was he the first fascist?
No he was the first liberal
>>5771105He was not a dictator because parliament was a check against his authority.
>>5771118Parliament was pretty much run by yes men as the dissenters to the New Model Army had been removed in Pride’s Purge of 1648
>>5771140The point is that he was not a dictator because the Protectorate was a republic.
In what way was he first? Globally speaking. He's not even the first "parliamentary" usurper dictator in England, for fuck's sake. Look up Simon de Montfort.
>>5771140There were mutliple elections to Parliament after Pride's Purge and later as Lord Protector Cromwell ruled with a Council of State that he essentially shared power with
>>5771013>he was a dictator>muh fascistgeez with that standard I guess Stalin, Mao and other commies were fascist withouth even knowing
>>5771216well leninist communism is kinda like fascism for the proles, so yeah
>>5771013I really despise Cromwell.
>>5771013No, that'd Qin Shi Huang, at least for the usual definition of "fascism" which isn't really right.
>>5771013No but he was the biggest fag in history.
>>5771013>filling your country with Jewsno, he was the first Brit
>>5771013He loved Jews.
>>5771105Napoleon Bonaparte....Charles V was not a fascist.
>>5772941"Liberal" doesn't just mean socially liberal (which Napoleon wasn't entirely either, since he heavily restricted rights that women were granted during the Revolution), it also means economically and politically liberal, both of which Napoleon most definitely was not.Also, Charles V very violently persecuted Protestants in the Low Countries.
Kind of I guess, although fascism is capitalism in crises. The English Civil war was capitalism "in birth", so I don't really think I'd consider him one.
>>5772958Liberal's a matter of context, anon. Given that, and the dreaming of the 100 days, Napoleon was radically liberal. He'd have had no legacy otherwise, which, I might add, continues to this day. That Charles V was the Pope's heavy in that region doesn't translate into his having been a fascist either.
>>5772985>fascism is capitalism in crisis When will this shitty meme die?
>>5772307t. brian o'connell
>>5773218It literally is. Among every single fascist dictatorship, they have on thing in common: class collaboration to stop communism. Every fascist regime has started in wake of a serious left wing threat to the ruling classes. Liberalism is capitalism when it doesn't have to worry.
>>5773269>The KPD was a serious threat to German bourgeoisie in 1933>The Italian Socialist Party was a serious threat to Italian bourgeoisie in 1922I’ll give you Spain but the others are BS
>>5773269>everything I don't like is capitalism lmaowhat you call "capitalism" is just the state of the world without communism, isn't it?Fascism does exist as a reaction to communism, that much is true. But it's got fuck all in common with liberalism other than the fact it's not communism. All you marxist pseuds should really get it through your thick skulls that there are as many dimensions to politics as there are issues to have stances on.
>>5773282Err, yes, they were. Very much so.>>5773315Capitalism is a market economy where capital is owned privately. So no its not just the "state of the world without communism".
>>5773339>Err, yes, they were. Very much so.wrong
>>5773339>err, yes, I am right. Very much so. Believe my dumb marxist meme
>>5773282>>The KPD was a serious threat to German bourgeoisie in 1933The KPD routinely received >10% of the vote in Interwar Germany, and the whole Spartacus Uprising was pretty scary.>The Italian Socialist Party was a serious threat to Italian bourgeoisie in 1922They won the election, so...
>>5773339>>5773446He's playing a game with you by not dealing with the CPd'I and SPD armed groups respectively.You're playing a game where we have to indulge your ignorance.
>>5773339>Capitalism is a market economy where capital is owned privately.So the system that naturally, separately emerged all over the world, repeatedly, over many millennia? Or are you going to take the argument into abstract legalese and ignore the fact that people taking possession of things and trading them is what happens whenever nobody is consciously trying to intervene?Besides, if you go down the rabbit hole of legalese, fascism doesn't actually respect private property. Everything is communal, the government can take your shit at any second if it determines that it would be better used elsewhere. So there is no private ownership of anything in fascism.
>>5773446The KPD was in the fucking reichstag. If the Communist Party of the USA was elected to the senate, do you not seriously think the Republicans and Democrats wouldn't be getting a bit sweaty?>>5773471No it didn't, because for the majority of humanity, capital was not the main productive force, humans and land were.
>>5773525>for the majority of humanity, capital was not the main productive force, humans and land were.See, this is why nobody takes you retards seriously.This statement is vague (in what way is "land" a "productive force"), inaccurate ("capital" has existed and driven economies ever since people started developing societies larger than the tribal extended family, and even before that in the form of tools, trinkets, etc) and wrong (if you actually try to rigorously model economics you will inevitably arrive at the conclusion that value exists purely on a subjective level, and that drawing hard semantic distinctions between "land", "humans" and "resources" as a "productive force" is simply retarded and completely arbitrary), all at the same time.
>>5773605>vagueMarx's material conception of history is not "vague". Capitalists just saying "dude, capitalism has always existed man" and is just some natural thing when the main distinguishing feature of CAPITALism, CAPITAL, has not always been the dominant mode of production and ignoring that the most dominant mode of production, slavery, has now been replaced by capital, is vague.
>>5771013Is the word tyrant banned or something?
>>5773460How am I ignorant you dumbass?
>>5772307What the fuck did you say boy?
>>5771237>like fascism for anti-fascists yourre stupiod
>>5773872Behold Obaman Fascist-socialist marxist liberalism
>>5773282Although most political scientists position Franco as an authoritarian conservative and not a fascist. There was no bottom-up mass movement in control, the Falange Y Le JONS were tolerated and indeed the only party allowed to exist, but their influence was negligible afaik.>I still love Franco, I just wish that he had fought the Allies. I know he Axis wouldn't let him join, but he should have still launched an attack on the UK.>>5773471Pinkos BTFO!
>>5773666>Marx's material conception of history is not "vague". Capitalists just saying "dude, capitalism has always existed man" and is just some natural thing when the main distinguishing feature of CAPITALism, CAPITAL, has not always been the dominant mode of production and ignoring that the most dominant mode of production, slavery, has now been replaced by capital, is vague.A money based economy is the obvious outcome in any trade based economy and any sufficiently developed society will trade for things they need. No flint here to start fire, but lots of food so let's trade food for flint. Food or flint has intrinsic value which makes them a form of capital when traded. Fiat money is newish, but market based economies have been a thing as long as humans have been sufficiently evolved to be considered humans.Slavery likely comes after the invention of agriculture which is probably after market based economies started being a thing
>>5775338Franco joining the Axis would have been suicide for him, i don't like Franco and i think he betrayed the Falange but not joining the Axis was one of the Good things he did, thats why Hitler didn't like him because he said that he didn't think Hitler could win>I know he Axis wouldn't let him joinWhat makes you think that?