If fascism is so beneficial for the bourgeoisie why isn't more of the world fascist?

Fascism arises when capitalism is in crisis. It is not optimal for the bourgeois class as the state will forcibly compel them to work for it and will likely purge a significant portion of them (international capital and cosmopolitan bourgeois for example).

It's not.

The current ruling class will use Fascism as a tool to crush out of control worker movements, with the intent of returning to stabilization, however the Fascists then proceed to overthrow the bourgeoisie that thought they were just using them. Hitler and Kerensky are perfect examples of this.

lmao, hitler was literally backed by big industrial interests and privatized a lot of state assets

I mean the actual ruling class in government before them.

Dear Gorilla-san, rather than listening to these one-liners, you might want to try reading this thingy
libcom.org/library/when-insurrections-die

...

Wow did the gorilla poster just ask an interseting question?

But the thing is, fascism as a system is beneficial to subclasses of the bourgeoise.

The economic system of state corporatism is beneficially to the industrial capitalist, hence why blokes like Ford and the German elite supported fascism because it provided domestic security, the destruction of independent labour institutions that ensured the industrial capitalist class could act unrestrained and permanent demand from the government managed economy. So, fascism was supported by the industrial capitalist subclass.

It was also supported by the petite bourgeoisie, however only in a reactive capacity. This means they were not openly propagators of the movement, however in times of stress they were drawn to it compared with the other options (communism/socialism, laissez faire capitalism: the former were seen to take away their private property, the latter seen to create the instability that hurt them). So, when they hear of a system that will allow them to retain their private property, but provide economic security and domestic security: they are fans of that.

However, why has fascism not taken off in a big way in modern times? There are 3 main reasons for this:
1) Defeat in the second world war and the revelations of the holocaust: pretty self explanatory.
2) The lack of will for the social program of fascism: fascism is a doctrine that comes along with a social program that enforces rigid traditionalism and rampant nationalism, something that is not in the interest of many of the classes that would have supported fascism previously.
3) The rise of the service economy: since it was the industrial capitalists that supported fascism, and industrial capitalism has been on the decline since the 1970s, the period when industrial capitalism still being prominent and fascism not being taboo has never occurred in the west, ergo it did not resurface. Japan, Taiwan and Korea also did about 50-years modernisation in about 10 years so skipped over the fascist period.

However, doesn't doesn't mean fascist-esque systems are on the rise. The best example of this is China, with rampant nationalism, authoritarianism, neo-imperialist foreign policy and the introduction of corporatist economics can single to a fascism via proxy: although the social program isn't there.

It should also be noted that for the service capitalist, neoliberalism is a far preferable system because the international sale of services is in their benefits.

TL:DR, the bourgeois aren't a united bloc, fascism requires social shit people don't like, neoliberalism is more favourable to the dominant forces in the capitalist class.

But it is. Only they don't call it fascism and sugar coat it.

Fuck you. Overusing the word fascism deprives it of any meaning.

But he's right

Facism is porky in desperation, it's less that they create the ideology and more that they attach themselves to these strong men because it is beneficial to them.

why is liberalism so compared with fascism?
spoonfeed me

i've forgot im on lefty and everything close to individualism and being wealthy for having more brain than the common ape is ==MUH OPRESSION==

Happy workers are more creative and more productive in high educated positions, so oppressing the workers and forcing them to work is only going to hurt your prosperity. This is of course not true if all you need to do is manual labour, in which case slave labour works just as well if not better.

Isn't fascism sorta unsustainable? Communism rises best outta the ashes of failed societies like in Tsarist Russia. Fascism would prolly lead up to a proletariat revolution which ain't exactly what the fascist bourgeoisie would want.

No he's not.

newfag
but let me guess, you hate soros right?

I love you retarded gorilla poster

It's only beneficial to the bourgeois in the way a fever is to the body. If it gets too high, the body will burn up.

Ya he is a lot of the governments in the Third World, and not just the ones who happen to be not allied with the US, can be considered fascist. We're seeing the rise of fascism across the developed world, Japan being the most blatant example.

fascism is like emergency measure for capitalism, it stall proletariat revolution by physically removing any sort of vanguard and labor movement that could channel such uprising.

One lead to the other. Liberalism allow the already wealthy to prosper to the detriment of an ever growing majority, while obsfuscating the reasons of growing inequalities behind ideology, breeding resentment and therefore a favorable soil to fascism.

According to current left-wing wisdom, fascism is raw state power and brutal capital unmasked, so the only way to do away with fascism is to get rid of capitalism altogether.

So far, so good. Unfortunately, the analysis usually turns round on itself: since fascism is capitalism at its worst, we ought to prevent it from actually producing its worst, i.e. we ought to fight for a “normal”, non-fascist capitalism, and even rally non-fascist capitalists.

Moreover, as fascism is capital in its most reactionary forms, such a vision means trying to promote capital in its most modern, non-feudal, non-militarist, non-racist, non-repressive, non-reactionary forms, i.e. a more liberal capitalism, in other words a more capitalist capitalism.

While it goes on at length to explain how fascism serves the interests of “big business”3, anti-fascism maintains that fascism could have been averted in 1922 or 1933 anyway, that is without destroying big business, if the workers’ movement and/or the democrats had mounted enough pressure to bar Mussolini and Hitler from power. Anti-fascism is an endless comedy of sorrows: if only, in 1921, the Italian Socialist Party and the newly-founded Italian Communist Party had allied with Republican forces to stop Mussolini… if only, at the beginning of the 1930’s, the KPD had not launched a fratricidal struggle against the SPD, Europe would have been spared one of the most ferocious dictatorships in history, a second world war, a Nazi empire of almost continental dimensions, the concentration camps, and the extermination of the Jews. Above and beyond its very true observations about classes, the state, and the ties between fascism and big industry, this vision fails to see that fascism arose out of a two-fold failure: the failure of revolutionaries after World War I, crushed as they were by social-democracy and parliamentary democracy, and then, in the course of the 1920’s, the failure of the democrats and social-democrats in managing capital. Without a grasp of the preceding period as well as of the earlier phase of class struggle and its limits, the coming to power, and still more the nature of fascism, remain incomprehensible.

What is the real thrust of fascism, if not the economic and political unification of capital, a tendency which has become general since 1914? Fascism was a particular way of bringing about that unity in countries — Italy and Germany — where, even though the revolution had been snuffed out, the state was unable to impose order, including order in the ranks of the bourgeoisie. Mussolini was no Thiers, with a solid base in power, ordering regular forces to massacre the Communards. An essential aspect of fascism is its birth in the streets, its use of disorder to impose order, its mobilisation of the old middle classes crazed by their own decline, and its regeneration, from without, of a state unable to deal with the crisis of capitalism. Fascism was an effort of the bourgeoisie to forcibly tame its own contradictions, to turn working class methods of mobilisation to its own advantage, and to deploy all the resources of the modern state, first against an internal enemy, then against an external one.

This was indeed a crisis of the state, during the transition to the total domination of capital over society. First, workers’ organisations had been necessary to deal with the proletarian upsurge; then, fascism was required to put an end to the ensuing disorder. This disorder was, of course, not revolutionary, but it was paralysing, and stood in the way of solutions which, as a result, could only be violent. This crisis was only erratically overcome at the time: the fascist state was efficient only in appearance, because it forcibly integrated the wage-labour work force, and artificially buried conflicts by projecting them into militarist adventure. But the crisis was overcome, relatively, by the multi-tentacled democratic state established in 1945, which potentially appropriated all of fascism’s methods, and added some of its own, since it neutralises wage-worker organisations without destroying them. Parliaments have lost control over the executive. With welfare or with workfare, by modern techniques of surveillance or by state assistance extended to millions of individuals, in short by a system which makes everyone more and more dependent, social unification goes beyond anything achieved by fascist terror, but fascism as a specific movement has disappeared. It corresponded to the forced-march discipline of the bourgeoisie, under the pressure of the state, in the particular context of newly created states hard-pressed to constitute themselves as nations.

The bourgeoisie even took the word “fascism” from working class organisations in Italy, which were often called fasci. It is significant that fascism first defined itself as a form of organisation and not as a programme. The word referred both to a symbol of state power (fasces, or bundles, borne before high officials in Ancient Rome), and to a will to get people together in bundles (groups). Fascism’s only programme is to organise, to forcibly make the components of society converge.

Dictatorship is not a weapon of capital (as if capital could replace it with other, less brutal weapons): dictatorship is one of its tendencies, a tendency realised whenever it is deemed necessary. A “return” to parliamentary democracy, as it occurred in Germany after 1945, indicates that dictatorship is useless for integrating the masses into the state (at least until the next time). The problem is therefore not that democracy ensures a more pliant domination than dictatorship: anyone would prefer being exploited in the Swedish mode to being abducted by the henchmen of Pinochet. But does one have the choice? Even the gentle democracy of Scandinavia would be turned into a dictatorship if circumstances demanded it. The state can only have one function, which it fulfils democratically or dictatorially. The fact that the former is less harsh does not mean that it is possible to reorient the state to dispense with the latter. Capitalism’s forms depend no more on the preferences of wage workers than they do on the intentions of the bourgeoisie. Weimar capitulated to Hitler with open arms. Léon Blum’s Popular Front did not “avoid fascism”, because in 1936 France required neither an authoritarian unification of capital nor a shrinking of its middle classes.

There is no political “choice” to which proletarians could be enticed or which could be forcibly imposed. Democracy is not dictatorship, but democracy does prepare dictatorship, and prepares itself for dictatorship.

The essence of anti-fascism consists in resisting fascism by defending democracy: one no longer struggles against capitalism but seeks to pressure capitalism into renouncing the totalitarian option. Since socialism is identified with total democracy, and capitalism with an accelerating tendency to fascism, the antagonisms between proletariat and capital, communism and wage-labour, proletariat and state, are rejected for a counter-position of democracy and fascism presented as the quintessential revolutionary perspective. The official left and far left tell us that a real change would be the realisation, at last, of the ideals of 1789, endlessly betrayed by the bourgeoisie. The new world? Why, it is already here, to some extent, in embryos to be preserved, in little buds to be tended: already existing democratic rights must be pushed further and further within an infinitely perfectible society, with ever-greater daily doses of democracy, until the achievement of complete democracy, or socialism.

Thus reduced to anti-fascist resistance, social critique is enlisted in dithyrambs to everything it once denounced, and gives up nothing less than that shop-worn affair, revolution, for gradualism, a variant on the “peaceful transition to socialism” once advocated by the CPs, and derided, thirty years ago, by anyone serious about changing the world. The retrogression is palpable.

We won’t invite ridicule by accusing the left and far left of having discarded a communist perspective which they knew in reality only when opposing it. It is all too obvious that anti-fascism renounces revolution. But anti-fascism fails exactly where its realism claims to be effective: in preventing a possible dictatorial mutation of society.

Bourgeois democracy is a phase in capital’s seizure of power, and its extension in the 20th century completes capital’s domination by intensifying the isolation of individuals. Proposed as a remedy for the separation between man and community, between human activity and society, and between classes, democracy will never be able to solve the problem of the most separated society in history. As a form forever incapable of modifying its content, democracy is only a part of the problem to which it claims to be the solution. Each time it claims to strengthen the “social bond”, democracy contributes to its dissolution. Each time it papers over the contradictions of the commodity, it does so by tightening the hold of the net which the state has placed over social relations.

Even in their own desperately resigned terms, the anti-fascists, to be credible, have to explain to us how local democracy is compatible with the colonisation of the commodity which empties out public space, and fills up the shopping malls. They have to explain how an omnipresent state to which people turn for protection and help, this veritable machine for producing social “good”, will not commit “evil” when explosive contradictions require it to restore order. Fascism is the adulation of the statist monster, while anti-fascism is its more subtle apology. The fight for a democratic state is inevitably a fight to consolidate the state, and far from crippling totalitarianism, such a fight increases totalitarianism’s stranglehold on society.

Based Dauve

Japan is not even remotely fascist. This is a complete abuse of the word.

Because Liberalism works well enough and fascism tends to cause rebellions.

Easiest way to explain it is
Fascism is hypothermia.

Do some actual reading fam Abe is completely far-right, his grandfather was a fascist politician, he's silencing dissent in the media, shredding the peace constitution and demilitarizing. His staff even called the transformation of The Weimar constitution into the Nazi constitution a model for what their trying to achieve.

Abe is a run-of-the-mill hard right-winger. That doesn't make him a fascist which is something very specific. And the one-party thing is deceptive. The LDP is only superficially a single party. It is split between multiple competing tendencies with very different views, effectively working like a multiparty-system.Various tendencies have been in power at different point. Also although Abe has managed to gather a remarkably broad coalition of tendencies, which allows him to push things his predecessors failed to do, he is still only advancing very slowly.

Fascism is what happens when the bourgeoisie can't continue their liberal death ride and have to slam the breaks on