ANARCHO-FASCISM: The Marxist Theory Of The Right

At first glance anarcho-fascism sounds like a heavy contradiction, so I'll explain that part first.

Anarcho-Fascism is the belief that fascism is necessary to bring about a truly free society. It's literally the Futurama quote "We will show the world our peaceful ways - by force": The Ideology.

Anyways,

Marxism believes in Dialectical Materialism, which basically asserts that economic relations condition all other actions in society; and so, any capitalist society will inevitably follow this chain of events:

> Separation of society into bourgeoisie and proletariat
> monopolization of capitalists and elimination of middle class
> development of lumpenproletariat
> growing class consciousness
> spontaneous socialist revolution
> dissolution of private property
> temporary dictatorship of the proletariat
> abolition of bourgeois state
> utopian communism

I believe that Anarcho-Fascism follows a similar pattern, and like how Marxism uses Socialism to lead into a Communist utopia, Anarcho-Fascism uses Fascism to lead into an Anarchist/An-Cap utopia, as follows:

Ideas of freedom condition all other aspects of society
> Separation of society into Anarchists and Non-Anarchists
> Erosion of freedom and consolidation of power by Globalists
> Growing "class" consciousness (marxist/globalists vs. average citizen compared by individual autonomy)
> spontaneous "fascist"/"anarchist" revolution
> disassembly of perceived marxist/globalist threat
> temporary dictatorship of the 'proletariat' (fascist leader that represents the values of the nations' people)
> abolition of oppressive globalist governance and forced removal of those incompatible with freedom (shitskins, kike bolsheviks, etc
> utopian Anarchism/Anarcho-Cap society

Basically replacing the unworkable concept of unified class cooperation with the slightly-more-believable concept of nationalism and freedom-appreciating citizens

this has serious meme potential, hop on while the train is still in the station

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0VXOZeuB03Y
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Just here to say that any kind of Anarchism will be Fascistic because nature is cruel and violent and so are we.

fascism, by the very definition, consists in valuing the group more than the individuals it's made of

anarchism, by the very definition, consists in the exact opposite

which is why there cannot be such a thing as anarcho-fascism, or anarcho-communism (the latter at most being a fucktarded subset of the fucktarder former, if not pretty much the same shit)

There cannot be an ideology of anarcho-fascism or anarcho-communism, but in practice a society that degenerates into anarchism, whether by design or not, will end up as several balkanized fascistic societies, after all the wars are done.

That's the thing though, AF is the only kind of anarchism that could hope to exist in the first place because its transition of power would include an absolute government

no other form of anarchism has a plan of how to enforce a regime change, and is therefore doomed to fail

as for during the anarchist utopia phase, original dissidents would be weeded out during the fascist phase, and because of this the anarchist utopia would be more likely to survive long-term

Fascism in this context would be used as a means to an end, because anarchism is unable to simply "exist", like that of the socialist phase of Marxism.

the Fascist aspects of the whole being worth more than the sum or its parts is in essence "alone we have no freedom, but we can come together and claim freedom for ourselves"

The ultimate goal of Fascism in this form would no longer be the ideal of a perfect state, but rather the ideal of a perfect absence of state

Stop being retarded. Fascism requires a strict hierarchy. They best you could hope for is Fascism with a good bill of rights and fair labour court

The Fascist regime isn't there to run the people forever, it exists in flux to ensure that those who threaten the freedom of the "proletariat" are dealt with before the transition of a stateless society

It is for the reason of it's practical capability that all rebels are closet aristocrats, because they deviate back to the basic, right-wing, successful, and hierarchical body politic model.

As Mussolini said, "Every revolutionary turns inevitably into a conservative once he successfully establish his utopia, a dictator lies inside every anarchist."

would mussolini draw comic strips if he were alive today

Well first of all the fact that there is an absolute govt at any point, already nulls the 'anarcho' part of the ideology. It will be simple fascism, with what end goal? To decentralize and disband all government entities after those who want a govt will be weeded out?
And what happens then? We have the very same problem that any anarchist society has. Me and my 50 friends get guns and start taking over clay, define borders, and begin self determination on whatever base we chose, whether it is religious, racial, cultural or just plain geographical. Nobody can stop us unless they also organize at least as well as we did, and voila, you have two non anarchistic entities fighting each other, organizing govts, well on their way to establish two proper nations.
Secondly anarchists do have a good idea of how to enforce a regime change - you destroy all government entities and let the individual self govern.

Unless you kill all other people on earth there will still be enemies. Stateless societies just hand the initiative of force to other people and will result if a form of feudalism ran by corporations.

societies are fascist by definition
they don't degenerate into anarchism
at most, societies shrink, while anarchy expands, and vice versa

>anarchism is unable to simply "exist"
we live under de facto limp anarchy most of the time
the baker doesn't need society not to thrown nails in his cakes
same as most people don't need society not to shit where they eat
and in the rare occasions where you may need the state, like calling the cops, it's not like the state is of any use anyway, 99.999...% of the time

>Fascism in this form would no longer be the ideal of a perfect state, but rather the ideal of a perfect absence of state
yeah, sure
it's not like gazing into an abyss ever leads to the abyss gazing into you anyway

there's a simple solution to this paradox, though
just be an anarchist aristocrat
which is simple enough
you don't get successful waiting for nanny state to wipe your ass, after all

yeah, that's inevitably the biggest critique possible

for the record, I'm not anarchist/ancap, I'm just trying to plot out this line of thinking and tie it to dialectical process
I want more critiques, that's why I posted it here instead of changing my facebook profile picture to a fasces and calling myself a free citizen

>anarchism is unable to simply "exist"
I misspoke, I meant more along the lines of anarchism is unable to simply come into existence, grow, and remain unchallenged by existing forms of government

>it's not like gazing into an abyss ever leads to the abyss gazing into you anyway
also a good critique, but not one that doesn't also exist for every other form of government

>a form of feudalism ran by corporations.
as long as those security corps don't get a total monopoly on a given territory, and if I can start my own one...
I'd like that much more than actual states
then again, I'm ancap (obvsly)

Well that's what I meant, I simply include the original collective of people in the category of a society even after anarchism is enacted and the society is non functional, but you could also say that societies shrink, while anarchy expands, and vice versa.
Still doesn't change the point - when anarchy will expand, a society will always form to fill in the void.

Really, AF isn't a prescription for the ideal anarchist society, it mostly just follows the rules of an-cap - it's more concerned with how that anarchist utopia comes into existence

only if it made him look stronk

But why is op's pic trash?

Fair enough. This thread is actually about politics so its 10/10. I find that all these anarchist policies are only good in theory, similar to socialism. I have the same view of free trade.

anarcho-anything is a meme ideology and if you legit consider yourself to be an an-whatever, please kill yourself

Unsustainability is basically the biggest objective critique of Anarchism, imo.
If you have to enforce Anarchism you will need a coercion method, which is usually very close to a state in the end of the day.
If you do not enforce Anarchism, me and my 50 friends will create a state because we want and need it for various reasons.

>anarchism is unable to simply come into existence, grow, and remain unchallenged by existing forms of government
just as governments are unable to remain unchallenged by anarchy
that's an unstable equilibrium

well, at least until we get space colonies far enough from central authority, and robot armies
then the balance may change

I can score anywhere on the right side of the political compass depending on how I take the quiz, but I believe that 90% of the time anarchists are morally justified

it was the only one I could find on the first page of google images, plus I saw it about a week ago so I was hoping it would have some meme potential and attract some shitposters to keep the thread bumped :^)

Maybe you give individuality more worth than it deserves, when compered to the group?
Could you expand on why you think that they are morally justified?

youtube.com/watch?v=0VXOZeuB03Y
They will just use their capital to undercut your business. How exactly will a state prevent a monopoly when corporations are more powerful than them.

I think that regardless of the consequences, it is almost never acceptable to force another person into doing something, either by force or by democratic process

Obviously this doesn't work in the real world and would cause untold harm to modern society, but morally I believe them to be in the right

then those security corps become states, by definition
that's after all precisely how states came to be
which is why I named my conditions for prefering private security to states:
>as long as those security corps don't get a total monopoly on a given territory, and if I can start my own one

which takes a playing field large enough to be stable, and/or very cheap ways of retaliating very bad
which is why space exploration with easy to get armed robots would be a cool time to be alive for any anarchist worthy of this name

But how can something that will severely harm society, including the very same individuals that you pity for being forced to comply with the group, can be morally justified?
And if for example individuals are forced, via threat of imprisonment or execution, to avoid hurting other individuals on a whim, is it still immoral? I know that the greater good is a redundant term, but is there no place for a balance between the freedom of the individual and the well being of all individuals?

Try again OP.

I don't think that the moral justness of an action depends completely on whether or not that particular action in that particular context would be good or bad, but whether or not that rule restricting or enabling that action being always followed would maximize the amount of goodness.

As for "forced... to avoid hurting other individuals on a whim" I that's one of the occasions that I believe it may be justified, depending on the circumstances. The non-aggression principle is a good reference for that kind of situation, and if followed it acts as a kind of threat in itself

National-Anarchism was called anarcho-fascism by it's left wing detractors.

...

a meme like this was what got me interested in the subject in the first place

>it is almost never acceptable to force another person into doing something
there's only one case where it's acceptable
answering to uncalled for aggression

that's as far as the non aggression principle goes
you don't start wrecking shit

if you do, you forfeit any claim to the benefits of the three elementary natural rights, ie self ownership, material ownership (only an extent of the other kind), and non aggression principle

>untold harm to modern society
not necessarily a bad thing, depending on the outcome

>how can something that will severely harm society, including the very same individuals that you pity for being forced to comply with the group, can be morally justified?
easy: if the outcome leads to more freedom
freedom isn't always easy or great
it just always is better than the lack thereof

>if for example individuals are forced, via threat of imprisonment or execution, to avoid hurting other individuals on a whim, is it still immoral?
you're mistaking coercion for constraint

no one can be forced not to wreck shit
of course, if you do, you can expect consequences to never be the same

ie coercion can't prevent anything, but it still can (and should) happen as an answer (to certain things)

here's your balance.

oc

saved for when I inevitably remake this thread during peak hours :^)

Plebs here's my OC

...

holy shit this is fucking fantastic

>2017
>burgers still have no idea of what fascism is about and attach it to any retarded ideology they can find

Thanks

>most jewish economic ideology ever
>fascist

kek i literally thought about this 30 min before reading the thread.

Anarchy on its own cant work but will be the ultimate endgame of fascism.

After only good smart Supermenschen are left there will be no need for goverment.

>February
>Spaghettis still don't read the OP or the posts that followed

AF uses fascism as the means to an end with ancap being the ultimate goal which is proposed to most benefit the nation

it isn't fascism, it's a system of initiating post-fascism

>fascist leader
how do we pick him?

We don't, he picks himself.

so what if he refuses to step down afterwards?

whoever was most influential in the revolutionary period and is the most ideologically sound will naturally rise to the top

what if someone or a group of people disagrees with his rise?

revolution pt. II

also fuck these captchas, shit takes like 30 seconds to finish now shit wants me to select 9 tiles 3 times in a row fuck this

you pike his self

>implying there will be an afterwards
It will take generations to implement ancapism, and Fascism should naturally lead to it, so it's not a problem.

the revolution continues, but ideally any such faction would realize that the leaders' rule would be temporary and so ideologically similar to their own that they wouldn't bother continuing

worst case scenario, night of the long knives II

anons you're just describing authoritarian rule, so far there is zero "anarcho" about any of this

>"ideally"
>"hopefully"
>"revolution until we get it"

>there is zero anarcho about any of this
there's tons of it after the fascism

it's a transient form of government, much like socialism is the mid-ground between a capitalist government and a communist utopia

I did read the OP, and you have indeed no fucking idea of what fascism is. There can be no separation of a fascist society in anarchists and globalists, it makes no sense as everyone is working solely for the interest of their own people and country. Also, classes will inevitably rise again after being "removed", it happened every single time they tried it throughout history.

but socialism never even approached anything resembling textbook communism. It replaced tsarist elites with commie elites

what is the guarantee this fascism will actively work against itself for generations until anarchism?

I'm not describing or condoning any authoritarian leader concept.
I for one am ancap: the moment a leader rises, what I'm interested in is his fall.

At most, I may agree on working with authoritarians.
But working for them? Letting them rule my home and life?
lolno.

Anarcho Capitalism is unsustainable

In a world without a state, those that consolidate their power will be more powerful than those that don't

Communities will rise and fight for an expansion of their resources and in the end we'll end up with the same thing we have today

>I'd like that much more than actual states

They would become states
It would be a repeat of history

4 words
space exploration
robot armies

then ancapism will simply be inevitable

what a very realistic solution to this problem

already answered (that which was blessed by Kek):

I've always said the same thing. At every point in human history society has been controlled by a small group of the most skilled (through money or power or violence or a mix of these)

you can attach all the -isms you want to it, in the end unless you want to live in a secluded mountain hut hunting rabbits for all your life, you will have a leader and you will follow orders and you will pay taxes

>b-b-b-but I want it now, mommy
no wonder you're a statist.

because socialism and communism are absent of economic incentive while fascism works on the principle of mixed economy and ancap sustains itself on profit motive

>there can be no separation of a fascist society in anarchists and globalists
I guess those terms are flawed in themselves, the real division is found in how groups view their freedom, and while I was writing this I found anarchist and globalist to be the most extreme terms.

Those who value their freedom above all will side with each other as one as a revolutionary force against the "globalists" after a certain breaking point of globalist overreach (either restriction of freedoms outright or the mass importation of those who do not share similar ideas of freedom into a democratic society and are a threat to freedom through democratic process)
I agree that classes will inevitably rise again during the fascist period, but will become irrelevant in the anarchic period. That's why the transient government HAS to be fascist in order to succeed, as opposed to socialist or direct transition to anarchism, to deal with threats to the nation. They don't have to holocaust everyone, but dissidents have to be dealt with somehow

>> temporary dictatorship of the 'proletariat' (fascist leader that represents the values of the nations' people)

That's where it gets derailed into regular tyranny.

>because socialism and communism are absent of economic incentive
go ahead and google some Communist leader residences to see that absence of economic incentive

the best thing we can do is realize that Constitutional Federal Republicanism is the best form of government we know of
Then we can find out what the optimal Constitution is to be used to increase happiness, prosperity and decrease corruption and tyranny

you're not making any arguments

your entire ideology is based on something you don't even know will happen

it's like being a transhumanist and going
>"it's ok, the singularity will fix it"

it's a pipedream

>anarcho-fascism

Damn I was going to post this

>Communist leader
I mean the citizens dingus
when you work 48 hours a day at the missile factory and receive the same pay as your comrade at the ice cream tasting facility next door you get something called economic disenfranchisement

>bodies on balls
Back to facebook laddo

as an Eastern Euro I can tell you for a fact that if you ask those workers now, a good 75% will kill you to get that "disenfranchisement" back so they can stop worrying about their bills and where to buy food from

and no I'm not defending socialism just introducing some perspective

what the hell is lightning ball supposed to be

>the ice cream tasting facility
I hate to disappoint you user but I do not think these things exist.

I don't base my beliefs on just that
it just is one of the things able to shift the balance in the statism vs anarchy cycles
nothing more, nothing less
may indeed happen or not

whether it happens, I still think anarchy (actual anarchy, ie anarcapy, not communist """anarchy""", or fascist """anarchy""") to be the most desirable
what I base this on?
I at least genuinely appreciate a few individuals, while I can't say as much of the groups made out of them, ie societies

What makes you believe that there won't be any (relevant) social or economic classes in an ancap society? That's the kind of society where classes were born in the first place, those who are able to produce/own more will inevitably have more power and the cycle will start again.

Got that from an ancap thread and I don't have a Facebook m8

Jews should not voice their opinion on politics

and how can you ensure that anarchy is sustained without a state

Put the meme in an envelope and send it back to them then.

Sort of on topic; does anyone have a hi-res version of this?

Through syndicates. It only exists within other economic structures and is the reason why AnCaps are fucking retarded.

>syndicates

that's just another word for "state"

technological progress, whichever achieves it, makes people busy enough to dephase them from the hivemind
little by little, it erodes the group
then, anarchy becomes self evident enough for states to fall by themselves

Yes but it's a small state compared to a big state.

>m-m-m-micro-sstates are completely different from macro-states, guys
>c-c-c-come on, erryone together with us!

>technological progress, whichever achieves it, makes people busy enough to dephase them from the hivemind
>little by little, it erodes the group

this is complete conjecture and again a pipedream

you're not realistic in your ideology

yes, but it's still a state, so my original point still stands that anarchy in any form is unsustainable

A syndicate is voluntary where a state is mandatory.

Gotta love Kelsi
dat ass

>Meme train is still in station
Yes hello I would like to purchase a ticket please

>That's the kind of society where classes were born in the first place

those societies of the past didn't have a culture of anti-statism, and had often been exploited so heavily in the past by feudalism and subsequently early industrialism that any improvement over the previous system was accepted without thought, as per hegelian dialectics. thesis + antithesis = conflict => synthesis, and the original thesis is never returned to without the negation of the previous antithesis.

In an ancap society, any "classes" or similar divisions would be entirely natural and free of deception or previous bias, which means most relations should be voluntary and non-exploitative

Eventually yes, those who can produce/own more will have more power, but the culture of anti-statism will keep it from advancing past anything but a monopoly. Yes, monopolies are inherently exploitative, but are not illegitimate

In my opinion Anti-Trust agreements are important for a minarchist government, but I honestly have no idea where they would fit in an anarchistic society with nobody to enforce them.

>complete conjecture and again a pipedream
yeah, you're right
better force people to be free than let them find a reason to be
it'll sure show them...

The jew gets it.

>yes, but it's still a state, so my original point still stands that anarchy in any form is unsustainable
Give me a second to type out a hypothetical on why I believe it will work.

She's cute. I can't get enough of her or Abby Lee Brazil.

that's not an argument

not for a hiveminding insect, indeed