How did he turn from a socialist to a fascist? It's a pretty big jump in the political spectrum

topkek

that's why you have to fight Nationalism, it'll fuck you up big time I'll tell you waht, before you know it, you'll be a fascist

support globalism, mandate that all speak Esperanto

kys

There's absolutely nothing that will persuade me that Mussolini abandoned a Marxist worldview even during his Fascist years.

He just realised something that many Marxists since have also realised: Marx developed a method of analysis of society followed by a call for one class to organize against the other, centered around the cleavages and points of conflicts that his analysis lead him to. Someone who shares this analysis, who learned Marxism and how Marxists behave, who was "from the inside", can use that same body of knowledge but revert the axis, joint the other team, serve the bourgeoisie and use what he learned to destroy radical labour instead.

And this is absolutely what Mussolini did. He was expelled from Socialist organizations but immediately found a niche among the upper classes, and since the beginning his recruitment (and of others like him) was to make them use what they've learned from Socialists to teach the bourgeoisie how to fight them.

I think Mussolini was a far more intelligent man than Hitler, and I think fascism is more progressive and socialistic than Nazism. Nevertheless they both need to be smashed.

wait, fascism has its roots in syndicalism? wtf

Speaking of this, I like how in Hearts of Iron Kaisereich, Mussolini is still socialist, and instead makes the socialist ideology of "Totalism," which is akin to Stalinism, but Stalin never came to power in Kaisereich.

The best part is that Orwell goes all in on totalism because he doesn't feel personally betrayed by stalinism

The immortal science of Marxist-Mussolinism was too much for him to resist

What about National-Bolshevism, though? Are class cooperating too?

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cercle_Proudhon
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism
>openrevolt.info/2011/09/06/the-portuguese-national-syndicalist-movement/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cercle_Proudhon
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism
openrevolt.info/2011/09/06/the-portuguese-national-syndicalist-movement/

Depends on the politician. Niekisch: yes
Jünger: no
Dugin: No
Limonov: Lol I can't tell
Thiriart: in a sense I.e. Communitarianism
Jockey: depends on the year

*Yockey*

What about Niekisch and Ustryalov?

there are countless brands of syndacalism and unions, the fash believes in class collaboration so he needs a union to approach the worker and then make sure he never goes on strike or gets beaten up.

I thought it meant anarcho-communism. I guess I'm wrong. Can you give me the full definition of syndicalism?

You're thinking of anarcho-syndicalism, syndicalism is a word for unionized work afaik.

Best part is HOI4 Totalist logo is Asserist. Can't wait for .4

Niekisch is a no. Ustryov I think yes but not 100% sure. Note that None of the people I'm saying yes to are as Porky loving as Mussolini during the KOI. Think more like the SA (milder elements at least), JONS/Falange, Arrow Cross, and Iron Guard/Crusade of Romanianism

asserist?

when I google that I get translation issues

Damn wordfilters

you mean Asserist right?

lol, it does filter that word

Forgot
Freda: [Kills you dead with Evolan sorcery at the very notion of class collaboration as is his right as REGENT OF THE PEOPLE'S STATE.]

Why are people who mod videogames always such dumbasses

It's Alt-History with a bit of GrimBright skullfuckery mixed in. Not a bad mod but I've only played IV version not DH (I think the map is different in HOI2DH)

I remember I watched a communist lets play of Kaisereich, and the guy just spent the entire game just shitting on how the people who made the game don't know what the hell they are talking about.

youtube.com/watch?v=WKh4J6JVTg8

I remember I watched a communist lets play of Kaisereich, and the guy just spent the entire game just shitting on how the people who made the game don't know what the hell they are talking about

youtube.com/watch?v=WKh4J6JVTg8

Man they know it's not accurate to real history they're deliberately mixing things up partly to make a point of "man what if things had gone REALLY different" and partly for just for the fun of it

One core idea is that the working class cannot defeat the bourgeoise, that corporations are too strong.
Class collaboration was born out of defeatism.
It's why "third worldists" are basically fascists in the making.

Yeah I imagine so, I mean, I imagine in the Kaisereich universe, they would look at ours and go "What the literal hell is this "National Socialism" crap"

Yeah but idk. I think I'm too much of an aut to not be bothered by some of the completely illogical historical developments they include, and to not be always looking for hidden agendas these people are trying to push.

There is literally an event like that.
(in reaction to a book parallel to our timeline) What Childish Fantasy

That event is weird, I think they have several versions of it.

I have seen a version where it was our world, but Trotsky was the leader of the Soviet Union, and another where Germany becomes socialist after WW1 (Rosa's-Reich lol) however the Russian Civil war was won by the Black Hundreds.

wtf i love fascism now

(ok, purely joking here but i couldn't resist)

You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

People who are outside the political status quo are more likely to jump to another ideology.

Not dissimilar from a liberal getting old and becoming a conservative, it just stands out more because it's a wider gap.

No more dead cops, man.

This has made me wonder why Socialists seem to make excellent (intellectual) Fascists. My hypothesis as to why is that if you were to look at the Age of Enlightenment as having a philosophical split between the "mainstream" Enlightenment and what was the precursor to what is now called the "Dark Enlightenment", then Fascism is the result of Socialists, who are the next philosophical step from the Enlightenment's thought, withdrawing their convictions in these values, succumbing to Fascism, which could be seen as a sort of "Socialism for the 'Dark Enlightenment's' values". It initially resulted from ripened class consciousness that went un-acted upon or by alienation, which is the most common reason nowadays considering how many "Socialist" organizations are focused on IdPol. The overarching theme of this process is that Fascism grows when Socialism fails in the eyes of the people. In the end, this explains why Fascists behave in similar ways to Socialists (i.e. look up to the same philosophers, same rhetoric, etc.), because Fascism is actually a corruption of Socialism and Leftism as a whole.

Anyone care to tear apart this hypothesis if I'm just talking out of my ass? I'm genuinely curious to know if this could hold any weight as an analysis on Fascism

Because Nationalism and Socialism go best together and really, you can't truly have one without the other. What is your nation if your only culture is consumerism and everyone trying to get rich. How can you be socialist to people who are not only vastly different from you but, sometimes their lifestyle and culture is antithetical to yours? You need a Nation for socialism to work and a nation means nothing without socialism. Thats why the Germans had universal health care even before the NSDAP was even thought of.

tbh I don't know either

pic related, idiot

truth

100% this

...

Flag related

Read this

gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=10886BD4A08A7180CDA3D8B3BED5ADD1

underrated

Took me a second

Opinion discarded

Anarcho-Syndicalism is a form of Syndicalism, but not the only one. Daniel DeLeon created a form of Marxist Syndicalism, for instance. Georges Sorel's Syndicalism, which eventually inspired fascism, was a sort of idealist, anti-materialist version of socialism which would provoke class war through a general strike by the labor unions (=syndicates) which would then result in the moral regeneration of the nation after the victory of the proletariat, ending humanism, enlightenment thought, humanism, democracy, liberalism and all other such nonsense.

Mussolini was a strange figure. He was a much more rational person than Hitler in many ways, and would undoubtedly have become a capitalist hero if he'd refrained from allying with Adolf in the expectation of stealing some land from France after a short victorious war. It's especially interesting how much he hated Hitler initially, yet eventually ended up following him down the rabbit hole to insanity and ruin anyway. He even seemed strangely self-aware of how much he had fucked everything up whilst Hitler degenerated further and further into denial. He said in 1945:

You'd also imagine that a man who is actually quite intelligent and self-aware would realize that his shit tier military which couldn't even deal with Albania would be nothing more than a burden for the Germans.

it's true tho

What's the source of that quote, and where can I read more?

He thought the war was basically over already and Italy wouldn't really get to do much fighting at all. France had already been essentially defeated by Manstein's sickle cut; Mussolini expected that Britain and Germany would work out a negotiated peace very shortly after France surrendered. He only joined in on the German side so that he could try to get some of the French territories Italy had been interested in for ages, such as Corsica and Tunisia. As he himself put it to his Chief of Staff:

It's from "Mussolini: The Last 600 Days of Il Duce" by Ray Moseley.

Yeah but healthcare isn't socialism. Workers control or state control is and Hitler refused that.
institutenr.org/2016/12/30/hitler-vs-strasser-the-historic-debate-of-may-21st-and-22nd-1930-otto-strasser/

State control is only socialist if the state is controlled by workers and operates in their interests. Workers' control is only socialist if it does not happen within capitalism and gets rid of capital accumulation and commodity production.

why that tho

Short answer: Socially Necessary Labor Time
Long answer: Read Das Kapital

...

embarassing tbh.

I think what sort of puts socialism and fascism in the same pot is the rejection of liberalism. The emancipation of the individual from the community and the idea of an end of history is both rejected by socialism and fascism, socialism defies it from an economic standpoint, fascism from a cultural standpoint. Dugin actually wrote some interesting bits about it in is Fourth Political Theory even if he goes a bit mumbo-jumbo sometimes. Liberalism is universal in an absolutenees that outmatches even the most internationalist socialist - it assumes inalienable individual rights as a defense mechanism against the community, including property rights, to which all humans are entitled to.

In the sense that both Fascism and Socialism reject this, they are both Heideggerian. They are both very different beasts tho, as Fascism looks out for an alliance with the pre-capitalist powers, feudal entities, while Socialism has a materialist outlook on history. It's not really wrong when you say that fascism isn't capitalist, it may perpetuate capitalism economically for utilitarian reasons, but it fundamentally rejects it's theory and tries to transcend it.

A liberal who's too clever to believe in the horseshoe theory will give you the false dichotomy of individualism vs collectivism. Of course, that's a meme. But so is the bastardization developed by some Holla Forums users to reconcile Stirner with Marx that Marxism can be developed from an individualist standpoint.

please explain to an ignoramus. I have listened to a few talks on the guy, his ideas of technology and metaphysics but barely scratched the surface.

Only in HOI4 in eh he's a radical socialist. (The closest thing that kaisereich has to anarchists)

But he does right a positive utopia version of 1984 talking about how great Syndicalism will make the world. Which I found funny.

wtf I am black now