My Theory on Fascism - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14588385
Decky wrote:The Nazis. Do you think being worked to death in camps in occupied Poland was voluntary?

Isn't the 'nazi' word a shortening of a 'National-socialist'? The relation between socialism and fascism is unclear for me, even though I know both are bad.
By Decky
#14588401
Get back under your bridge. The Nazis were fascists as everyone knows.
By Conscript
#14588417
Ganeshas Rat wrote:Isn't the 'nazi' word a shortening of a 'National-socialist'? The relation between socialism and fascism is unclear for me, even though I know both are bad.


Hitler defined socialism as an ancient aryan institution (therefore having nothing to do with the enlightenment - produced socialist movement) that did not repudiate private property and have nothing to do with class. It practiced corporatism and identified the state with the race, rather than any class like a socialist would.

That's why it's called fascism, and why fascism is called the third position. It rejected liberal-capitalism and the German aristocrats, the working class revolutionary movements, and the SA in favor of conservative German institutions like the German Army.
#14588807
quetzalcoatl wrote:And the remnants of feudal aristocracy were secretly contemptuous of him...to the point of plotting his murder.



Of course. But there's no doubt who had the edge. As Shirer noted, the only serious plot against the Nazis in 11 years was crushed in 11 hours.


Nevertheless, the aristocratic mode will always be a go-to option for fascists if only because it 1) supplies a convenient solution to the succession problem, and 2) it rationalizes the desire of party officials to place their descendants in positions of power.


From what I recall, Hitler said it is "one of the Iron Principles of National Socialism" that there be no father-son succession. Fascism didn't last long enough to see how well that would've held up. I don't think there was any hereditary succession among the top Soviet leaders though.
#14589696
quetzalcoatl wrote:Indeed, and that's why all spergs should be sent to re-education camps.

As someone with Asperger Syndrome I resent this. In all seriousness though , I have frequented forums catering to those with Aspergers , and other forms of autism , and have noticed that we run the full gamut of the political spectrum. I have only encountered one poster though who claimed to be fascist. Most of the time , as other posters were quick to point out , we tend to be the targets of certain fascist bullies , not the fascist squadists ourselves. But I do not know why any of the fascists , or anyone really , would seek to sentence us to the psikushka . I feel that what Dr. Hans Asperger said about the charges , of whom's condition was named after him , in relation to the National Socialist society holds true to all social systems http://www.azquotes.com/quote/641004 . Perhaps some , though by no means all of us like to play role play games , in which we hold power over others. But I think that we should know the difference between what is pretend , and what is the real world. So to conclude , I'm simply saying that the authority , be it fascist , Communist , or something else , should respect neurodiversity.
By Piccolo
#14607864
I will admit that some online fascists and "neo-reactionaries" are a little odd, but that is probably due to a number of factors, including the probable youth of these individuals. You could say the same thing about most online political ideologues, especially those outside the mainstream. For what its worth, it seems that most real-world fascists are not anywhere similar to their internet counterparts. The fellows in Golden Dawn don't remind me of the stereotypical online ideological roleplayer.
User avatar
By Princip
#14613408
Le Rouge wrote:Never forget: Fascists are following Soren Kierkegaard and Friedriech Nietzsche into play-acting art-affirmation of conservative feudal reaction. Fascists are not merely 'slave-masters', they are feudal lords and all traditional forms of hierarchy as well. Fascists reject liberalism and communism because liberalism and communism reject traditional hierarchy. Fascism is an attempt to confine the necessity of social change to the traditional hierarchy through conservative social revolution by immortalizing the conservative hierarchies of the past and shifting political-economic revolution to traditionalist aesthetic revolution of 'art for art's sake'. Hereby, all feminist, socialist, egalitarian, and communist impulses are channeled into the art of conservative-traditionalist progress of hierarchy. This artistic progress of hierarchy subsumes all human development into the corporation of the Fuhrer/Monarch/Supreme Leader.


While my reply is maybe a little late, I still beg to differ.

Le Rouge wrote:Never forget: Fascists are following Soren Kierkegaard and Friedriech Nietzsche into play-acting art-affirmation of conservative feudal reaction.


Same old story. I don't know much about Kierkegaard but Nietzsche was certainly the farthest thing from what one can call feudal reaction. Not just he rejected conservative morals and divine rights, the tenets which traditional societies were founded upon; but he also openly expressed his utter disgust regarding nationalism and conservatism. Just like socialism or social progression. One does not simply classifiy him as a revolutionary or as a reactionary philosopher. It's not that simple.

Regarding the rest: to identify traditionalism and fascism as the same is a mistake equal to calling council communism, for example fundamentally the same as state socialism. There's a difference. The most widely known traditionalist thinker, Evola, for example, was a staunch critic of Mussolini's state. He was even harrassed by fascist law enforcement.

Fascism in its core is (like it or not) a revolutionary idea. It rejects traditional hierarchy (while it is true that it seeks to establish a new one). Also, real hardline fascism (so not like Franco or Horthy, think of Mussolini or Codreanu) is not comaptible with feudalism or conservative revolution. Hitler, for example, had a strong opposition among the ranks of old Prussian junker families and even people like Spengler disagreed with him greatly. And then there's the left-wing of the NSDAP, the Strasserists, who were about as anti-feudal and anti-capitalist as one can imagine, but still fascist in nature.

Revolution is not always liberal, reaction is not always traditionalist.
By Rich
#14613410
Princip wrote: And then there's the left-wing of the NSDAP, the Strasserists, who were about as anti-feudal and anti-capitalist as one can imagine,
There anti banking bigotry was very reminiscent of Christian Feudalism and traditional Islamic barbarism.

Marx was just wrong. Europes lower classes did not become ever more impoverished. The world did not diverge into two international classes. Waffle about finance Capital and Imperialism was used by Marxists to cover up their failure and the fact that it was nationalism, not Capitalist economic interests that were the great threat to the peace in 1914. The right borrowed Marxist memes, or continued to use the ancient anti banking prejudices of the old Aristocracy.
#14615668
This is ridiculous.

Being a Fascist merely requires:

a) opposition to materialist interpretations of history
b) belief in the power of a social myth to energize and mobilize the productive for the good and glory of the people's State (and the ultimate resolution of class-conflict).
c) supporting the subjugation (but not elimination) of the corporate sector in the interest of the State.
d) opposition to democracy

If you agree with all positions, you are ideologically Fascist whether you believe you are or not. It's really that simple.

/thread
By Amanita
#14624228
Princip wrote:I don't know much about Kierkegaard but Nietzsche was certainly the farthest thing from what one can call feudal reaction. Not just he rejected conservative morals and divine rights, the tenets which traditional societies were founded upon; but he also openly expressed his utter disgust regarding nationalism and conservatism. Just like socialism or social progression. One does not simply classifiy him as a revolutionary or as a reactionary philosopher. It's not that simple.

Whilst I agree that it's not that simple, nationalism was a vulgar, popular, liberal movement and had absolutely no relation with feudal reactionarism. The reactionaries were always anti-nationalists.

Also, Nietzsche didn't reject those forms (Christianity, conservatism, etc.) as such. Those forms had been decisively rejected by the Enlightenment and Nietzsche's goal was to provide a solution to the encroaching nihilism.
#14641385
Conscript wrote:It rejected liberal-capitalism and the German aristocrats, the working class revolutionary movements, and the SA in favor of conservative German institutions like the German Army.


The nazis cracked down on Roehm in '34 and favored conservative army etc elements, but of course the Army was itself in time utterly dominated.
User avatar
By Crantag
#14641508
Fascism is a coherent theory of governance.

Before I go on, let me state that I am utterly and completely opposed to it.

I'm currently a resident of an institution which has many books on fascism, with many of those published in the 1930s.

I've previewed them before, and considered writing a paper on fascism based on them.

There were several categories of books; such as, 'Fascism; It's Great!', 'The Idiot's Guide to Fascism'; 'Here Is Some Insight Into Fascism'; etc.

I had other things to do, and probably just forgot about it, but there were many such books.

I found them in a library with a lot of old books.
#14641730
Crantag wrote:Fascism is a coherent theory of governance.

Before I go on, let me state that I am utterly and completely opposed to it.


Typical product of the present system.

I'm currently a resident of an institution which has many books on fascism, with many of those published in the 1930s.

There were several categories of books; such as, 'Fascism; It's Great!', 'The Idiot's Guide to Fascism'; 'Here Is Some Insight Into Fascism'; etc.
I found them in a library with a lot of old books.


Fascism wasn't viewed so dimly in the '30s. Still, it's remarkable those books survived WWII.
#14641987
The basic problem with fascism, judging from available historical instances, is instability. None of the nominally fascist regimes of the mid-twentieth century were able to survive more than a few decades. They either violently imploded or, as in the case of Spain, were absorbed into the liberal mainstream. This instability is written into its DNA; blood romanticism and radical egoism do not bode well for a sustainable culture. However much one may loathe liberal capitalism, its ability to mutate and adapt to changing material conditions has been, at least so far, quite extraordinary.
#14642112
quetzalcoatl wrote:The basic problem with fascism, judging from available historical instances, is instability. None of the nominally fascist regimes of the mid-twentieth century were able to survive more than a few decades. They either violently imploded


The problem wasn't so much fascism itself (even given the highly flawed nature of fascist regimes e.g. nazi racism) but insufficient power to fulfill the key goal of hegemonization. The democracies had better thank their lucky stars that Adolf had just a fraction of their resources and much of his power was drained fighting another dictatorship.


or, as in the case of Spain, were absorbed into the liberal mainstream.


With its traditionalism and pandering to the church, Spanish fascism was among the crummiest varieties. It wasn't very gung ho compared to the reich or even Italy, so it's not surprising it was "absorbed." But even it held out until '75.
#14643112
Princip wrote:Same old story. I don't know much about Kierkegaard but Nietzsche was certainly the farthest thing from what one can call feudal reaction. Not just he rejected conservative morals and divine rights, the tenets which traditional societies were founded upon; but he also openly expressed his utter disgust regarding nationalism and conservatism. Just like socialism or social progression. One does not simply classifiy him as a revolutionary or as a reactionary philosopher. It's not that simple.


From what I understand, Nietzsche was absolutely a European pan-nationalist though. Nationalism was too provincial for him. I imagine he would have supported something similar to Mosley's ideal European state, so I wouldn't necessarily say that places him in a similar category to socialism.
#14643329
RiceNaydon wrote:From what I understand, Nietzsche was absolutely a European pan-nationalist though


He once wrote to the effect: "I hear our sun is headed in the direction of Herkules. Our world should go that way, and we foremost we good Europeans." Note the use of "Europeans" instead of "Germans." Nietzsche was so un-German in feeling he tried to trace his ancestry to Poland.
#14728888
Le Rouge wrote:Never forget: Fascists are following Soren Kierkegaard and Friedriech Nietzsche into play-acting art-affirmation of conservative feudal reaction. Fascists are not merely 'slave-masters', they are feudal lords and all traditional forms of hierarchy as well. Fascists reject liberalism and communism because liberalism and communism reject traditional hierarchy. Fascism is an attempt to confine the necessity of social change to the traditional hierarchy through conservative social revolution by immortalizing the conservative hierarchies of the past and shifting political-economic revolution to traditionalist aesthetic revolution of 'art for art's sake'. Hereby, all feminist, socialist, egalitarian, and communist impulses are channeled into the art of conservative-traditionalist progress of hierarchy. This artistic progress of hierarchy subsumes all human development into the corporation of the Fuhrer/Monarch/Supreme Leader.


If you look at the history of Fascism and National Socialism, both of them were movements that started on the Left. Mussolini and most of the Fascists started as socialists (syndicalists) who were republican, modernist, and anti-clerical, their early manifestos made clear demands for a new order. Even when they made peace with the traditional establishment, there was conflict between them. The Fascist charismatic dictatorships have always conflicted with the prerogatives of a traditional monarch. Mussolini, Hitler, Primo De Rivera, and others wanted themselves and their parties as the heads of their new state, not the king, the church, or nobility.

It has always been the failure of Marxism that they have been unable to recognize this and have latched onto abstract dialectical materialist methodology to explain defeats away instead of critically analyzing this fact: Fascism was as revolutionary as Marxism and could be a convincing alternative for the lower classes.
#14729142
Majo_Shojo wrote:Even when they made peace with the traditional establishment, there was conflict between them. The Fascist charismatic dictatorships have always conflicted with the prerogatives of a traditional monarch. Mussolini, Hitler, Primo De Rivera, and others wanted themselves and their parties as the heads of their new state, not the king, the church, or nobility.


Yes of course, but there was more of a break with the left e.g. purge of Roehm and his supporters. The nazis favored conservative businessmen and wages in Germany and Italy were kept low.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]

Based on what? On simple economics. and in t[…]

In other news ... According to his lawyers, Trum[…]