Why do so many conservatives, centrists, libertarians and moderate right-wingers in general...

what evola ultimately wanted was a return to when warriors and priests controlled the world not merchants and capitalists (jews).
Eventually after ww2 he gave up and just wrote books about tantric sex and how we live in the kali yuga so ride the tiger.

You're a Holla Forums shill. Just go away.

Fascism is happening in Japan right now. It has nothing to do with diversity it has to do with capitalism failing and the working class being to spooked to try and transition to anarchism or communism.

I WANT TO BELIEVE
tfw will never do revolution with maoist kaori

Except the Fascists strove for class collaboration through integrated, strong labor unions.

And real Fascists identify as anti-capitalist, so…

Okay.

You don't get rid of the fundamental problems of capitalism by straw manning the Jews and using trite left-wing phrases about socialism.

>The fascist organizations are grouped into nine National Confederations: four for the employers, four for the employees, and one for the professional classes. fascism-archive.org/books/ItalianTradeUnions.html

In theory, the ideal would be to workers and employers on equal ground, which is what Mussolini's system attempted to do.

And it ended up being a romp for the bourgeoisie. Hitler privatized key industries and Mussolini had private sector running most things, even if it worked closely with the state.

Also, you can't have collaboration when both groups want to expand their monopolies on power. And anyway, I think fascism is trash because it rejects the individuals needs in order to enslave them to an abstract.

They are looking for an alternative and since the left has basically been destroyed by SJW liberals they look into fascism.

Everybody understands this, fascism is alternate modernity.

...

why dr. goebbels dissed musso the lini?

isnt goebbels basically a Useful Idiotist?

jesus christ Strass-er-ist

...

gonna need some sauce on that m8

Stalin dindu nuffin!

This probably won't go over well here, but Hitler wasn't really a Fascist. He took what he liked from Mussolini's system but rejected most of it.

Marxists (Orthodox, not you special snowflake variety post-Left revisionists) defined any Liberal (capitalist) state that went authoritarian as Fascist.

Hitler fits the description.

Yes, and capitalists define socialism as levying taxes and throwing the proles some crumbs, rather than the abolition of property.

Every autistic group creates specialized definitions of things that suit their own views.

Because these people want to stop the flood of third world immigration. But this gets them called nazis. So they work to rehabilitate the nazis so the accusation will be less effective and they can stop the flood of third world immigration.

Nope, user. I'm not buying this post-modernist crap.

How did you gather that from "I don't have to adhere to your idiosyncratic definitions of words"?

Well, I don't know. It somehow just happened.

By the way, do you have a special newspeak vocabulary that I can use to translate your personal definitions of words into those commonly used by people (as in "not brainwashed Holla Forumsyp" people)?

This guy mentioned that Fascists believed in strong labour unions.

This guy objects to this because Hitler was anti-union.

I point out that Hitler's actions actions against unions don't contradict >>809300's statement about Fascism and unions. It was clear that was referring to the ideologues of Italian Fascism.

It's like if someone used present-day China to give counter-examples when someone asserts something about what Marxists believe. It's obviously not relevant because the Chinese state has deviated from the original ideals of the revolution.

I didn't say anything about Hitler's definition of Fascism, and I didn't say anything about all definitions being valid.

The Marxist definition of Fascism boils down to "anything I don't like," just like Porkies define Socialism as "anything I don't like."

You literally said "Hitler wasn't really a Fascist". Stop trying to pretend otherwise. This is Holla Forums and the default discourse is neither Fascist, nor Nazi (unlike Holla Forums).

Yes. Because you automatically assume that radical right-wing discourse is default.

Too much bait. You discarded Marxist' definition as incorrect.

It is quite specific.
1) You have liberal (capitalist) state
2) You have crisis happening there
3) Strong authoritarian control over population is introduced, as well as right-wing ideologies to justify it.

Result is called Fascism. It doesn't matter what specific ideologies population is getting. Either they are religious, nationalistic, idpol, or even anti-terrorist - their ultimate aim is to restrict freedom, limit Left (invariably Socialist) discourse within society and justify repressions against regime's enemies (also, invariably Socialists).

In what way could a union whose core tenet is class collaboration be considered "strong"?

I don't see what is Holla Forumsish about distinguishing National "Socialism" from Fascism. I see them as distinct but related historical phenomena which emerged in two different countries under different circumstances. I adhere to neither.
Given that I'm not a right winger, and my only interaction with Holla Forums has been looking at it a handful of times over a span of 2 years, I can confidently say that I am not a Holla Forumstard. Given what I have seen from internet right wingers in general, I doubt that they would agree with my characterization.
My definition is historical and academic, not ideologically based. Fascism is a bourgeois corporatist ideology which emerged in Italy and which attempted to co-opt trade unionism and popular rage for reactionary purposes. Nazism attempted similar things (though the attachment to trade unionism was dropped after the split with Ernst Rohm and the ensuing Night of the Long Knives) but it was based more around ludicrous racial theories, vaguely mystical notions of the nation, and Hitler's cult of personality.
I consider Fascism and Nazism separate phenomena, even though Nazism was certainly inspired by Fascism. I say "Hitler wasn't a Fascist" for the same reason I say "Juche isn't Marxism-Leninism." There are enough distinguishing traits between the two to consider them separate entities.
I'm not a right-winger. I reject their discourse as false, just as I reject your claimed monopoly on defining political terms. Most right wingers I've seen online DO consider Hitler a Fascist. Most people I've seen call themselves Fascists are admirers of Hitler.
I reject it only because it's ideological and ahistorical. I reject it for the same reason that I reject American conservatives calling Sweden a socialist nation.

...

Fascism is generally defined by 4(maybe five) key features

Hitler fits nicely into this and that is why the third reich is considered to be fascist by almost every political scientist.

Nazism had absurd racial theories because of the culture of anti-semitism in Germany. They likely adopted the Swastika because of the influence of German intellectuals like Schopenhauer who admired "aryan" civilizations. Non-racialist Nazis like Heidegger still supported the Nazi regime without indulging in the race-myth bullshit, evidencing that something beyond the cultural climate of Germany and Rosenberg's racism is going on. Italian fascism used the imagery of the Roman Empire to hearken back to the good old days and used that imagery to create propaganda that would appeal the Italian people. Yeah, they had different ideologies in THOUGHT (due to cultural differences) but in material reality they had similar economic practices. That's why all these liberal intellectuals claiming that Trump isn't a fascist because he doesn't do the Nazi salute or adopt Italian Fascist iconography are dunderheads: the cultural differences in these countries means that they just try to cloak their right-wing economic theory in the popular cultural lingo of their time. All of the popular philosophers in Fascist countries (Heidegger,Evola,Nietzsche) actively hated reason and shilled for capitalism in practice in their lives, ie they shilled for it in REAL LIFE instead of just in the realm of pure thought.

because the narrow globalist perspectie the state offers is insufficientv

You people have helped pushed them to fascism with constant attacks on their intellect and beliefs, your support for the destructive policy of mass migration and attempts to shut down their contention of some of the government's destructive policies.

...

Because they despise with equal measure the exact same things fascists hate: ethnic minorities, "degenerate" behavior, and above all, COMMUNISM.

There is a bit of truth in this. There is something important i think, when trying to win over people:
Don't make a fool of them. Especially if they are. I think this is the key of Trump's success…
;

As if the tripe he's peddling is new and dangerous.

That's far from new but it seems efficient.
Picture a retard saying retarded shit.
You say "you're a retard"
Someone else says "you're right"
Who the retard will support?

That doesn't matter.

If you wants political change, analyzing tactics is quite important.

...

Never seen it happen, the most common argument I've heard from them is calling Fascism Leftist, which is true compared to the status quo (old school liberalism with 0 worker's rights) at the time, so yah.
Also, unlike Gommunism, Fascists let the people keep their bootstraps even if they took their freedom of speech and association etc…

20th century historical figures are generally viewed way too harshly by all perspectives really, some rehabilitation is in order.
Right now anyone who was any more radical than Ghandhi is labeled as an evil Ideology-blinded monster and all valid politics is flag-waving and peacefully marching.