Fascist appropriation of socialist rhetoric, slogans, symbols etc is well known. Anyone who believes that fascism is an enemy of capitalism is just plain wrong. Fascism is an ideology that comes in to force when capitalism is most under threat, in order to protect it.
>getting triggered over a shitpost
You should have posted a meme instead, or some shitty quote like that.
PD, that quote was from Gregor Strasser, a nazi who was killed for opposing capitalism, under orders from Hitler himself. And idiots still think it was Hitler who said that.
He thinks that Mosley and Mussolina turned Fascist to keep the capitalist elite in power
You’ve managed to demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge on either family of ideologies, you treat both as if they are gigantic monoliths that are all the same, hell I doubt you even have ever properly debated with a facist before have you? Do you know anything about their ideology and why they believe what they do? Or why us capatalists believe and why we do? The former most definitely is an enemy to any capatalist who does not share the social or political aspirations of a facist (which is the vast majority of capatalist )
I guess a new thread has to be made for this, since it’s pretty much its own topic by now. @_lake or any other mods, pls move it.
Capitalism isn’t an ideology, it’s an economic system. You are confusing advocates of capitalism with what the capitalist class actually does. The interests of free market libertarian ideologists and the interests of private companies are hardly always the same. If it serves their private, individual interests, the upper class are more than happy to support a fascist. You have, as another example, the free market: it should be more than obvious that capitalists don’t like the free market, because if they have to compete, they can’t charge what they want for a product and instead they have to mind the competition. Business schools tell students to avoid highly competitive sectors like the plague.
[details=Summary]Two important German businessmen and one economist doing the Nazi salute
Hitler privatized a lot of services and industries that were owned by the German state, so did Mussolini in Italy. The word “privatization” itself was made by the journal The Economist to describe Hitler’s economic policy. In terms of private ownership, they were the most right-wing leaders of their time, only on par with Pinochet and Reagan. And another thing they had in common is the suppression of the left. Both Germany and Italy had strong socialist parties, the Communist Party of Germany (Marxist-Leninist), which gained up to 15% of the electorate, and the Communist Party of Italy (Left-communist—Leninist), which was a couple of millions strong.
The point is that fascism is not an enemy of the capitalist system as it stands, it protects it more than any other ideology for the sole reason that it applies force against the opposition. The protection of private property might not be what fascists are more enthusiast about (“muh Nation”), but that’s what their ideology entails. You could point to Strasserism as a counterexample, but they were killed or sent to concentration camps only because of their opposition to the capitalist system. Strasserites held the very same social views as the rest of the nazis did, they were anti-semitic, homophobic, pro-“family values”, very religious, et cetera, their only ‘crime’ on the eyes of the nazi leadership was that they held a view contrary to capitalism.
With this, I’m not saying that the capitalist class inherently likes fascists, nazis, or any pro-capitalist dictatorship for that matter, not at all. But they prefer them over socialists and anarchists, because it’s in their best interest to secure their private ownership, while the core of socialism is the overturn of the capitalist regime in favor of economic democracy and a workers’ government. If the far-left is being too much of a problem for mainstream liberals and conservatives to address, and the sustain of the capitalist system is in danger, why do you think they wouldn’t resort to more radical ideas and those in favor of the suppression of the left? Who do you think supported Pinochet’s coup? The conservative upper class elites did. Who cheered the many dictatorships in Latin America and Africa that killed strong socialist movements? The upper class did. Who cheered when McCarthyism was taking people who weren’t even socialists in prison or to exile, just for being under suspicion? The upper class did that, too (not that they were the only ones in all cases, or that all capitalists did it).
We socialists don’t underestimate our opposition, nor the lengths at which they’ll go to protect their billions of dollars.
>“YOU CAN’T BELIEVE IN THIS, THAT’S IDEOLOGICAL APPROPRIATION YOU, THAT’S SO OFFENSIVE”
At least fascism is a better version of socialism.
Sometimes appropriations are good.
They appropriate the rhetoric and symbols; They dont actually carry out or believe in real socialist action or policy.
This is one of many reasons why we, on the left, know that it is better to inflict violence on a Nazi than try to debate one. They aren’t interested in reason or being genuine - They hide behind euphemisms and distortions.They’re liars. And they’re dangerous. Dont be fooled.
Nazism =/= fascism. Nazism is its demented younger brother.
The importance of the corporatist economic model to the fascist movement (at least theoretically) shouldn’t be downplayed. Irrespective of any similarities on the property side of things, it is so distanced from capitalism (with its origin in socialist theory too) that it should be treated as a different system. In practice the fascist regimes never really got around to fully implementing a corporatist model for a variety of reasons (see: Mussolini) but the importance of the idea still stands. That said, I agree with @StrangeSignal that a capitalist class may turn to fascism in the face of a socialist or anarchist threat to secure their wealth, though I disagree with his examples of Pinochet, etc. Those aren’t fascists. They’re just authoritarian capitalists, usually propped up by the U.S. I’d probably argue that the nature of the international political system has more to do with that than the nature of the capitalist economic system, though it’s still important.
The problem with Mussolini is that the people in government weren’t just Fascists but also monarchists and different conservatives so they had to make compromises, anyway a lot of Italian fascists were former socialists including Benito himself, he just saw the flaws with the movement and what had become of it also WW1 was quite a big eye opener for him.
Maybe that’s because they were the original third way between capitalism and ‘socialism’, and took some inspiration from socialists…
To which are you referring to?
If we beat up anyone who didn’t agree with us then there would be a lot of dead socialists in Brighton rn.
Also you’re hardly one to talk about that
Sounds like pretty much everyone to me
>the anarchist is warning people that other people are dangerous
You apparently already are
Had Fascist Italy survived WW2 or remained neutral, then the proposals of the Congress of Verona most likely would have been implemented, which included abolishing the monarchy and getting rid of the monarchist factions. But yeah, Mussolini was originally a socialist alongside a lot of other fascist thinkers.
You always take my posts apart as if to respond to each individual point but when I actually read what you have written it turns out you have said nothing.
It’s easier to read that way rather than as block text (I have some dyslexic traits).
“The organization of our monitor troop clarified a very important question. Up till then the movement had no party insignia and no party flag. The absence of such symbols not only had momentary disadvantages, but was intolerable for the future…party comrades lacked any outward sign of their common bond…[Hitler then writes about how he attended a mass Marxist demonstration:] a sea of red flags, red scarves, and red flowers…” - Adolf Hitler, 1923.
"According to John Toland’s Adolf Hitler, the flag submitted by the “dentist from Starnberg” was “a swastika against a black-white-red background”. He also writes that "Hitler insisted upon a party flag that could compete with the flaming red Communist banner". “We wanted something red enough to out-Herod Herod", recalled Drexler, something to outdo the Reds but “quite different.” Anton Drexler was one of the founders and the original leader of the German Workers’ Party, which became, after Hitler joined, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, or Nazi Party for short.
Devereaux Cannon, 1998.”
I meant symbols
That’s from Mein Kampf, and that’s also not appropriation, that’s past reflection on memory. I’m also pretty sure he used the red in the Nazi flag (in part) as a symbol of the labour struggle, which National Socialists they were to help.
How is that appropriation though? Red was the colour of the labour struggle and fascists (in this case NatSocs) believed they were the answer to, it is also a colour that stands out among other colours.
Using a colour that has connotations with a movement you believe in (but want to approach differently) is no appropriation, that’s like if I wore a blue shirt and people calling me out for being a Conservative.
I think the issue was more to do with their rhetoric and claims of being socialist, rather than use of colors or symbols
Much of which doesn’t exist, yes, some rhetoric and claims are made, but not to level many claim it to be.
According to the nazis themselves, the red color of their flag is supposed to represent the blood of those who died during the failed ‘putsch’ of Münich.
To socialists, our red flag represents resistance and defiance. Hence why anarchists use it sometimes.