Fascism Discussion

Let's have a discussion on Fascism.
Is it Good? Bad? Justifiable? Does America need it? Does America already have it? Is OP a faggot? Are we really the fascists like the left says or are they?

Other urls found in this thread:

ia600504.us.archive.org/28/items/100QuestionsAboutFascism/100-questions-about-fascism-oswald-mosley-2006-politics.pdf
rense.com/general37/char.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

define fascism

Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No

I'm sure there'll be other interpretations, but this is what I think of it.
"political ideology characterized by right-leaning authoritarianism"
In other words, top right of political compass

a society that embraces militarism, xenophobia, authoritarianism, and corporatism.

uh, according to this "right authoritarianism" doesn't exist.

That sounds like Corporatism to me. Explain why that isn't "right-wing" authoritarianism.

Fascism is great if you want to be a part of a forced hivemind of the masses and don't care about freedom.

Is this what a faggot looks like, minus the axe?

T. Social Democrat

The state lies and steals. End of story.

...

personal property exists(hence why it's right-wing)
but the government owns everything(hence why people call it left)

where as w/ communism, they just skip the middleman and just have the govt own everything.

fascism is great because it unitizes a people, thus allowing one nation to pursue one agenda. this makes said country almost unstoppable(source; ww2). it's more "WE need to get it done" rather than "YOU need to get it done".

nationalism/fascism is the way to go imo, but "muh personal liberties" and egocentralism is never going to allow it.

Good point. I don't know if Fascism is good, but we need it to cure our nations of communism/muds. After that, we can do whatever floats our collective boats.

Does anyone else find it "funny" that academia has such a hard time defining fascism? Isn't that because we needed a catch-all ideology to explain the "bad guys" of the second world war? There are clearly profound differences in that era between Germany, Italy, Spain, and even Poland in the mid-late 30's.

...

yet, they did have some very shared ideas that seemed to be unique to that particular era under a certain social, economic, and historical background and distinct from other ideologies in other times.

>fascism unitizes for the greater good!
>we need to exterminate commies and muds

what kind of kool-aid flavor does one need to drink in order to get the masses to act against their own self interest

Indeed. I recommend Pat Buchanan's "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War" to everyone. He makes a wonderful point that people of that era understood that what was going on in Italy and Germany was very different. Mussolini and his government was of a very different character than Hitler's Germany. While they did share a thing or two in common, the thinkers of the time made the distinction.

More or less the mentality of "you cant say no with a gun to the back of your head" and if you do say no, you get killed.

I mean, human life is honestly over-valued in todays society anyway.

It's not hard to 'weed out' the degenerates. And just strike enough fear into those who you forced to obey, and there wouldn't be a problem.

Fascism is the best political ideology a society could adopt. It addresses both sides of the fundamental philosophies that other ideologies build themselves upon. Do we favor the individual, or do we favor the collective?
Libertarian conservative types will say all forms of collectivism are bad. They'll argue for the so called rugged individualism, and say that all of society's ails can be solved by everyone minding their own business. This is violently short sighted. A group of individuals who have no interest in the well being of one another does not make for a strong nation. It doesn't make for any sort of nation whatsoever, because without an understanding of brotherhood there is no sense of duty.
Socialist types will say that the individual is less important than the whole. They use this justification to argue against personal liberties, and justify large welfare states with it, which are paid for with high taxes, or total confiscation of earnings in the case of Commie dictators. The issue here is that society is not a collective, it is not a nebulous intangible organism. It is a collective of individuals.

Fascism at its roots aims for a society of free individuals who have a sense of duty to their nation. The bonds of the Fasces represent the bonds of brotherhood, the shared ancestry, the heritage that must be protected. Without these things in equal parts neither can exist. The individual must be an individual, and the collective must be unassailable as well.

Political ideology cannot fall on a scale with a singular dimension. The very concept of this is in itself a form of brain washing. Being polarized to think of everything in ridiculously simplistic terms is an attempt to thwart critical thinking.

Even having two axis is far too limited. Ideologies encompass individual policies that some people may perceive as learning right or left depending on the given issue. Things are nuanced, not readily quantified down to talking points.

By informing them that it is in the interest of the nation, and in the interest of their children and children's children.

Fascism is bad. Communism is also bad. They both restrict freedom and are cancerous ideologies.

Fascism restricts the freedom of an individual to enrich themselves at the expense of the nation, similar to how any other moral libertarian system would restrict the freedom of an individual to enrich themselves at the expense of another individual (violating the NAP).

fascism is a non word at this point. Nobody have the same definition of it other than "right wing" or "hitler"

>according to this
That's why you don't compare complex political ideologies with a 1 dimensional scale

A state utilizing a free market economy, meritocratic government and highly collectivist / ethnocentric society.

During peace time it's essentially a libertarian society. The whole notion of oppression and lack of free speech is liberal propaganda that has no basis in reality. Examine any fascist state in history and you'll find the citizens had as much personal freedom as we do today. Even more so, considering the political correctness and self-censorship that comes with it.

Also, don't confuse the economy for capitalism. As the name suggests, the goal of capitalism is purely capital. Making money is an end goal in itself.
The government of a capitalist state isn't necessarily concerned as to how that money is distributed, whether the workers are being treated and paid fairly, or if the products, services and business practices of a private corporation is destroying cultural values, causing direct harm to the state or exploiting it's people. As long as it's making money, the economy works. It is only when the workers start protesting in the thousands that the government intervenes, and again - not because it cares about the people but because it's loosing money while the workers aren't working.
This is in stark contrast to fascism, where the end goal is the quality of life of the average citizen. Economic gain is viewed as just one of many tools in achieving that, and profit is often sacrificed to preserve culture and prevent degeneration. Importing migrants for cheap labor, allowing production of pornography or anything of that kind would never be allowed. You're free to start a private business and get rich, as long as you're not doing it at the expense of the state or it's citizens.

It is also heavily opposed to any form of socialism - mainly because it leads to parasitic behavior.

Filename guys.

It's evil

what is the difference between fascism and communism

>free thinking is strictly prohibited.
Good goy. Let Hollywood and leftists tell you what fascism is.

Entry level fascist literature?
The only thing I know about it is what I've read on the internet, which isn't much of any substance.

Marxist communism is anarchist.

Fascism is what happened at U.C Berkeley when the students decided to re-enact battle scenes from "Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes", merely because Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak there.

Francis Parker Yockey - "Imperium" is a good start.
After that anything by Oswald Mosley or Julius Evola

By propagating the notion that fascism equals suppression of free speech you're being just as dumb as them.

This thread was just posted.
Fascism is shit unless you don't care for freedom.

Fascism is good as long as the supreme leader is someone you agree with who knows what he's doing. Unfortunately, you don't have any say in whether he is or isn't. If the first supreme leader is Mussolini, that's great. The economy flourishes and the nation becomes stronger. But the successor could easily be a huge dumbass. You could get fucking Nero and there's nothing anyone would be able to do about it, due to the totalitarian suppression of dissent.

It's always dangerous to have a dictator.

I like to use Churchill as an example for this.
Great during wartime! But the people were smart enough to get him the fuck out as soon as it was over.

That's how we need to view fascism. It has it's times and places! Which is why the two party system is dumb.

Every election becomes between a rock and a hard place. No winners, just losing a little less every time.

is the endgame for humanity that it will run amok and ruin it's civilization over and over every 300 years due to decadence. Do we need an immortal dictator to not implode.

I used to believe that "goodness" is in all people, but that vanished the last 5 years

give me a book or article I can read that describes fascism in this sense.

>>
>During peace time it's essentially a libertarian society. The whole notion of oppression and lack of free speech is liberal propaganda that has no basis in reality. Examine any fascist state in history and you'll find the citizens had as much personal freedom as we do today. Even more so, considering the political correctness and self-censorship that comes with it.
I find it hard to believe that fascism would tolerate liberal values when they openly derided liberals and sometimes sent them away to prisons or graves.

Cheers.

Think of the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

Pestilence
War
Famine
Death

The main natural controls of populations.
We're in line for famine and pestilence if global populations keep rising.
And war is inevitable. Even though the amount of growth vs death is negligible..
We're also doing great and giving Death a big 'ol fuck you these days too. Live expectancy and health in general today is great compared to most of history.

Eugenics may be needed if we want to transition into the future with a minimal amount of suffering. But that's a whole other debate.

The Roman Empire, pick your own literature.

>I find it hard to believe that fascism would tolerate liberal values when they openly derided liberals and sometimes sent them away to prisons or graves.
>they
Who is "they"? Tolerance for opposing views varies from case to case.

>Tolerance for opposing views varies from case to case.
tell me how can you hold this thought and the other idea that fascism doesn't lack free speech. This isn't really free, and even if it's relatively free as today you claim, that doesn't absolve them since today's perception of relative freedom are equally suspect.

Friendly reminder! A serf was just a slave with more freedoms!
Modern low wage workers aren't much different.

My point was that implementations of Fascism varied throughout history. Some of them I approve of, some I do not.

If you go thru this thread you'll see at least 10 posts describing fascism like this This is the stupidity that I'm trying to stop here.

Also, the concept of "free speech" has a shitty name, since there's hardly a country in the world that allows for absolute expression of thought, and this includes the USA. Try publicly advocating for boycott of Jewish products...

Could we agree that what we have (in theory at least) here on Sup Forums is free speech?

Absolutely. I was referring to free speech as implemented by modern states.
I feel what we have here couldn't work in the "real world". For one, consider the implications of allowing people to openly call for violence with no repercussions.

What I was trying to say is that fascism is constantly depicted as absolute repression of anything that slightly deviates from "mandated" opinions.
In reality no such state ever existed. At the very worst they banned a specific political ideology (mostly communism) because it was perceived as extremely dangerous, and with good reason. Remember all the bloody revolutions in Germany prior to Nat-Soc coming to power. This was the political landscape of the era, so it's hardly surprising that communists were despised and silenced.

Consider the following though. In Canada, if I were to go downtown with my soapbox and rant about the shortcomings of my government, I would very likely be hauled away for "inciting hatred and violence" under our hate speech laws.

Fascist aspects are always inherent in most human societies. Key word, human. On paper, in theory, every system works wonderfully. ASSUMING everyone is working with the best intentions of the whole at heart.

And let me ask you. When has that ever been the case?
Hell, even apes in the jungle go to war from time to time. It's in our blood to kill each other!

The question is how do we get to the globalist utopia. Because the how is just as important, if not more so, than the end goal.
Because I'm sure we can all agree, that that communist post scarcity utopia is what we all want! Left or right. But the amount of suffering will be directly linked to the amount of bloodshed. And if we go overboard. Nukes and reset on humanity again. GG, better luck next time.

love this thread!

It failed thanks to USA
faggot

>Fascist aspects are always inherent in most human societies
Interesting that you mentioned this, tho the reason might be the opposite of what you seem to be implying.
What leftists do today is imagine a utopian society and then change people to adapt them to it. Fascism tries to be true to human nature as it is, creating the system around how we do behave, instead of how we perhaps should behave.

It understands we are naturally tribalistic, so it promotes collectivism.
It understands individuals still want their own identity and sense of achievement, so it implements a free market and allows smart and hard working people to rise above their peers.
And it becomes especially evident when you start studying various details, such as the role of women in fascist societies.

>post scarcity utopia
The only way this could ever happen is with genuinely infinite resources.
Otherwise, our expectations will just rise alongside our capabilities to produce.
Give it enough time and the definition of "scarcity" will be not owning a private planet.

I'd argue that resources = electrical power. If we had a abundant stable high output power source, we could mine solar bodies like asteroids and shit if we wanted to.
Again, just a matter of transition and the massive infrastructure cost to put it into place.

Which is where a fascist dictatorship comes in handy!
I get what you were saying. I suppose I came off as implying as the layman's idea of fascism was in my mind at the time.

I'd like for you to consider now, renaissance Italy. What, (at least I, as I'm no history buff. I just watch documentaries and shit) drove the creativity. Each region was basically waving their dicks at each other saying, "Hey, we're better at you than this! We're better than you at that!" And look what it led to.
Same story with the cold war! Although a little scarier in this case. With that whole, "nuclear annihilation thing".
But in both cases, there's a clear national/tribal identity that is driving excellence.

So I ask this. Why is fascism, and I suppose I'll throw Sup Forums in too, so demonized? Who benefits from slandering these things?

>...shit) *think* drove

God damn, I hate typos.

>inb4 Jews

>I'd argue that resources = electrical power. If we had a abundant stable high output power source, we could mine solar bodies like asteroids and shit if we wanted to.
>Again, just a matter of transition and the massive infrastructure cost to put it into place.
True, but you're somewhat missing the point here. You're looking at a futuristic world where we all live in luxury and you conclude that people will be happy. The issue here is that you're considering this from the perspective of today.
You can drown people in luxury, but give it enough time and they'll take it for granted. And then they'll want more.
There will never be a post-scarcity civilization because we'll never be satisfied with what we have.
And don't get me wrong - that's a good thing. This never ending thirst is exactly what drives progress.

>So I ask this. Why is fascism, and I suppose I'll throw Sup Forums in too, so demonized? Who benefits from slandering these things?
You know the answer to that.

You can't demoralize a nation if it's citizens are highly defensive of their cultural values.
You can't abolish nation-states and establish a global government if each individual region is highly ethnocentric.
You can't destroy a people if they're willing to fight you tooth and nail to preserve their own.

Fascism stands against everything that globalists are trying to push.

Here's some Mosley and it is somewhat brief: ia600504.us.archive.org/28/items/100QuestionsAboutFascism/100-questions-about-fascism-oswald-mosley-2006-politics.pdf

Fascism is a necessary stepping stone to secure future of the white race.

I keep adding the suffering and transition for a reason. As that's where the discussion should be.
Not simply pointing out that it's a pipe dream. We can all admit that it's a pipe dream. (If we're not mindless fools that is).
The question really is, how do we take what we have now, in our respective countries, to make that pipe dream a reality? And in such a way that we reduce the amount of human suffering to a minimum.
I'd also argue that competition between the tribes drives progress just as much as the human desire for more. Again, see cold war pissing contest that is NASA vs. the Tsar bomb.
Both convey the same concept. We can destroy a concept. One is just a bit more refined.

The current (((globalist))) agenda, yeah. Won't argue about their methods. Or the backlash it's going to cause.
My money is on 2020 for the ethnic cleansing of Europe to start if something doesn't drastically change soon.
And as some image has pointed out before, whitey has spent the better part of the 20th century thinking up amazing new ways to obliterate one another....
Don't piss off whitey.
Whitey's already getting pissed off.

>destroy a target**

For fucks sake... I really should just go to bed...

I love (You)

national socialists and facists are derivatives of communism, so it must be given helicopter rides by association

>national socialists and facists are derivatives of communism
Wrong.

>competition between the tribes drives progress just as much as the human desire for more
Much more so. A lot more time and effort gets devoted to a project when it's purpose is preventing your destruction, rather then just making more money.
It's an obvious no-brainer, the only question is how can it be done safely - without the risk of actual nuclear annihilation.

>My money is on 2020 for the ethnic cleansing of Europe to start
I don't know if it will get to that point, but it is about to get ugly.
We'll start seeing targeted attacks on migrants before this year is over.

Either way I'm out. It's 7:35 am here and I gotta work.
Nice chat, leaf

The world needs an enlightened despot if it wants to continue on the path of advancement. Western civilization is dying, unless we band together and put one strong man at the helm. Fascism is the way of the future, and we would have seen this sooner if Allies hadn't convinced the world that a bunch of Jews died.

Yeah, I should sleep myself. As it's 2:39 here.
Nice chat indeed. Hopefully some lurkers learned something along the way.

Fascism is pretty shitty given it functions via a heavily Socialist economy but has a conservative social structure. America doesn't have it because PDT would never fucking challenge or get rid of capitalism and he isn't remotely collectivist enough to reach the level of Fascism. Under Fascism, you work side by side to benefit the state so in turn it benefits you, much like how the Soviets practiced. The American left is actually ideologically closer to Fascism in that respect as opposed to the American right. The real enemy is rampant Socialism; because of Socialism we have: Fascism, National Socialism, Communism, Stalinism, the interpretations of Marxism-Leninism from the Cuban revolution, the Juche philosophy that currently rules over North Korea, the degree of Socialism that's damaging China's environment, and probably more travesties. Capitalism is the best answer, with minor restrictions on the market to avoid the compromise of human rights and freedoms, not this government worship that keeps poor people poor, and rich people rich.

I can see how civic authoritarianism can be necessary sometimes but fascism is economically Leftist. There was almost no difference between fascist economies and Bolshevik economies.

Fucking finally, someone who understands.

We need facism for the upcoming automation age. Its absolutely maddening to hear (((liberals))) champion open borders for an uneducated illegal workforce. Whos jobs do you think are going to go first? The white man with his refined trade skills or fucking strawberry pickers? Fascism is the only ideal compatible for the inevitable technologic singularity.

Tl;Dr Were is robo Hitler?

Incorrect. Fascism is supportive of private industry, so as long as it works in national interests.

You are incorrect. Read how Mosley defined it. Fascism believes in free industry as long as the industry works in national interests. ia600504.us.archive.org/28/items/100QuestionsAboutFascism/100-questions-about-fascism-oswald-mosley-2006-politics.pdf

America can't agree enough to reach a fascist state.

The left are authoritarian globalists.
The right are republican nationalists.

Nobody is for authoritarian nationalism, which is what fascism means.

Hell, half the reason I voted for Trump is because he's going to be scrutinized WAY the fuck more than Hillary.

Hillary was the authoritarian candidate. She would have been the fox guarding the henhouse. No checks or balances on her and the media would have applauded all the way to the gas chambers.

That's still leftism, and the fascists took cues from the state socialists of the USSR. Right-wing industry is private and not subject to any government and totally unhindered by regulation. So indeed, free helicopter rides for Fascists and Nazis.

I have a pet hypothesis that Africa will see Fascism take root to counter their economic exploitation by imperialistic powers. I see this as a natural response to rentor states disenfranchising their citizen bodies; they will revolt and attempt to establish nationalist governments with protectionist policies and controlled economies in order to keep their own goods in their markets.

>Right-wing industry is private and not subject to any government and totally unhindered by regulation
Fucking fascists stopping me from selling drugs to children!

Fascism is a necessary tool for the time being. It's how you're going to be able to give helicopter rides. Read the Mosley I linked. It isn't bolshevism or Marxism.

It came from those philosophies, the true solution is Capitalism.

Money and money alone is not a key to happy societies. Markets should be free, but not at the expense of the people.

>Define fascism

It's based mainly on two things:

Appeal to collectivism: The philosophy of "Us" against the "enemy" and indirect state control of the economy. If you have these two, you have fascism.

Now, there are a few variations, much like flavors of hamburgers, but in the end it's all bread, meat and bread.

Good to notice that being a liberal does not mean the same thing in the rest of the world, by american standards.

Markets also shouldn't be completely controlled by a government, the state doesn't get to decide what's good for the people.

>Markets should be free
>Markets also shouldn't be completely controlled by a government
I'm glad you two came to an agreement.

If this is some kind of way of saying he's agreeing with me then I wanna point out Fascism dictates and controls the markets.

When spoken about by Fascists and Nationalists, Socialism seems to describe a meritocracy rather than the leftists "autogestion" style ideal.

Oy vey BAD GOY! You are not suppose to wake up to that important distinction! Its like another shoah

rense.com/general37/char.htm

you are fascist depending on how you lean/if you're inclined to think papa Trump is a good guy

fasicm is:
Hierarchical
Nationalistic
Anti-egalitarian
Anti-democratic
Not anti-religious
Pro-nature
Anti-globalist
Anti-semitic
And thus not leftist, its the third way

That's the social aspect retard, the economic system is still very leftarded.

A merger of corporation and state is not really leftist. Private property and private business are still alowed to exist, only those that benefit the nation however. Your retarded system uses the countries resources to turn your citizens in consumerist slaves, and ship the profit overseas

>Anti-semitic
Anti-Jewish domination.

It is leftism because the industries in market may be private, but it isn't free. The state decides how the market is run under Fascism, the state will shut your private business down if you're not providing for the collective goal. The left-wing prizes the state and collectivism, and Fascism embodies both. You have to pay a shitload of taxes to cover welfare and national healthcare under Fascism, and only Socialist boot-lickers and American college fags think that's a good idea. Meanwhile the American system is corrupt because of the American left, which made conducting business in the states too expensive through it's heavy market control. It wouldn't be that way if the Fascist Democrats didn't have so much power pre and post G.W.B. and actively forced those companies to ship overseas.

Do you think Fascism could've worked, Sup Forums?

Honest.

You need to take a step back and stop blindly regurgitating the Libertardian rhetoric. Framing every single thing in a left vs right paradigm is a symptom of indoctrination.

All of America's problems are not the responsibility of the left. The right in this country has been full of sell outs for well over 100 years. As a matter of fact it goes back even further than that. Not long after the we had won our independence some brilliant statesmen decided to shit all over the 1st amendment and pass a law making it illegal to criticize the government. Our history is filled with examples of this. It is not left vs right. All right leaning politicians are not virtuous freedom loving saints.

Libertarians are entirely detached from reality. Your ideology is incapable of producing any sort of functioning society. Individuals are not islands unto themselves. There must always be some degree of cohesion underpinning law, without it there would be nothing but dispersed tribes. You would have a way of life similar to the uncivilized and base Native American.
Certain industries working for the state is only a matter of semantics in regulation. All regulation is not inherently left, and some government oversight is always necessary because a mythical "free market" would not provide it.

If you think a nation can exist in any form without a government(the state) then you are far crazier than the most batshit SJW Commie.

Fascism would have kept the developed world white.
That is something that so called Democracy sure didn't do, more so it never would have had any intention of doing so.
This is the key factor that Libertarian cucks are incapable of understanding.

They'll revolt and devolve into warlords and tribes, like they do now and like they always do. They do not have the capacity for anything else.

10/10 post tbqh. The constant harping about right vs left in political discussion is fucking obnoxious. Saved for the next time some roadless faggot wants to start shit
Have a (You)

When your country is being over take by genocidal commies, a little bit of fascism is okay, just a little to restore order and preserve freedom for future generations.

hur dur America is already fascist, dummy. Fascism is the model of empire where you allow newly conquered lands to operate with virtual autonomy and only lay a tax burden on them, leaving them to their own culture.

What the hell do you think a federal government is? Why the hell do you think you have the Fascia in your house of congress (or the senate?? I don't know. Shut up and pay attention.)??

Do you mean national socialism? Because that's what those other retards were doing. They didn't even have an empire, so it's kind of hard to call them Fascists.. You know, since you kind of need more than one nation under your yoke.

We have an empire. You know, those fifty states we command? Germany was full of cities and towns, not fucking states. Same with the rest.

Read a damn book. What kind of millennial political shit is in that damn head of yours?

Fascism is syncretic. Capitalism and Communism are two sides of the same Jewish coin. Fascism, or National Socialism, seeks to bridge the damage the cancer has done to society.

this!
Pinochet is literally the best option when you have commies destroying the country.
Pinochet did a plebiscite and the 2 time he lost, and the left the power. Such a great man!
Mi General es el Libertador de Chile

Are we really the fascists like the left says or are they?

Yes you are

a fascist dictatorship is established when a "fascist minimum" of traits appear: antisocialism, antiliberalism, leader principle, corporativist ideology and organization, political military, reactionary goal combined with modern means of mass mobilization, and supporting capitalistic economic system with retaining demands for the totality in political mattters

The initiation of the use of force is immoral
Does that answer your questions? Because it kinda does