Give me one reason fascism doesnt work when real fascism has never been tried

I must have missed the chapter of hitler's life or other fascists where they grew up in the wealthy elite shielded from the outside world in his solid gold cars.

Thoughts?

xportal.pl/?p=11121

so you admit what we need is to test the merits of a system of governance under real Fascism to determine its viability.

To deny or say otherwise is not only disingenuous but the peak of ignorance.

do you understand the purpose of the night of the long knives?

...

Why does that matter? Hitler was supported by the bourgeoisie because he pushed their class interests.

Explain how that puppet dressed like a walking christmas tree used real Fascism when he acted as a sycophant to the religious hierarchy? You see my point then that real fascism has not been tried meaning we must endeavor to push for Fascism as a system of fair and equitable treatment for all people.

Uhhhh so then your agreeing with me that by being motivated by external influences over the will of the people that real fascism has not been tried since in essence he ceded his control to that class to further his agenda making it more cronyism than Fascism.

...

Define fascism and we'll talk

its a joke, while maybe it didnt get you on the funny level, it hit you on another level so it still landed. Hell maybe someday you might even laugh as well, life should be like that my friend.

Hey, you can test it with the rats in the nice gulag we're sending you

It's humanitarian I promise

Easy killer, no need to go full Hitler when he was a half assed Fascist and only called that by brainlet intellectuals.

What I am talking about is full on fascism, where even typing what you just posted would get your computer detonated due to it promoting negative energies which I gotta say are bad for my Karma to be around, but I feel pretty tough today so I can take it if you need to let it out.

Lets not use my own personal idea for what fascism is because then its impossible for any of us to have this open discussion. Lets use the wiki page right or wrong on points we can discuss that but at least we all can be on the same page that way.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Now that do you mean by success?

Easy

Test it on the rats on the gulag we're sending you

You cannot achieve fascism, it is something to be tried in order to defend capitalism from the workers. Fascism is not a coherent ideology.

Not sure what the intent of what your saying here is. To further avoid confusion on the topic this statement below from the wikipedia page seems to be the root definition of fascism we should be able to more easily discuss. Not neo or post, or anything else just the base root philosophy that brings us here today.

lol

fag

ishygddt

I would disagree with that, which parts of the underlying foundation which make up Fascism do you find to not be "coherent"? I do understand if your talking about branching forms of fascism but I mean to discuss it from the origins of the original derived form most commonly from latin for example representing united workers as a united people:

...

Lemmie change that to something I would agree with.

Thanks for your contribution to making the discussion more confusing while at the same time simply swapping out words for words you dont like. So it sounds like in essence you could be on board with real Fascism or at least the exercise in the practice of it as an experiment it sounds like since you really didnt change anything else.

I dont think those 2 things are mutually exclusive either, do you feel that they can not coexist? I feel that there can be different forms of fascist rule given different ruling ideologies even new ones we may not even have words for.

Unless we're in a war that we have a small chance of winning, fascism has no place with me.

Well I cant speak for you, but I would hope you wouldnt just throw your life away giving up on the will of the people should real fasism be tried because uniting the working people is something you hate so much. I think you are strong enough to be part of it should it occur, but you will know when the time comes, should you choose death it feels like that is a real waste and a cheap cop out.

Wtf do you mean fascism?
This just seems to be socialism under a different name?
I don't get this thread, I really don't.
Like what? I'm so confused.
How the hell is this any different than wartime capitalism or socialism?
It doesn't address who should own the MOP or value or class relations or anything! It just seems to be "Oligarchy controls everything."
It aint it's own economic system then, it's just a form of government?!
WTF.

No worries, being that the underlying philosophy in application to a political structure has never been really tried your not alone.

This would be a stretch of the creation of an ordered structured society unifying the workers and the people under a singular rule of governance.

It aint it's own economic system then, it's just a form of government?!
This is very true, you are correct, I am unable to see a specific economic system tied to the political system itself. This may interest you it seems the economic system in real fascism is to provide enough resources in preparation for any disaster type of scenario from nature or war to care for the overall population it seems. In fascism the preservation of the people being unified is the key interest so there must be something to that like you bring up.

This ideology just seems to have become idealist and incoherent.
So a dictatorship of whom?

In your question you find your own answer, under Fascism it is characterized by dictatorial control. The whom is a blank space, imagine whoever you like or dislike who could rise to such prominence, perhaps even an unknown such as Jay-Z, while a wild card lets not forget noone ever thought George Washington, Hitler, or Lenin would ever be anyone of importance.

Less focus maybe on "dictator", that could be anyone who is establishing a set of ideals to create a functioning society benefiting all of those involved working towards the shared goals of a greater nation state representing who they are. This may be something of great value to those seeking to rise up bringing prosperity to those around them sharing in this struggle to improve the lives of those around them.

Put me off.
Single ruler is a no-no and disallowing people free association into their own unions of egoists is stupid.
Nice spooks
Egoism > Fascism nerd

While not a determining factor in fascism it seems to be a chief operating factor to its implementation realistically. Of course under any such rule there would be a group of like minded individuals sharing the ideals and inspirations of the people that gave rise to the leader to surround the individual. Should a ruler lets say be off the wall retarded they would end up ceasared by those same people. While it sounds a bit brutal it would be effective in removing a non functioning element of the system.

The leader and then a leadership group much like a party would make up the upper part of the ruling political structure in Fascism. Consider this and let me know what you think.

Thanks for the replies, I may retire soon. If so I will check back tomorrow to respond to any replies and hope those who joined the discussion can check back to stay apart of it.

Fascism evades definition outside the scope of capital because when broken down to its basic fundamentals it differs little from the core features which underline and define capitalism, that of surplus extraction and commodity production. The outside appearance has changed, yes, but at its barest all it fully amounts to is a more direct and mythologized form of capitalism where the new (or sometimes even old) actors are thrown more to the forefront of society than they would be in shadows of the boardroom or the artificial put-on's of the liberal media spectacle. Today we adore and make mythic the idea of the capitalist and the entrepreneur as the hero's of today and the forerunners of tomorrow, self-made men who beat the odds to stand above all others who failed in either drive or make-up. All that historical fascism has done is take what was once abstract aspects and vague general archetypes of a kind of person and give it a more concrete form ("This type of person has the make-up/is the hero/is the Übermensch/is the New Man"). Fascism is merely the next step in capitalist mythology, not a new system in of itself.

This could really be said of any system, I dont disagree with you at all. Keep in mind that could be applied occurring in any political system from Communism, to Socialism, in essence any political system with a hierarchical power structure comprising a party, group, or individuals.

This is success above the failures of others which is what is triumphed more, we see the same thing in sports where there is a Stanley Cup or Super Bowl with the winning team being hailed for their accomplishments. We also see this in the arts, from composers, to writers or free thinkers who succeed in conveying an idea that can take hold and inspire others. I do not see this as a negative to celebrate the accomplishments of athletes, of speakers like Martin Luther King, or the writings of Trotsky. To minimize their collective efforts to mankind using a single term seems more a disservice instead of recognizing their contributions inspiring all of us in many ways even today.

Break this out a bit if you get time. Uniting the workers and the people working together in unity to share the successes of the masses hardly seems as capitalistic as you may think it is, but I would like to read your thoughts about it considering the above.

But who owns the MOP in a fascist society?

I'm not arguing that many socialist governments were not and are not merely capitalists with red paint, I think anyone willing to be critical enough can see that. Understand though there's a difference between introducing a temporary capitalist system to assist in the transfer into socialism in the case of industrially undeveloped countries and just up and calling yourself socialist with no foundational backing.
I think you may misunderstand me here, I in no way disagree with the idea of actual self-made men. A persons labour is their own, it is earned by their own actions and is respected as society sees fit to. What I am pointing out is capitalism's mythologizing of the capitalist as a self-made hero when we know he is not, as in reality he only stands supported upright by the proles he exploits for surplus. My main point on fascism was that it keeps such people (those who extract surplus) and simply throws them further to the forefront, then constructs a concrete form of what that person is, not by action but by pure ideal (i.e. Only the Übermensch has and can achieve such aspects of the capitalist hero, as his form necessitates it). I am in no way diminishing true self-made accomplishments done by the labour of actual individuals or even groups, and I see no problem with those who prove themselves through their own actions being celebrated or even held-up as a standard above others within society.
It isn't, because there isn't surplus extraction

So tl;dr, Fascists are not actually self-made, they merely fabricate a construct of a person who, by alchemy of merely existing, is by his essence "self-made". He is a faux hero, a pretend simulacrum.
One could even call it an unterheld if you wanted to be playful, as it's a "self-made hero" which those who aren't, and will never be such, tell others to be

That may depend on the industry involved and what you consider MOP. Many dont consider things like utilities or highways, trains, hospitals, to be MOP.

Under Fascism using its base meaning it seems to provide for the workers and people as a whole it seems many of those industries that are critical to infrastructure would be controlled by the state to avoid bourgeois wealthy elites corrupting these systems.

This would seem to indicate that private enterprise such as people building a business is acceptable and encouraged. I believe encouraged because anything contributing to the benefit one will also provide benefits for the people as a whole.

Not sure which part of Fascists you talking about, meaning are you referring to the workers and people or are you referring perhaps to the leadership in the system?

Typically in ALL dictatorial systems we have seen the individuals who rose to prominence have committed some kind of outstanding acts or meritorious duties. This can be seen from Hitler, to Lenin, to Marx, who all stand out among their peers. Im not sure I would say for example according to your post Trotsky is a fraud because he just scribbled down some ideas.

Very much agree, this can be seen in many places in the past, even today.

Very interesting points, this was great to read because it inspires me to think more deeply about these subjects. Looking at for example like you said maybe it sounds cliche but the saying "no man is an island", aptly fits very well.

It seems from reading that under the base form of fascism people can be held in regards but its due to the work of the masses to provide that benefit for those to take advantage of to due something outstanding in society, in essence this also benefits society. This individual as a pillar could be looked up to in that aspect and held up by society as what many can aspire for which is contributing to the greater whole of the working people which seems to be a core component of Fascism. Other political systems show the same thing from individuals such as Stalin, Lenin, or Hitler who rose to power because they stood out due to their approach idealogically and ability to lead which are qualities of their own.

this is so short a reply, really wanted to elaborate more, but gotta go out for a reservation. It seems under fascism a surplus is always kept to provide for the people in the event of any catastrophe from nature such as wildfires or hurricanes to man made catastrophic events such as war. Is this what you meant as in does it deal with the aspect your thinking about?

GOOGLE UMBERTO ECO

The leadership
There's a difference between someone like Lenin, who rose by merit of his work but who's focus remained on the ability of every man to eventually control his labour and the elimination of exploitation, and someone like Hitler, who also rose by popular support but never viewed the masses as anything but something to be "legitimately" exploited under a mystic image. One want every man to achieve his full potential, the other want those below to accept their place.
You have it a bit confused, see above

does fascism even have a real philosophy to it? isn't it just the irrational, chauvinist final form of capitalism?

I kind of went into that here, its just further mythologized capitalism

Would the Kuomintang under Sun Yat Sen constitute fascism?

*Chiang Kai Shek
tfw to smart 2 type

Hitler and Lenin in their rise to power share many similarities. Hitler rose among his peers much the same as Lenin based on his leadership and written works. This can be seen in many countries where a leader rises to power or just gains notoriety among the masses such as Marx or Bin Laden.

I see what your saying, thanks for the picture to tie that together clearly. It seems your talking about an economic system which in Fascism I do not see an economic component which would allow any Fascist style government to borrow from past failed system from Communism to Socialism to new systems not yet created.

That is an interesting question. Many people and this is natural apply their own meaning to the word based on other past event in history, though the 2 are not related at all to Fascism. This would be more of a colloquialism it seems since its less in fact and more in just trendy pop culture which is what we all live in like it or not.

It doesnt seem to be a form of economics such as what is sort of the building blocks of Capitalism where profit is put before the people. In Fascism it seems that the people are put before profits to provide for the entirety of the body politic so the workers are all part of the system being built for all people to benefit from.

It doesnt seem he was, he seized many MOP it says on wiki for the government but this did not translate as any benefit to the people. This would be a violation of the core tenets of Fascism where the workers are the concern and driving force for the sustainment of the system itself since it is about communally working together.

It also seems he was never able to fully gain control to implement Fascism from wikipedia.

Why are the mods here so useless as of late

It works but it just doesn't work as well as other systems.
/thread.

Are you retarded.

the discussion in this thread has been quite productive should you read through the thread.

Also be sure to join the discussion by reading up on the personal writings of past Fascist leaders to see how emboldening change can be.

...

Literally "if it doesn't work out it's not fascism"

Wait I thought fascism was leaders>workers.

Under Fascism leaders ARE workers they are the people as much as the workers are the leaders providing for the continual production creating a benefit for all peoples.

Leaders many think of as people who just sit around doing nothing. Under Fascism leaders must work to organize industries, maintain the military, secure the body politic to insure the protection of every worker.

Compare this to say your average bureaucracy as seen in say the US the UK or Israel where they descend into impotence due to not working with the focus being on the benefit of the working people. Under Fascism such weaknesses and flaws do not exist since any burden on the system is seen as weakness that is eliminated to improve the daily life of the average worker in the collective.

You can't be serious.

These unions and cooperatives weren't Fascist. They had no connection to the political ideology. They simply used a popular Roman symbol for strength through unity. Mussolini and his cronies co-opted the language and iconography of organic workers movements in an attempt to lure workers into their ranks and to craft a historical narrative where they were an extension of the Roman dictators. These same unions would later be crushed by the Italian fascists and forced to coalesce into state-run unions which put the state before the needs of the working class.

not to mention the bolsheviks weren't even a majority right after the revolution en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election,_1917

what armed conflict? the slogan of the October Revolution was "peace, land, bread" because they wanted out of the Great War you dingus.

>it's fascism when they really actually care guys
Thanks for confirming that fascism is indeed literally nothing different from the status quo.

I've always wondered why they praise my fellow creatura so much when they seem to loathe spics…

Yeah, and the NSDAP betrayed the SA. This is just Fascism 101. When the petite-military-industrial vanguard has seized the state, they move to liquidate their working class supporters.
Every. Single. Time.

While outwardly contradictory, this is totally in line with fascist praxis and intentions, which ultimately aim for national restoration, re-vitalizing capitalist enterprise. (Mussolini pointed this out explicitly)
Helping the indigenous working class is mostly propaganda, or at best a side-effect.
Also the last part is some potent ideology.

Truely the diciest statement so far in the thread. Which makes it a great discussion for how Fascism can be seen in some actions in other actions it fails to be Fascism due to many factors most notably the fact that wealthy elites funded the NSDAP manipulating hitlers actions.

Without going into details about the SA. We can use the event to say that while it is not an example of Fascism. It is another example of cronyism during that regime that led to its downfall eventually which was the driving factor in their removal from the party itself.

This does show how Hitler did not practice the classical principals of Fascism, showing him more to bow down to cronyism in the establishment of a more socialist form of state and economy which he discusses showing that we must promote the idea of demanding true Fascism as a means to grow the benefit of the people within the body politic so that all may contribute to its growth.

This topic is exactly why leftypol is a better discussion place for this topic in a mature intellectual manner. If this was mentioned on Holla Forums no offense to them, but they tend to have a knee jerk reaction to images more than the actual set of recorded events.

Side effects of this include drooling while posting hitler memes, while screeching autistically. Its quite amusing that topics they discuss they dont actually discuss they just form their own idea about things without any facts at all. The discussion of alternative political ideologies to the mainstream western ones encompassing Capitalism, and Socialism, can find no place for actual discussion on Holla Forums. In fact the discussion of any sort of political system is quite difficult.

Naziposter once again consistently excellent.

highly disagree in that specific example as it demonstrates Hitlers practice of cronyism not Fascism from bourgeois elites who were calling the shots through financing the NSDAP. What it shows is a leader who is merely a puppet not working for the people but for the wealthy elite over the betterment of the common worker to bring the country together.

I know what you're getting at. Betraying your own volk/race is not in line with the spirit of fascist theory.
But it's absolutely in line with how fascists have behaved the world over. And at some point it makes you wonder to what extend these events are mere "excesses", or whether they're just the systematic conclusions to fascist practice, and a de facto part of it's praxis.

Whether it's the Integralists in Brazil, the SA, the Iron Guard, the later Arab Ba'ath parties, the Falange, etc. Each time the genuine proletarian and peasant elements of the fascist mass movements were either marginalized, or sacrificed.
Furthermore cronyism is ingrained in the fascist movements. There would have been no NSDAP without it's wealthy industrialist financiers. Who were involved practically from the beginning. (See Friedrich Thyssen)
One movement that may appear to be an exception to this is the Iron Guard. But the Iron Guard was but a part of a larger movement, and once they outplayed their usefulness they were shoved aside, and "betrayed" in a similar fashion as the SA, the Integralists and the Falange were.

Even Mussolini, the founding figure of Fascism (though proto-fascism existed since before WW1), betrayed his working class supporters. With his cabinet pushing what today would be recognized as 'neoliberal' reforms upon taking power.
The primary problem isn't even the involvement of the bourgeoisie in fascist movements, but the very nature of the nation-state (which it intends to restore to 'glory' and 'vitality') itself.
From the beginning nation-states were created to support and manage the interests of the bourgeoisie, not the workers or peasants. In this regard "restoring" (or re-vitalizing) the nation-state means the suppression of proletarian/working class elements to the benefit of the industrialists, landowners and financiers. Who were always the ones that profited from the fascist takeover, while the working class (whose interests it claimed to represent) ended up being worse of. (Either seeing their earnings cut, or being sacrificed on the battlefields of imperial wars)

This seems to be quite true that real Fascism has never been tried. It seems that Hitler was more of a socialist placed into power by funding from wealthy elites through cronyism seen that has affected many systems regardless of ideology with Hitler being the puppet while the Bourgois are the ones pulling his strings hence the deaths of the SA who stood on the side of the people which is of course as offensive to the Bourgois back then as it is the 1% today or ruling class in any society.

Agreed could that have been more to them perhaps clinging to old ways unable possibly move forward? This is something that can happen under Fascism, though once power is solidified and the nation state stabilized under a united rule, it seems counter to Fascist dogma to eliminate a group rather than reform them since the safety and security of the body politic of workers and peoples is first and foremost.

Hmmmm Im not sure, tell me what you think. I feel the Bourgeoisie throughout time have shown time and time again that they could care less the type of political system as long as they control those at the top. Weather a monarchy, a democracy, they dont seem to care Ive noticed. Maybe for them and it would be logical to say they see the ends as justifying the means without any need for a direct repeatable blueprint instead just sitting back letting whatever happens while controlling it from behind the scenes to their favor everytime?

Soon we can hope we will see people begin to unite working together for the common good of the working peoples. Proudly proclaiming that they are Fascists in the streets standing up to hate and bigotry as the true revolutionaries they are. All other forms of government in the past have been tried, there is nothing revolutionary about rehashing them playing the same ol song and dance. Revolution is the spirit of change, the birth of something new, which can bring people together, it seems that in todays world, that would either possibly be some new system, not a branch of some old broken one that did or didnt work, or to implement that which has never been done before as the people united cry out demanding Fascism for the benefit of the common worker.

...

It is said that during the time of the Italian Social Republic, Mussolini rejected some of his corporate decisions from the early years of fascism and that he would make social reforms and claimed that he did not abandon his left wing influences.

Thoughts?

and what about this?

Seems historically there is room for alot of discussion as it would be for any historical figure for which records exist.

Being that Mussolini it is known was compromised by many external influences such as what many saw with the Vatican. It is difficult to say he was focused on the people themselves as true Fascism would dictate without compromising to external influence seeking for their own gain over the worker and at times at the expense of the worker.

Do you feel that perhaps also influences possibly even included precursors that he took into office with him? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Are you seriously telling me that Hitler and Lenin had the same motivations?
Literally still had cycles of capital in fascism, there is no getting around this

unlocked the thread, dunno why it'd have to be locked

I meant anchor but you get the idea

Thanks for the unlock its been a very interesting discussion into many types of alternative ideologies that arent confronted often enough.

Oddly another board volunteer removed a lock on it before and maybe someone didnt know it was removed and put it on again.

by who faggot?
He was a retard who, when his supporters and fellow fascists got tired of him fucking up decided to get rid of him and negotiate peace with the Allies, was desperate to stay in power and as usual resort to the same opportunism that fascists always resort to to get support while managing a nazi puppet state.

Fascistic corporatism is pretty based tbh.

No

...

Fascism doesn’t work because it chases spooks it will never catch.

What a dork

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Social_Republic#Economy_and_war_effort

EHMAJUN MOI SHAWK

I need more pics like that

The core idea of fascism is class collaborationism. The idea is that workers and capitalists should "work together" in pursuit of the "national interest". In reality, class collaborationist ideology is nothing more than lubricant for exploitation. Workers and capitalists have opposing interests, and no amount of rhetoric or charismatic storytelling will change that.

Asking workers and capitalists to "put aside their differences" and "work together" is no different than asking slaves and slaveowners to "work together" for higher cotton yields.

This is true, according to fascism there isnt a caste system or civilian based Hierarchy I have seen that is part of the society itself legalized into existence.

I think this is part of the appeal that brought Fascism into existence. It seems that under that ideology it serves to unite the people for the purpose of building a better society for all workers and people. Even those who succeed and work their way out of hard work or merit, are all contributing to that same ethos for the glory of the working people who will not be divided.

It is due to these factors that we as a people must take a stand against all systems that exist in opposition to the worker demanding Fascism for the people.

That second pic is redpilled af

...

Known white supremacist and sex offender Donald Trump who is now also president of the United States had his proposal to repeal DACA fail as a second federal judge deemed such a hate crime to be unconstitutional. The United States has long been known to be a nation of immigrants who come from all corners of the globe. Clearly Donald Trump is unfamiliar with the US constitution, if he was he wouldn't be so un-American.

google.ca/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/13/politics/federal-judge-daca/index.html

Although good in his intentions, the judge displays certain elements of white supremacy as well. Norway, like the United States is a nation of immigrants and his implication that Norway is a white country and all immigrants that would come from there are white is highly offensive, especially the Latino-Norwegian community. Norway is a diverse community of people that come from a wide array of backgrounds.

youtu.be/bggr0pSRqDY

youtu.be/zNA9pIxKQhw