Isn't it ironic how 99% of marxist idiots whining like lil bitches about fascism can't even give a definition for it?

I got one for ya

capitalism in decay

I'd add that they share some similarities with socialists in that they agree that there are many problems with the current system. But unlike socialists who attribute those problems to the systemic failures and contradictions of the system, fascists again pin the problems on this "Enemy" or other concept that has corrupted the system.

I didn't. The radical authoritarian nationalism part was straight from Wikipedia. And all the historical fascists parties have used some of that rhetoric I just described. The part I just added I think I got from Richard Wolff, and it's pretty much in line with my own experiences talking to "fascists".

But please, give us your definition.

I personally like Umberto Eco' 14 general properties of fascist ideology. Easy to apply to modern movements such as the "alt-right" to showcase that fascism is not a phenomena that is unique to the 20th century and restricted to groups marching in columns wearing boots and dressed in brown/black/whatever uniforms and thus being very easy to detect.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Umberto_Eco

No. He didn't.

READ A FUCKING BOOK

Isn't it ironic how 99% of fascist idiots whining like lil bitches about marxism can't even give a definition for it?

You mean like the things that commies say about capitalism?

What exactly is the difference? Every movement is filled with people who have somehow been wronged and are now trying to do something about it. Are they fascists just for trying to do what they think is right?

A radical right-wing moment that advocates the creation of an authoritarian, ultranationalist, militarist state that merges with corporate power and works on behalf of the nation.

Now give me a definition of Marxism.

Radical nationalism, or more broadly the radical right.

Capitalism isn't a foreign enemy. It's the base of our entire society.

I just explained the difference. Right here:

Both socialists and fascists criticise the system (which is why you always see them when the system is failing), but where socialists blame it on the system being wrong, and argue that it should be replaced, fascists say that the overall system is fine, we just need to remove those immigrants/Jews/'crony capitalists'.

Marxism is using your power over the masses to create the conditions where despotism can be established unopposed.

Isn't that fascism?

How the fuck are you supposed to create communism without conquering the world first? Do you think you can just start a little hippie colony and use it to destroy capitalism?

I already gave a definition of fascism. I was asking what Marxism was.

Cultural Marxism the lad

You're starting to get it. All kinds of Marxism is fascism, unless it's global anarcho-communism

Marxism is the means by which you cut the individual's ties from everyone in society, their family, their tribe, and isolate them so much that they rely on the 🍀🍀🍀vanguard🍀🍀🍀 to bring them salvation and make the communist utopia.

World revolution, fam. No need to conquer the world with a vanguard state. Also, there's thing thing called evolutionary socialism.

Not him, but if I recall isn't Marxism mainly just a critique of Capitalism? It's more of a philosophical and economic theory than a political ideology.

This is good. I'm Alex Jones. Can I use this quote on the George Soros special episode on my radio show?

Proof.

Though it is true that we don't like the sort of fake connections with other people that aut-rightists tend to cling to, like "nation" or "culture", since they typically don't have any real connections with other people.

Fascism is the democratic resistance to one of the many wrongdoings of the elite.

...

hello Holla Forums

Name one single undemocratic fascist party that has ever existed. Scratch that. Name one single fascist MOVEMENT that has ever existed in any shape or form.

...

Well it isn't far left.

...

mussolini's national fascist party. came to power via democratic means but instantly abolished all semblances of democracy, even the very limitedly democratic parliamentary democracy it came to power with by itself. insert the NSDAP there and the rest is correct for it as well.

fascism is by definition right wing. there is no "third way"; you are either for progressing past or conserving the social and/or economic (and by design, inevitably the social as well). there is also no historical seating of fascism that did not simply result in the merging of the state and private enterprise.

read a book please.

Definitions made up by people who don't know about fascism or want to portray it in a bad wayn and are too simplistic to envision anything as beyond the left-right spectrum? No, thanks.
Books written by the people described above?

Well then, describe fascism for us simpletons.

This is just so wildly inaccurate. Marx wanted to abolish the state

Pinochet came to power on the back of a CIA coup. So did the current government of Indonesia to name but two of so, so many

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doctrine_of_Fascism

By creating a state that can use it's powers to devolve the human race into a docile, subservient condition that could maybe make communism work

You're thinking of capitalism. Capitalism is the means by which you cut the individual's ties from everyone in society, their family, their tribe, and alienate them so much that they rely on the 🍀🍀🍀job creators🍀🍀🍀 to bring them a wage and make the American dream come true.

The alienation people face under capitalism was one of Marx's biggest gripes with it. He argued it detaches people not just from each other, but also from themselves because working, creating things, providing a service, no longer benefit ourselves and the community around us. Our labor instead serves to benefit the people who own the places in which we work – the factories, the farms, the offices, etc.

The act of work, the very thing civilization is built on, no longer belongs to the individual who works. From 9 to 5, 5 days a week, we exist outside of ourselves, living for the enrichment of the property owning class in exchange for a very small fraction of the value we create for society.

The Leninist vanguard party isn't a transcendent dictatorial power that exist to command the people to do its bidding. The vanguard is a movement that blossoms out of the working class itself, stemming from its desire to be free from exploitation and enjoy all the fruits of its labor. It exists to be used as the vessel for the workers to bring themselves to full consciousness and liberation.

tl;dr capitalism makes working a dehumanizing, anti-social activity and the vanguard is the people organizing and spreading ideas to take steps to fix the problem.

Well it's arguable that Fascism is a third way, because liberalism and socialism are both based on the philosophy of the enlightenment and the French Revolution, whereas fascism is based on the romantic movement and he reaction to revolutionary ideals from people like Nietzche. So from a philosophical perspective it doesn't fit into the left/right dichotomy any more than somebody advocating feudalism would, but in practice its only consistent characteristics are extreme authoritarianism, runaway nationalism and a rabid hatred of communism.

Even fascists can't define it, because fascist thought is so inconsistent and self-contradictory.

Not really, under Marxism the state is supposed to be completely subservient to the people, the worker's state is supposed to be the ultimate, most pure democracy. Under fascism the state had absolute primacy and is treated as an organic entity that acts as a lighting rod to focus the raw irrational passion of he masses. For fascists the state is an end unto itself, and if I recall correctly Mussolini literally says this.

Just admit that fascism and all attempted applications of Marxism are the same things.

yes, you mongoloid. the entire left-right divide was created to properly classify whether you politically stand on one of two sides: 1) the side that either wants to conserve social order as-is or return to prior social order and 2) the side that wants to move past social order as-is. you can't have a direction other than left or right on this spectrum no matter how much you romanticize it, and while fascists could have once claimed they stood outside of it with their rhetoric, they have historically proven to us with their praxis, once and for all, that they stand on the far right.

we know what fascism is. because we read about it. there's also no value judgement to defining fascism as the merger of state and corporate power. that's just what it is you retard.

there's no way around a left or right classification on a left or right spectrum. are you literally this dense?

vogler, renteln and krupp? none of them have published any theory or even novels. all they have written were letters to private german enterprises and to the nazi state apparatus to line their pockets with money.

i'm talking about reading about your own fucking ideology for one, as well as other ideologies, then about ideologues from different positions critiquing each other's positions and then thinking for yourself. the key here is read you literal subhuman.

Declining state of capitalism, where the middle class have allied with the bourgeoisie against the workers.

I just realized that OP still haven't gave us the definition of Fascism which he prefers.

I'll admit that they have been quite similar, but I would also point out that what socialist states typically do is widely seen as a perversion of Marxism, whereas fascists can actually follow their ideology to the letter and it will still be shit.

No, for one thing, he never really described what the revolution should look like, he's kind of infamous for that.

He predicted that the state would bring society to post scarcity and at this point capitalism would have no necessary basis, then the state would whither away to merely a series of functions providing for the people. That's the abridged version anyway. Also that's orthodox Marxism which even most Marxists don't ascribe to in full.

Even Tony Blair said his way was a third way. It's how you know people are full of shit. He was a capitalist trying o save capitalism from its inevitable self. Facism is just capitalism with marginally more police state (but not even that much more)

Also, beyond just third way, Blair rewrote the Labour party rule book declaring labour Democratic Socialist. Not saying he was, but he claimed to be and most of his party were happy to operate under that banner.

Yeah, no. Fuck off with your false dichotomy.
Yeah, wrong again. By that logic, people who wanted capitalism during the USSR would have been left wing.
Fascists wanted changes by the way, the fact that their idea of change wasn't communism doesn't mean they wanted to preserve the status quo.

Such a wall of text for a typical dose of communist bullshit. You can't call anyone a retard when you are in favor of an ideology that ruins countries. Idiot.

Do the words "Conservative Revolution" mean anything to you?

What, fascism?

Because it's a prediction of how things will go (which seems to be going along accurately if you consider how technology is progressing) and not anything to be acted upon.

It doesn't satisfy that drive to crusade that so many people have. With a slight restructuring, however, it provides the perfect enemy to lock in eternal conflict - society.

It's been corrupted into a way to justify atrocities, sell red flags and provide a convenient and easy distraction that gives that "I DID SOMETHING GOOD!" feeling.

You know, so people do that instead of doing shit like:

- going into ghettos, trailer parks, favelas, etc.
- teaching people how to be more self-sufficient, more smart with money, and how to stand on their own overall
- thus bettering society by providing knowledge, skills and and ideas that spread to counter ignorant backwards shit concepts that poor people generally believe

It may feel good to give someone food when they are hungry but it is better (and gives a better feeling) when you teach them to cook and hear them tell you about the things they have made.

He's confusing and conflating marxism, socialism and communism. If he reads this, he'll backpedal and give a hilariously inaccurate strawman, ala

Isn't it ironic that all fascists cannot even define their own ideology?
No. It isnt ironic because its obvious that only an idiot would become such a bootlicker.

...

Oh great, you've arrived just in time for the bi-annual tax hike gun snatching Derby!

how retarded can one person be?

i thought pinochet was actually fascism.

im from chile

pinochet was an anarcho capitalist

How retarded can one person be?

why, because stupid people throw "facho" at everything they don't like? Don't be ridiculous

care to explain how in any way does the Pinochet regime resemble actual fascism besides being a dictatorship?

Sounds like Fascism to me.

Read it, it basically said the same thing as user already described

...

the only thing exclusive to fascism in your list is the second point, and that just wasn't true for Pinochet. It was a puppet regime set up by the US to undo all that was done by Allende. It was a big farce. Actual fascists/natsoc/syndicalists (as few as they were) were quickly set apart by conservatives and neoliberals. So no, it wasn't Mussolini

...

Those are all exclusive to fascism. You're completely wrong. Have you never read any of Mussolini's writings? Anti-Communism is one of the key parts of the ideology. Nationalism is present in every single fascist regime. Autocracy is as well.

You're wrong.

I mean you can say Pinochet wasn't fascist for not partaking in those four things, but those are all parts of the ideology.

guess all those nationlistic goverments that existed before fascism was invented were fascist then

do you even know what "exclusive" means? Even socdems are anti-communist, are they fascist as well? They aren't unless you are using a wide and sloppy definition of fascism in which case I don't see the point of arguing

Nationalism and anti-leftism aren't exclusive to fascism. They inherent parts of fascism, but that doesn't mean non-fascist ideologies can't be nationalist or anti-leftist.

Those are all part of fascist regimes. You can't just be one of those things( when I looked into it Pinochet used neoliberal economics so that kind of excludes him from fascism), you have to be all four. It's not a wide definition it's, "if a regime fits these four things, you can generally consider them to be fascist".

Again: have you ever read Mussolini's Doctrine of fascism?

not how it works pal

I shouldn't of used exclusive, but they're inherent parts of fascism. Also state and industry working together isn't exclusive to fascism. There are many types of corporatist ideologies that aren't fascist.

I never said that. I said nationalism is inherent in fascism. This is true, but it doesn't mean nationalism is exclusive to fascism and I shouldn't of used that word..

and so we have come to agreement. What you pointed out are the tenets of fascism, but they are not exclusive to it

Made it up? I know reading books is hard but you could at least try the wikipedia article:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

It mentions Robert Paxton's definition from "The Anatomy of Fascism" which is pretty close to the definition you just mocked as made-up:

"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

And if you read the article you can see a lot of other academics who study fascism have come up with lists that include most or all of these features.

It is hard to define Fascism precisely because it is a rather vague as an ideology and would actually best be described as a "worldview", a "narrative", a "civic religion" or even as Walter Benjamin put it "aestheticized politics". Emilio Gentile himself admitted as much: Fascism is about an unholy combination of pragmatism and mythology, not any solid body of theory.

Still, I personally find Umberto Eco's 1995 essay "Ur-Fascism" (nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/) to be one of the most comprehensive attempt at identifying the core components of Fascism.

They are, in short, the following: cult of tradition, anti-modernism, irrationalism, anti-intellectualism, xenophobia, middle-class resentment, conspiracy theories, scapegoating, militarism, social darwinism, hero worship, aggressive masculinity, selective populism and redefinition of vocabulary.

Let's apply that to feminism.
Check.
Mirrored with postmoderninsm.
Check
Check. Only feminism certified intelectuals matter
Mirrored.
Check
Check
Check
Mirrored
Mirrored
Check
Mirrored
CHECK!!!

Conclusion.
Fascism and third wave feminism are two sides of the same coin.

AUTHORITARIAN FEMINISM FLAG WHEN?

...

Sure. If you call having the army controling the "vote", democratic.
inner party voting isn't "democratic".

Let me add:
Castro took over via revolution.

Fascists will only use force when they cannot come to power through populism.

I always figured fascism was dictatorial control over and privatization over the means of production.

Literally where?
That doesn't amount to anti-intellectualism at all. Anti-intellectualism is the exaltation of "common sense" and "tradition/culture" and "unspoken truths" over academic voices, Feminists rule academia and resent common sense and popular culture greatly.
nope
wew
are you retarded?

Oh sure, culture doesn't have any real value. Just like the antifa flags don't have any value. Or those American inspired blue jeans in your drawer came out of nowhere and aren't related to any society or culture on earth.

I would suggest killing yourself since not even Holla Forums "culture" is worth anything anyways.
You're just wasting your time.
Give up.
End it.

"Women were oppresed in the middle ages and that justifies my fight against men".
Except for the common sense they themselves have created, no matter if it's scientificly correct or has any bases on reality.

As I said it's sthe mirror image. Instead of "everyone who is not from here is evil" they go "everyone who is from here is evil" and so on. It's the same coin.

Well.. It might not be "burly men with guns", but shouty women with a mob is still sort of, militaristic power structure.

And that's why I said THIRD WAVE feminism. AKA modern feminism in US/GB.

Since you like to see it "orcs and humans" let's go warhammer.
Culture and all spooks are like chaos. The have no power, unless you give them power by believing they have power.

An anarchist flag has power so long as the anarchist believes it has power. An unspooked anarchist wouldn't care if a fascist burned an anarchist flag.

Here. Have a free vid. youtube.com/watch?v=MopoyO7RLwA

...

for bringing this thread to orcs vs humans i sentence you to heraklion and an eternity of bay debds