Why isn't fascism more common throughout modern world?

Before Sup Forums I've subscribed to classical liberalism - in the alternative, fascism seems to BTFO of socialism (traditional values/ social cohesion/ productivity from blending central planning with competition). So why is socialism more prevalent now when competition should favor fascism - what am I missing?

NatSoc 4 lyfe

Because autocrats are human and not perfect.

It really is a bitch to take them out once they establish themselves.

Real fascism seems to be pretty fedoracore. People are too self conscious for that shit these days. Just look at this dude.

>Traditional values
Most people don't give a shit about that anymore
>Social cohesion
"Cohesion" through the shared denigration of "others" isn't attractive to many
>Productivity
You mean that word businesses use to describe "you create more wealth than we pay you"?

Fascists have already thought of this though! All you need is a little war.

>We will glorify war—the world’s only hygiene—militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman.

Fascism, like communism rewards those who will toe the party line, which could exclude the most talented people.

Liberal democracylets people work for their self interest, and allows the most talented people to rise to the top.

Communism won ww2 which extended the lifetime of socialism

But there's got to be more and more people seeing the virtues of traditionalism every day. So many people up in broken homes from muh independence is apparent even to normalfags. For cohesion - neocons are turning the same old gears to denigrate the "other" russians so seems like familiar machinery for most. And I don't understand your last point. I mean most degenerate art forms or most reality tv prob wouldn't get made but other than that we have vast untapped potential if more people were steered in computer science and productive lanes rather than english or critical studies majors.

Fascism was unfairly stigmatized.

Prior to Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia, there were actually a lot of American progressives who wanted to take elements from it. Sadly, geopolitical realities and the mass propaganda efforts (used to justify a Western alliance with "Uncle Joe") led to unfair, unfounded hatred for Fascism as a system.

To make matters worse, "Fascism" has been mythologized by the (((usual suspects))). In a sense, it serves as a sort of "origin story" for Secular Humanism (Beginning of a new 'post-national' era. Shift in values [Nationalism is bad. "Whiteness" is the new Original Sin]).

Aside from propaganda, and mythologizing, there's also the fact that Fascism has been stripped of any meaning. Most people can't actually define Fascism (Which is especially hilarious when it comes to academic 'experts' like Professor Paxton, who thinks Fascism is contradictory), but are absolutely sure that it's any political system, ideology, philosophy or figure that they don't like. In most contexts, it's actually just a meaningless pejorative.

The good thing is that Fascism has been so demonized that when it comes back, most people won't see it coming. They'll hear the shouts of "Fascist!" from the press and the establishment, but it'll be a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" scenario.

The only thing that can be said at this point, is that anyone with Fascist sympathies or tendencies should listen to the advice of Oswald Mosley. He correctly identified that marching around in uniforms was unhelpful, and recognized that 'the era of Fascism [was] over."

A good bit of the system was calibrated for the realities of the 20th century, and would translate poorly to the 21st. It needs to be tweaked and reinvented so that it can properly combat modern problems.

Eventually, a time will come where a newer version of Fascism will crop up (My guess would be 10-20 years from now).

Good write up. I found this the other day on Sup Forums it's pretty favorable of fascism - but what are the weakpoints here? What are the most likely chinks in the armor that normalfags will hit if this ideology attempts a come-back

>people don't give a shit about traditional values anymore

Wow, it's almost like there's a correlation between that and society falling apart.

I mean it's not like Unwin, for example, has linked the fall of civilizations to the liberation of sexuality.

It's certainly not like we're currently seeing the collapse of the family, which brings all sorts of problems (Promiscuous women, less productive men, the effects of divorce on Children, etc.)

No, thing are fine. Traditional Values are worthless and it's perfectly acceptable that people don't give a shit about them anymore.

...

kek? also what is Unwin? I'm unfamiliar with that.

Easy. There's no competition.

Besides that, the only reason fascists used tradition to gain influence is the same reason that we're so infatuated with it. Tradition is known to be successful.
Not all fascists used tradition though. Those idiots are known as communists.

They're really two sides of the same manipulating coin of state authority.

Honestly i think that when our children are growing up and get to see generation snowflake grow old and die. A generation of decrepit trannies with failing freak bodies.A generation with all social support structures burnt to the ground. No families, no friends, no fuckbuddies left, just empty grinder/tinder inboxes.

I think shit is going to go bananas. WW2 won't even hold a candle to it.

The fascist glorification of war is about competition between states not within states.

No competition? Do you mean between modes of government, or locally no market competition? Because I'm pretty sure there is room for competition in systems short of full on laissez faire capitalism. Good point though on the 'two sides same coin' point. But when looking at it that way even high achievers would want to live in a fascist vs socialist state no? Modern socialist states seem concerned mostly with redistribution which would irk most exceptionally talented people no?

The biggest "chink" to most people would probably be the authoritarianism, or amount of power that would-be Fascists want to put into the hands of the individual.

Fascism is, and needs to be, at least somewhat authoritarian in nature, and that's a tough pitch to make.

Look at how hard Donald Trump got hit as a potential autocrat. People called him a Fascist, too, because they've synonymized Fascism with absolutist autocracy.

Regardless of the reality, though, a lot of people aren't too fond of "strongman" leaders, and prefer ineffective checks and balances. Honestly, I blame the American political culture that's been exported to the rest of the West for that.

Ultranationalism seems like a fairly obvious chink, but that's already gaining a bit of ground. Naturally some people are always going to dislike it, but as the "no borders" crowd gets their way more and more, I think we'll see most people turn, at least somewhat, towards nationalism.

Really, aside from convincing people that we need to reformat political power in a more top-heavy manner, the other two hard pitches are the necessity of gender roles and race realism.

Those two things would be practically impossible in today's political climate. Look at the blowback to a statement like "I want all people to come to America, they just have to come legally."

Thankfully, people care less about small-government idealism, and fantastical delusions about race and gender when times get tough. Once a major economic setback happens (one more like the Great Depression, rather than Great Recession), people will be much more likely to sign on.

Really, whether or not Fascism makes a comeback or not is going to rely entirely on external realities, rather than what you could call "The 'Great Man' Theory of History." Even if you accept that philosophy generally speaking, some of the core tenants, while intellectually defensible, are too unpalatable for modern people.

The guy, J.D. Unwin, was an anthropologist from Oxford (Back when elite institutions has credibility). Essentially, he took a fairly hard look at sexuality and the role of sexuality in civilizations and cultures. He argued, roughly, that societies that liberate themselves sexually go into almost-irreversible decline, due to monogamy channeling natural sexual energies into productivity, through a sort of sexual social contract.

The best stuff of his to look at are:

>Sexual Regulations and Human Behaviour. London: Williams & Norgate ltd., 1933.

>Sex and Culture. London: Oxford University Press, 1934.

>Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behaviour. London: Oxford University Press, 1935.

>Sex Compatibility in Marriage. New York: Rensselaer, 1939.

>Hopousia: Or, The Sexual and Economic Foundations of a New Society, with and introduction by Aldous Huxley. New York: Oskar Piest, 1940.

>"Monogamy as a Condition of Social Energy,” The Hibbert Journal, Vol. XXV, 1927.

A lot of his work hasn't seen anything remotely resembling a proper refutation. Unfortunately, the sexual aspect of Anthropology has been distorted from reality by frauds like Alfred Kinsey.

Because fascism in the countries it was tried led to petty childish warmongering dictators who installed invasive surveillance states taking power who led their countries to ruin in little over a decade

Sup Forums needs to let go of this immature fascination with fascism just because it is ostensibly 'far-right', there are a lot of better governmental systems - even non-democratic ones! - that protect traditional values, social cohesion and encourage productivity while not being fascism

warmonger - Obama/Hilary check
invasive surveillance states - NSA check
did you mean to say modern USA when you said fascism?

While Fascism certainly celebrates militarism and the like, it's somewhat disingenuous to imply that Fascism guarantees warmongering dictators who lead their countries to ruin.

WWII was going to happen regardless of whether or not PNF, NSDAP etc. even existed. This is what I meant earlier by unfair stigmatization due to geopolitical realities.

The "No Borders" crowd and their milieu seems to stem from the rationalization that extreme liberalism is good since it is nice. Fascism and autocrats are thus mean. Is there anything else going on here? Or is it really just framed by a mean vs nice guy paradigm? If so you would be right on that all it takes is a little adversity to swing it back.

What I mean is that there's currently no competition between fascism and the rest of the ideologies because it's been banned from the market by the vested interests. If it weren't, we'd see a fascist country somewhere. Or I'm blind, that's possible too.

Communists seek to control the masses by focusing on their immediate needs, hoping that it will grant them the people's trust and that they will help people exceed all expectations. They genuinely believe that an idiot with a gift for being useless can be propped up to outperform Einstein, as long as you give him enough resources.
Human nature doesn't work that way. We always need some form of struggle, that's why you see SJWs and feminazis. Pampered people with not a worry in the world. When you consider human prehistory, it's simply put unnatural.
So when you collectively take people's resources and keep giving them to people in need, you are removing their incentive to improve himself and you get gangsta niggas with welfare queens.

All of this can only be paid for by those who can provide the resources, so when communists show up on the talented man's doorstep and demand the resources through f.e. tax, they are giving the man a reason not to exploit his talent to the fullest and he will either refuse to use his talents or make sure that nobody can take his resources from him. Worst case scenario is that he can't protect his resources without getting out of the country, thus removing both his resources and his ability to produce them from the state.

Personally, I think you framed it correctly, but I'll admit that it's really hard for me to find justifications and motivators for something that seems so nonsensical.

Just to take a swing at explaining it, I think it comes from the fact that a lot of the "no borders" crowd are fairly young.

If they experienced the Cold War at all, it was at the very end, when all there was to see was the whole "Grand Chessboard" angle.

I think the biggest thing, though, is that these people are used to living in a fairly unipolar world.

These people aren't looking at societal decay or the rise of social alienation in Western Countries. They're, more often than not, economic illiterates (and that's not just a jab at upper-middle class Socialist children). The biggest problems in the world, that they see, are things like climate change, rogue nation states and nuclear proliferation.

If those are the most pressing issues to someone with a fairly naïve view of human nature, and shallow understanding of history, then globalism seems fine, right? All people are the same, we can live together in harmony if we were just 'educated' enough, and the most apparent problems are global in nature and thus require global action.

Other things play into it, too, of course. Race creationism, and technological advancements (being able to befriend, communicate with, and even "date" people from around the world).

Really, though, from what I see (and again, I could be wrong), it just boils down to a lack of adversity. Once there's a major economic setback, another major power rises to actually challenge American dominance, or something else of that nature, most people will start seeing the value of having nations and concentrating political power around them.

It's just a lack of adversity, in my view. I really don't think technology alone is enough to keep globalism afloat currently.

Fair enough, if you want to make that argument, but I wasn't saying fascism necessarily guaranteed a poor dictator, only that it is very apparently extremely vulnerable to one

The cult of militarism is also a problem I have with fascism.

I understand the motivation: Give humans the idea that life is a struggle with honor and real consequences on the line.

My problem is simply that the military should exist for one purpose: To defend the state, not to serve as some moral exemplar for the masses. Modern warfighting is not an environment conducive towards instilling strength in your people. There is no romance left in it. Much of modern warfighting is about killing your enemy before he even knows that you're looking at him. Which is fine - it is brutally effective. But it is by its nature a very unromantic business with very little ideal in it.

I would be much more fond of fascism if it chose some other lofty goal to idealize - I would prefer some struggle against the environment - something like space colonization. A suitable challenge for humanity, at this stage of our development; it doesn't require the glorification and idealization of an institution that idealism only harms and makes less effective (the military); it doesn't encourage leaders to think of petty wasteful wars as glorious exercises in struggle. Biggest problem I can see is that as of right now space colonization affords no route to mass mobilization - it would simply be a mobilization of scientists at this point. But perhaps after a bit of development mass mobilization could be feasible.

Did you skip history class. Germany ruined it for everyone else

>(traditional values/ social cohesion/ productivity from blending central planning with competition)

And in practice fascism lasted less than a decade, less than even communism.

>Why isn't fascism more common throughout modern world?
Its quite simple really. Because fascism's logical conclusion is always, "Them vs Us.". Sup Forums Is a perfect example of this. Once a majority power gets in they tend not to give a shit about the minority.

Fascism IS socialism/communism. Musollino defined it as a bundle of sticks being stronger together. Just has a slightly more authoritarian bent.

The world view is so contorted everything not corporatist socialism is fascism....
I really think that people are looking at it like:
Do we want 4th gen warfare and skirmishing tactics like affirmative action, "lawfare", "multiculturalism" and internal power battles?
Or do we want a kind of Nation as art movement/base of operations, a social pact, separate sand box.

I don't think people are talking about militant fascism. Maybe in a boyscout, Texas ranger, John Wayne type of way. Which isn't the same thing.

It is odd because both fascism and socialism are collectivist. Nationalism in the modern context is just structure, stability, expectation, differentiation, a clique.

>Ctrl+F
>"jews"
>0 results

You fuckers are a real disappointment.

You mean that this is a serious discussion that explores an ideology without rushing towards calamity for once?
Sup Forums needs this.

if x and y are the same then y is x. No reason to use different terms: the reality is that they're different and contradictory, and that's why we use two terms to define them.

Equating militarism with fascism when the most powerful army in human history is American 'democracy'

But I do agree with a need for a national struggle to replace war. Space is obvious but what about just generally becoming more well-read and producing genetically superior offspring - that's open to everyone.

But its da joos who put the 'vs' in there.
No seriously fascism isn't based on us vs them.

Germany took on external adversaries in both the welfare socialists (UK & USA) and soviet socialists (USSR) fought a two front war and literally almost won. Socialist countries implode from within on the reg and that's a testament to their inherent weakness. What am I missing?

Regarding the question of poor dictators, I agree. I was speaking, more so, about what seemed to be an implication that fascism guarantees war. I think a lot of the actions and rhetoric were just tailored for political realities. Mosley, for example, was a Fascist but wanted to prevent WWII.

On poor dictators specifically, though, I agree that there's a massive risk of poor dictators. It's an entirely fair criticism, which is why personally I tend to favor Constitutional Monarchies (Autocrats with some check) driven by ideological Fascism. Either way, I think there's a case to be made that a poor dictator is preferable to an uneducated, politically illiterate public participating in a democracy or republic.

I don't really agree on the point of celebrating militarism, but I do get where you're coming from. Something to consider, though, is that this stuff has been waxing and waning in modern times. There was a period prior to Fascism's celebration of the military, that war, soldiers and the like all became less romanticized. For America it was the Civil War, for Europe it was WWI. Granted, there were outliers, and some people still held romantic notions of the military, but as a whole (especially in literature from the time), war became far less romantic. I'd argue that it made a comeback just prior to WWII, then vanished in Europe, and left America during Vietnam. It seems fairly cyclical to me, and not really tied to the realities of the way war is conducted, but rather, the problems facing the nation. A sort of cultural "referendum" almost, on the cost-benefit angle of relevant (real or hypothetical-but-realistic) conflicts.

Honestly, though, I think something like the SS, just as a cultural force, would be fantastic for the West right now.

On the issue of idealizing space colonization, I completely agree, but it'll be a while before that becomes possible.

I did say

>(((usual suspects)))

earlier.

Solid points - especially the cyclical nature of it all. But seems difference is in the USA there is such a developed media that even Trump's more modest claims were heavily criticized. Seems like developed media is a point of stickiness for the cultural pendulum swinging back in a meaningful way.

Demands of you not being a useless shit, that doesn't fly so well when the majority of people are exactly that.

Muh holocaust basically.

'militarism' does not necessarily mean 'powerful military', it means 'glorification of military and romanticizing war', and it was exactly my point that doing this led to an inefficient military.

The problem with becoming well-read is that it's not really a struggle against anything, and doesn't really require all that much effort. The need is to instill in the population a drive - to teach them the truth of the universe as a place of struggle and the need to advance - to prevent them from falling into petty material comforts and becoming morally decadent and spiritually hollow. 'Read a lot and if you're smart have lots of children' is not really a struggle.

War is a tempting solution to this because it is inherently a deadly struggle with deadly consequences, and something most absolutely everybody can participate in in some way.

My point against militarism (and I say this as a veteran) is that modern warfare is moving in a direction where much of the modern struggle is taken out of it. Which, when you think of the military as a way to preserve and defend the state, makes a lot of sense. War is all about obtaining and maintaining the advantage over your enemy - and when do you have the most advantage over your enemy? When you are locked in brutal struggle with him in a ditch? Or when you can blow him to pieces from half a world away before he even knows you're looking at him? That's the future of war - increasingly remote and automated systems. There's little struggle in that, except for technical engineers to perfect these systems - which is a perfectly fine, worthy struggle, just not one that everyone can participate in.

>Impying our (((democracies))) are not covered autocracies.

The fact that they lost and caused the deaths of millions of people

Intense (((demonization))) for 70 year

You know (((why)))