Implying there are many differences between most of these

How is Polish Falangism any different to Falangism?

I don't even get the point these memes are making.

HUEHUEHUE

Why does "integralism" have a summation sign and not an integral sign? How stupid are those fucks?

It's literally just
there is no theoretical difference between them, because they have no theory

But they are different. They all think one Nation or Race is the great one, but they all assume it's them.

And that's the interesting thing about Fascism and Nationalism. They all consider their group distinct from others based on a unique past, culture or genetic makeup, but they all basically make the same statements.

Russian, Chinese, Egyptian, French or German nationalists all believe exactly the same thing about themselves. They re-tell their own history according to similar narrative and tales, describe their "national character" along the lines of the same archetypes, defend the same political institutions, incorporate their own historical symbols into a similar aesthetic, create the same national heroes and mythologies, etc. Instead of celebrating their group's culture, Nationalism basically shapes it into the same mold.

That's not true the original italians did have theory it was just trash

Calculus hadn't reached the remote Amazon basin yet.

G8 B8 M8

You do not know anything about those ideologies. Otto's wing of the NSDAP was the left-wing socialist one that got purged after the Bamberg Conference.

Read Evola's later stuff or really anything by anybody (Pound, Mishima, Land, etc) other than Hitler. Fascists have always been collection esoteric weirdos.

No one in this thread actually wants to discuss this subject, they just want to rag on the people they view as their eternal enemies.

There you go.

Yeah. Esoteric Weirdos are really fun to learn about, if you take the time.

That's not actually true. They can broadly be categorized into Fascism and Nazism, the main difference being the role of the state and also views on race.

Fascism in the Italian sense views the state as the lightning rod that focuses the raw political passions of the people. It also takes an irrationalist position which advocates embracing one's irrational side. Since the state is the political manifestation of those irrational feelings such as nationalism, the fascist state is an end in and of itself because those feelings are seen as desireable and must be put into practice, (hence "everything within the state, no one against the state, nothing outside the state"). Nationalism for fascists is more of a tool that is useful for political purposes and empowers the state and the populace with its fervour.

Nazis on the other hand see nationalism as the goal, and the state as the tool, and also see race as an important factor as well.

In practice the two aren't really different aside from the racial element. Spanish Fascism is also arguably its own category, but the only real difference there is that it's the explicitly religious.

I wouldn't say that they are all "Nazism" since that implies some rather specific features that is not shared among the other ideologies listed. I WOULD say that they are all forms of fascism or at least have fascist thought as a foundation; in this case the term "fascism" denotes a spectrum of right-wing authoritarian nationalist ideas rather than just fascism as it came into being in places like Italy back in the 20s.

I'm aware that the autists that still identify with these ideologies abhore being called fascists because "muh special snowflake," but it's tantamount to (for example) different derivatives of Marxism-Leninism getting butthurt that you called them ML rather than Maoist or Hoxaist: they both come from the same foundational principles and the application of those principles were merely modified to fit the conditions of the states/societies they were applied to (to mixed results).

First off, All that happened in their early political career in 1919. Secondly, the Freikorps were not dedicated to killing leftists but to killing communists (An ideology that threatened them as much as it). Though, to be fair, ideological sectarianism between revolutionary forces is always bad.
I never said that. His ideology was distinct from Nazism. That is like saying Trotsky advocated Stalinism.
Because His brother was murdered and he was forced to flee the country in 1934.
I hope these are the correct ones to prove my point. They may be wrong,

Fixed this shit.

...

Nazbol really is anti-capitalist though.

I want to believe nazi women don't exist and they just do it for the edginess/attention.

Yet he never denounced those actions. Quite the contrary: that was in large part his introduction to his political brethren in the years to come.
They were literally right-wing death squads that killed anyone suspected of being left of socdem or slavs/jews if of them accused them of being "Bolsheviks." You know what they'd be called anywhere else in the world? Reactionaries.
They weren't revolutionary. They were fighting on the behalf of the (nominally) socdem Weimar government in the defense of capitalism against movements that sought to challenge capitalist power. They were explicit counterrevolutionaries, often supported by now disposed nobles and military elites.
No, it's like saying Trotsky was a Leninist: true, but it ignores the additions Trotsky made versus those made by others (Stalin).
Strasserism was Nazism with most of the racialism removed and replaced with a more pure nationalism mixed with some class-based rhetoric. That's not exactly grounds for being considered "left;" Mussolini did the same thing; Asser went a bit farther in not seeking support from the bourgeoisie, but his plans were not that of comprehensive and society-wide socialism.
I speak of his ideology, not the historical circumstance by which the brothers failed to implement their plans. Asser didn't seek the complete abolition of the bourgeois class, only what he saw as the most "predatory" elements of it. His larger national economic plan essentially amounted to some limited worker democracy through state-run guilds and light economic planning. It's tantamount to saying that the USSR had true worker ownership of the means of production because it too commanded state-run coops.
On top of that, it failed to address the cycle of capital or value form. A comparatively pro-worker form of Nazism it may have been, but it was not socialist.
All they've done is attempt to portray Asser as being against anti-semitism while espousing his belief that Jews represented the primary negative elements of global capitalism. That's hardly a boost to his reputation as a "socialist" theorist.

I guess this is why nobody wants to have discussions here anymore.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

mods = fags

A lot of those ideologies want to completely destroy capitalism and the rest want some form of heavy socailism

The far right is defined as particularist, which means they think 2 + 2 has a different answer depending on who is doing the math.

fuck off Asser shit scum

[citation needed]

...

...

Based user.

You are retarded.

nice

From a theoretical perspetive and by many definitions, integrals ARE a summation of infinitely many small rectangle of the curve you are integrating.

Recall the Riemann Integral.

Using that logic, would it make various tankie ideologies like Stalinist and Leninism all the same as well?

Image attached to add upon this. What the hell happened to this board, it used to be an open place for discussion without fascist mods.

Shiet, didn't attach

Strasserists, Nazis, and other flavors of fascist have never been allowed on Holla Forums outside of debate threads specifically.

These are the same people who got radicalized because of Tumblr genders.

All the good Slavs are Catholic.

First, guy never openly stated he's a Asserist in this thread. Mod banned him not only out of speculation, but didn't even mark it on his post.

Second, isn't this technically a debate? We're discussing fascist ideologies here, to deny that discussion would be somewhat counter-intuitive.

Third, if you censor people based on their ideology, you become essentially what Holla Forums is. We should refute their arguments, not silence them.

>>>/liberalpol/

I reckon they're fun, but there's just plain too much non-delirious, non-spooked stuff to read already.

I have read something that called the citizen armies of the 1848 revolution Freikorps as well. Dunno if that was anachronistic.

i crey alwaz

Still, the thing was called integralism.

Fascists don't argue in good faith. There is no point in "refuting" them.

No one argues in good faith on the internet, you refute for third parties' benefit.

Go into any MGTOW or Sexbot thread on 4/pol/ and watch fascist and nazi flags post butthurt and get called roasties.

Oh wow where were people like you during the 1930s? Christ, Zizek has talked about this at length. It's basic stuff user. Fascism is an expression of class interests. No amount of fact checking can make a fascist stop being one.

All politics is an expression of class interests though, so why debate anything at all?

Fascism isn't particularly special in that regard, and it seduces people whose class interests do not align with its program as well as those it materially benefits. Better we make fascists look like fools than we ban them on sight and take the first step down the road to becoming a Holla Forums-tier torture chamber.

Fascism does align with their class interests though. Or do you believe the liberal nonsense about how fascism is a reactionary movement born of ignorance among the proles? Because that is not supported by reality.