[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/lit/ - Literature


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




Trying to expand my knowledge of different political ideologies. Where do I start with fascist literature, if there is any? Thinking of italian fascism, obviously
>>
>>20571830
Pointless because fascism regularly changed its core ideological positions on economics, the compatibility of Jews in Italian society, and the compatibility of the monarchy with fascism. All Giovanni Gentile and fascist "theorists" ever did was use Hegel to justify an all-powerful state which could then proceed to wildly change its stances depending on the circumstances.
>>
>>20571830
There unironically are no political ideologies. I love Plato but the biggest mistake of Western civilization is the idea that you can make society better just by theorizing.
>>
Heidegger
>>
>>20571849
Still worth reading Doctrine of Fascism as it's very short and to the point.
>>
>>20571830
How i be lookin at the crust ass “classical fascist” about to tell me race didn’t matter to Mussolini because of one out of context quote
>>
>>20571830
>Where do I start with fascist literature, if there is any?
It wasn't a very literary movement.

A history of fascism by Stanley Payne is good.
>>
>>20571849
Why don't people ever use this argument for commie dictatorships? Those aren't the slightest bit more consistent.
>>
>>20571830
The trash. That’s where it’s put
>>
>>20571927
This, just so much this. Take my updoot, kind stranger.
>>
>>20571920
Communist regimes have certainly been inconsistent in their policies but individual theorists have tried to create coherent systems, regardless of how flawed those systems might be. There aren't people inventing new fascist theories because fascism has not persisted in the way that Marxism nor does it have a particularly intellectual/academic focus.
>>20571943
Shut up faggot
>>
>>
>>20571992
Fascism is just progressive(in the actual sense, not drag queen story hour progressive) nationalism that will take on different characteristics for each nation. It’s really simple as.
>>
>>20572008
moron
>>
>>20571992
>Communist regimes have certainly been inconsistent in their policies but individual theorists have tried to create coherent systems, regardless of how flawed those systems might be.
How is this any different than comparing the thought of Gentile in Italy, Primo de Rivera in Spain, Feder in Germany, Codreanu in Romania, etc? Any criticism or defense you could make of communism could equally be applied to fascism.
>>
>>20571992
You sound really attached to semantics and authority. Orthodox marxism does not exist anymore, either, if you tried to show Marx post-60s french theory he'd tell you to shove it up your bougie ass. And comparing an ideology that existed since the 1860s with an ideology that was forged in the wake of WW1, is often considered a marxist heresy, and got effectively the most outlawed ideology in existence after 1945 is quite dishonest.
>>
>>20572020
Prove me wrong. Both NS and Italian Fascism were futurist. Fascism is inherently progressive.
>>
>>20572028
>and got effectively
*and became effectively
>>
>>20572024
My point was not that the different varieties of fascism contradict each other but that the original Italian variant regularly changed its key ideological positions multiple times during Mussolini's 23 years in power. I'm not advocating for Marxism and do not think that their theories have much to offer, I'm just saying that there is a greater emphasis on developing complex academic systems in Marxism.
>>
>>20572036
If you want to describe anything modernist as progressive then go ahead.
>>20572028
French 68-er theory is not the totality of current Marxism and yes almost every form of Marxism today has some differences from orthodox Marxism. All I'm trying to say is that Marxists try to present their ideas as these systematic theories while that same emphasis does not exist in fascism.
>>
>>20572039
Right, and I think the original point of the response was that any single communist regime you could point to similarly changed its key ideological positions over the course of its existence. Italy was no more egregious in its ideological flexibility than China or Russia, or the US for that matter. I don't think you could point to a single regime in modern history that stuck exactly to the same positions over time like they were stone commandments. I think that is a very silly criticism to try to use to say that a particular regime was devoid of any guiding theory. Frankly I think the falseness of your post is self-evident, that nearly everyone everywhere regardless of belief can agree that the theories and implementations of Mussolini and Gentile were fascism means that there is clearly something there.
>>
>>20572053
>All I'm trying to say is that Marxists try to present their ideas as these systematic theories while that same emphasis does not exist in fascism.

You're just dishonest. Even if someone did say anything to the contrary you'd just handwave it all away because you're so attached to your particular concept of systemacity and the authority of academia that you only consider legitimate that which you think you are allowed to consider legitimate by the people to whose intellectual authority you chain yourself to.
>>
>>20572083
Well fascism did have some consistent positions over time (Italian nationalism, glorification of the military, Mussolini is always right) but it didn't just change slightly, it changed on very major issues depending on external circumstances. I don't see any value in reviving fascism as a basis for anything constructive today. Leaving aside its well-deserved negative connotations (which cannot be separated from its ideas just as Marxism cannot be separated from its real world failures but excluding that for the sake of argument), there simply isn't a lot of intellectual substance there beyond Hegelian statism. There are much better sources for right-wing thought than Gentile and the like.
>>
>>20572090
Retard. I am not by any means suggesting that these academics are valuable or correct about anything. I'm pointing out that fascism lacks an academic/theoretical side in the way that Marxism has one. I think that both are in error as well as mainstream liberalism.
>>
>>20571830
read all of d'annuzio's works, he was a nice writer. from there idk
>>
>>20572107
>I am not by any means suggesting that these academics are valuable or correct about anything. I'm pointing out that fascism lacks an academic/theoretical side in the way that Marxism has one
that's because fascism is fundamentally Marxist or at least Hegelian. You can literally get the main idea of national socialism by just replacing the word "bourgeois" with "jew' in the communist manifesto.
>>
Skip to the later thematic chapters once you get the gist of the first 100~ pages
>>
>>20572133
Every variety of fascism is fundamentally anti-Marxist and did not disturb private property. That's why the traditional conservatives in Germany and Italy brought their respective fascist movements to power: to preserve their property and status against the threat of communism.
>>
>>20572100
Sure I'm not advocating support for some verbatim revival of 20th century fascism, just taking issue with the idea that fascism was completely devoid of ideology, as if somewhere like China wasn't similarly shifting policies like the wind. Personally I think the vitalism that fascism touches on is really the important part, the overt statism and overall modernism (that I think another poster in this thread called "progressivism") is a bit too 20th century and trying to revive anything from the 20th century verbatim is silly. Ironically it seems like most "fascists" online are really just vitalists who rarely bring up any of the hyper-modernist Hegelianism you find in the actual writings of someone like Gentile. Nevermind when you start getting into Syndicalists like Primo de Rivera. The real problem is that liberalism has evolved out of the 20th century while the left and right have not. Marxism and Fascism are both dead, and if "Marxists" or "Fascists" have any hope of ever standing a chance power they're going to need to come up with something that is as 21st century as the ruling liberalism of the West currently is.
>>
>>20572142
>Every variety of fascism is fundamentally anti-Marxist and did not disturb private property
there are tons of marxists that only tax private property without controlling it, this is basically modern society. Marxists are people that understand the development of history through certain dialectical methods, namely materialism.

>to preserve their property and status against the threat of communism.
Right, but all forms of fascism still believe there is some sort of injustice, usually material or biological, due to alien elements that are illegitimately ruling in some way.

Compare this to things like conservatism, liberalism, traditionalism, etc, where hierarchy is seen as part of the world.
>>
>>20572170
OK I think this really gets to the heart of the dispute. My personal preference is for something more statist and modernist while most who take inspiration from fascism now have a more transcendent/spiritual worldview.
>>20572188
I wouldn't consider taxing property to be Marxism and fascists do accept hierarchy (particularly with the top leader and in the military) even if they do have a lot of egalitarian themes in their propaganda.
>>
>>20572142
>fundamentally anti-Marxist
Nothing wrong with that
>not disturb private property
Along with Yugoslavia and the CNT, the Italian Social Republic were among the only political projects that socialized production. unlike the USSR where state capitalism was at its peak, with the soviet nomenklatura maintaining the bilateral labor relations.
> traditional conservatives in Germany and Italy brought their respective fascist movements to power
That is called doing politics. under that logic of yours it would have to say that Lenin was a German agent.
>>
>>20571830
>The fact is that as a young man Mussolini accepted all the essential theoretical and interpretive propositions of Marx. His published writings between 1902 and 1914 contain innumerable references to Marx and only seven allusions to Babeuf and eight to Proudhon. Both his published writings and what we can reconstruct of his reading during this period indicate a preoccupation with the ideas of Marx that far exceeds any concern he had for other thinkers. Mussolini's point of departure was unquestionably Marx. No adequate reconstruction of his thought is possible if that fixed point is neglected. Not only was he a convinced Marxist, he was a knowledgeable one as well. His published writings contain regular references to the works of Marx and Engels. He specifically refers to every major piece of Marx's published writings available at that time. He alludes to Marx's writings in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, the "Theses on Feuerbach," "Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right," A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, The Class Struggles in France, as well as Capital and the Communist Manifesto. In a number of places he not only alludes to The Poverty of Philosophy, but provides extensive quotations as well. He also provides quotations from the Contributions to the Critique of Political Economy, the Marx-Engels correspondence, Marx's articles in the New York Tribune, and the Communist Manifesto. There are references to Engels' The Conditions of the Working Class in England in 1845, quotations from the Anti-Duhring, and Engels' famous introduction to Marx's Class Struggles in France. He was not only familiar with the most important Marxist authors of the period, including Karl Kautsky and Wilhelm Liebknecht, some of whose work he translated, but he had read the works of theoreticians such as G. Plekhanov and Rosa Luxemburg, and Marx critics such as Werner Sombart. ... Whatever one thinks of his Marxism today, Mussolini was accepted by his socialist peers as a Marxist theoretician. He rose to leadership in the Italian Socialist Party at least in part on the basis of his recognized capacity as a socialist intellectual.
>>20571849
>The accusation of inconsistency is without foundation. My behaviour has always been consistent in the sense of looking to the substance, not the appearance of things. I have adapted myself, socialistically, to reality. As the natural development of society proved more and more of Marx's predictions to be wrong, true socialism retreated from the possible to the probable. The only feasible socialism that can be truly implemented is Corporativism—a merging point, a place of equilibrium and justice, with respect for collective interests.
>>20571862
>According to Noel O’Sullivan: "Fascism", London: Dent, 1983 p138, in 1940 Mussolini ordered all remaining copies of the document, which had different editions and translations to be retracted "because he changed his mind about certain points"
>>
>>20572239
Yeah I'm not saying there's something with opposing Marxism (which I do!) I was refuting the retard who said that fascism was itself just a variant of Marxism. The Italian Social Republic barely implemented the Congress of Verona. Don't act like Spanish anarchoids and a chaotic wartime provisional government are models for a future economic system. Yeah Lenin was acting in 1917 as a de facto German agent. This is the consensus of the Russian right.
>>
>>20572142
the third reich and fascist italy were both economically statist, often to the detriment of the economy - why would Big Capital want to save itself from statist economics by making the state extremely statist in its economics? Why would the capitalist west team up with the communist soviet union against the third reich when both invaded poland, rather than declaring war on the soviet union and ushering in an age of capitalist utopia?
>>
>>20572249
This doesn't make Mussolini look intelligent if that's what you were aiming to do with this post.
>>
>>20572251
Major German industrialists like Fritz Thyssen funded the NSDAP because they thought a mass movement would be better suited to fight communism than the traditional conservative DNVP. The West and USSR joined forces because Germany was an imminent geopolitical threat to both of them. They clashed before and clashed after the war ended (even during the war they sometimes had trouble cooperating).
>>
>>20571849
yes being flexible and min/maxing things depending on needs is a part of fascism, but i dont really understand how that makes it pointless? corporatism and fascism is actually quite interesting and far from pointless considering its what we desperately need these days
>>
The My Rise and Fall autobiographical collection is interesting, especially the latter, his point on ideology is that there really wasn't one.
>>
>>20572238
>I wouldn't consider taxing property to be Marxism
again, Marxism is just socioeconomic analysis with heavy emphasis on material conditions. If taxing property achieves the goals of a Marxist, then that's just a Marxist strain of thought.
>fascists do accept hierarchy
so do marxists.

My point is they obviously both come from the same strand of thinking. Nazism is literally called "National Socialism". Ie, equality of material race/biology versus material economic conditions. The real disagreement here is what fundamental materialist forces are at play.

Saying fascism doesn't have an "ideology" is like arbitrarily excluding Mormonism from the rest of Christianity, its a clear outgrowth and makes sense in the context of the greater marxism its embedded in.
>>
>>20572270
Corporatism doesn't make much sense. If you're going to have private property why coordinate it through state action rather than allow the market to work? Franco realized this in Spain and pursued more laissez-faire policies to great success. Fascism may very well be interesting but it is of no use for determining a future system. It is eternally tied to the failure of the Axis and even without that Gentile's theories suffer from a lack of substantive content. It can all be boiled down to rehashed Hegelianism turned into the conclusion: Mussolini is always right!
>>
>>20572266
Thyssen was also sent to a concentration camp. Why are you avoiding answering my questions?

>Germany was an imminent geopolitical threat to both of them.

Was it? If the Big Capital Conspiracy is real the capitalist west had nothing to fear from the capitalist-controlled third reich while eliminating the soviet union was in both of their interest.
>>
>>20572259
>This doesn't make Mussolini look intelligent if that's what you were aiming to do with this post
How is he not intelligent? My post was only eludicating the depth of Mussolini's thought—[whose primary intelligence is not even through thinking] who mind you was running his country quite well up until Bonaparte showed up.
>>
>>20572283
No point even bothering with this. You're just retarded.
>>
>>20572296
I'm genuinely curious. Humor me. What is wrong with the obvious observation that fascist ideas are rooted in Marxist ideology? El duce himself was a literal socialist marxist for many years.
>>
Codex Fascismo. Nothing else.
>>
>>20572289
Capitalists are not united worldwide in their aims. I'm not making that Marxist fallacy. The British and American governments had clear interests in not letting Europe fall under German domination. The Soviet Union was fairly weak at the time and only became a larger threat because the war allowed to create puppets in Eastern Europe. Germany's traditional elites backed Hitler as a last resort because the country was in political and economic crisis and they would prefer anything to communism.
>>
>>20572288
Corporatism is not really Gentile's theory. Ugo Spirito was the theoretician of coproratism. There is a book on it and Spirito wrote a lot about it, but information is obly available in Italian.
>Spirito [in the 1932 Ferrara Conference on Corporate Studies] spoke of "Individual and State in the corporative conception" arguing that corporatismit was to mark the end of the class struggle, but in the sense that capital and labor would merge, and that the "proprietary corporation" would have to come. Consistent with this approach, which made corporatism "absolute liberalism and absolute communism", Spirito proposed that, as a first measure, a representative of the state should be included in the boards of directors of the major companies, and a joint interest should also be ensured, in addition to the salary, to employees. As if that were not enough, the philosopher said that fascism and communism should not be opposed in an antithetical way. ( Indro Montanelli and Mario Cervi )
>>
>>20572300
He renounced Marxism though. Fascism is class collaboration, explicitly. I mean in practice the societ union or china or whatever look sort of fascist because the vanguard is frankly just a new ruling class but at least nominally they're supposed to be like representatives of the working class or whatever.
>>
>>20572288
>If you're going to have private property why coordinate it through state action rather than allow the market to work
because letting the market function unrestricted is fucking awful for any decent society?
>>
>>20571862
try reading Ramos and Sorel next
>>
>>20571830
Fascism is not really a theory, but a force of truth and honor against lies and idiocy. Instead of reading books that have the name fascism i would recommend philosophical classics from 19th and 20th century such as Weininger, Nietzsche, Proudhon, Sorel, Spengler and Evola.
>>
>>20572306
One little thing. Fascism = Integrating the whole people and it's processes into the state through guild-like associations (family, locality, corporation) for an organic state. Some forms of fascism might have a strong degree of citizen control of the economic and political decisions through corporative councils, and every form of it wants a high degree of participation of the citizens into the state.

Any other thing is either marxist or libertarian propaganda.
>>
>>20572313
The only acceptable economic regulations are tariffs and breaking up predatory monopolies. Income tax and the federal reserve are an affront to God
>>
>>20572329
shhh the adults are talking
>>
>>20572288
Because property is an objetivation of the state (in the hegelian sense; the state as the society and it's institutions) and because corporatism = workplace co-determination.

Allowing "private" property =/= supporting free markets. Property in fascism is very different in concept from property under typical capitalism.
>>
File: giovanni-gentile.jpg (38 KB, 580x328)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
>>20572308
>Anyone who speaks of communism in Italy today is a corporatist impatient about the necessary delays in the development of an idea that is the temperate correction of the communist utopia and the most logical and therefore truer statement than what one can expect from communism.>>20572331
>Some forms of fascism might have a strong degree of citizen control of the economic and political decisions through corporative councils, and every form of it wants a high degree of participation of the citizens into the state.
This is how marx thought to achieve communism.
>>
>>20572313
I'm not saying completely unrestricted; there's no need for autistic state micromanagement though.
>>20572342
Capitalism= private ownership of the means of production. It does not inherently mean laissez-faire.
>>
>>20572312
>He renounced Marxism though
He only renounces certain aspects of it. Only after the war did he turn fascist, and this is proof that he kept the materialist understanding of history because it was only the pragmatics of the situation that turned him off from it, ie the workers of the world were supposed to unite and take over the capitalist class. Instead, they sided with their respective nations.

His brand of fascism can be thought of as heavily influenced by Marxists theorists, and in alot of ways he was the first to implement "socialism in one country" or "national capitalism". High tariffs, protectionism, and pretty strong nationalization of industry.
>>
File: nose.gif (1.05 MB, 480x270)
1.05 MB
1.05 MB GIF
>>20572338
>>
>>20572351
Idk about that, check out these sections in the Doctrine of Fascism
>>
>>20572365
>>
>>20572365
About what? What are you implying?
>>
>>20572361
I am no Jew, I am an anglo
>>
>>20572374
Sorry I should have quoted you
>he kept the materialist understanding of history
>>
I will forever be grateful to this board for exposing me to fascism. It's weird how in the time since I came to /lit/ so many years ago, I went from being a doubting leftist to a fascist and then saw people around me go through similar changes, either ending up conservative or religious or out and out fascist.
>>
>>20572348
Private property of the means of production has been the norm for most of history. Were the greek city-states capitalists?
>>
>>20572384
>I went from being a doubting leftist to a fascist
Mussolini claimed to be a socialist in his Testament
>>
>>20572343
>Co-determination from the business owner and the worker was Marx's method to communism

No
>>
>>20572402
Marxist = Socialist
Socialist = Marxist
>>
>>20572384
I've never been tempted by fascism apart from liking those videos of Hitler set to modern pop music. Really makes you want to go to war tbqh

Fascism is too European thoughever and lacks the based common sense and dignity of the Anglo republic. Non anglos will simply never get it
>>
>>20572401
Not in the modern sense because capitalism depended on the development of established property rights, new financial institutions, the advanced development of manufacturing, and other distinctive qualities which distinguished it from feudalism.
>>
>>20572408
>Co-determination from the business owner and the worker was Marx's method to communism

>The bourgeoisie must by now understand the meaning of the social and political revolution which is now in progress and must recognize that unifying the classes means unifying the liberties of the classes. But, as long as it insists on ignoring the liberty to which the proletariat tends, it will not be able to understand the difference between liberty and privilege, between rights and arbitrariness. Two classes means two degrees of liberty, and that is precisely privilege and slavery: wanting to defend liberty today by maintaining the distinction between social classes means only rhetoric and bad faith.

>But how are classes and their rights to liberty unified? Obviously, if we are talking about two grades that are quantitatively and qualitatively different, we need a renunciation and a more or less large transformation of one class in favor of the other. That is to say, the bourgeois class must lose much of its liberty which in reality constitutes its privilege and must anticipate a lifestyle change in relation to mass needs. If it is able to convince itself of this necessity, it will collaborate towards unification with the least possible sacrifice; if, on the other hand, it refuses, it cannot but whine helplessly about violated liberties and will make the transition period much more serious and destructive.

Truth and Lies About Fascism
By Carlo Alberto Biggini

From “Corriere della Sera„
Tuesday 16th, Friday 19th January 1945-XXIII
No. 14 & 17
>>
>>20572365
>>20572366
Marxism is also opposed to "individualistic abstractions" in the sense that the history of the world is unending dialectic. Also, the paragraphs you posted demonstrate the main thrust of my argument, fascism is a literal development of marxist thought in the actual hegelian sense. He even uses the term "resolute negation" which reminiscent of the hegelian antithesis.
>>
>>20572432
>it's marxism because it explicitly refutes marxism
I fear this is too galaxy brain a take for me
>>
>>20572426
Therefore what qualifies capitalism as capitalism is a specific concept of property, a specific form of finance, specific market conditions, alongside a longer list of "other distinctive qualities", and private property is a shared characteristic with other economic systems, right?

Also, how can you distinguish monopolistic capitalism from State capitalism in the sense of property? Or even better, how can you distinguish state socialism from state capitalism in the sense of property? Most sensible answers will favor my previous response.
>>
>>20572436
>I fear this is too galaxy brain a take for me
consider the possibility that the left wing right wing dichotomy has deluded you

Its like Sunni and Shia arguing over idiosyncrasies without realizing they are much more the same then different. In a way, communists and fascists need each other to even be formidable forces in the political sphere.
>>
>>20572418
Fascism is not an European phenomenon. Highly specific and ethnic-related forms of fascism (and natsoc) have developed in countries like Brazil, Mexico, Chile, India... In the middle east, Baathism is pretty much sandnigger natsoc. In Argentina, original justicialism was crypto-natsoc (lacked the racialist part)
>>
>>20572450
"Monopolistic capitalism" is a leftist trope. South Korea is the only place in which corporate holdings are centralized enough to possibly qualify as such although even then it is debatable. State capitalism is a term invented by anti-Soviet leftists to describe the USSR. I would not call a state-owned centrally planned economy capitalist. State socialism nationalizes all property under state control and prevents independent business activity (except on the absolute lowest levels of the economy).
>>
>>20572468
It's not an imaginary category, it refers to perfidious commies interfering with the sacred domain of voluntary association. Fascism is still nowhere near as bad as actual commies though.
>>
>>20572474
From the rarified heights of Anglo supremacy such ethnic distinctions blur together, I'm sure you understand. What people do on the continent is in general a sad and silly affair
>>
>>20572475
What is the state and what's property if not an objetivation of the state's institutions? What differentiates a public servant with control of a business if every other characteristic facet of capitalism still exist (like mass production and top-down business administration for example)? Pretty much nothing but nominal titles.
>>
>>20572487
>it refers to perfidious commies interfering with the sacred domain of voluntary association
sure but, like I said fascists have interfered with VA to a degree as well. Nowhere near as bad as causing famines that kill millions of people, but it is bad insofar as they do it, and, ideologically seeking, they do it because they share some intuitions from the Marxist tradition.
>>
>>20572510
>mass production
>top-down administration
>capitalism
please read about economics or GTFO
>>
>>20572493
Are you conscious of what britain has meant for the world in terms of culture, history, economic and political legacy right? Do you realize you're the ogre of history?

You cannot be a fascist because your primary concern is not the british state nor people nor traditional canon.
>>
>>20572514

>Mass production

A trait of industrialized capitalism

>Top-down administration

Co-determination in work is not common (not to say almost impossible) in most capitalist economies
>>
>>20572513
Well there was the whole rounding up the Jews thing. I understand that Jews are just comically subversive, but it still rubs me the wrong way to just round up civilians like that. Or do you not consider the Nazis to be fascists?
>>
>>20572518
>Are you conscious of what britain has meant for the world in terms of culture, history, economic and political legacy right
Not that anon but can you explain? I do not read history.
>>
>>20572518
Britain, and her children in the colonies, are the light of the world. Everything bad attributable to Britain was done by Jews or Normans or Celtoids. The Germanic anglo saxon has literally never done anything wrong and is the only ethnicity that respects truth, justice, and beauty.
>>
>>20572536
>Well there was the whole rounding up the Jews thing
Yeah, thats certainly wrong, I was just looking at it from the economic perspective of valuing items how you want to value them, being able to trade with whomever you want etc. Obviously it's evil to gas people.
>Or do you not consider the Nazis to be fascists?
Yes, I do and they are more biological essentialist than italy. My hot take is they were actually "meta-materialists" or "radical anti-nihilists". What i mean by this is the leading nazis were actually, in their hearts of hearts, hardcore newtonian materialists, but, at a higher level of consciousness, they fought against this, seeing it as nihilistic. They essentially tried to "project" and "create" metaphysical meaing in the world. And this is where all of the occult aesthetics come from.
>>
>>20572573
>economic perspective of valuing items how you want to value them, being able to trade with whomever you want etc.
Were they not pretty liberal in this respect? I mean they subsidized industries had a sort of welfare state and stuff but I thought it was more or less normal markets and wage labor

The nazi occult stuff is intriguing but it's hard to know what of it is actually real. I read a bunch of Miguel Serrano years ago which was extremely amusing content
>>
>>20572587
Not op, but alot of the ”meaning” of nazism came from the eugenics
>>
I've seen people link Gramci's thought to that of Gentile (Main Philosopher of Fascism), if I don't misremember a guy called Diego Fusaro goes into this, especially due to their revision of Marxism tends to mix up. But overall and tracing back the revisions that eventually develop into Mussolini's thought, as you say, Engels could be considered one of the first revisionists since he tried to encapsulate the theory of darwin within the framework of Marxism, but all of this just caused confusion. Eventually you got people like Kautsky that try to add up the idea of struggle for existence but in the end disregard it. Lenin of course comes into place as one heterodox revisionist, Sorel himself could be considered part of this line of thought that eventually develops into the introduction of idealist values into Marxism.

When Mussolini comes into place, he takes a hold of all the previous revision before him, and eventually develops its own practical yet formulated way of Socialism distanced from Marxism through a drink of different sources, especially from figures like Sorel, Nietzsche, Proudhon and Corradini. He pretty much ends up with a conclusion that was once summarized like this by him: "The future of the proletariat is a problem of will and ability, not of will alone, not of ability alone, but of ability and will at the same time. You have escaped the game of political influences." As he said several times, he was trying to make Marxism stay away from Marx and lead it torwards the practicality of a realistic revolution. The conditions that gave away torwards his line of thinking can be seen as first a recognition of the biological/evolutionary impulses of humanity, and the Nationalism on display during WW1.
>>
>>20572901
"The Right has mistaken us by seeing us bravely and gallantly confronting the anti-nation represented by Marxism; It believed us to be a courageous trench of its interests... But it is wrong. Today it fears us more than Marxism."

Oscar Unzaga de la Vega
>>
>>20572536
>do you not consider the Nazis to be fascists?
They were, Hitler was inspired by Mussolini after the March of Rome. National Socialism is just existentialist whole Italian Fascism was Dialectical.
>>
>>20572536
If we think about it, the Nazis actually achieved everything that was theorized about fascism by the Italian Fascists. Unlike the Italians who didn’t have a total revolution, the Germans were able to more concretely enact these ideas and even succeeded more. This is also why they were more dominant throughout the war, had more geopolitical power, and why they still influence our understanding of fascism as an idea. From this position, we could actually argue they were the most fascist movement to ever exist.

My final points can be backed by The Nazi-Fascist New Order For European Culture by Benjamin G. Martin. The Nazi-Fascist New Order as envisioned by both affected not only the economy but all European societies. This includes plans given for a post-war order ruled by both.
>>
>>20572561
This but without a shred of irony
>>
>>20571830
watch Taxi Driver
>>
>>20571830
Fascism isn't about reading. It's the jock ideology. Just talk to any redneck that wants to shoot black people and that's literally their entire moral foundation, anything else is oversimplifying it.
>>
>>20573577
rednecks are libertarian
>>
File: fascism.jpg (28 KB, 332x499)
28 KB
28 KB JPG
>>20571830
This right here.
>>
>>20572036
>Fascism is inherently progressive
Modernist would be a better descriptor.
>>
>>20573577
Do you not feel shame about being such an immense fucking coward?

Say the word nigger. Just say it. Break the big taboo of your day you pathetic sniveling faggot coward. It's just a word. Say it you dying flesh and worthless rot
>>
>>20573803
Fascists are the niggers of politics.
>>
>>20572418
>Fascism is too European thoughever and lacks the based common sense and dignity of the Anglo republic.
Nothing worse on Earth than the Anglo mindset. No thanks!
>>
>>20573807
>>20573805
COWARD COWARD COWARD COWARD
FUCKING COWARD

SAY NIGGER
SAY KIKE
SAY TRANNY

SCARED NSA IS WATCHING YOUR POSTS YOU PATHETIC SCREAM OF AIR
>>
>>20572561
>The Germanic anglo saxon has literally never done anything wrong and is the only ethnicity that respects truth, justice, and beauty.
Unfathomably based my dude.
>>
File: Orwell on Fascism,png.png (206 KB, 1667x1496)
206 KB
206 KB PNG
>>20571830
>>
>>20573811
>SAY NIGGER
>SAY KIKE
>SAY TRANNY
I'll do you one better: Anglo.
>>
>>20573811
Meds now.
>>
>>20573823
Pathetic fuckign pussy who wont say anything actually taboo
Weak, sniveling piece of trash
>>
>>20573823
And what Kike? I've fucked 3 jewish cunts

You think your delusional kaballah dreams mean anything to me?

You will wither away and die like the worthless pieces of trash you are. Your god will not save you fucking imebcile. Your own people constantly plot against and you don't even know it lmao

2/3rds of Jews die in the revelation you retarded fagggot. You are NOTHING
>>
>>20572312
>He renounced Marxism though
He was a true Marxist then
>>
>>20573722
Not contradicting me there
>>20573803
I don't have to disrespect people I have no problem with in everyday conversation just to prove a point to someone I don't care about.
>>
>>20571830
Fascism is bad.
>>
>>20571830
"For My Legionaries" by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu. Not Italian fascism because thats gay and boring
>>
Read The Selected Writings of Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera
>>
>>20574639
>Not contradicting me there
hard to do anything when you’re literally saying nothing other than seething about a fantasized version of poor white people



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.