Why do you hate fascism? It's basically Stalinism without the mass starvation

Yeah but that was Hitler's fault. Mussolini did nothing wrong.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country

uh, he was sort of on the "right" among members in the party.

neither a tankie board nor was Stalin an ultra.
Try harder.

Yeah, but still very left-wing compared to all current governments.

Fascism is by its very nature antagonistic, and needs a nation to exist in contrast to other nations, to seperate themselves. Even if such nations don't end up going to war, they end up paradoxically making prisoners of their own people. If you are limited to only living in your own borders, and have to do XY and Z by law, you are effectively a prisoner of that nation.

Wisecrack has a bizarrely good video on the philosophy of Fascism and its internal issues when you put away the fear of Hitler: youtube.com/watch?v=1XJhZVmORlM&t=216s

Wow, very appealing.

I don't think I have to explain further

Mussolini didn't commit genocide.

So what? USSR consisted of a lot of different nations which were equal. And Socialism in one country was a good decision after bolshevik expansion to Europe have failed and USSR was too weak to retry.

Did I say it wasn't?

it's basically rearmament fueled debt economy

funny that Italy failed nonetheless

You didn't but your post implied that Stalin was nationalist because of his Socialism in one country politics. And I said that he wasn't nationalist - he just wasn't an idiot. Maybe he was wrong in some other things but Socialism in one country was forced and reasonable move

That's nice honey, but we're on a board full of socialists, anarchists and communists.

As if the majority here aren't just social democrats LARPing as Marxists.

...

And all the trains ran on time.

Compare that to communism where your trains only run for the ruling elite and the poor have to walk.

I have no idea
Also you have to consider that Italy army was mostly navy focused, Italian navy was 4th largest navy in the world so they had to split limited resources between navy and land forces

...

Mussolini is the founder of fascism, not Hitler.

reading comprehension
you lack it

How is it the logical conclusion? And for what it's worth, I don't think that Stalin represented the "truest" form of socialism.

what was rearmament for, you dumb faggot?
Italy faced the same lebensraum problem that krauts did

I think it was true enough

Italy didn't have the racist or eugenicist policies of Germany though. Also Mussolini didn't have an absolutist position on autarky, he was open to some foreign trade, which means the "Lebensraum" thing wasn't as big an issue.

Proofs?
Because there has been an european arms race going on at that time, also Italy was not sure if it will end up on German side or not so they had to prepare for potential german territorial demands
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stresa_Front
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Tyrol

I couldn't have explained it better.

Explain. In my eyes it's an excellent legitimization for the state and therefore indirectly it's defense of capitalism.

To bad that league of nations and perfidious Albion embargoed Italy

Nationalism is opposed to free trade and freedom of movement. Which makes it very antagonistic to capitalism.

excuses
they had enough resources for Fiat G.55

Battle of Cape Matapan best day of my life

Very true.

What the fuck are you talking about

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_nationalism

fascism is simply just populist authoritarianism,it in theory desires to create a revolving upperclass of the best of society, uses cultural history and militarization to help create an identity to tie people together. It seeks to use imperialism to keep it powerful by exploiting weaker nations and boost itself from the economic boost that comes with it.

Stalinist from what I can tell is authoritarian socialism designed to bring change from above through bureaucracy and to bring the revolution abroad rather than wait for it to happen outside.

how are my descriptions?

What does a plane from 1942 have to do with strength of italian land forces and their rearmament in the 1930-1939?
Also Regia Aeronautica was independent from land forces so they had separate pool of resources
Such a great victory, with 3 times more battleships and a carrier no wonder allies won

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

to be fair we didn't get to see the long term effects of fascism because of it being ended so early into it's practice.

Economic nationalism is the economic aspect of nationalism, it's not a separate concept. That's why it's called economic *nationalism*.

But let me guess, not free flow of capital? Because there is more to capitalism but mere trade.

It is a separate concept because nationalism is a very broad term, and does not dictate the shape of economy, nationalism can be pro capitalistic or socialistic or anywhere in between

...

I don't see how any self-respecting nationalist could advocate the free movement of foreigners into the nation. And this makes it opposed to capitalism.

eugenics policies that aim at eradication of genetic diseases from the human genofond, are good

eugenics policies that aim at eradication of some qroups of people based on their skull shape, their ability to solve puzzles, or recognize patterns, are not good

Italy was late to the colonial landgrabs party with Germany and Japs

Free movement =/= permanent residence and citizenship for foreigners
Ive never met a nationalist who was against tourism or world traveling in general

Nigger they started the whole thing, they were the OG landgrabbers of interbellum
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo-Ethiopian_War

Italy ended up with Axis because all Axis powers had been cucked in the colonial question

Capitalism is antagonistic to both Nationalism and Fascism.

Franco didn't go too bad in Spain. Of course he had to switch from genuine fascism (which failed hard) to an average right wing dictatorship and was still trailing behind the rest of Europe but still beter than Hitler/Stalin.

...

Partially yes, if Anglos didnt alienate Italy and embargoed them to shit it wouldn't be a problem because Italy wouldn't have to seek allies up its northern border

Capitalists do advocate for permanent residence and citizenship for foreigners, because they believe this will increase their incentive to contribute to the workforce.

Sorry you meant colonial land grab as if colonization of Africa in 19 century?
Sorry i miss read

unchained capitalism is antagonistic to everything

You could as well say that Capitalism is antagonistic to everything that is not capitalism

Not every time not everywhere, context matters
Didnt happened in capitalistic japan or korea

Your examples dont even mention muh privilege, gender theory or non binary.

You are hencetoforth banished from Leftypol you sinner.

It all comes down to what your definition of capitalism is. My point is, a lot of capitalists support immigration, because they see it as beneficial to economic growth, and view restrictions on immigration as a restriction of the free market (of labor).

Yes but mostly in the rich countries, capitalists in poorer countries wont advocate for this because labor is already cheap there

And because it depopulates their countries.

For all the problems of certain countries having to cope with millions more people, there are countries who have lost the vast majority of their young people to migration. And that causes many problems too.

I agree

Then what do you call what he was doing in North Africa nigga? They literally even had their own concentration camps and everything.

I'd even say itself, due to it's internal contradictions.

Concentration camps don't equal genocide, French and Britseven burgers all had concentration camps

...

see

capitalists that can't outsource support immigration
but majority of them are fine with national borders

Not the point. Mass starvation that was planned is worse than normal food shortage of 1933.

There is not such thing as unchained capitalism.

Places where you internment people for some time?

By whom, where and when?

Outsourcing ain't free. I'm pretty sure any corporation would prefer to get cheap labor at home than having to pay the extra costs of multinationalism.

nonsense, capitalism isn't a physical thing that can be restricted, even if it's official.
Capitalism is quite simply the exchange of goods or services for money.
that can apply to any and all things, thus making it antagonistic and protagonist to anything depending on it's application, intent and actual effect.

Class collaborationism isnt anti-capitalist

let me fix that, it is the exchange of goods and services for money by private individuals

It seems we are talking about different things. Capitalism, at least the way we use the word (and therefore what we mean when we say it) implies a class of workers having to do wage labor for a class of people owning the means of production, as well as commodity production for exchange, and not use. You're definition takes away a lot of subtleties from the critique of capitalism and makes it sound unintuitive, since why would you oppose two consenting people making deals and trading with each other?. But as you see, that's not what it's about, since capitalism is a system of production, not distribution.

Also, capitalism can be theoretically contained, by using the state to "artificially" distort what is profitable and what isn't (eg. laws making child labor illegal, are in effect placing a higher price on child labor), but if there is just one whole, and companies get to bypass the law of the state, it will get exploited and all the contamination will have no effect.

This is true.

exchange for money existed ages before capitalism
capitalism defined by a specific economic relationship between owners of MOP and wageslaves

look into the enclosure movement in England, the birthplace of capitalism

Marx sure as fuck wouldn't you stupid fascist fuck

Who cares about that old dead fart anyway lmao

maybe "Marx" in your head wouldn't
but I'm sure Marx would've recognized that soviet model was a step forward from capitalism

Which of the seven million genders do you think Marx would have been?

Right, except for the fact that the Italian Fascists literally killed millions of people in Libya and Ethiopia, not by accident, including the concentration camps where people were starved on purpose. Gulags weren't resorts, but nothing as inhuman and disgusting as the typical Italian or German concentration camp took place there.

Marx was a homophobe so I assume male?

Why is this thread not saged?

Salazar's Portugal worked out pretty well, it's just that most fascist powers disappeared after WWII because of overwhelming international hostility.

he says while not saging

The mods on this site need to wake up.

If they don't I'll keep bumping it untill they do there jobs.

Their jobs.

Proofs?
Also in 1939 population of Libya was around 800.000
In 1954 around 1,091,830
Where are the"millions of dead"?

SAGE

what are you sperging about?
nobody spams shit so calm your tits

this

SAGE THIS THREAD

We need new mods.

Calm your tits, people had normal discussion until you showed up

no threads outing tankies for the red fascists they are

it hurts this faggots feelings

Wanna know how many people were imprisoned or killed during Stalin's Great Purge? The single most ethically inexcusable moment in Leftist history? (no offense tankies) 700,000. Now I know that 700,000 is not a small number, but when compared to the intentional and thoroughly planed and purposeful killing of regimes like Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile, or Imperialist Japan, it's a fucking drop in the bucket.

Part of leftypol's traditional purpose is to engage the right in debate as well as answer questions like this. I wouldn't doubt that there are a number of people on leftypol that couldn't answer the question in the OP, or properly articulate the differences between fascism and Stalinism. That's why this thread wasn't saged on sight, because it isn't an obvious bait thread.

Furthermore

If people are talking normally and the discussion is productive there's no reason for the mods to intervene.

I mean, really, the mods make shit decisions sometimes but this is starting to get a little silly. I'm starting to think that pol's plan b for trolling leftypol since they couldn't get us to leave is to try and incite the users against the mods and board owner.

Sage for off topic.

you're gay

Speaking as someone who is literally Portuguese I can honestly say Salazar fucked the nation beyond belief. He basically created state mandated illiteracy and catholicism, food was rationed for most of his reign, certain words like "freedom" and "socialism" were literally illegal to say in public, and he maintained the feudal system well into the 60's (both sides of my family are from the aldeas). He's the reason we're the single most backward nation in Western Europe even to this day. Really cool bad guy name though, I'll give him that.

wow gr8 argument

Nah. try >>>/marx/

Capitalism ≠ free trade, it's the private ownership of the means of production. When Marx was around, most European countries were big fans of high tariffs and other protectionist policies, but that doesn't mean they weren't capitalist.

...

A shame it's navy was trash.

Yes it does. Adam Smith, the "father of capitalism", was strictly opposed to protectionism.

...

it wasnt

>>>Holla Forums

Maybe because Stalin tried to resign 2 or 3 times but the people wouldn't let him

Literacy rates in Portugal were literally half of what was common in the rest Western Europe and the USSR, particularly in the Aldeas where most people had a fourth grade level education at best. If my Grandfather hadn't lived in France for awhile in order to work in a automobile factory my Father wouldn't have even been able to attend High School. My Grandparents weren't even that lucky. Think about that, entire town without educational facilities above a grade school level, literal feudal villages. In the fucking 60's and shit.

anecdotal evidence

>Nah. try >>>/marx/
oh shit /marx/ is back!
home sweet home

You see, when hitler fails to feed his prisoners due to bombs destroying all the supply lines and axis medecine factories he is starving people on purpose

When stalin starves people by busting up the food industry to enpower the "worker" and many starve it's the kulaks fault

All the other guy did was greentext some shit without even giving a source. Probably wikipedia, I on the other hand have my entire family's lived experiences (both sides) under Salazar. I know you have massive autism, because you're a Holla Forumsyp, but it's always funny how little citation you guys need when it's something that supports your biases, but when it runs counter to your fantasy world you need a fucking thoroughly sourced term paper. If my claims are so baseless then why don't you disprove them?

dipshits were slaughtering their cattle like there's no tomorrow
what goes around comes around

scielo.gpeari.mctes.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0870-82311999000100017&lng=pt&nrm=iso

Proudhon was strictly pro-market. Does that mean all anarchists besides mutualists aren't real anarchists? Economic theory changes over time, believe it or not.

Regardless, capitalism doesn't stop being capitalism when the state intervenes in the economy. In leftist terms, capitalism is private ownership over the means of production, and you're going to have a hard time debating on this board if you dismiss economies with gov intervention as "not real capitalism."

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassination_attempts_on_Adolf_Hitler

You have no scale

gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8

Is that why he walked around in packed crowds and drove through the streets touching the people?

Leftypol claims that Castro was a hero when he died because of how many suicide attempts he survived, blaming the CIA, but for hitler its clearly a marker for covil unrest.

Fucking retards

Im retarded

Anarchism as such is not an economic theory, it just means absence of leadership. Capitalism, on the other hand, is a purely economic theory. And it's not a question of "real capitalism" or "fake capitalism", but of more or less capitalism.

And the kike workers, kike parents, kike children, and anyone who grew up with a kike or had kike friends, not to mention the kike or non-kike trade unions, journalists, artists, and scientists.

We know

But it is. It's all about how to organize an economy that runs on its own without needing to be subjected to some form of organized force to keep operating (A state to enforce private property, for example).

It means absence of rulers, not of leadership.

Well fascist countries had lots of government intervention but still had private entities controlling trade and industry run for profit. Albeit by your definition "less capitalist" than say, a complete laissez-faire one, fascist economies are still capitalist.

1) no
2) stalinism doesn't exist
3) if it did it would be shit too

le current year man strikes again…

>millions

Not true socialism :'^)

You can say "no true socialism" until you're blue in the face. It doesn't change observable evidence.