What does this mean?
Fascism is nonsensical by design. It didn’t begin as some coherent ideology with a serious theory of the state. It started as a gang of violent, knuckle-dragging idiots whose main political program was “break shit and beat socialists.” That was it. No grand vision, no economic plan, no philosophy deeper than a bar fight. Just intimidation, street violence, and vibes. And once they’d terrorized enough people and bullied an entire country into letting them take power, they suddenly had a problem: ruling actually requires explanations. So they scrambled to retroactively justify themselves. Out came the half-baked myths, the fake history, the mystical nonsense about destiny, nation, blood, and rebirth. They dressed up raw power and thuggery in pseudo-intellectual garbage to make it look like something other than what it was.That’s why fascism always sounds unhinged. It’s not built on logic; it’s built on rage, fear, and a cult of action for action’s sake. The ideology isn’t there to explain reality, but to excuse violence, silence critics, and keep the strongman on top. Strip away the uniforms, symbols, and screaming, and all that’s left is a hollow core screaming “trust me, bro” while everything burns.
Remember, the show is designed to make Mussolini look as weak, wierd and pathetic as possible. He litterally looks directly into the camera, says "Make Italy great again! M" and gives a thumbs up and a goofy smile.
>>18291862>Fascism is nonsensical by designFascist ideology exists and has some meaning, but you have to remember that Mussolini's favourite sociologist was Pareto and Pareto thought ideologies are just a fancy intellectualisation of root impulses driving men to act.
>>18291872Sure, fascist ideology exists in the same way a madman’s rambling exists. Pointing at Pareto doesn’t magically make it coherent. If anything, that quote just proves the point. If you believe ideologies are just post-hoc rationalizations of raw impulses, then fascism being a contradictory, incoherent mess isn’t a bug, but the whole fucking feature. Mussolini didn’t read Pareto and then calmly construct a political philosophy. He beat people up first, seized power first, and then stapled together whatever intellectual junk could excuse what he was already doing. The “meaning” of fascist ideology isn’t explanatory or analytical, it’s decorative. It exists to launder violence, hierarchy, and ressentiment into something that sounds profound enough to shut critics up.
>>18291862Fascism is a perfectly natural human impulse once demonic entities go too far.
>>18291881Hey, whatever makes your dick get going.
>>18291862>main political program was “break shit and beat socialists.”based
It is hegelian dialectic, thesis, antithesis and synthesis.It means fascists are the final form between reactionaries and radicals, capitalists and socialists, they are the third way.
>>18291877>Mussolini didn’t read Pareto and then calmly construct a political philosophyYes, Mussolini has also read Machiavelli, Georges Sorel, Robert Michels and other's of that ilk. Duce like to pose as a kind of brute but he was intellectual nerd. What fascism was wasn't anything you're saying, it was the cutting edge sociology and political science(political realism and elite theory) married to the cutting edge of economic thought at the time(keynesianism). Since it was created by cognitive foxes they didn't leave one Das Kapital that to some extent applies to them all, no they've left scattered writings and open inspirations.
>>18291902You’re massively overplaying your hand. Yes, Mussolini read Machiavelli, Sorel, Michels, Pareto, etc. No one serious denies that. But reading things does not magically produce a coherent ideology. Every half-educated authoritarian reads Machiavelli and then acts like they reinvented politics. That doesn’t make what follows “cutting-edge science,” it makes it selective name-dropping to legitimize power. Calling fascism “cutting edge sociology and political science” is exactly the kind of post-hoc mythmaking fascism itself loved. Pareto and Michels weren’t handing Mussolini a blueprint for a new order; they were describing elite circulation and oligarchic tendencies. Fascism didn’t apply elite theory, it just weaponized it as an excuse: “elites rule anyway, so shut the fuck up and obey ours.”>le KeynesianismFascist economics was a Frankenstein mess: corporatism, state intervention when convenient, austerity when convenient, market discipline when useful, state control when not. Sometimes it borrowed tools later associated with Keynes, sometimes it didn’t. Why? Because it had no consistent economic commitments beyond “whatever keeps the regime stable and the bosses loyal.” Pragmatism isn’t coherence; it’s improvisation with a badge. The lack of a 'Das Kapital' isn’t proof of intellectual sophistication, either. It’s proof that fascism couldn’t systematize itself without collapsing into contradictions. “Cognitive foxes” didn’t avoid a unified text out of genius; they avoided it because pinning things down would expose how often fascist principles clash with each other. Unity vs. hierarchy, revolution vs. tradition, mass mobilization vs. elite rule: pick two and watch it fall apart.
>>18291862>>18291872>>18291877>>18291902 >>18291908Jacobinism isn't nonsensical. Monarchy and nobility is both nonsensical & dangerous.>>18291867Have you bothered to look who produced it? It's a british production firm, more obvious than the Moon for being monarchist propaganda & disinformation.
>>18291908>Calling fascism “cutting edge sociology and political science” is exactly the kind of post-hoc mythmaking fascism itself loved.But that's exactly what it was. They took what was cutting edge in the academia at the time and used it to rule. >Fascist economics was a Frankenstein mess: corporatism, state intervention when convenient, austerity when convenient, market discipline when useful, state control when not.Yes it was Keynesianism.>Unity vs. hierarchyI guess the Catholic Church as an extremely hierarchical organisation isn't capable of maintaining unity then. >revolution vs. traditionNot uncommon. Great examples of that was the establishment of the Ming dynasty or collapse of the Roman empire. It was a complete revolution that brought their victims to a more traditional mode of living(from post-song commercialism to more traditional peasant based economy and from Roman tax extortion to feudalism).>mass mobilization vs. elite ruleSo the Tzar of Russia couldn't mass-mobilise his subjects?>pick two and watch it fall apart.Only in your schizo mind.
oh and I forgot one bit>>18291908> Pareto and Michels weren’t handing Mussolini a blueprint for a new order; they were describing elite circulation and oligarchic tendencies.and then Michels joined the fascist party
>>18291958>>18291967>They took what was cutting edge in the academia at the time and used it to rule.No. They cherry-picked from academia to justify what they were already doing. That’s the crucial difference you keep refusing to engage with. “Cutting edge” sociology at the time was largely descriptive, skeptical, and often pessimistic about mass politics. Fascism didn’t implement Pareto or Michels the way Keynesians implemented Keynes; it turned their observations into excuses. “Elites always rule” becomes “our elite should rule forever.” Fascism would have accepted limits, tradeoffs, and institutional constraints if it had been based genuinely on academic realism. Instead, it screamed WILL, DESTINY, NATION and then cited sociologists when convenient.>Yes it was Keynesianism.This is just plain wrong, historically and conceptually. Keynesianism is not “the state intervenes sometimes.” Keynesianism is a specific macroeconomic framework about aggregate demand, counter-cyclical spending, employment, and stabilization. Fascist regimes didn’t even pretend to follow that logic consistently. They weren’t managing demand, but loyalty. Calling fascist economics “Keynesian” is like calling a drunk swerving across lanes a Formula 1 driver because both touch the steering wheel.>I guess the Catholic Church as an extremely hierarchical organization isn't capable of maintaining unity then.False equivalence. The Church maintains unity through doctrine, institutional continuity, and constraints on power, not through permanent mobilization and contradiction fetishism. Fascism demands unity and perpetual struggle, obedience and ecstatic mass participation, hierarchy and leader-as-embodiment-of-the-masses. The Church doesn’t claim the Pope is the people. Fascism explicitly does.cont.
>>18291976>revolution vs tradition, Ming dynasty, RomeYou’re conflating historical outcomes with ideological self-description. Yes, revolutions can lead to conservative outcomes. That’s not the point. Fascism simultaneously glorifies revolution as eternal renewal and tradition as timeless essence without ever resolving the tension. Other systems do that structurally, but Fascism resolves it rhetorically: whatever the regime is doing right now is both revolutionary and traditional. That’s not synthesis, anon.>So the Tzar of Russia couldn't mass-mobilise his subjects?Again, category error. Autocracies can mobilize people. Fascism claims to abolish the distinction between ruler and ruled while entrenching elite domination. The Tsar never pretended peasants were sovereign. Fascism does while beating them into line.>Only in your schizo mind.You’re dodging the substance because you don’t want to admit that fascism survives by refusing to nail anything down. Every contradiction you list can exist in history, but fascism insists they are not contradictions at all, just expressions of will. That’s why it collapses the moment results stop coming.>And then Michels joined the fascist party.Yes. And that proves my point, not yours. Michels didn’t say “fascism is the logical conclusion of my theory.” He got disillusioned, radicalized, and jumped ship. Intellectuals defect to power all the time. That doesn’t retroactively turn their earlier descriptive work into a normative blueprint. Otherwise we’d have to call Heidegger’s ontology Nazi philosophy, which is exactly the kind of shitty brainrot move fascism thrives on.
>>18291958>>Calling fascism “cutting edge sociology and political science” is exactly the kind of post-hoc mythmaking fascism itself loved.>But that's exactly what it was. They took what was cutting edge in the academia at the time and used it to rule.There's no way to look at some of their experiments without thinking the Germans were even more retarded than the Russians. What's cutting-edge about sewing twins together or killing midgets? <strike>(The civilized British managed to be anti-communist without turning into Aztec high priests.)</strike>
>>18291720>you ARE a faggot>you will NEVER be a woman
>>18291720He's just saying "our ideology is best because we've learned from everyone else's political successes and failures". It's Hegelian flavored slop.It's part of fascism's allure as being the "third position". It's not liberal democracy, and it's not communism, it's some magical outsider ideology better than everything else.
>Fascism was soooo stupid guys just TRUST me on this, it was just bad okay! Now lets talk about how great Communism was..baseless commie talk
>>18291897I played fallout too
>>18292445Communism took half the globe and lasted like 70 years longer than Fascidm
>>18291862>Fascism is nonsensical by design.Stopped reading there. You're clearly some dumbass lelddit midwit whos never EVER read anything on Fascism and have adopted the bullshit Emberto Eco definition of it (without realizing you did this)You think deporting illegal immigrants or not wanting trans in womens sports is fascism.
>>18292470Actual Communism only existed in like Maoist era China. Russia was arguably Fascist for quite a while. It certainly wasn’t communist when it had currency and markets. Communism is just so difficult to implement on a large scale that most of it ends up as revisionist in order to survive and sliding in to Fascism. Communism is when you have no money at all (Maoist China and Khmer Rouge). If you have money, markets and such that is state capitalism sliding in to Fascism.
>>18292477>It certainly wasn’t communist when it had currency and markets.Soviet Union was communist throughout the entireity of its history. Maoist China had currency and markets too asshole. Communism isnt anarchism, its about implementing socialism over time with the final objective to achieve a state of where the state doesnt exist. Its not about getting rid of the state immediately.
>>18292487Maoist China's Work Point System (gongfen) was a core mechanism in rural communes (1950s-1980s) to quantify labor, distribute income, and organize work, assigning numerical values (points) to daily agricultural tasks, determining a household's share of collective earnings, often alongside fixed rations, though it struggled with incentives, fostering both collective effort and local variations. This system aimed to standardize work and reward, but its implementation varied, influencing everything from daily life to social stratification within the communes. How it WorkedQuantification: Every task (plowing, weeding, etc.) was assigned points, usually 1 to 10 for men, 1 to 9 for women, reflecting effort and skill.Calculation: Points were tallied daily for each commune member, forming a basis for income distribution at year's end.Distribution: After state extractions, remaining produce and money were divided partly by accumulated work points and partly by fixed rates (rations) based on age and sex.
>>18292487Also that’s not something I pulled out of my ass. Most Trotskyists and Maoists agree USSR was a revisionist and Fascist leaning state as were its satellites (racial Latin character of Ceausescu Romania comes to mind).The difference from them is I am saying maybe the revisionist era of USSR was fascist and maybe it wasn’t even so bad in some regards
>>18291877Sounds like communism too strangely.
>>18291908>state intervention when convenient, austerity when convenient, market discipline when useful, state control when not. Sometimes it borrowed tools later associated with Keynes, sometimes it didn’t. Why? Because it had no consistent economic commitments beyond “whatever keeps the regime stable and the bosses loyal>this is presented badlyShould they have written a book then stick to it no matter what changes in the global economy arise? Fascism not being retardedly obsessed with one economic model is one of the strongest draws towards it.
>>18291720>What does this mean?We examined the past systems, and took from them what is good, and replaced in them what was bad.Or to put it shortly: "we good".
>>18291720Feel good thing good, feel bad thing bad
>>18291908>corporatism, state intervention when convenient, austerity when convenient, market discipline when useful, state control when notIs that supposed to be a bad thing? The regime not dogmatically adhering to arbitrary economic theory sounds like an objective improvement over the neoliberal hell we live in right now
>Fascism is nonsensical by design.That's a very unfair thing to say. Fascism, if you boil it down, has two perfectly sensible components and one critically bad component that hamstrings it every time:1. Class collaboration, as opposed to class struggle; the idea that classes should work together and trust one another to build something greater than what came before.2. Modernism, as in embracing new ideas, technologies, aesthetics and forms of management in order to build your country into something greater.And3. A glorification of struggle, which - apart from the usual problem of starting a bunch of wars - means you'll believe in your own strength of will while your enemies outnumber and outgun you, inevitably leading to defeat in modern warfare.
>>18291957You think Fascism is anti monarchy?
>>18293082Yes, fascism is democratic
>>18293082Fascism is anti-the kind of monarchies that existed: aristocradic, landlordish, tied to the church (international org).
>>18293136Fascism was founded by a literal prince.
>>18293139The first monarchy was founded by a literal not-monarch, by definition. I don't know what you are trying to say here.Fascism is totalitarian, european monarchies were not. Facism is progressive, european monarchies were not. Fascism has its own "church" - the party and ideology, european monarchies outsourced their metaphysics to the global christian church. Fascism makes a virtue of struggle and churn, european monarchies made a virtue of stability and heredity.In these, and other ways, they are very different and opposed.
>>18293146You reckon D'Annunzio planned to abolish himself?
>>18293156He explicitly rejected the monarchy. Its not subtext with him, its text, written with capital letters.
>>18293139Communism was founded by a man with a job who wasn’t starving. What’s your point
