Capitalism, Communism, and Fascism


#63

Alright, your whole “response” just sounds like the usual regurgitated Iron March copypasta and I’m not convinced you’re serious at this point. So instead of addressing your points one-by-one which I would normally do, I’m just going to address it as a whole for the most part.

In regard to “non-fascist philosophers” I draw from, I have no clue which ones you’re referring to and to what ends I’m specifically employing those philosophers. I’ve actually read Fascist philosophers and for that reason, know your point is bullshit.

Fascism involved diverse forces such as Filippo Marinetti and the avant-garde Futurists, Sergio Pannunzio and the syndicalists, Gentile and the actual idealists, along with numerous other factions who had wildly different worldviews which they debated about.

Codreanu and the Iron Guard are a really interesting lot, and I admire their mystical spirit, but they were an exception and not a rule for the most part. It would be like taking some liberation theologians and clerical socialists and using them as an example of how socialism is actually some mystical force and not an ideology. Numerous Fascists, such as the anticlerical Mussolini and Marinetti would be wildly opposed to.

My reasons for stating that Nazism is not Fascism is not out of any desire to distance the two, or to say that Fascism isn’t really racist or whatever. It simply has to do with what I studied and came to the conclusions of.based on my research.


#64

The problem is that these people can still vote.

IMO, what the far-left needs is to have a unified International (we’ll have to invite anarchists, too, like the old days), to have more internal debates and exchanges that don’t divide members in small sectarian echo-chambers, and to return to the old values of socialism, those it had for a century and a half after the French Revolution: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. So many socialists hate the West needlessly these days, it’s almost crazy. Supporting the socialist patriotism that was the norm in the late 19th Century could also attract many people from the right.


#65

As in @Il_Duce_No.2? I remember debating him, he was a weird neo-feudalist.


#66

Firstly, if anyone is wondering why I sometimes don’t respond to you, its either because your arguments are so ridiculous that they defeat themselves, that I feel you haven’t listened to what I have already clearly stated and are just trying to be obstructive for the sake of ‘winning’, that someone else has clearly addressed the points before I had the chance to, that you have chosen to be aggressive with me and attack me personally instead of trying for a constructive conversation, that you have said nothing of worth, or that I believe that our worldviews differ so much on the wider topic at hand that there is nothing more to be said to eachother.
Apologies in advance if this is upsetting for any of you.

Lots of political parties help the working class in small ways (and then crush them in others). This doesn’t make them socialists.

Then we agree.

I have no doubt that fascists have more motive to their ideology than the defeat of communism. Nevertheless, fascism, as far as I know, always come in to force when capitalism is most under threat as that is when all the capitalists tend to jump ship and give all of their money and resources to the fascists in order to protect themselves.

Yes. They tore out the spirit of socialism and wore it as a cloak. They ‘evolved’ away from socialism but still kept the rhetoric when it suited them. I don’t think we disagree here, do we?

Yes. They were deviating from the status quo, so, of course they had bourgeois enemies who wanted to preserve the status quo as a way of safely preserving their money and power. I don’t disagree. But I still say that fascism isn’t an enemy of capitalism as they always preserve it against the communists who want to destroy it.
Again, and maybe I am making presumptions, but I don’t think we disagree.

I think you may be under the false impression that I believe that fascism comes in to being solely for the cause of preserving capitalism. This is not my belief. I said that it comes in to force when capitalism is most under threat. Do we disagree?


#67

If irony were alcohol, we’d all be really wasted right now.[quote=“Alexandrovich, post:66, topic:110853”]
Yes. They tore out the spirit of socialism and wore it as a cloak. They ‘evolved’ away from socialism but still kept the rhetoric when it suited them.
[/quote]

Or rather, that “rhetoric” was an essential part of their ideology based on their experiences with both socialism and nationalism during the First World War.[quote=“Alexandrovich, post:66, topic:110853”]
But I still say that fascism isn’t an enemy of capitalism as they always preserve it against the communists who want to destroy it.
[/quote]

This doesn’t explain the numerous anti-capitalists and syndicalists in the Fascist Party, some of whom expressed sympathy for the Soviets. Their opposition to Communists tended to be because the latter was anti-nationalist, in contrast to the Fascist who were ardent nationalists, the main feature which set them apart from the other socialists until they adopted corporatism.

Former Prime Minister Nitti noted that the Fascists displayed a “greater tolerance toward Communists affiliated with Moscow than to Liberals, democrats, and socialists.”


#68

Again, you’re not listening. I wasn’t saying the NSDAP wasn’t socialist, I was saying there was a significant socialist and labour movement within the NSDAP.

In the same was social democracy isn’t categorized as true socialism.

No, it’s different from how you usually write.

It was completely relevant, ut just didn’t fit your ideological view of the Nazis.

And is regarded as one of the many forefathers of the NatSoc movement, which just backs up my point that pre-purge there was a significant amount of socialist influence.

You come off a lot better without the “I am Wikipedia” attitude, thanks.

Hitler =/= NSDAP


#69

That’s just lazy debating


#70

How influential were these syndicalist and anti-capitalist ideas in the fascist movement back then?
I dont pretend that I am well versed in the inner workings within any particular fascist party but all that I have seen indicates that fascists are interested in protecting capitalism, against communism. in any way they can.
From where I am standing, when it comes to their actions, they dont seem interested in liberating the working class from capitalism rather they are more interested in making capitalism work for the ‘nation’.


#71

Well Fascism was literally founded by them, almost all of the original founders of the Fascist Party were syndicalists who had been exiled from the Socialist Party because they supported intervention on the side of the Entente. Several of them, like Mussolini, had spent almost their entire lives as socialist revolutionary (in Mussolini’s case, even being named after them - the Andrea and Amilcare middle names come from socialist martyrs).[quote=“Alexandrovich, post:70, topic:110853”]
but all that I have seen indicates that fascists are interested in protecting capitalism, against communism
[/quote]

Fascist hatred for capitalism is well known, they were more sympathetic to the Communists than the capitalists, the main reason for siding with the latter tended to be nationalism rather than any affinity for capitalism. Mussolini called himself the “Italian Lenin,” told a young admirer “Fascism and Communism are the same thing,” and later tried to initiate some form of socialization in the Social Republic. Not really the behavior of a man who’s an ardent capitalist.[quote=“Alexandrovich, post:70, topic:110853”]
they dont seem interested in liberating the working class from capitalism
[/quote]

They tended to support national class collaboration rather than class conflict, based on the reality that people sided more with their nationality than with their class (Mussolini discovered he was “desperately Italian,” while fighting on the front).


#72

And I’m saying that since that doesn’t contradict my original point then there’s no reason to continue debate.

Don’t have that attitude so I must come off well, thanks for the compliment :slight_smile:


#73

THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU START THE DEBATE

Not really a compliment, makes you look like a bit of cunt


#74

If you think this then you lack any sort of self-awareness.


#75

So like Soviet Russia and Maoist China?
The difference between promises and delivery is important.

No, you don’t need to be absolutely against all aspects of capitalism in order to not be completely on board with capitalism.

Maybe you should consider not driving people away in fear, lol.


#76

He is one, so that makes sense.


#77

You started it, don’t pull that shit.


#78

o rly


#79

you replied to the second one which started the debate about Nazism and the NSDAP being socialist


#80

The first one was a reply to me and started the debate


#81

the first doesn’t have to do with the NSDAP being socialist, their use of symbols is a different point than the one you ended up starting.

YOUR reply to that post started the debate about the NSDAP being socialist.


#82

It all ends up being the same debate, especially you first replied to me.

Are you fucking blind? Even in my reply to you, you can clearly see that I didn’t say the NSDAP was socialist.