Question for fascists from a marxist

Can anyone provide a good critique of historical materialism? Preferable not a pdf to download, and are there fascist alternatives to hm which argue that nations will eventually become fascist like what hm does to argue nations will eventually become communist? And what is the fascist view of history?

B-bump

I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

>kekistani
Hello r/the_donald
Are you retarded? I'm not trying to "inflitrate" Sup Forums I'm asking a question
>international communist conspiracy
t.brainlet

go back to leftycucks

>fascist has no argument
made me think even leftypol at least answers sincere questions

Want to refute historical materialism? Just explain how heirarchies are natural and trying to eliminate them will only bring about stronger ones.

Fascism is an economic doctrine where corporations run the company it has nothing to do with right wing. Marxism and fascism are just as bad as each other

Corporations run the country***

Materials are subjective value, there is no reason controlling hunan values to subjective value materials.

Fascists organize themselves to human values and not material values.

May not be exactly what you're looking for but worth a read.

Because when the state controls the materials, it wastes them on getting power for itself. You are trading one master for another and the state, once it has absolute control, has no reason to serve you. That's why the best solution is a syndicalist society with capitalism with little to no government oversight outside supporting the worker's right to a wage and share of the companies profits.

Markets are a fundamental outgrowth of self-serving human conduct channeled into peaceful activity. They are nobody's invention. Markets are what arose when banditry and con artistry were sufficiently suppressed. Without force or fraud, people still seek selfish ends, but they must do so in ways that better recurse across the whole of society.

In order to break markets, you must do more than merely breaking chains. You must also exert force sufficient to keep people from peacefully following their own wills. Communism therefore requires the society of drones, and communist eugenics (if such a thing existed) would surely have to create two tiers of man. The lower class would be made too enervated to seek their own benefit (lest initiative injure communism), whereas the upper class would be needed for planning and so would need great planning ability. When would this division of planners and unplanners ever lead to equality?

There is no communist eugenics in the world, and yet where communist ideas hold sway we see that very inclination to break society into the empowered and the weak. The ones who must take care of others, and the ones who must be taken care of.

But this isn't about historical materialism

Just by looking at your picture it's easy to see that two of those things are not like the others. Empires, feudalism and capitalism are all organic, natural solutions to organizing society. They were born out of necessity and circumstance and not only respect, but are molded by the whims of human nature. Meanwhile, socialism and communism are theoretical ideas that some drunk german hobo came up with because he didn't want to work. That's not how civilization works, it's far too complex for your puerile theorizing and scheming.

The real reason "communism" doesnt "work" is because it is designed to grant people power over you, and naterialists have no reason to be srlf sacrificing having put ultimate value in materials

>German
He was a rabi Jew.

Marxism along with Christianity are faith based cons designed for the profit of a party, more so called "socialists".

...

Materialism boils down to having obstacles overcome with technology, from somethung as necessary as a wheel for transportation, to a chair that makes assembly line work easier

Now fuck off back to /leftypol/

Tell me of a "socialist" movement and a "socialist" leader.

The majority are sheep to be abused by a party wgich they continue to support.

So none of you know what hm is? Guess I'll ask on cripplechan's polk. They seem to actually read stuff

Tell of a single "socialist" leader.
, Marxism and Anti Nationalisms natiral conclusion is exploitative profiteering.

>And what is the fascist view of history?
A fascists view of history is that communism works.

Use historical materialism to predict an event and then once the event occurs in the way you say, I'll consider historical materialism as a scientific theory worth refuting. Shoehorning past events onto an overly loose definition of it doesn't count either. Has to be a specific future event that will occur and can only be explained if historical materialism is true.

see

>hat hm does to argue nations will eventually become communist?
Riddle me this. If communism works, then why are there pics from every communist country of shops that looks like this.

>Can anyone provide a good critique of historical materialism?
It is for weaklings, people who are not able to see the fault in humans, but always blame some imaginary, constructed structure. Fuck the weak too death.
btw, would you rather fight 50 small ducks or one 5 meter duck?

See

lol

little rocket man in the background of the painting

i think communism is a good idea. but it requires people in the government to be good people. which just isn't going to happen.

not an argument

AI already control wall street so they may be the new planners, but if blockchain takes off power will become decentralized and the only "planners" will be the free hard of the market.

You didn't answer the question. Would you fight 50 small normal ducks, or one 5 meter duck? And btw, do you believe it is the fault of external structures that some people are not so well off then others, or might it be internal attributes of individuals

Fascism doesn't presume any teleology because it isn't retarded. Marx was a tard who thought teleological concepts were "science." This is because he was a religious nutjob with a middling IQ.

bump

Why are you assuming that "synthesis" is the final one?

>zesty memes
Oh so that's how your progress happens?
>All the people live and labour together
Why should I work if I have nothing to gain from it?
>We'll kill you or deprive you of your privileges then!
How is this different from fascism or slavery now??