Isn't fascism just pragmatic communism?

>Both seek to solve class warfare
>Both seek to change human nature
Communism:
>Communism seeks to solve class warfare by overthrowing the upper class, despite hierarchy being natural in nature and humanity
>Communism assumes everybody will produce as much as they can while only taking what they need
>Communism assumes this will happen because everybody will magically change
Fascism:
>Fascism solves class warfare by having the classes work together towards a common cause
>Fascism gives the state the power to redistribute and force production according to its needs
>Fascism lets the state change people through indoctrination.

It seems pretty clear that fascism is the superior option here.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
youtube.com/watch?v=3NqG2lAojNQ
youtube.com/watch?v=OA5VP3mh8fI
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Not to mention the unity and purpose fascism gives the people. From birth, they get taught to be loyal and productive to the state. They go into military youth programs, where more indoctrination is added and they learn useful skills, like how to kill enemies of the state.

Then they grow up, in high school they are enrolled in the local state militia, where they learn how to bandage wounds, produce homemade bombs, and fight a guerrilla war if the state is invaded. They go through a hazing ritual to mark them as a servant and soldier of the state.

After high school, they can join the military, for yet more indoctrination and training, or they can go into one of the respected professions and industries of the nation.

They will not care that their personal income taxes are so high, because it goes to the state, which they love dearly, and they will not care that corporate taxes are so low, because it helps the corporations produce more for the state.

They see the nation give them free healthcare, and useful skills, and work programs in case they lose their jobs, and they know that their nation loves them as much as they love it.

They vote on ministers related to the profession or industry that they work at. The very idea of these ministers being corrupt is preposterous, as they went through the same indoctrination as you did, and if you ever saw any corruption you would be sure to report it, but not before doling out a bit of your own punishment for hurting the nation you so love.

Race and culture is not an issue. There is but one culture, the one the state gives you, and race is but an outer wrapping to the delicious dedication the state has filled all of you with.

Individualism is only useful so far as it achieves progress for the nation. The state will not endorse tall poppy syndrome and cut down those too successful, but it will also not tolerate exploitation of your fellow citizen.

National (((Socialist)))

(((Free))) market

Fascism has no end game. It lacks synergy.

Why should there be an end game? You work for the success of the nation, and there's always more success to be had. If you have an end game, then either the goal is too easy and there's no purpose after completing it, or its too hard and people become disillusioned after realizing it can't be accomplished. But there will always be another monument to build, or enemy to kill, or land to colonize, and that will give the people purpose till the end of time.

>human nature
>hierarchy being natural in nature and humanity

>Facism
>let's keep capitalism and all its features
>but now we're all fighitng da joos so there's no problems!
sounds like idealism to me

>Fascism
Keeping and maintaining the race, culture, and religion of it's charges. Protecting them from Subversive elements such as marxism and internationalism no matter it's labels, such as free trade. Preserving what has worked for humanity for 1000's of years.
>Communsim
A failed meme that came into being in the late 1800's and has been utterly rebuked, ecoconomically, militarally, and culturally. It throws the whole collective knowledge of humanity in the trash for a the theory's of an unemployed neet who sponged of his friend whos father owned a factory. Marx was just a jealous NEETfag who dreamed of a life of sponging off the work of others.

>Fascism lets the state change people through indoctrination.
And eugenics.

No. Communism aims to bring down the social order. Fascism aims to impose it by force.

Fuck off, you ignorant burger.

There can't be a single answer to all problems simultaneously. In the absense of separation of powers fascism/natsoc would just as quickly degenerate. A better metaphor would be that nazis are a vaccine against utopian communism. Once commies are hanging from the trees and financial sector is not strangling economy, you should slowly switch back to democracy, Franco style.

Nothing you said was right. Fascism says nothing about Jews (that would be National Socialism) and it changes quite a bit about capitalism.

That's because the end game for fascism is, de facto, getting crushed at the end of a total war. Fascist societies are very good at stumbling into wars they can't win, too.

>and it changes quite a bit about capitalism.
Giving the state a bigger role in managing the economy doesn't make it different from capitalism

Belorussian gets it.

Still better than trying to abolish economics and incentive.

Sounds great but it needs personal freedoms for the loyal.
To foster a love of your nation you have to give them something to be proud of aside from pure indoctrination.
A free yet disciplined nation is less likely to complain about an overbearing government.

Because we have entered an age where the actions of a few have effect on the rest of the globe. First it was nuclear threat, now it looks like bio-engineering, AI and transhumanism. You have to think big and the compartmentalised nature of Fascism makes it lacking in dealing with global and existential threats.

There is no end to history.

>abolish incentive
nigger what

No end game is the main thing, doesn't matter what X-ism it is, they fight for a struggle that cannot be ended and has unconformable rewards to keep the followers (aka useful idiots) flowing.

Wahabism - You have to kill all the Christians/Jews - Not possible

Communism - Sharper kickstart momentum of overthrowing a specific group, then everyone realise they are now equal - equally poor in the dirt.

Facism - Sports same end game that's difficult to accomplish, however if you are talking at a national level it is entirely possible.

Socialism - Equality has no end game. Until we are replica clones we will have differences. No end game.

>equality meme
You can't argue against socialism if you keep trying to apply spooky Liberal understandings of "equally" to real life.

>We must take from left-wing socialism without internationalism, and right-wing nationalism without capitalism

You don't see any rewards for your work. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". More work=/=more rewards under such a system.

And what's worse is that you don't even indoctrinate the people like in to make them okay with it. You just assume they'll change of their own volition.

>facism says nothing about the jews
ah so you're for italian facism, which is directly allowing corporations to control the state and use said state to discipline the labor force. what an improvement!

>fascism changing human nature
>not just tapping into triballist nature

...

the "from each according to his ability" was an axiom for an economy in a state of general abundance. Marx assumed this was possibly in his time, tho I find it unlikely. either way, no one would establish such a system based around that axiom while not in those conditions.

>20 years
>long enough for inevitability to set in

Fascism recognizes that resources are limited and some brutal decisions must be made because of it. Communism is just an appealing fantasy world touted by Jews to acquire power.

>Fascism your people are your life blood

>Communism your people are your livestock

Communism as a theoretical definition is an end game. Whether or not it is obtainable or plays out as superscribed is separate reality.

If we're talking about communism, the incentive to work comes from everyone around you not wanting to support a lazy NEET who never contributes to anything.

>And what's worse is that you don't even indoctrinate the people
Yes, you do. Intentionally by the state under socialism, and passively through ideological superstructure under communism.

And yet how many times has the state ever passed the socialist stage into the communist stage? There's sure been a lot of attempts, but not so much success.

Damn, I'm a lefty socialist and that was painful to read. So this ideology had its roots in syndicalism, you say?

With all due respect, if it weren't for the whole Adolf "woe my superior master race" Hilter, we would all be fascists by now

They're both objectively terrible.

If you haven't noticed, both capitalism and socialism have a way of transitioning to a war economy. Communism really doesn't. It's actually one of the biggest concerns I have, as a state socialist. And capitalist governments really like to antagonize socialist governments.

In Fascism, your countrymen are the whole point of the exercise.
In Communism, your countrymen are nothing special in any way, they are merely the fuel you expend to stoke the fires of global revolution.

I never said I'm an Orthodox fascist either. There's a lot of fascisms, it adapts itself to the needs of the state. The 3 consistent parts of it though are: nationalism, authoritarianism, and fascist corporatism (not to be confused with corporatacracy).

Fuck you negausa

He paved the way for white intersectional racism

I'd argue the state never passed into the socialist stage to begin with. The Marxist-Leninist regimes of the 20th century had economies predicated on the pursuit of profit utilizing wage-labor, everything Marx criticized about capitalism. Having the state in charge of industry doesn't automatically make it not capitalism.

>Marxist literature defines state capitalism as a social system combining capitalism—the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value—with ownership or control by a state; by this definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting the surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production. This designation applies regardless of the political aims of the state (even if the state is nominally socialist), and many people argue that the modern People's Republic of China constitutes a form of state capitalism and/or that the Soviet Union failed in its goal to establish socialism, but rather established state capitalism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

No, fuck you leatherman

Fascism is the most prominent strain of political parties that inhabit the left-wing economics + right social policies quadrant.

You should be just as familiar with Karl Marx and Das Kapital as the commies.

youtube.com/watch?v=3NqG2lAojNQ

>nationalism, authoritarianism, and fascist corporatism
ah yes, what wonderful principles that have brought us the likes of genocide, global war, the exploration of workers, police states and state sanctioned ideological terror.

Salazar's Portugal was pretty successful. Far more successful than any communist regime I've ever seen.

Alright so, commiemen, wannabe socialists and ilk, what do you propose be done to replace capitalism?

Worldwide revolution? Been there, done that, it failed and it almost ate the only (quasi by your definition) socialist state apart

I still prefer capitalism evolving into fascist military juntas, because its the closest thing to a perfect system you'll ever get, plus you can do most of the shit you actually wanna carry out, but without hippie bullshit

see

That's been tried already, 49 times in fact. It has failed every single time.

You stated what you want, but not how you are going to get it.

Your meme is literally a wishy washy thingie that hopes that technology doesn't come back to bite our asses to the curb, instead of bringing us to communist utopia.

So much for 'scientific' socialism

the existence of a strong state built upon nationalism unites people of all classes and keeps society united instead of devolving into factions which undermine the state. with a strong state neither the 1% nor the pleb masses can capture the state and misuse it, the state is dedicated to the nation alone. private competition is allowed but regulation also exists to preserve the environment, workers rights and jobs, ensuring a sustainable form of capitalism as opposed to neo-liberal casino capitalism. democracy is flawed as it associates the majority vote with wisdom, breeds a sense of ego where the individual is above all morality and responsibility, and people are ignorant and easily fooled into undermining their own economic interest, either through misguided socialism or neoliberalism. furthermore the freedom is an illusion, as all businesses and media outlets are owned by a profit-seeking few.

a meritocratic bureaucracy is necessary to further the state and keep science at the center of all things the state does. nationalism fits into this as humans are collective animals, and need a sense of identity to feel secure and fulfilled. the individual is not an atom, he/she can only understand them-self and feel secure with themselves in reference to a wider community. nationalism is a natural tribal spirit which allows human cooperation, without agreed social norms and values trust among members of society is eroded and division is sure to follow. without this unifying spirit people focus on what they can get for themselves or their little clique from the state, instead of contributing to the state.growing the pie instead of fighting over maximizing your slice of the pie is the engine of progress. under unity we all work together to grow national prosperity, increasing our own in the process. without it, we fight over scraps. this is what distinguishes successful from failed states, whether people have this sense of nationalism and work towards prosperity or hoarding as much of the pie for themselves

liberalism assumes there are different spheres of human life. personal, family, civil society, church,media, the economy and govt. to name a few. this is an assumption which is obviously false, all have an effect on each other, so in order to guide cultural evolution and ensure stability a state must have a role everywhere. nothing is ''beyond the state'', that distinction is fascicle and exists only in a liberal mind. this mindset is what has allowed culture to devolve so far in the west, as things are seen to be magically divided, when in fact everything under the roof of human civilization is connected in a holistic manner. for this reason fascism is totalitarian, as it is the only logical response to the nature of society.

looks extremely fragile

the final purpose of society is to preserve and cultivate its people, both in number and quality. on an individual level, the final purpose of the individual is to raise a family and be part of a wider community, and be willing to sacrifice and lay down your life for these things. with faith in ideals and community do human beings find self-actualization and happiness. liberalism fails to see this and see humans only as rational utility maximizes pursuing private material gain, an empty excuse for a life which leaves many depressed, anxious and isolated. humans are not engines of an economy but a sociable animal, and only by living by this can a normal human find fulfillment. hence fascism opposes liberalism for being entirely misguided on the meaning of life and what brings and individual true joy and happiness.

CIA will run out of money to fund coups eventually.

Socialism - where zerg rushing applies to entire states.

youtube.com/watch?v=OA5VP3mh8fI

You should read about Historical Materialism.

At this point in time we are seeing the decline of democracy and increase in crony capitalism which is not in the interests of the people. We are watching history unfold just as Marx predicted.

This Jap knows what's up. Get ready for the glorious Nippon Fascist State!

>Salazar's portugal
>lasted 40 years
>more successful than literal world super powers
fuck even yugoslavia was more successful, in 1960 they had a GDP per capita of 2,225, portugal was at 360.5 GDP percapita

Just so you know, Communists also hate liberals.

If socialism is incapable of standing up to capitalist subversion, and incapable of sufficiently subverting capitalism itself, then how is it the superior ideology?

>class warfare
its getting a little spooky

Fuck off /leftypol/.
I will be more than happy to have a discussion about communism with you when we are in a better position. But a high-trust political system where those better-off in society support those in trouble cannot work if you have an underclass which is content to leech off of everyone else. You need cultural unity to build trust. You need largely (85%+) ethnic homogeneity to get that trust.
Get the foreign races out of Europe and America and we can have an honest discussion about the benefits of communism versus capitalism, without having to worry about one side disingenuously weaponizing welfare for political power.

You mean the perversion of Hegel's thought that implies that History 'ends' in communism?

Its been, lets see... 168 years and counting years, and it hasn't happened

Now, am not implying communism or something similar won't happen. But I am leaning more on Sorel's thought and Fascism actually happening than on Marx'es trashy reads

And I am aware Sorel is just as trashy read, but I'll fight you if you say something about it

The fucks believe they can use the lesser peoples in their favor.

Haven't we seen this movie before? The Iranian Revolution? Where the commies thought they could tame the revolutionaries, until they got eaten by them?

Tito's Yugoslavia was the closest Marx's vision of gomminism btw

>incapable of sufficiently subverting capitalism itself
You wot?

We have right-wing economists arguing for basic income, m9.

>inb4 welfare state is not socialism
Exactly.

>isn't fascism just pragmatic communism
>pragmatic
>communism
So not communism?

>Assumes that being a world superpower means success
>Talks about Yugoslavia as a success
>Thinks GDP is the only measure of success

Fascism is Communism with a goal, a purpose. Communism is aimlessly trying to balance out all areas of society. Facism is taking the reins of the people and guiding them in a specific direction.

>perversion of Hegel's thought
Are you some kind of solipsist? Reality exists my friend, thus the 'Materialist' part.

>We have right-wing economists arguing for basic income, m9.
And that is communism how?

alright then faggot, what's your measure of success?

This is actually what Americucks think.

In order to balance the budget for basic income, the upper class needs to be extensively taxed. Very very extensively. And perhaps even entire industries nationalized. i.e. wealth needs to be redistributed and control of the economy taken away from capitalists

What the hell are you even saying

The whole point of Vanguardist communism is taking the reins of the people and guiding them in a specific direction

>solipsist
Am afraid, am not that far down the philosophy rabbit-hole my friend. My expertise with Hegel goes as far to be able to tell that the young Hegelians (including Marx) are what whites with rastafarian hair are to actual Jamaicans, not to tell Ethiopians.

Not having your economy crash with hyperinflation for one. Not having massive debt helps too.

What are you, a reformist?

>And perhaps even entire industries nationalized
Oh, that ought to be good. I can't wait to see the hellhole that develops from that.

Personally, I prefer the nordic model. Pseudo-fascist, stable, low-poverty, and pretty good as long as you make sure that migrant hordes don't take advantage of it.

Cuba fits that description

I am willing to try a peaceful solution first.

>Both seek to change human nature
only communism does this tbqh

Do this instead

The country that is so great that millions of Cubans have tried to flee from it. Of course, the Cuban government, being as noble as it is, realized that these people would be back once they saw how horrible life in the capitalist USA was compared to Cuba.

Wouldn't supporting an MG42 like that fuck up your hearing because you are so close to the muzzle?

Fascism is vague and pointless to talk about

Nationals Socialism has good arguments though

They are different in name only.

well there is a bit of a theory v. practice issue

ideologically both communism and fascism aspired to a lot that history did not allow them to achieve

when we talk about the two, we almost always get sucked into the trap of assuming wartime fasism/communism is the "true" form

and people also assume overtly that since hitler was a national socialist, that everything he did was nat-soc policy

most of them were capitalist pigs and rentiers who supported the mobster government. Castro was an actual threat to entrenched interests, Salazar was a tool for the elite and global capital.

But Hitler was a traitor that sold out to the industrialists?

Facism is a meme
So is communism

>1.5 millions escapees
>125,000 were the initial high and middle class people who could afford a boat out of there
>The other 1.25 million refugees had to scrap together boats from scrap

>Be a National """Socialist"""
>Kill the Strasser brothers and thus any hope of actual workers control of the economy
>Spend my entire political career sucking corporate cock
>Start and lose a war that butchers tens of millions of Europeans but at least the steel, weapons, and automotive industry shareholders made a nice profit
>They deserve their money because they work hard for it and aren't Jews

>The lines are often blurred. You guys realize nothing is definite and politics are in a spectrum, right?
The lines are often blurred. You guys realize nothing is definite and politics are in a spectrum, right?
>The lines are often blurred. You guys realize nothing is definite and politics are in a spectrum, right?
The lines are often blurred. You guys realize nothing is definite and politics are in a spectrum, right?
>The lines are often blurred. You guys realize nothing is definite and politics are in a spectrum, right?
The lines are often blurred. You guys realize nothing is definite and politics are in a spectrum, right?

of course it is. Fascism is REALISTIC COMMUNISM. And if you wear the red, you need to join the fascist party

when did communism triumph? When it came from a nationalist perspective. What held back communism in power? Communist economics. Fascism is the way

that's what happens when the world's biggest economy tries to starve an entire country through embargos and sanctions

Which brings us back to

You mean Pinochet, Franco never gave up power.
Franco was a corrupt piece of shit, he was not a fascist.

If nazis claim they are the superior race but loose a total war to a bunch of slavs, how does that make it the superior ideology?