What is the actual definition of fascism? It seems to be sort of hard to define, because it's mostly not really ideology based, but more just being extremely reactionary.
But isn't it pretty important to have a solid definition of fascism if we are to be anti-fascist? How do you refute people calling antifa fascists?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
youtube.com
boards.4chan.org
nybooks.com
worldfuturefund.org
ceasefiremagazine.co.uk
monoskop.org
twitter.com
Fascism is defined as there merging of the corporations and the state, or state capitalism.
You dont, they are already brain dead.
...
Cooperation between ruling class and state to ensure the status quo against potential rising up of the proletariat. It's often miss atributed to just a strong state or corporations doing things. It's utopian idealism either way.
fascism is hard to define because it is the ultimate feels based ideology. It's radical nationalism and a rejection of modernity and rationalism that seeks to unite the nation behind a single larger than life personality figure using mythology and emotion. You can't really have a set definition of fascism because no two fascist movements had anything in common with each other beyond nationalism, militarism, and class collaboration. Paxton even makes the point that under fascist governments the leaders didn't even bother laying out an official philosophy or political platform instead just relying on the force of the leader's personality to dictate politics.
People who make that argument are never going to be convinced of anything.
It's literally Feels> Reals that was influenced from romanticism.
Anyone who disagrees with you is a fascist.
C'mon OP, it's like you can't even into Holla Forums
Fascism is violent cultural reductionism. The powers of the state and the powers of corporations are merged and placed in subservience to an idealized, mythological version of the nation-state's culture. The idea behind this is that a strong culture is what makes a strong nation, full of strong people, with a strong economy.
Thus you have a disregard for the individual, a merging of corporate and state power, and an unhealthy reverence for a fetishized version of a strong past.
Basically, it's complete fucking garbage. But fascists are really good at killing a lot of people.
a capital-provoked mass movement of the petite bourgeois.
Authoritarianism based around nationality and tradition.
Authoritarianism based on leftist values is totalitarianism or I would like to think so, even though totalitarianism is defined more so as having only one party.
None the less the enemy aren't just fascists but the presentations of traditions and old ideas, as we move on, older outdated ideas need to be thrown out.
nice one Holla Forums
He's not wrong.
If someone disagrees with us it's more likely than not that they are centrist or conservative, and are also our enemies like I said. Fascism is just that taken to a larger level.
as a note, I got this from trotsky's analysis, which is genuinely worth reading
It's not, and people who thought that was all fascism was LOST the last time fascism reared its ugly head
what
In germany, in italy, the communist parties declared that fascism was exactly the same any other counterrevolutionary force, and in doing so handed all initiative over to the fascists
Because they didn't fight hard enough, they were right.
They didn't fight hard enough because they didn't see any particular reason to fight the fascists SPECIFICALLY.
fascism is meta-tribalism, its essentially in-group mentality, us vs them, nationalism, republicanism, oligarchy, liberal property rights, etc
anything that is not classless is fascist
The petite bourgeois, as a force, cannot produce any real change to relationship to the means of production, cannot be revolutionary in the marxist sense. But that doesn't mean they can't form a movement. It will ultimately be a futile movement, their appointed leaders will immediately sell them out to capital, but in the mean time they can mobilize in numbers that the bourgeois proper obviously cannot.
If only the world were so black and white
Highly authoritarian, nationalist, actually reactionary, militaristic, and anti-communist/anti-labour.
If you really want to get into specifics then you have to get into the unique ideological differences between Italian fascism, Nazism, Falangism, National Capitalism, Nazbol etc. Each of these have their own beliefs and positions, but the characteristics listed above are common to all of them.
it is. Any person of any group of people that puts the ideals of their in-group over the international working class is a fascist.
Literally "If property holders stay bound together they can authorize the death of non property holders"
This is why people calling everyone they don't like a fascist is actually correct, but what most liberals are missing is that the United States and liberal democrats are just as fascist as republicans, if not more so.
Honestly after having seen so many discussions on the topic I'm beginning to think that there isn't really a concrete definition for fascism, I mean even reductionist wikipedia has 19 different definitions!
en.wikipedia.org
Which makes people who identify themselves as a fascist even more laughable in my opinion, as it generally means they haven't a concrete idea of what their political philosophy actually is, rather it's defined in reaction to other things, such as Jews or antifa
...
Radical, illiberal nationalism.
...
ITT: Nobody knows what fascism is
Oh, that's why. No wonder every thread was retarded
Holla Forums tier post
cool arguments
That goes double for you, pal
"strongman leader", authoritarian, and bullying
That's about it really
You can stick the label on a lot of things
Fascism never existed, every nation that has ever called itself Fascist was Totalitarian Liberalism.
I'm not making any claims
any definition where fascists predate the creation of fascism is a bad definition of fascism.
Then by all means tell us, or at least give us a namedrop
reactionary and neoliberal
...
Yes, liberal economics.
Seconding Paxton's book. It's erudite, thorough and an easy read to boot. Give a read to Sternhell's and Griffin's books too.
Fascism can't really be defined as a doctrine because it isn't one — it's more about gut feelings than ideology proper. Benjamin famously described Fascism as the "aestheticization of politics of politics". The best you can do is try an heuristic approach using historically-existing Fascisms as a reference.
Fascism is distinct from conservatism in its irrational cult of mass violence, abolition of the distinction between the private and public sphere in an attempt to create a New Man and mobilization of popular passions with the aim of inflicting unlimited terror on groups deemed responsible for the nation's lack of unity.
It was however impossible for Fascists to gain power without the assistance of conventional conservative elites — with whom they shared bitter anticommunism. No Fascist ever came to power through a coup; all those who tried were either crushed (Beer Hall Putsch in Germany, 12-26 Incident in Japan, 6 Feb 1934 crisis in France) or co-opted (by Franco in Spain, by Salazar in Portugal, by Antonescu in Romania).
economically
I was a fascist. A lot of people here used to be nazis ex-Holla Forumstards that wised up and read books.
Fascism is traditionalism, hard conservatism, praise of "sacred" culture, nativism, traditionalism, fundamentalism, ethno-statist. It's spooked af beliefs that take the human back to Monarchy or Aristocracy.
& you're possibly not on that elite, so it just fucks with the individual.It's reactionary anti-progress. Counter-revolutionary.
1. The open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.
marxists.org
2. One of the two major forms of bourgeois class rule. Bourgeois democracy is unstable and periods of fascism arise especially as capitalism faces a major crisis or nears its end.
marxists.org
The actual fascists weren't terribly fond of either of those.
What you're describing is traditionalist conservatism, not fascism. There are similarities between the two but they're not the same thing.
...
This is the modern definition of fascism
They were super found of Aristorcacy. If they didn't then why did they formed it?
meanwhile the working class was still poor.
You should read Ernest Jünger & see whats up with Bruno Paul.
Fascists were successful because they collaborated with conventional elites in power but the former's modernist, totalitarian ideology was distinct from the latter's conservatism.
Not sure what you mean. Wearing a top hat and owning a big house don't qualify as being an aristocrat.
...
😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒this men smh😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒😒
What about the word "comrade"? Or the colour red? Nazis heavily used both of them.
… What?
Oh you know you're full of shit, stop pretending
Roman salute is associated exclusively with Fascism these days, color red and the word "comrade" are not by any means
wut
are you Holla Forums
I threw up all over my keyboard
FUCK OFF Holla Forums
Umberto Eco's 14 points of fascism:
The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
The obsession with a plot. “The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”
The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
kinda has a point but thats a half-truth.
An-Capistan shit is considered "libertarian" aka Anarchism by dumbasses but it is hierarchical, class based system. It's therefore a non-anarchy.
A LOT of similarities between the two. Hell everything I stated is practiced on Fascism. I should know I was a Fascist.
Kinda miss my old Hitler Youth haircut sometimes for the military style but I look better now tbh.
that you're a full of shit Holla Forumstard. read books fuckboy.
...
If fascism is state capitalism and Lenin later called the USSR state capitalism does that mean that Lenin contradicted himself when he said "Fascism is capitalism in decline" and actually proved that fascism is Communism in decline?!
MIND BLOWN!
...
"Kameraden" and "Genosse" are two different words.
Also this ^.
Being an Internet fascist as a teen in Y2K is not the same thing as being a unemployed war veteran in '30s Europe.
I'm actually decently informed when it comes to Fascism. What have you actually read about Fascism that doesn't consists of a collection of anarkiddy blog entries?
The Nazis certainly didn't feel strongly in favor of aristocracy because if they did they wouldn't have been nazis they would have been monarchists. The Italian fascists saw themselves as the continuation of the forces that had carved a united italy out from a bunch of feudal fiefdoms in living memory, they hardly wanted to undo all that.
Fascism is a very versatile ideology, based on choosing a set of values and goals and follow them to the bitter end.
Often based on nationalism or ethnocentrism, xenophobia, state capitalism and protectionism are the most common values
For example most Arab majority countries in the world, and many Asian too, could be considered broadly fascist, China or Turkey would be good examples
If there's a thing that Fascism isn't, it's consistent. Fascists will happily do the exact opposite of what they claimed they would the day before.
it makes every single consistent ideology in existence fascism, this is bullshit
...
Actually the kingdom of Rome appropriated that symbol from the Etruscans
You have no idea what you're talking about. Stop making shit up.
Heres how someone on pol described it.
boards.4chan.org
What is Fascism you ask? Fascism is a complete rejection of materialism. the market is regulated in a manner that hinders the gluttony, manipulation, and misguidance of the people. a meritocracy is enforced in a manner so that people are employed based off of their unique skill sets, so that they may aid and benefit society in the way they are best suited. Order is achieved, spirituality is encouraged, and purpose is applied to everyone and everything. like the fasces, the people of all classes are bound together so that they may be stronger, and function similar to a single living organism. a bold leader oversees and commands the body, a strong military protects and serves the body, and a driven, healthy, and inspired working class nourishes and replenishes the body. together as one, contributing where we are most valuable, always striving toward greatness, the fascist society will exist in success and prosperity.
Imagine being this spooked and being proud of it.
This is in no Fascist theory and was employed in no Fascist state. He is making this shit up as he goes along, because it feels good.
Fascist theory espouses corporatism, but corporatist structures in Fascist states were either nonexistant, or intentionally biased towards the elite factory owners and party members to the point where it was practically identical to any other form of capitalist ownership. This faggot has done no research.
I'm not even going into the last comment, especially not when the legacy of Fascism is deluded, bull semen consuming meth-heads searching for Atlantis and people like Mussolini who ran their economies to the ground with failed laissez-faire policies and were deservingly killed by some everyman who, by Fascist theory, should be less intelligent, strong and tactical than them. Muh pure leadership, muh pure race indeed.
the reality - state control of everything, except the decadent ruling class that brought it about
the propaganda - strong, moral people serving for honor etc. etc.
No one here has really accurately described Fascist economics yet… I'm kind of surprised.
Image attached is an informative graph outlining the nature of the Fascist state's role in national and international economic interests. It's actually quite simple and applies consistently across all varieties of Fascist ideology.
God, i need to start to read the filenames before opening the spoilers.
...
what the hell is this insubstantial shit
...
Well from this thread it's pretty clear it doesn't mean anything. I propose the Left stop using it.
That "merging of corporate power and the State" is nonsense. Yeah Mussolini himself said it but he was a rightwinger and thus a retard so what does he know.
It takes conservatism and plays up the most idealistic, even atavic characteristics, shunning Enlightenment values at large, even tho it's essentially streamlined Toryism. Its relationship with capital is first one of opportunity – alliance with capitalists in order to reach power and beat back the left – then later of dominance – once fully in control, fascists largely direct capital to serve (what they deem to be) national interests, separating it from international capital, which is a big part of why it needs imperial wars, because otherwise its economy would soon plateau and stagnate. To say it's "capitalism in decay" or somehow emanates from the bourgeoisie is a mistake, because the link is coincidental; capitalism is a batter ally to it than the left rather than vice-versa. Theoretically, fascism could have a socialistic economy instead of a capitalistic one, but it would be rather pointless as capitalism is far better suited for it in both material and ideological aspects.
I think that's as succint as I can put it without leaving the basic details. Also, read this: nybooks.com
That's why he was a member of the Socialist party.
That's actually kinda terrifying.
Literally every capitalist state ever.
You're probably thinking of corporatism, but that's not what it means.
Literally shaking tier.
Not necessarily according to them. They considered Monarchy to be of the past and Fascism to be revolutionary and of the future.
inb4 nazis were socialists
...
I've actually been thinking about this a lot lately.
I mean, at its core I would say it's a nationalist/right-wing populist ideology.
But I think at an even deeper level, what makes it so hard to classify is the fact that it is the application of revolutionary tactics to reactionary aims. I mean, they absolutely despised the Bolsheviks but still drew a good deal of imagery and tactics from them. They are essentially revolutionaries of the counter-revolution.
"If today I stand here as a revolutionary, it is as a revolutionary against the Revolution." - Adolf Hitler
Well, when talking about antifa, it's important to define fascism. Because that changes the meaning of being anti-fascist.
You could have at the very least went to nazi/pol/.
I'm not sure about that; also,
this is not evidence in favor of this statement, since the idea is that "capitalism in decay" would evolve in order to save itself.
"The merging of the state with corporations" is not a complete definition of fascism. One must also take into account its aestheticization of politics, its mythologization coupled with gnostic/anti-modern pessimism (e.g. Jung, Eliade, Evola), its production of ritual values and so on. In this regard Walter Benjamin's Theories of German Fascism is probably the most complete examination of fascism.
ceasefiremagazine.co.uk
monoskop.org
huh that quote looks like it could come from any of today's right-wing youtubers who are 'definitely not alt-right/fascists/nazis' really makes you think
Not all reactionaries are fascists. Nat. Socialism is fundamentally different philosophically, as is Monarchy.
I tell those retards that antifa are communists not fascists.
read the wikipedia page you feckless cunt
wrong
Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes to the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. The advent of total war and the total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilians and combatants. A "military citizenship" arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war.[6][7] The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and providing economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens.[6][7]
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[8] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[8] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[9][10][11][12] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[13]
antifa are totalitarian, not fascist.
IS THAT AN ENEMY STAND?!
How does this Wikipedia copypasta disproves that guy's point? Mussolini himself admitted that Fascism was more about guts than brains.
Mussolini isn't the aboslute authority on what fascism is, and what you are referring to specifically is the ethos of fascism not the economic basis for it. It would be like claiming that socialism is all about how you feel about equality and hierarchy and ignoring the economic and philosophical basis for it.
claiming that
is also disingenuous as each historical movement had their unique historical context which shaped them and their responses. It would be like claiming that Socialism has no set definition because you can have anything ranging from demsucc, to tankie, to anarchist.
Socialist movements have inner consistency and their disagreements are backed by theory. Very little of what Fascists claim make any sense whatsoever and they scoff at the mere idea of having to justify themselves — they love speeches but they hate theory.
Fascists will support anything as long as it further their politico-cultural project of totalitarian nationalism. If there's a thing they really don't care about, it's economics.
That's most human beans for you, I don't think that's exclusive to fascists or fascism. And more often than not Socialist movements that are in conflict comes down to tribalism and factionalism, not ideological disagreement.
you keep on making that claim without backing it up.
Refute how this is a lack for of concern for economic policy and theory:
given that;
Because it honestly seems like your going off of feels > reals in this discussion.
It is not exclusive to Fascism but Fascists crank it up to eleven. Fascism is aestheticization of politics first and foremost.
Not sure where you got that idea from. Conflicts between the various leftist groups operating in '10s Russia for instance had clear ideological distinctions that set them apart from each other, all of which were backed by theoretical inquiry.
"The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all." — Adolf Hitler
Vague references to state intervention do not constitute "theory", especially when reality is much less categorical (Mussolini first appointed a classical liberal as Minister of Finance and the Nazis oversaw massive privatization). Corporatism isn't so much consistent economic policy as it is a ploy to destroy independent working class movements, suppress class struggle and control the population all in the name of national unity. Fascists only care about economics insofar as it remains subordinated to other spheres (namely political, cultural and military).
why is this allowed
All poltik is aestheticized in late stage capitalism my pomo fanboy friend. It is a consumer good. I don't think even Socialism is particularly immune to this process. If you wanted to make the case Fascism does conform to Gramscis' musings on culture certainly.
history books mostly. For example Stalins betrayal of the Spanish communists had less to do with theory and more to do with his and his tribes innate interests.
Is the economy not subordinate to political and by extension militaristic will? What good is truly liberated labor if it is not self-affirming? Can it be considered to be liberated at all? Especially given the context of total war, total mass mobilization and the recent developments of mechanized warfare?
Because it is permissible.
damn they were tricked af
what is this retard shit
come on now
idk man, the founding fathers were pretty set on havinga anglosaxon ethnostate
the very definition of current liberal power structure and it's antifa useful idiots. the proletariat is white people.
fascism is basically when people (or whites) get together and advocate for something other than socialism or Islam, exmple: Trump, Trump voters, conservatives, nationalists, libertarians, ISIS, etc
Fascism is just authoritarian "social democracy"
I'm more bothered by the ratio of her torso's length to width than anything else.
maybe, that doesn't make a person fascist tho
I suppose the link isn't really coincidental. Sure, ideologically fascism is closer to anything capitalistic than socialistic, but that still creates an opportunity for easrly symbiosis which the fascists then take over.
A key aspect I think I should have mentioned is that fascists bother with all of that instead of just supporting a monarch or prophet or whatever, because on some level, they see the old elites as having failed to keep things in check. So they rise up to enthrone themselves as the saviors of the nation and new ruling elite. The older elites, simply by virtue of having been elites, have some affinity with fascists and can enjoy their blessing. See the Pope, Nazi privatizations etc.
I'd say read the wikipedia article.
The problem with fascism is that it is so openly ,ass backwardly against its members that it can only exist in a reactionary context.So the definition gets blurred depending on the circumstances.
Capitalists tend to share interests with the politicos peddling that ideology, in that both benefit from passive, obedient consumers and workers.
why is it ass backwards?