity matter?

because it would require mass deportations, concentration camps, ethnic violence, social upheavel and genocide to happen in the US or Germany or UK

hundreds of millions would be displaced,

I didn't say anything about genocide. I asked about the idea of a white country. Why are you against it?

Evo psych simulations are run using a flawed conception of the brain, where they view the brain as being divided into "modules" that fulfill a specific, or general purpose. This is completely divorced from what we know about the brain, so the "simulation" is more or less useless.

There have been plenty of studies like Putnams and when economic status is accounted for, social cohesion is not an issue.

The only 'countries' listed which qualify as successful are empires. You realize why that's retarded right? Empires themselves are not countries. Rome is a country. Rome was not multicultural at its peak. Same for the rest of the empires you listed. Leave it to a commie to not understand basic civilization. Oh an America was 96% white until very recently, 'coincidentally' it was also doing very well until very recently. I really hope that was a troll post. Encase it isn't though make sure to add Nazi Germany to that list.

because i'm against government and laws.

He literally answered the question you fucking idiot, don't just side step it.

No he didn't I asked why is Holla Forums against an all white country. He side stepped it. Again, what is inherently wrong with a white homogeneous country? Your board is very clearly against it, yet you have no reason why. I'd like a reason.

The "race" of the people in the country is irrelevant to us as long as they are cooperative and friendly once we make a transition to socialism, and we would not expect this immediately either. I think you need to make your case why we want an all white country, and if is the best you've got then I don't know what else to say other than you're extremely unconvincing.

Because profit kek. USA didn't fought WW2 because "muh freedom". They fought so that the state could borrow lots of money from the federal reserve in order to fund the war.

Exactly race isn't relevant you say. But you are against an all white country all the same. If race was irrelevant than you shouldn't have a stance, but you do, and its negative. Furthermore, why would you say race doesn't matter when it very clearly does. You ignore the fact that people will and always will hold racist views. They always have. It won't change. The only way socialism can exist is in a homogeneous society.

Well I'm a tranny and I'd be dead in fascism so there u go.

My stance is that I don't think race is relevant enough to justify mass genocide ala the Turner Diaries to achieve the pure white utopia. I don't care if people hold racist views, nor do I believe race is intrinsically linked to culture. If I'm going to be honest, I think there are a lot of shit cultures in developing nations that I am against "importing" and typically opt for a more eurocentric approach to things.

They were monocultural though.

Ok stormnigger I know you're basically a snownigger that was taught a Latin language by master race southern europeans and West Asians and Middle Easterners and your neo-cortex is less developed than the average dark haired, brown eyed person's so I will be polite.

All white nations only existed because the population size and density was so low and because there was very little commerce or exploration outside of zones where one would encounter other "racial groups"

the moment that the Brits and Dutch and Germans decided to start colonizing other countries and teaching dindus and loos and all the other lovely ethnic groups their language and sharing their culture, a white nation went out the window. As it is necessary for merchants and laborers and diplomats to live in the countries they trade with. So you can actually blame your """"""enterprising faustian spirit""""" for having arabs and blacks in Berlin

There is literally nothing short of mass deportations, concentration camps and ultimately extreme ethnic violence, social upheavel and genocide that would create a white nationalist state.

We do not in principle support mass violence for retarded rationalist ends. The only kind of mass violence we support is revolutionary violence where the workers (proles, labor) seize the means of production from the political, landowning, capitalist classes who oppress and torture the proletariat. That is it. We do not support wasting decades causing mass bloodshed just so autistic, pink dicked, ugly, pig nosed, violent, impulsive snowniggers can have their shitty unaesthetic snownigger utopia

If you want to know why we treat you like shit and are so nasty and unwelcoming its because what you believe would 100% result in the deaths of hundreds of millions for the sake of an irrational and unproductive goal.

These reasons are deontological as in I cannot justify senseless mass violence AND utilitarian in that the means do NOT justify the ends

Pick whichever one you like

The nice thing about a leftist revolution is that it actually will not require the amount of violence that a fascist uprising would, because we don't need to pull a 1947 Israel and ship millions of people into one area and tens of millions to another at the end of a rifle. While there is going to be violence, it will be mostly workers versus the state and workers versus fascists. Since fascists are NEVER the majority of the population and always require union with the state it will be a numbers game that we win 10/10 which means the majority of the proles will not be in our line of sights

This is the last time I explain why this is a dumb idea and why we will never ever support the spooky white race

We don't hate whites, all of my snownigger comments are just ironic jabs at your faggot ideology of racial supremacism (which all WN are racial supremacists otherwise they wouldn't want other races out). None of us hate white people, most of us are white, date white people, have white parents and hang out with other whites

/r/socialism hates whites, /r/anarchism hates whites

Holla Forums hates porky. Its in the FAQ if you read it you don't have to waste time sperging out in threads like this which again are meant to slide actual important constructive discourse and commentary on political events (which used to be the corpus of threads on both Holla Forums and 4/pol/ back when Holla Forums was essentially a melting pot of ideas and not a faggot echo chamber for CIA and stormcucks)

Its relevant because you guys and libs keep bringing it up all the time because you are spooked. All that can be said to exist are material conditions and the egos that inhabit and interact with them. The only collective is the whole of humanity. Nothing else really exists ok? You can say zeus is an important aspect of social cohesion, it does not actually mean that it is. Your logic is extremely poor. Just because you think spook 'x' is important does not mean us saying "fuck off retard" is an actual affirmation of the existence of the spook. The idea that we live in a simulation is retarded religious nonsense that people, many of whom are well educated and even "experts", love to bring up these days; however, me saying "fuck off singularicuck or simulationcuck" is not an affirmation of their retarded ideas. Its me telling them to fuck off and leave me alone, because they're obnoxious. There is no reason to debate something that is self evident. It is self evident that race isn't real, you would never find gradients of racial characteristics like Central Asians and Polynesians and South Asians and First Nations peoples if Race was a harsh and sudden dividing line. You would also fine extremely distinct genetic information that would easily and 100% distinguish races from each other (as in ALL whites would have these alleles not just some from northern europe or some Swedes or some Dutchman or whatever). Haplogroups are not phylogenetic subspecies, which before you sperg out IS the very definition of races. This is a fact, you cannot argue your way out of this. Now we can debate whether the differences between regional ethnic groups are to a degree biological, they are to a degree biological otherwise West Africans wouldn't have longer achilles tendons and Eastern Euros wouldn't have bigger bicep inserts BUT these are not enough to fulfill the criteria for subspecies. Which is what you need for me to not call you a spooked faggot. Unfortunately for you there has never ever been a scientific study that definitely shows that there are phylogenetic subspecies of humans that could stand up to the modern peer review process and be falsified. Phrenology is not falsifiable nor is it scientific, its vaguely interesting and somewhat useful as rule of thumb for identifying ancestral origins. It is not scientific, or repeatable or testable or in any way tennable to base a political ideology of of. For instance it is obvious that Native Americans are somewhate related to steppe peoples from Eurasia, you can see this in their faces. But they are closer in origins to Mongolians and Siberians and Fins than they are to Huwhytes. This does not constitute a race or racial ties, its just an interesting observation derived from applying rules of thumb that I have picked up. I'm not autistic enough to make scientific declarations and theories off of a simple observation that I can't really test.

You are retarded, what you believe is so insanely stupid that I would never live in the same settlement as you. I hope you realize how dumb race realism is in the future when you learn more about HBD than infographics from stormfags

This, but also there isn't really even a criteria for subspecies. It's extremely tenuous.

Holla Forums posters tend to be gay and effeminate and lack aesthetic sense. There is some great stuff from fascism. It is hypermasculine, for example, just like the USSR. They also understood that democracy is dumb, which it is. They were opposed to bourgeois safety and comfort in favor of a vitalist and violent viewpoint. All good things.

Well, at least you admit that tankies are pretty much fascist.

Lol, this isn't a collective. You just generalize and ignore all the particular arbitrarily. Study Stalin and the Soviets. They didn't see "humanity," a false category. They were Russian chauvinists, as they should be.

Not really. If you imagine a triangle of fascism, socialism, and liberalism, talkies would be closer to fascism than to liberalism, sure. Loser effeminate socialists are closer to liberalism.

fuck off

I'm not a "loser effeminate socialist" buddy. I don't pervert the ideology I promote.

Nice speciesism

Okie dokie

Yes you are. You are basically a liberal but only slightly less homosexual.

...

Morals are a spook