Was fascism really individualist anarchism turned into praxis?
Are you referencing this video?https://youtu.be/c6svd3UJw04?si=4Vkg99e0aLtPV3eSI think the parallels are interesting, and Mussolini was a well read man who was learned in a variety of different ideologies. I would not be surprised if he was influenced in some way by Proudhon and incorporated that into his rhetoric. However, I would refrain from calling Fascism a strain of anarchism. Fascism to me is the synthesis of opposites, of proletariat and bourgeois, of socialism and capitalism, of individualism and collectivism etc.
>>18603030Is anyone else fatigued by these essentialist readings of fascism which seek to mistify it? It was literally just imperialism. Japan was doing the same thing at the same time but without a fancy word for it. The Roman Empire was doing the same thing 2000 years ago without a fancy word for it.
>>18603041Every fucking country did imperialism idiot. According to you every country and every nation in history has been Fascist.
>>18603047That's my point, there's nothing that really sets fascism apart from imperialism.
>>18603030It's political satanism.
>>18603054This is a nonsense statement.
>>18603075In what way is Mussolini's Italy a qualitatively different society from Imperial Rome?
>>18603047No, the goal of communist countries (not the corrupted soviet parody) is to liberate people from imperialism
>>18603082In what way is any society qualitatively different from each other? They all engage in imperialism so they must all be the same according to you. How is America different from Russia? How is Japan different from China?
>>18603086Good question with no easy answer.
>>18603082They should know better
>Was fascism really individualist anarchismFascism was the complete opposite. It was the opposite of individualism and the opposite of anarchy.Fascism wants the people to become a collective mass that identified with the state. It's revolutionary nationalism where essentially everyone are expected to become involved and submit themselves to the movement of national unity, becoming cogs in the machinery.You're neither an individual and the state is absolute.This is a direct quote from the fascist manifesto:"Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity">>18603041>It was literally just imperialism.Kek no it wasnt you fucking retard>Is anyone else fatigued by these essentialist readings of fascism which seek to mistify it?I'm mopre tired of eternal boomers like you who religiously try to parrot myths every time the topic is discussed with a bit of nuance.Just shut the fuck up if you got nothing to contribute.
>>18603108>Kek no it wasnt you fucking retardIn what way is Mussolini's Italy a qualitatively different society from Imperial Rome?
>>18603099So you contributed nothing because you're a retard trying to sound smart but your arguments only lead into a dead end.Why did you even open your mouth in the first place?
>>18603114I contributed by promoting critical thought
>>18603122And it lead absolutely nowhere because you never had a point, you didnt even answer his question.
>>18603124I did have a point: it makes no sense to single out fascism as some unique, historically unprecedented type of society. It's just some guy taking over the government and starting wars of expansion.
>>18603108>You're neither an individual and the state is absolute.I think it should be important to note that within Fascism the individual and the state are viewed as one and the same.
>>18603111Is this the moment where you're going to tell me that they were exactly the same because they both started a war?"In what way is Stalins USSR a qualitatively different society from Imperial Russia?"And you're now going to lecture me on how the communists were no different.Of course you're not going to do this because you're incapable of perspectives. Retard.Ancient Italy compared to modern Italy (including Mussolinis) differ by an astronomical length in terms of social life, political life, religious life etc, its undersrtanding of the world, its diplomatic connections and global interaction, it's trade of goods, and communications, its living standards, it's electional system and rights of citizenship. Are you asking the broadest stroke question as possible that requires 5 pages to complete?
>>18603038who are these people, they look very swarthy
>>18603130>It's just some guy taking over the government and starting wars of expansion.No because if this was the definition of fascism then there will be an inflation of fascist leaders / states and the word becomes meaningless, only because you need it to fit this description.If that is what fascism is then how come Nasser isnt labeled a fascist despite being a nationalist who spoke of Egypts former glory and wanted to expand the borders (annexing parts of the Levant etc)? How come Saddam Hussein took control of government and wanted to start wars of expansion but isnt label a fascist?If that is what fascism is then how come Mosley was labeled a fascist despite not advocating for any conquest (in fact he was vocal about pacifism). How come other fascist movements in Spain (Falangists) and in Brazil (Integralist) never advocated for imperialism.So many things you literally cannot answer because you're a boomer parroting myths about what the fascist ideology is.
>>18603132It can be interpretated in different ways I suppose.I would quite firmly describe the fascist ideology as organic collectivism in this regard.
>>18603137>Ancient Italy compared to modern Italy (including Mussolinis) differ by an astronomical length in terms of social life, political life, religious life etc, its undersrtanding of the world, its diplomatic connections and global interaction, it's trade of goods, and communications, its living standards, it's electional system and rights of citizenship.None of which are particularly relevant to the fact that both societies were warmongering military aristocracies ruled by a warlord who deified himself.If anything it's Hitler's Nazism is what is actually unique because it insisted on racial purity, which historical empires typically didn't care about.
>>18603158>None of which are particularly relevantOf course you say 99% of all the other facts are not relevant, because it completely disproves the bullshit narrative you're pushing.>to the fact that both societies were warmongering military aristocracies ruled by a warlord who deified himself.As were the Frankish kingdom under Charlemagne, or the Umayyad Caliphate under Al-Walid.As were essentially any aristocratic ruler who expanded the territory if his state.I knew that was what you were reaching for btw. It is such a low IQ take because you're so desperately grasping at straws "The Roman coqnuered land - Mussolini conquered land - ergo they're the same!"And then you simply dismiss all other differences.Would you say that there was NO DIFFERENCE between Tsarist Russia and Stalins USSR because they both conquered territory? Like we can automatically call Tsarist Russia communist based on this premise by linking this narrow parallel of characteristics to define an entire ideology.
>>18603145They look swarthy because Italians are swarthy
>>18603190Depends on where in Italy
>>18603030Fascism is best described as revolutionary corporativist nationalism, nothing anarchist about it except perhaps the impetus to destroy the previous degenerated society to a build one that's at the same time new and traditionalist
>>18603227>revolutionary corporativist nationalismGood description, but I would also add 'authoritarian' in there, since every fascist movement also had that element.
>>18603232I always found it odd how lefties are so bad at describing fascismThey tie themselves into knots to just either say nothing substantial or just cope and say it's capitalism in decay
>>18603030>>18603041>>18603227Fascism means two things. One is the ideology of Mussolini's party, which you can understand just by reading what they wrote.Then there is Fascism in the general sense, which includes other groups like the Nazis or Salazar's regime. In that sense, Fascism is when a democracy (usually a flawed and ineffective one) turns into a nationalist dictatorship. That's basically it. A nationalist movement can be called Neo-Fascist if they want to overturn democracy, much of the controvers about who can be reasonably called a Fascist stems from that, since nobody today would say "we want to destroy democracy".
>>18603240Well you have the perfect example of this retard >>18603041 who unironically has made the same argument in other threads about this topic. He always puts forward his most arbitrary "how can I define fascism in the most selective way possible so it can be linked to Trump" kind of bullshit and then he cuts short in the middle of the debate or otherwise simply abandon his original arguments completely and acts like this is normal behaviour.The problem is that he never learns. I know he is the same guy because I can tell by the way he formulates himself. The same guy who likes to say he is "well versed in history". It's as if hes actually retarded or just trolling. I'm guessing he has completely rotten his own brain on reddit to the point that even throwing several fascist manifestos in his face with direct quotes simply does not budge because he needs his lies to be true because it serves a narrative.Then he complains over threads like these existing because he doesnt like when people explore the topic (without the heavy moderation).
Fascism the word comes from fasces obviously so Fascism really was just the 20th century iteration of the long European tradition of Rome larping.Napoleon, Francis II, all the "emperor" titles, Peter the great calling Russia an empire, Oliver Cromwell, the United States and all the architecture in Washington, the Dutch republic, the republic of venice, the Novgorod republic, the Renaissance (rebirth of what?), the Holy Roman Empire, the Catholic Church, the Crusades...The whites yearn for their Senatus Populusque
>>18603030No, with Mussolini in particular it was reformed socialism/trade unionism tailored for a society that wasn't quite as fucked as Tsarist Russia (basically anywhere that wasn't a nationwide slave state).
>>18603247>Salazar's regimeSalazar wasnt a fascist idiot. Get the basic facts right. It takes a lot more to be a fascist than simply being authoritarian nationalist. If that was the case then Erdogan would be a fascist (which he isnt, regardless of how much you want to push that narrative just for it to fit your definition) because hes a nationalist who is systematically eroding the democratic system.>Fascism is when a democracy (usually a flawed and ineffective one) turns into a nationalist dictatorship.Ok so Ferdinand Marcos was a fascist?If yes then how come no political scientist or historian labels him a fascist?Same with Salazar btw>Neo-FascistSo this is the point where we are going to stop debating what fascism is and instead focus on what we want it to be and can conviently ignore all the facts about fascism because we put the word "neo" in front.You've already been wrong in just about everything and you probably never read a single book on or a single manifesto by the fascist ideology.Fascism is a revolutionary mass-movement. It's religious nationalism, statism, authoritarianism and organic collectivism (elements of syndicalism, corporatism). You need to fill all of these criterias to have an actual fascist. Your quasi description is far too vague and the consequence is that you inflate the word since it will be applied to hundreds of leaders and states that werent fascist and will never be labeled fascist regardless of how much you want it to be.
>>18603227The thing is that individualist anarchism was pioneered by Proudhon who was antisemitic, misogynist, racist, reactionary on personal matters, chauvinist and a jingoist in top of all that. War was sacred for Proudhon. If you say him in between the chuddest chuds on earth the only weird thing about him would be that he had weird definition of what constitutes property.His view of the anarchist system is when the purely political bodies like parliaments get dissolved and instead a body of experts, trade organisations and guild leaders make decisions. In many ways it's very totalitarian it just refuses to call itself a state.Meanwhile fascist Italy disbands the parliament and replaces it with a body collected based on economic function rather than geography, in other words forms council of experts, trade organisation and corporate(guild) representatives - notably it was missing landlords, I wonder what did individualist anarchist think of those oh wait I know!
>>18603589>fascist Italy disbands the parliament and replaces it with a body collected based on economic function rather than geography, in other words forms council of experts, trade organisation and corporate(guild) representativesDoesnt fascism also advocate for technocracy? Kinda sounds like it when corporatism is such an embedded part of the ideology. I think Mosley advocated for technocracy.
>>18603038>Fascism to me is the synthesis of opposites, of proletariat and bourgeois, of socialism and capitalism, of individualism and collectivism etc.Honestly one of the best descriptions I've heard. It really was so far removed from both Marxism and capitalism that commies threw a fit that someone was stealing their thunder and just labeled it as authoritarian capitalism.
>>18603800Many fascists started their political career as socialists/communists (and vice versa).Both fascist and communism started around roughly the same time period as a response to the times they existed in. Both wanted to rally 'the people' to revolutionize society by making every man and woman political and part of the movement, to create a state that would umbrella every aspect of society and the life of the individual, to mobilize everyone and everything for a common cause.Honestly the only real seperation between the two (in my opinion) was that socialism/communism wanted class war, while the fascists viewed class war as divisive and thus destructive to compelte national unity (a unity the communists wanted to achieve once they had overcome the class struggle). Fascists also hated unions for this reason, they were simply destructive divisive elements to the absolute unity of the state. The state was to become god to the citizen.But in essence their hypernationalism was roughly the same; create a new society for a new people. The communists simply did not call this "nationalism" but in practice nearly all communists state turned out this way (Stalins USSR, Maos China, Kims North Korea, Pol Pots Cambodia, Castros Cuba).
>>18603820Modern day China would probably make Mussolini ecstatic. Remove the socialist veneer and it’s pretty much a textbook corporatist state.
>>18603837China kinda lacks the revolutionary identity necessary for a fascist state tho.People often confuse the nationalist aspect of fascism because they tend to think of nationalism in the common sense of protecting borders, conservative values and self-glorification. The problem is that this isnt the nationalism that fascists had. The fascist nationalism was almost religious, that every single person in the state should pretty much overthrow their entire identity and become one with the state. Im talking mass rallies, uniforms, children being recruited into military-esque movements. The state becomes almost an angelic deity that transcendes the material world. It's not material but an organic spiritual commitment. The state is you and you are the state. A cult if you will.Modern China doesnt have this. Modern China is just the typical nationalist authoritarianism where the state pretty much wants you to remain retarded and shut up about politics and let the state do its business. Anyone who sticks their nose up gets hammered down. Just love the leader and follow instructions. This is the nationalism that we typically think of, the Putin, Erdogan (or historically, Salazar, Pinochet etc).
>>18603875I known its not one to one, but in terms of its economics its not too far off.
>>18603899Probably not, and its the syndicalist/corporate aspects of the Fascist collectivist economic programs that the left are in the most denial about whenever you ask them to define fascism.Mostly because it ruins the narrative that fascism is le far right.
>>18603910A lot of people get defensive when you note that there is a direct lineage from Marx to Fascism. Mussolini credited Georges Sorel for being his primary ideological influence, Sorel having been a Marxist (though an unorthodox one). Mussolini referred to himself as a socialist in his last testament. I vaguely remember a quote from Gentile that was something along the lines of “anyone who speaks of communism in Italy today is simply an impatient Fascist.” I always liked the description of Fascism as a heretical off shoot of Marxism. Many Fascists expressed varying levels of respect for Marx and engaged seriously with his work, many simply disagreed with Marx's solutions. This is even more explicit with the Falangists, Rivera constantly was saying that Marxism was born out of a genuine and legitimate criticism of capitalism.
>>18603927An antifa communist in 2026 will burn down the city before he admits that the fascist ideology has more in common with marxism than it has with capitalism.And like I said in the previous post about mass-mobilization, it completely mirrors how communists envisioned society, to want every person 'committed to the cause', to let the ideology and the state define him and havr him being a cog in the machinery, to embrace complete unity for the state apparatus. The communsts were just as likely to force you through these military-esque uniformed mass rallies as the fascists were. To think of themselves as "new men" in a "new world", a "new identity". The reason fascism is placed in the "far right" folder is because of its nationalist aspect.There are two problems with this thoThe first problem being that we dont define ideologies being 'left' or 'right' based on whether something is nationalistic or cosmopolitan, that was a historical concept which they did in the aftermath of the French revolution.Instead we judge an ideology based on how much state intervention domiantes that ideology. The left is defined by increasing state intervention to harmonize society and support growth. The right is defined by less state intervention to create freedom and opportunity for growth.The second problem being that if we're going to let nationalism be the defining factor, then you immediately have a problem since most communist states (which I mentioned) often became extremely nationalistic themselves, yet we dont let that be a defining factor.The most fascinating fascist movement to me are the Brazilian Integralism. It's probably my favorite example of how misunderstood fascism is to normies since they strongly empathized on a multi-ethnic (it's Brazil after all) syndicalist unity to the state.
>>18603978>Instead we judge an ideology based on how much state intervention domiantes that ideology. The left is defined by increasing state intervention to harmonize society and support growth. The right is defined by less state intervention to create freedom and opportunity for growth.I have seen some people argue that we should redefine the political spectrum on the basis of how much power the government has.>The second problem being that if we're going to let nationalism be the defining factor, then you immediately have a problem since most communist states (which I mentioned) often became extremely nationalistic themselves, yet we dont let that be a defining factor.The Cuban revolution started off as a nationalist revolution, and Castro himself was heavily influenced by Riveras Falange. In fact, modern fascist groups like Casapound idolize Che Guevara, and many spanish fascists supported the Cuban revolution. >The most fascinating fascist movement to me are the Brazilian Integralism. It's probably my favorite example of how misunderstood fascism is to normies since they strongly empathized on a multi-ethnic (it's Brazil after all) syndicalist unity to the state.They were fascinating. It is odd how people can accept that not all socialism is the same and that various branches exist, some more radical than others, but everyone paints fascism with one broad stroke. People understand not to equate socialism with stalinism, but everyone equates fascism with nazism. Most historical socialist governments did their fair share of repression and mass killing, yet there is much less stigma around being a socialist, hell, support for Stalin and Mao is becoming less stigmatized amongst young people. Yet if you say you're a Fascist or you say you admire Mussolini or Jose Antonio Primo De Rivera, people lose their shit, despite both of them being responsible for far less blood shed.
>>18603054That's sort of a category error, any form of government can be imperialist, even communist and socialist powers often had imperial tendencies. The opposition to imperialism that is written into much of 20th century communist literature was often surface level at best and opportunistic at worst.
>>18604017That's why you have to look at the 'broad strokes' of what seemingly every fascist movement had in common to make a real accurate definition of the ideology. You cant be selective because some of them contradicted the other.Mosley was a pacifist, Mussolini glorified war. Integralism was multi-ethnic, Hitler was racist. Falangists/Rexists was catholic etc, the list goes on, it's all kinda all over the place.But what they all had in common was this:1. Revolutionary nationalism2. Authoritarian statism3. Collectivism (Corporatism,/Syndicalism)Virtually every single fascist movement had those 3 combinations. They're non-negotiable. To define something as fascist, it must have these three.To be fair you can give communists some credit for their aggressive distancing of fascism since virtually every fascist movement absolutely demonized communism and would actively hunt them.The problem tho is that most people assume this was the case because they were day-and-night, that they hated each others because they were the polar opposite. This is a lie and it's post-war propaganda by communists to create as much distance between themselves and the fascists as possible.The reality is that the deadly rivalry between communists and fascists stems from the fact that they claimed the other to be a fraud. They hated each others because of the similarities they shared and the differences that seperated them. Think Shia and Sunni muslims. They're almost identical, but the differences has created a deadly rivalry.
>>18604061>Mosley was a pacifist, Mussolini glorified war. Integralism was multi-ethnic, Hitler was racist. Falangists/Rexists was catholic etc, the list goes on, it's all kinda all over the place.I also recall Mosley being rather indifferent to homosexuality. I believe he had an attitude along the lines of “as long as they keep it in the bedroom I don’t really care.” I don’t know if any other Fascists had a similar view.
>>18604089It's just those little cherries that they decided to input in their own movement but like you said, the communists / socialists states themselves had so many crazy offshoots yet none of them ever came to be associated with "true socialism/communism".I remember having this debate earlier about whether or not fascism was racism because Mussolini enacted racist laws in the late 1930s after becoming a junior partner to Germany.My argument was that racism was the norm at the time, that America had racial segregation laws, British dominions had apartheid laws, that Sweden had a racial hygene institution, and based on the premise of judging an ideology from selective actions then the conclusion would be that the core doctrines of democracy is racism because these states were democratic.My argument was that an ideology is what is says in its core tenants, not by whatever a state decides to do. The communist ideology is defined by what is in its theoretical writings. You dont define the communist ideology based on Pol Pots urban depopulation programs. If there is nothing in the fascist ideological manifestos that mentions racial supremacy, then it's not part of the doctrine for fascism.
>>18604114> My argument was that racism was the norm at the time, that America had racial segregation laws, British dominions had apartheid laws, that Sweden had a racial hygene institution, and based on the premise of judging an ideology from selective actions then the conclusion would be that the core doctrines of democracy is racism because these states were democratic. My argument was that an ideology is what is says in its core tenants, not by whatever a state decides to do. The communist ideology is defined by what is in its theoretical writings. You dont define the communist ideology based on Pol Pots urban depopulation programs. If there is nothing in the fascist ideological manifestos that mentions racial supremacy, then it's not part of the doctrine for fascism.I totally agree. For some reason the argument that socialist countries aren’t representative of socialism as a doctrine is valid but it’s not valid when it comes to Fascism. And again, many of the criticisms levied against fascist policy apply to socialist governments. Most modern day socialists support queer liberation despite every single historical socialist government criminalizing or heavily stigmatizing homosexuality. In fact, you would probably have a better time as a homosexual in Fascist Italy than you would in Stalins USSR. Mussolini never criminalized homosexuality, were as Stalin did.
>>18604089I truly believe fascism is simply wholly incompatible with the British psyche.A lot of what Mosley was doing was considered LARP at the time, uniforms, sticking their hands in the air, taking themselves so seriously, that sort of thing might sell in the autistic rigidness of German society, or the romantacist idealism of Italia, but there is just no way the average self-deprecating Anglo would ever bite.But this homosexuality policy betrays that traditional English laissez-faire air there has always been, that as long as something is behind closed doors it's fully permissible. "An Englishman's home is his castle". Such an attitude is entirely antithetical to the totalitarianism demanded by fascism. The British character can not revolt into a revolutionary political state, the closest you'll get is gradual legislation into a police state through the same generalised apathy that has permeated Britain since the druids.Simple as.
>>18604143Any natural apathy towards revolutionary thought the Brits might have is certainly helped along to it's end by British innovations in propaganda and mass media manipulation. I don't think any other country in the world had quite the level of infrastructure for conditioning their population as compared to what the UK had, probably the only other nation to even come close was Germany with Goebbels, but he was just one man. I think this can also help explain why Mosley's movement petered out.
>>18604143Mosley was definitely odd in that he wanted to create a blend of Fascism that still retained some aspects of British parliamentary politics. I believe he supported periodical referendums, which is unusually democratic for a Fascist.
>>18603030Retarded question, fasci is a bundle of sticks. It's iconography is a strength by number thus not individualistic. It puts the state above all else.
>>18604152I still think it's more due to the inherent nature of the British people. When the Romans arrived in Britain they saw a backwards horde, merrily playing in their swamps and bogs. What followed was centuries of trying to drag them, kicking and screaming, into civilization. The only great concerted effort on behalf of the native British people was Boudica's revolt against the Romans. The only time they can summon mass action is when opposed to authority figures. More centuries passed and the Germans interbred thoroughly with the Britons, and despite trying to impose order, and to some extent succeeding, ultimately this new continental aristocracy still had to accept concessions to this underclass (such as the Witan).Then the Normans came, and again the Britons revolted and had to be put down due to the imposition of authority over them (harrying of the North), and again the savage tribalism of the Britons proved too powerful, leading to the magna carta, and rights given to the peasantry not known in any other European country. The parliament that the rulers were forced to accept later overthrew the monarch, not once but twice (first Cromwell, then inviting William III)The Britons today are the same. Any form of sincerity is mocked by them. Any sort of authority sneered at. They will frequently elect people based on how funny a clown they are (Boris Johnson being the principle example), they have just ousted their stable technocrat leader because "he was boring". This sort of underclass led anti-authority streak could not have been expressed better than by Brexit, a decision very few wanted, of who even fewer could elucidate why. It was solely a vote against an institution they saw as the establishment.Fascism couldn't work in Britain because this is who you're dealing with, savages that have somehow been steered into being somewhat industrious and productive through millennia of effort. When you ask them to name a ship they call it "boaty mcboatface."
>>18603030cool stitching on that eagle, very nicely done
today under OP we will make a mighty faggot
>>18603259Meds, this isn't about Trump
>>18604230This is the most earnest yet vitriolic rant I’ve seen directed at a group of people and it is brilliant
>>18604143> But this homosexuality policy betrays that traditional English laissez-faire air there has always been, that as long as something is behind closed doors it's fully permissible. "An Englishman's home is his castle". Such an attitude is entirely antithetical to the totalitarianism demanded by fascismOne of Mosleys political adversaries was a Fascist lesbian who was actually more radical than him. She criticized him for his past affiliation with the labor party and accused him of having socialist sympathies. Brits are wild
>>18604322Was RLO actually lesbian or did she just have short hair?
>>18604330It was a prevalent rumor during her lifetime and there is no historical record of her ever having had any sort of relationship with a man. Considering the attitudes towards gay people at the time there doesn't exist any spoken or written record of her stating her sexuality, but everyone around her seemed to believe she was a lesbian.
>>18603038Thanks for the vid anon.Looking at Fascism and comparing it with Nazi models, it does have a pretty anarchistic quality. Although there's a lot of debates around how to define Fascism so it may be prudent to not have one at all.Fascism in itself is, I'd argue more of a feeling made coherent in a sense. Like a series of methods rather than an "ideology" in the strict sense. Just because someone uses one tactic doesn't mean they're "Fascist" but only if they fill a certain amount of criteria that they do. Like I've seen posts on yt and even on /his/ calling Stalinism Fascistic but naturally completely forget the economic organization being heavily centralized, whilst Mussolini's Fascist state was organized based off syndicates being united by doctrine to one leader rather than strict centralization in the Marxist-Leninist sense.A lot of Fascists even argue, Nazism is quite literally a distinct ideology entirely from Fascism due to it's replacement of Actual Idealism as a philosophical foundation with racial-based hierachies which spawned off-shoots like that of the Burman Fascists or the Galon Fascists in Burma where they utlilize a common "enemy" or scapegoat. The Nazis used "Jew", to define this role is to be that of a leech on a "society" and to blamed for their role in the decay of a society. In Burma, there's the "kalar" which was essentially their version of the Jew but for their local context. But Classical Fascism does not require this and often operates through the framework of "proletarian nations" fighting plutocratic nations.Sorry if this sounded like rambling.
>>18604349Although note on the Galon Fascists, I should've been clearer. Galon Fascism was more descended from this ideology that was inspired by both Nietzsche and the Fenian movements of the time, which eventually got radicalized through Galon U Saw, the main theorist of Galon Fascism. He fused it with both Classical Fascism through Mussolini's writings and Nazism through Hitler's Mein Kampf as a sort of toolkit. Again looping back to the argument of Fascism being a set of methods rather than a strict definition.
>>18604363>>18604363Sorry if I sounded like I was just prattling my mouth off so I'm going to provide sources so anons don't have to search everywhere:Fascist corporatism: https://psi428.cankaya.edu.tr/uploads/files/Williamson%2C%20Varieties%20of%20corporatism--Ch.6--Corporatism%20and%20Fascist%20Italy.pdfGalon Fascism:https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/files/neu:m046sc887/fulltext.pdfThe "ideology" that was inspired by Nietzsche and the Fenians:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThakinsFascism as "feeling":https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR4CLtUHD6gDifferences between Nazism and Fascism:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uemxx1wnBbE&t=565shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nfhg6uHeAoActual Idealism:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVZgVS2PThA
>>18604396Jay Lino has some of the best and most informative content regarding Fascism on YouTube
>>18604427I know, actually puts sources too!
>>18604061>1. Revolutionary nationalism>2. Authoritarian statism>3. Collectivism (Corporatism,/Syndicalism)You forgot Militarism. Authoritarian statism is not enough of a descriptor.
>>18604483No I did not 'forget' militarism because it's not true.Militarism was often just a symptom of authoritarian nationalism, but it's not a requirement, it's nothing but a myth.And if you believe this then you need to tell me exactly where any virtually all the fascist manifestos where it says militarism.Every fascist manifesto speaks of mythical nationalism, authoritarianism, statism and corporatism, not militarism.And I already said earlier in the thread that Mosley was an outspoken pacifist, which again makes 'militarism' as a 'core doctrine' problematic. Some fascist movements glorified conflict (italian, Romanian) but others did not (British, Brazilian, Spanish).
>>18604494Actually i withdraw this statement for now
