So what's REALLY wrong with fascism?

Its capitalism that is even more aggresive against leftism.

Fascism is just a last ditch effort to preserve capitalism by any means necessary

Mercantilism has already been tried.

There is no such thing as fascist thought or theory. Remember that to fascists the aesthetics come first and everything else is an afterthought.

It aims to keep capitalism afloat.

...

It's ultimately incompatible with capitalism. Fascism seeks to contain the most nihilist elements of capital, by maintaining appeals to >muh tradition, >muh patriarchal family. But more and more these same things are emerging as obstacles to the expansion of capital, ideally, the perfect subject of capital is an atomized, genderless consumer that merrily consumes the latest trash out of 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧holywood🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

It is this inherent tension that on the last instance undermines fascism, the old thesis by which fascism is the last ditch attemp to save capitalism, while correct in a context of militant labor struggle, ignores the fact capital would much rather ditch fascism in favor of one, two, many ancapistans, yet it knows such unabathed capitalism is suicidal and capital needs a brake, it has found such a brake in this strange hybrid of social democracy and neoliberalism that has become hegemonic in the west.

tl;dr stop larping, capital much prefers the kind of goverment we already have over your 20th century strongman fantasy

funny guy

it's gay

Sorry for my broken English, Polish comrade here.

Basically, fascism is:

1) authoritarian, centralized form of state-capital
2) class colaborationism instead of class struggle
3) needs system of slave labour to exist
4) everyone is supposed to be dancing like a peacock, no freedom of life
5) local, nationalist form of fight, impotent of overthrowing global capitalism
6) xenophobic, often antisemithic rhetoric silences anticapitalist rhetoric and serves private owners to delegitimize anticapitalist resistance

you people exist?…

Yes, we do

so capitalism inevitably entails conflict between the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat, but there's actually multiple ways this can arise. most of the time we as socialists focus on how the boss exploits his workers, but in reality there's also how the creditor exploits the debtor (and moreover how the producer exploits the consumer, but that's not really relevant to the point I'm making). what fascism is really all about is an attempt to resolve the creditor/debtor question decisively in favor of the debtor without paying attention to the other questions; this is why fascism primarily draws its support from specifically the petit-bourgeois (people who own their own businesses, like family farmers and mom-and-pop shops, rather than employ others or be employed themselves) and also why it despises bankers so much.

however, though fascism like this successfully attacks one component of the bourgeoisie class, Finance, it utterly fails to attack the other component, Business. this means it is not really anti-capitalist, though it's quite true that capitalism cannot really function to its true extent under fascism.

also I feel like I should be talking about how getting rid of the debt mechanism makes capitalism a lot stupider and requires a greater degree of imperialism but I'm not exactly sure why that would be the case so I'll leave it at that

Because it's false consciousness. Fascism (seemingly) mirrors Communism, but it itself is always geared towards (self-)destruction.

It's either Communism or it's war.
Socialism or barbarism.

I notice a lot of the answers are pointing out that fascism is capitalist, so I have another question.

What's REALLY wrong with NazBol?

Holla Forums doesn't want the responsibility of being husbands, fathers and providers because none of you believe in yourselves. I believe in you, you could stop being beta faggots anytime.

Fascism is legitimately the only way capitalism can save itself from its internal contradictions. Remember Mousellini himself was a former Marxist, he knew its ins and outs and pretty much made inverted socialism.

The entire thing is an example of the Is-Ought problem when you think about it. The guy read Kapital and was like "ok, now how do I stop this."

It's Stalinism (bureacratic capitalism) but without the pretense of not being nationalist.

But Stalin is a hero.

Stalin did what I think he could, but it was a flawed system with a flawed premise that couldn't hold itself together forever. It was bound to fall.

...

Despite the norks having kickass music, they also have to rely on a dominant nation-state for food supply. Secondly, it's a matter of time before NK falls too. If a country as powerful as the USSR fell, why don't you think the same would be for a nation-state with far less power? Btw, NK is not the kind of utopia you might imagine to be. It's a shithole.

Don't they have massive amounts of starvation, to the point that the average height is 5"3 or something? Crushing the will to fight out of an entire group of people isn't a win when everyone else isn't communist, its a loss.

Nothing really, it is more or less the future, more and more inter-imperialist contradictions are emerging as the main contradiction, I would expect the world to consist of two or three large nazbol empires on cold war with each other by late century, basically Dugin is correct when he speaks of muh multipolarity, even as the sons and daughters of the Russian elite are educated in the west, multipolarity is emerging as one possible path to maintain capitalist exploitation of large territories (whole continents basically) while preserving enough geopolitical stability to avoid a hot war.

It's hard to know what "actually existing nazbol" could be like, but I imagine it to be Putin style despotism complete with a religious revival, unlike fascism it seems willing to liquidate the bourgeoisie in favor of a soviet era bureucracy, so in that regard it might prove more succesful at creating a post-capitalism mode of production, even if said mode of production will still be based on exploitation.

Not only is this irrelevant to fascism as a topic, but it's also completely false. Fascism encourages this mythical view of the patriarch which is completely impossible to fill, and this leads to an impotence that causes the men in fascist society to lash out against things they perceive to be feminine or "degenerate". The only way to truly embody masculinity is to reject that logic altogether.

yep.

There are many of us here, I see.

I mean nowadays it just seems like a reactionary shithole

Nationalism.

Actually existing Nazbol will probably look like a bizarre hybrid between the DPRK and Iran, now that I think about it.

No

No

I don't like collectivism.

Shitty collectivism (state absorbs the people) and it's always self-destructive.

That isn’t a failure of ideology. It’s due to lack of resources. Also North Korea’s food problems are less severe then what they used to be.

Wow, National syndicalism aka capitalism with a different name. Try again.

If fascism is understood as a last ditch attempt to save Capitalism using traditionalism and nationalism. Then could Nazbol be understood as a last ditch attempt to save socialism using traditionalism and nationalism?

I don't indulge illegitimate, useful idiots to capitalists, political movements.

It tries to solve class conflict and geopolitical crisis through escalation that results in a monumental task of world conquest while keeping the proles in line. Fascism in the long run exaggerates both internal and external threats as evident by WWII resulting in a wave peasant and worker uprising while the Axis powers never came even close to their goal of world conquest.

national syndycalism is the funniest form of syndycalism, because it's contains self-defeat in it's basic assumptions about creating the state

Yeah but all their neighbours are monster-manlets also.

Sounds like the exact plot of 1984

Damn user u were doing SO GOOD….

tbf Dugin's writings already sound like the plot of 1984, he just added Heidegger and Christian mysticism.

No unifying theory, state traditionalism fails because country is subservient to capital, requires imperialism for expansion, violates many social and political liberties, and to top it all off, it's a revenge fantasy for pasty white teens who got bullied by Jamal in high school, "I'm gunna be the furher and everyone will have to do what I say!" wake the fuck up you stupid fucking faggot, literally EVERY fascist says that, but since there can only be one furher, it sure as hell isn't going to be you. It's not even a matter of winning the lottery, you don't have the charisma, you're a social autist, and you know jackshit about how economics works. You can't just point your finger at a mob and say "fire!" and expect the economy will magically fix itself this way, you retards have no theory whatsoever. Your praxis is even worse. "MUH ROPE DAY!" gimme a fuckin break. You niggers are the minority, there's no way even the average white will stand by and let you slaughter their colored neighbors because of your shitty ideology. There's a reason fascism has been taken down every single time its popped up in history; people HATE you faggots, and they have good reason to. Now fuck off.

>>>Holla Forums

fine here you go

What would they even do if they wiped out everything 'non-traditional', but all the economic problems they had were still there?

...

It's authoritarian, hierarchical, spooky, racist, xenophobic and woman hateric.

Class collaborationism is working class cuckholdry

Yep.

We can't milk the gentiles under fascism, because the state controls our capitalist policies.
This is why we invented the kosher capitalism - the libertarianism.

Fascist thought is just plain incoherent in one of its underlying premesis for fixing the economic crisis that it rises up out of, namely, class collaborationism.

There is no reason for the upper class to collaborate. They know it. They know that they make their money by using large numbers of poor people. If things start getting bad, they can just pack up and leave.

The basis of the entire economic ideology is "pls dont screw us over, here, have lots of money, we'll make all the poor people work for the government to make money to keep giving you tax breaks"

The masses should be disciplined
The Brazilian Integralists had no problem with race
nope

I'd dispute this. Though it is quite rightly recognized that the proletariat constantly finds their lives in danger due to insufficient resources and thus must and does dedicate itself towards material resources at all costs, the idea that the bourgeois itself is also wholly materially motivated seems silly. Having more wealth past a certain threshold does not improve your life in any meaningful sense, and even before then between "sustenance" and "plenty" the amount of happiness an extra dollar begins you shrinks more and more. Most bourgeois, I'd say, are motivated at least partially by idealism and aesthetic. That being the case, a "class collaboration" offering the proletariat and petit-bourgeois an improvement to their material conditions and the petit-bourgeois and proper bourgeois an aesthetic they might find more tasteful doesn't seem entirely unreasonable.

Fun fact this is from the BUF: of which its women segment was made up of radical socialist feminists. Nice try though.

No consistent economic thought.

If fascism is so terrible and non-socialist why did a fascist party have a segment made up of radical socialist feminists?

Because Labour was cucked by social democrats at the time so Mosley upsticked and left, ot a boner for Mussolini and came back looking like a knob. The socialist feminists joined him between him leaving labour and going to Italy.

How many of them are seriously going to do that to the point where it digs into their own pockets? That's the actual question there.

...

The point about striving for perfection is that you never reach it, but you keep trying anyway.
Perhaps you should stop being gay?

What a bunch of nice empty promises.

Leftists want to abolish the current system, fascists are just mad because THEY aren't the ones on top and want to usurp power for their spooky in-group, maintaining the power structure nonetheless.

I love shitposting pls excuse my flag.

might want to check up on what fascism means buddy

that is exactly how fascism preserves the status quo, by convincing the proles that they have a shared interest with the bourgeoisie and shouldn't revolt.

This.

It's also why I don't like the dilution of "fascist" or "Nazi" because you lose sight and understanding of your enemy.

to be honest I'd prefer living in a civil society to not living in a civil society. it would be awfully great if I had access to the means of production without having to pander to bourgeois fucks, but if at all possible it would be nice to achieve that without having to go kill people and destroy shit. the bourgeois, here, has a "common interest" with me, as he too would prefer a civil society, and even besides wanting to stay alive, he very well might recognize that a society where people are actually happy and provided for would be superior to our own even if it did come at the cost of his excess.

this graphic is shit extreme

Imagine being this classcucked.

good argument

Fascism with a good leader.
Like that The Dictator movie with Charlie Chaplin would really be something.
But its too much destructive power at expense of well everything…
youtube.com/watch?v=J7GY1Xg6X20

The Great Dictator*

It's right, though. Until Hitler got involved, Italian fascism had no history of anti-semitism.

Of course the bourgeois can share interests with the common folk, and they bloody well should, otherwise that society needs radical reform.
How short sighted and materialistic can you be to believe that class conflict is a good thing?

And they allowed foreigners to obtain citizenship, including Muslims and Africans.

aryanism.net/politics/national-socialism-and-fascism/

Even Hitler's Not Socialism was less racist and less anti-immigration than modern European populists, something that is often neglected - aryanism.net/politics/economics/immigration/

First they probably need to adress their self-destructive militarism

marxists.org/archive/gramsci/1921/08/two_fascisms.htm

that's all I got from your post.

...

As a Nazbol I believe what you said can apply to the Petit Bourgeoisie but never the bourgeoisie proper. Read Niekisch.

The reverse, actually. Wannabe's are the fucking worst.

Why would the bourg combat something that benefits them?

that's not the problem with fascism dipshit

Well, class collaborationism and totalitarianism was already mentioned.

It depends on how much it digs into their pockets.

See pic related. It only benefits them in a materialistic paradigm.

That's the problem. It's always going to be a one-sided "cooperation" where one side holds all the chips and ducks out as soon as they're not happy with it, while the other side has nothing. That's not "collaboration" any sane person would recognize.

And seeing how any decent form of socialism would focus production on delivering things like automation and public works in general that themselves improve production, it's quite justifiable to say it wouldn't if we take the sensible perspective of judging wealth to mean amount of useful goods available to a person and not the amount of money they have; that latter amount would certainly be lowered if not removed entirely.

You're a retard, you might as well be a New Ager with that kind of mysticism.

...

The chips the proletariat would be holding is numbers, therefore political (we're talking democracy, of course) and martial power; the only chips the bourgeois would hold is the proletariat not wanting to get its hands dirty, as its control of the means of production would of course have to be revoked and given to the State.

Why is class ownership a bad thing? I can understand it historically, but not in the age of the internet. You can study any science or philosophy you want at your fingertips and view vast amounts of diverse art through a single google search. You are provided the instruments to forge a perfected version of yourself, why does it matter if others are profiting off of you? You should only care if you have the same goal as them, hedonism, and if you are a hedonist you are merely a bourgeois in essence who is too incompetent to join his brethren at the top of the hierarchy.

In what manner are they even bourgeoisie anymore?

So it's okay if you have to work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, because you have a virtual life where you can observe the life that other people live?

Why should i ever want to be slave to someone not because he owns me but because he owns the land i stand on? Why should i have to work every day to get way overcharged for all of my life expenses so that some person that have never worked in his life never have to do any other work? Property only collects in the hands of those who have property unless you violently take it from them.
You are the most worst kind of utopian that seem to think we can just have a bunch of benovelent leaders because the ideas you believe in sound kind of nice at face value.

Only the vapid, psychologically inferior, and/or slaves should be doing that kind of work, and that amount of labor is rare anyway. A 50 hour work week gives you plenty of time to develop yourself if you are biologically fit for improvement.

They might be disproportionately represented within the State because of the disproportionate amount of education they received, but that would be held in check by the state being transparent and held accountable to the voters. Other than that, only in the sense they were bourgeois in the past.

When I speak "class collaboration", I am referring to a politics that presents its ideas for enhancing production and the welfare of all citizens of the State by ending capitalism, rather than a politics that seeks to bring about justice to the proletariat by ending capitalism. Capitalism at its very core is built around bourgeoisie exploitation of the proletariat and any collaboration under it cannot be meaningful; what is meaningful, however, is that that exploitation quite possibly doesn't bring the bourgeoisie a happier life than a more egalitarian and quickly developing world would, so it's entirely natural to frame communism in terms of achieving a better world for everyone (class collaboration) rather than deciding the conflict in favor of one side of the conflict against the other (class warfare).

Listen up here you little cunt. That shit won't happen if you have a goddamn bourgeoise ruling class that will do everything to maximise its own profits you daft motherfucker. If it makes money for the owners than fucking everyone including the brightest fucking geniusesif they don't go along with them that isn't them or their enforcing soldiers will be judged vapid and psychologically inferior. No amount of wishful thinking about muh country or muh race is going to change that, a capitalist won't stop ramming his dick up your ass because it's not "völkisch". The owning class has one intrest only, you work, they get the profits.

Thank you for defending the most dystopian hellhole I can possibly imagine.

fuck off.

Fuck off

fear

So you agree criminals should directly be killed?

Aren't wars considered the hygiene of the world?

Quotes directly from the Doctrine of Fascism:

Mussolini even straight up lies in his doctrine:

Spooks

It makes communism look like an even worse idea than capitalism

Because it invariably fails just like all leftist ideologies.

Really it's just tweaked communism that works pretty well because of flaws in human nature. The only problem is when your dictator decides to go full retard.

t. absolutely illiterate radical centrist

Stop posting anytime you absolute cretin.

capital literally cannot exist sans a state

Read the rest of the post:

Capital knows it needs a state but a the same time it knows it is a hindrance, deterritorialization and reterritorialization grow hand in hand.

Nothing.

It's impotent.

hurts my feelings

Take the red pill

White people should just be exterminated tbh

There isn't any substance to this post, argue or be funny.

Protip: "Le ebin epik egee reich LOLflcopter XD nazis TRIGGERING an the bazed libruls!!!11" isn't an argument nor is it funny.

Depends on the crime.

Actually Mussolini's turn to the right. Mosley was a tiny bit more spooked but better economically speaking.

You were doing well in explanation until you decided to sperg out

Fuck off.