/lit/ - Literature

>>16946987
>Nationalism is just hedonism, but "big"

>>16946987
>"Was [hyper-retarded take] the case?"
Gee anon, I really don't know.

i wouldn't add hedonistic, but it's on par with some of what Nietzsche was going on about for sure

>>16946987
Was this post generated by an AI or something? It's absolutely nonsensical.

>>16947001
>>16947003
butt blasted chuds spotted

>>16947025
If you define fascism for me correctly i'll post my twink fascist ass

>>16947036
Okay, but first you define it for me.

>>16947036
Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State a
synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values. 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.

>>16947025
Fuck out of here you puny little chapocel. It really takes next level retardism to describe fascism as "hedonistic" in any way, shape or form. Don't even get me started on its compatibility or lack thereof with Nietzsche's position.

uhg

fascists are THE VEHICLE
they are straight up chickenhawk warmongers
they believed that war and battle brought out the most of human energy and development, and was the most expansive way to agitate growth

there is no end game with them, and in fact, I'm assuming they would strictly be anti-totalitarian, because that means there's no other group for them to do battle with

fucking sick of twitter designing this word fascism for everyone in the modern age

>>16947134
here's an example of a fascist
nationalists employ fascists in order to achieve their goals
its symbiotic because the fascist needs a group to agitate war

>>16947122
Nobody in their right mind would deny the clear hedonistic tendencies that permeate right wing thought you chud. It's in the very descriptor: totalitarianism. Having a warped view on what is generally good doesn't equate to an abstinence from hedonism.

>>16947134
>>16947147
Why do fascists feel the need to attempt to obfuscate the intrinsic values of their ideology under aphorisms? Mussolini laid out the fundamentals of fascism in his doctrine very clearly. There isn't some deep hidden meaning as you spergs like to claim.

>>16947208
>Mussolini laid out the fundamentals of fascism in his doctrine very clearly.
yeah and you clearly haven't read them

>>16947170
>"No one in their right mind would deny the clear hedonistic tendencies that permeate right wing thought you chud!"
>hedonistic tendencies such as...?
>"Uuhhh..."
Austere morality is one of the main factors that repulsed me from leftism and pushed me towards right wing ideas.
>>16947208
He did. Unfortunately, no one left of Mussolini ever read it.

>>16946987
No, it was reactionary pseudo-monarchist larp with *POP ZOOOoooM* futurissimo sidings designed to lure the fickle and stupid away from socialism

>>16947208
>>16947222

Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

...The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after...

...Fascism is the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....

...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absurd conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress

>>16947057
United we are stronger.
>>16947104
This is the correct academic definition but still I don't like it. People hear totalitarian and immediately their minds go to oppression and dictatorship.
>stresses the importance of the State
Is not necessary to say because everything already is and always has been the state.
>and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State
It's not an antagonistic relationship, (in theory) rather it is these individual characters that are a mechanistic function of the form the state takes. i.e if the duce is a dickhead and you overthrow him and take his place that is the new of the state. It's an oak tree constantly changing it's forms.
>will of man as a historic entity.
Yes, this along with myth are the catalysts to historical progress rather than material conditions.
Feel free to respond and call me a retard.
>>16947134
Retard

>>16947222
>>16947230
Neither of these posts are arguments. Please contribute to the discussion.

>>16946987
No, it was a hyper-hedonistic form of Wagnerianism.

>>16947245
mussolini was a nationalist that used fascism and merged his interests with fascism

fascists merge with nationalism, as I said, so they have a group to fight with

it's literally just the volume-11 version of boys competitively fighting as a means to develop

>>16947253
lmao are you serious?
>Why do fascists feel the need to attempt to obfuscate the intrinsic values of their ideology under aphorisms? Mussolini laid out the fundamentals of fascism in his doctrine very clearly. There isn't some deep hidden meaning as you spergs like to claim.
and this added something to the discussion?

>>16947232
In Marxist logic socialism would not have even be possible in Italy until ot became capitalist first, and the fascists thought the powers would not let italy industrialized so they made their own revision of marxist revisionism

Musso regretted not kicking out the monarchs

twitter literally just memed people into action because there was a pre-established economy of conditioning of "fascism" in their heads through decades of media indoctrination
the concept has been debated for a century in this direct form, so it's ambiguous enough that modern media can design it however they want

>>16947232
If you read early Marinetti, it was pretty clear he was a Nietzsche fan boy. He even wrote about his love for Nietzsche in his diary I believe.

The futurist doctrine was hyper Nietzscheanism. Marinetti took Nietzscheanism to its most hedonistic extreme and this had a great influence of the core philosophies of Fascism.

>>16947276
Yes because whenever fascism discussion comes up, the first go to defence of fascists is to pretend others can't possibly understand it and to play definition games which aren't conducive to interesting discussion.

>>16947331
I already posted direct mussolini quotes that back up my assertion and you've quietly brushed past them to defend your own impotent comment

>>16947253
What discussion can be had with a bunch of retards who don't even substantiate their points?
>>16947262
Funny post.

>>16947264
mussolini was a syndicalists that used myth and merged his interests with nationalism.
syndies merge with nationalism, and italian idealists justified their thought through their philosophy.

>>16947331
I told you what fascism is >>16947250

>>16947351
Posting an excerpt from someone else's writing without providing any context isn't an argument either.

>>16947367
I never asked you for a definition.

>>16947375
THOSE ARE DIRECT MUSSOLINI QUOTES

>>16947385
EXPRESSING WHAT FASCISM IS
LIKE WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT LMAO

>>16947382
You are a dummy arguing against something you don't even know what it is.
The words you are using don't think what you think they mean.

>>16947410
>Don't think
Don't mean

>>16947385
>>16947391
>>16947410
I don't think i've ever seen a conversation with fascists on this board not devolve into semantics or definition games. It's obviously the go to strategy for an ideology that is built on iffy truths.

Nobody ever asked you time wasters for a definition of fascism.

>>16947435
What are you arguing?

>>16947435
???????????
literally 2 people ITT said define fascism

just close the thread and call it a day dude

>>16947450
Just feeding trolls

>>16947460
Imagine being this dishonest.

isn't fascism generally fairly anti-hedonism?

>>16947485
its very indulgent with war and all of wars entrails

>>16947485

>>16947485
It seems that way only because the fascist conception of morality was completely detached from conventional post antiquity western morality. Fascism at its core was a sort of warped hyper hedonism, based on false truths and an abjected general good.

>>16947517
What book is that

>>16947554
Genesis and Structure of Society, Harris translation

>>16947493
>"War is hedonistic!" t. retard
Bigbrains of /lit/. Is there some raid ongoing atm? Lots of low IQ discourse on fascism all of a sudden.
>>16947544
Make an actual argument retard, no matter how many times you assert something it won't magically become the truth.

>>16947611
Excessive war is hedonism, especially when your very doctrine treats war as the ultimate good and ontological driver of your society. It's the hedonism of the mentally ill, nobody in their right mind would deny this,

>>16947637
You have made more assertions without expounding an actual argument. Walks us through from point A to point B, will you? What does "excessive war" even mean? Who are you to determine what amount of war is correct and what amount is excessive? The USA has been at almost constant war since its creation yet it's a liberal state. Does that make liberalism a hyper-hedonistic warmongering fascism?

>>16947637
>especially when your very doctrine treats war as the ultimate good and ontological driver of your society
Not even fascism

>>16947637
>"We will glorify war—the world's only hygiene—militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman".

I think when you are describing war in this fashion it's a bit excessive, but again that really just depends on whether you've taken your meds and how much of yourself you've managed to detach from conventional western morality.

>>16947667
Meant to reply to you >>16947698

>>16947680
>t. retard

>>16947723
Give me a single citation from a fascist philosopher that espouses war as the ultimate good.
War is driver in all societies, but no one made the case that it is always something to be saught after.

>>16946987
Yes.

Constant critical lack, or deficit, of the noble ethicomoral prerequisite, necessarily leads the motivated volition of the superabundant entity along the path of villainy, by way of Satanism/Demonism/Paganism, toward its destination in Hell.

>>16947746
>"We will glorify war—the world's only hygiene—militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman".

-Marinetti, author of the Fascist manifesto, founding member of the Italian Fascist party.

>>16947698
>"Hyper-hedonist Nietzschean warmongering is when you use vibrant descriptive language and the more vibrant descriptive language you use the hyper-hedonister and Netzscheaner your warmongering gets"
Also, haven't you literally taken that quote from Marinetti's work on Futurism?

>>16947825
Futurism and early fascism are the same thing. The fascist party of literally used to be called the Futurist Political Party until it merged with Mussolini's movement. Marinetti literally co-wrote the preliminary Fascist Manifesto.

>>16947798
>We [futurists] will glorify war
That's from the 1909 futurist manifesto
He also left the fascist party in 1920.
>founding member of the Italian Fascist party
No his party merged with the Italian Fasces of Combat
You also forget that Marinetti was an artist and loved to provoke people with theatrics.

You have a really surface level understanding of this era.
Try again sweaty

>>16947851
>The fascist party of literally used to be called the Futurist Political Party
No, it wasn't, the Italian Fasces of Combat was a rebranding of the Fasces of Revolutionary Action which itself split from the Italian Socialist Party.
>Marinetti literally co-wrote the preliminary Fascist Manifesto.
Did you read the 1919 Fascist manifesto? Where did it say WE WILL GO TO WAR AND WAR IS GOOD.

Again, you half heartedly skimmed through Wikipedia.
Try again sweaty.

>>16947851
>Futurism and early fascism are the same thing.
No.
>>16947851
>The fascist party of literally used to be called the Futurist Political Party until it merged with Mussolini's movement.
Mussolini's movement is the fascist party.
>Marinetti literally co-wrote the preliminary Fascist Manifesto.
Mhm, yeah, okay anon, whatever you say.

>>16947855
Marinetti fell out of favour with the party at a later date, but his influence on fascism undeniable, his philosophy quite literally shaped the fascist motive, nobody who understands this section of history denies this.

>>16947889
>Mhm, yeah, okay anon, whatever you say.
He did.
God everyone is talking out of their ass about Fascism, even those that are on "my side"

READ BOOKS SWEATY.

>>16946987
No. Nietzsche was anti-nationalist. There is no definition of fascism that doesn't describe it as hypernationalist.

And I'm unsure you know what the word hedonism means. Fascism is all about self-sacrifice and renouncing comfort for militant self-discipline for the good of the state.

Some say fascism is capitalism in decay, as on socioeconomic level it represents an alliance of corporate and traditional elites who need to prevent social unrest by directing the public against constructed external enemies, or internal social parasites.

>>16947902
Stop trolling me you dumb retard. There's nothing virtuous about pretending to be retarded.

>>16947896
>Marinetti fell out of favour with the party at a later date
Literally the next year.
>his philosophy quite literally shaped the fascist motive, nobody who understands this section of history denies this.
I am not denying that he was influential, I am saying that he was an artist and a provocateur and his "alliance" with fascism was brief and barely lasted a year.
Marinetti didn't have a "philosophy" he was an artist and a poet. If you want fascist philosophy read Gentile, Sorel and Spirito's works. For the latter you're going to have to go through secondary sources like A James Gregor because there is no english translation of his work.

>>16947923
You're a dumb retard for making statements like "marinetti didn't write the fascist manifesto" we are literally just talking about basic facts

>>16947881
>>16947889
Imagine being this dishonest. All of the early Fascist writings are rife with this glorification of war. No serious historian would deny this. Imagine advocating for ideologies you know nothing about.

>War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it. All other tests are substitutes which never place a man face to face with himself before the alternative of life or death. Therefore all doctrines which postulate peace at all costs are incompatible with Fascism.

-The Doctrine of Fasicsm

>>16947922
>socioeconomic level it represents an alliance of corporate and traditional elites
Please enlighten me how this happened in a fascist country I would love to hear.
Don't tell me you are confusing corporatism with corporatocracy.

>>16947930
>You're a dumb retard for making statements like "marinetti didn't write the fascist manifesto" we are literally just talking about basic facts
You said "preliminary fascist manifesto" - are you referring to the actual fascist manifesto here or are you just pulling some dumb shit like earlier with the Futurist quote you pulled?
>>16947932
I do not deny that fascism is at least in theory a lot more open minded in regards to war than liberalism. As I mentioned earlier, though, there is nothing "hedonistic" about war, nor can a good argument be made that fascism assigns "excessive" value to war. See here >>16947667

>>16947036
post ass faggot

>>16947932
You are moving on to goal posts. Saying that war makes a people stronger is not the same as saying war is the ultimate good. All fascist ideology does is recognize war is not always avoidable and that peace for peace sake alone is an unrealistic worldview to hold.

That doesn't mean that you have to go to war forever— or that it is the ultimate good, but one cannot know peace without knowing war.

>>16947956
>nor can a good argument be made that fascism assigns "excessive" value to war.

It quite literally can both in theory (the text's being posted in this thread which clearly state their intentions) and in practice (the historical conclusion of European fascism).

>>16947956
>You said "preliminary fascist manifesto" Was not me, when anon said preliminary fascist manifesto I knew he meant the one of the 1919 party which marinetti co-authored.
You must have misunderstood that he meant that so I thought I'd correct you, oh the problem of words.
>>16947961
I didn't like the definition given.

>>16947971
>especially when your very doctrine treats war as the ultimate good and ontological driver of your society
>and ontological driver of your society

>>16947987
>and ontological driver of your society
What does this even mean?

>>16947974
>It quite literally can both in theory (the text's being posted in this thread which clearly state their intentions)
I don't think you understand why I put the word "excessive" in quotes.
>and in practice (the historical conclusion of European fascism).
The number of wars waged by fascists: 2. Communists have waged a lot more wars. Liberals have waged even more wars than communists.
>>16947979
>You must have misunderstood that he meant that so I thought I'd correct you, oh the problem of words.
Speak English amigo

>>16947036
fascism: a political and racial framework used to achieve ethnonationalist pride among the working class and political elite. ultimately the individual and the state are meant to be seen superficially as one and the same rather than separate entities
best I can do. also, do you have any insight into the phenomenon of femboys embracing fascism

>>16948078
>fascism: a political and racial
Stopped reading right there, no. NO.

>>16948011
At this point. it's just a bad faith argument based on some abstract definition you have on what is considered excessive. The definition of time wasting.

>>16948090
>le "classical fascism" understander has arrived
I am sorry to break it to you bro, but fascism always had ties to the racial ideas.
>>16948101
You are wasting my time, yes. My point is that any definition of "excessive" would be completely worthless, arbitrary and meaningless.

>>16948078
>phenomenon of femboys embracing fascism
Retardation and larping, I'm not actually a faggot and they're not actually fascists.
>>16948101
In the thousands of pages of fascist thought there is very little that had to do with war for the sake of war, violence is just accepted as a tool to bring about change.
All I have to say is
"Hm, war had become too destructive, maybe we ought to tone that down a little" There, I am a revisionist!
And it would STILL be fascist because one of the key tenants of fascism that it does not have an ideology SET IN STONE

>>16948119
>>le "classical fascism" understander has arrived
>I am sorry to break it to you bro, but fascism always had ties to the racial ideas.
No it hasn't you bafoon. Italian fascists, and one such GIOVANNI GENTILE hated racial reductionism. They thought it was just another form of materialism

>>16948119
Lol
Giovanni and Mussolini both denounced this

It's like you guys try so hard to cling to the Twitter mind virus indoctrination camp
Just let it go, they spun narrative to get anarchists to attack boomers, and since they couldn't meaningfully develop the black community and prevent it from devolving, they just spammed the US with a bunch of shit to get white women to fuck them, and to get everyone to get on their level of standards so at least the gap isn't as big despite everyone dumbing down

>>16948146
>In the thousands of pages of fascist thought there is very little that had to do with war for the sake of war

Cope, not only did theoretical fascism push a pro war sentiment, but also practical fascism. You can deny this, but you will only be denying the realities of last century. This sort of delusion is why Fascists have been the unanimous losers of our epoch, you don't live in reality, only in narratives.

>>16948156
>which is why they introduced a racial doctrine of their own
Literally all the way back in 1919 Mussolini was already talking of race. To say that race wasn't a major theme in the Italian fascist movement is to deliberately close your eyes to the facts. Race wasn't as major of a factor in Italy as it was in Germany, but it was still a major factor.
>>16948178
What are you talking about

>>16948201
>Cope, not only did theoretical fascism push a pro war sentiment, but also practical fascism.
You posted 4 lines from the Doctrine of Fascism about how war is not unavoidable and some thoughts of a poet. Being anti peace for peace sake doesn't mean you are pro war for war sake, and again- the whole point of fascism is that it is an organic doctrine meaning that doctrine can and did change.
>>16948201
>Literally all the way back in 1919 Mussolini was already talking of race
Really? Could you give me an example?
>it was still a major factor.
Please explain how

>>16946987
Folks keep trying to apply the philosophy of an anti-statist to statist political philosophies, and it just doesn’t work. Sorry.

>>16948240
>Really? Could you give me an example?
Saw a screenshot of one of his articles from 1919 where he was talking about Jews and their racial link to international capital etc, but I don't look for this type of stuff so you can go find it yourself if you're interested.
>Please explain how
Because literally everyone and their mothers was neck deep in race theory in the 1900s. Germans, Russians, Anglos, Frenchmen, Italians etc etc. Go see what Kaiser Willy, "the non-wignat" had to say about race. This idea that fascists - a radical right political current - were some race blind civnats is totally retarded and delusional.

>>16948240
I posted multiple quotes of key Fascist figures expressing a clearly excessive pro war sentiment. It's not my job to spoon feed you sources, maybe you should do some reading before you talk about topics you clearly have a limited understanding of.

>>16948252
>Saw a screenshot of one of his articles from 1919 where he was talking about Jews and their racial link to international capital etc, but I don't look for this type of stuff so you can go find it yourself if you're interested.
Well I saw I screenshot of him saying that anti semetism is bullshit but I can't find it right now so you can look it up yourself if you're interest
>Because literally everyone and their mothers was neck deep in race theory in the 1900s. Germans, Russians, Anglos, Frenchmen, Italians etc etc. Go see what Kaiser Willy, "the non-wignat" had to say about race.
You are somehow conveniently avoiding giving me examples and giving me claims with no proof.
>This idea that fascists - a radical right political current
Please explain how fascism is "radical right"
>>16948254
>I posted multiple quotes of key Fascist figures
No you posted one quote from a futurist poet, and you posted one excerpt from the doctrine of fascism that simply argues that pacifism for it's own sake is stupid.
>It's not my job to spoon feed you sources
Then what are you arguing for? Stop replying if your arguments are pulled out of your ass
>maybe you should do some reading before you talk about topics you clearly have a limited understanding of.
Oh the irony

>>16948320
You know its a rough day on /pol/ when word for word excerpts from Mussolini writing or quotes from founding fascist party members aren't enough to convince somebody that fascism held a strong pro war sentiment.

>>16948252
How much time have you spent on Twitter just curious

>>16947230
>Austere morality
What?

>>16948336
I already posted the same quote and told him it was straight from Mussolini and he keeps avoiding that it's a direct Mussolini quote

>>16948336
Mussolini isn't big dick man that gets to decide what is and what isn't fascism. Lenin isn't big dick man that decides what is and what isn't socialism.
>>16948360
Are you literate? How many times do I have to tell you what you are quoting is simply saying that perpetual peace is an unattainable idea? I'm not denying the quote, I'm simply saying that it isn't holding war as "the ultimate virtue" and I post an excerpt on the whole war peace dichotomy straight from the "philosopher of fascism himself >>16948320
Yet you just ignore it

>>16948385
>Mussolini isn't big dick man that gets to decide what is and what isn't fascism. Lenin isn't big dick man that decides what is and what isn't socialism.

Oh I see, so what you're saying is real fascism has never been tried... Gotcha

>>16948393
So Biden is the authority on what is and isn't democracy because he's president of the United States?
I give you an excerpt straight from the book that you continue to ignore and not even mention, you are not even capable of engaging the text, your mind just blocks out this information.

>peace at all costs are incompatible with Fascism != war is the ultimate good

>>16947003
kek

>>16948385
You obviously didn't read the text, you didn't understand it or you didn't want to read and understand it. Either way you are a retard.

>War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it.
>All other tests are substitutes which never place a man face to face with himself before the alternative of life or death.
>Therefore all doctrines which postulate peace at all costs are incompatible with Fascism.
>it sums up a doctrine which is not
merely political: it is evidence of a fighting spirit
which accepts all risks.

>>16948410
What if war is the price for peace?

You obviously didn't read the text, you didn't understand it or you didn't want to read and understand it. Either way you are a retard.

>War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it.
>All other tests are substitutes which never place a man face to face with himself before the alternative of life or death.
>Therefore all doctrines which postulate peace at all costs are incompatible with Fascism.
>it sums up a doctrine which is not merely political: it is evidence of a fighting spirit which accepts all risks.

>>16948385
>>16948436
meant for you

>>16948385
>Are you literate?
Are you trolling or just retarded I genuinely can't tell
Using an ambiguous concept like "good" is empty and houses your projections.
"Good" wasn't brought into the description of fascism, that's what you're trying to assert.

Mussolini glorying war and saying great for development should tell you plenty about what fascists were "pro", and what they thought was virtuous.
Is that close enough to "good" for you?

>>16948436
>>16948429
>>16948450
>there are positive aspects of war, i.e progresses technology, strengthens unity, tests man, makes heros, forms myth,
>pursuing peace as an ideal at all costs is incompatible
That is what it says.

>Using an ambiguous concept like "good" is empty and houses your projections.
>"Good" wasn't brought into the description of fascism, that's what you're trying to assert.
Your claim is
>>16947637
>Excessive war is hedonism, especially when your very doctrine treats war as the ultimate good and ontological driver of your society.
Admitting there are positive elements of war is not the same as asserting it is the "ultimate good" or that it is the only driver of the society.

In fascist thought supposed dichotomies like state and individual, war and peace are inseperable and in part of a synthesis. One literally cannot exist without the other.

And EVEN with all this said, just because Mussolini said something doesn't mean that we have to listen to Mussolini. Mussolini said a lot of things.

>Some still ask of us: what do you want? We answer with three words that summon up our entire program. Here they are…Italy, Republic, Socialization. . .Socialization is no other than the implantation of Italian Socialism…
This was in 1944, are we going to ditch the corporatist model and now switch ownership of the means of production to the workers? (Many fascists wanted to do this)
Are we going to track down every last word that Mussolini said, up until his last breath so we can have the truest form of fascism?
What is this fucking idea that we have to follow everything that which is said by MUSSOLINI who was not even the philosopher of fascism but rather a leader of a state?
Again one of the core tenants of fascism is that it doesn't have an absolute doctrine that is meant to be followed word by word like Marxism.
Fascism is a merger of Italian Idealism, Nationalism and Syndicalism. If we decide war will do more harm than good, then there will be no war. If we decide to be pacifists then we will be pacifists. (there were pacifist members of the BuF)
Whether you are pro or anti war has nothing to do with how "fascisty" you are.

>>16948570
So fascists didn't exalt war? they just wrote about it glowingly and actively participated in the most destructive war in human history... and Mussolini wasn't an important enough figure within fascism to have any sort of defining impact on it? And a fascism doctrine didn't exist? yet Mussolini et al wrote multiple preliminary declarations? And none of it counts because in 1944 after the fascists had already lost the war, they changed their mind on some of their earlier views?

Sounds like you have it all worked out there my man, definitely bullet proof logic... Keep me posted...

>>16948648
>So fascists didn't exalt war?
Pic related
>they just wrote about it glowingly and actively participated in the most destructive war in human history...
This is not an argument, but only moral faggotry, everyone participated in the war.
>Mussolini wasn't an important enough figure within fascism to have any sort of defining impact on it?
>And a fascism doctrine didn't exist
I simply said that Mussolini is not the authority of what Fascism is and isn't. The doctrine of fascism is that fascism is ORGANIC and state conception of it is bound to change.
>yet Mussolini et al wrote multiple preliminary declarations?
What?
>in 1944 after the fascists had already lost the war, they changed their mind on some of their earlier views?
What views did they change their mind on do you even know? The fascists were nkt followers of the same thought, among them there were conservatives, monarchists, socialists, syndicalists. Mussolini himself was a former anarchist until he was kicked out of the socialist party for having interventionist views in the first world war (a view that wasn't uncommon for then anarchists)

Americans used to count African Americans as 3/5 of a person, does contemporary rejection of this now make you un-American?

>>16948694
>nooo don't invade my fascist brothers so they can take over europeee
Retard

>>16948876
mosley had an anti interventionist stance long before hitler was even relevant in politics, this stance continued when he was head of the british union of fascists.
he started off as a conservative, then joined labor (then left because their economics were too laissez-faire for him lul)
>He warns nations that buying cheaper goods from other nations may sound appealing but ultimately ravage your domestic industry and lead to large unemployment as seen in the 30s. Mosley in regards to free trade argues that they are trying to "challenge the 50-year-old system of free trade which exposes industry in the home market to the chaos of world conditions, such as price fluctuation, dumping, and the competition of sweated labour, which result in the lowering of wages and industrial decay.

Anyway every single argument made so far against fascism is war propaganda tier and idiots saying
>SEE, MUSSOLINI SAID WAR SHOWS YOU WHAT PEOPLE ARE MADE OF, FASCISM IS AN IDEOLOGY OF WAR AND ONLY WAR
And then any response I made is suddenly shit on because apparently since musso wrote something and he is my duce, I have to get on my knees and suck his cock.
Now that people stopped responding it seems I've made my point, though at what cost? Hours of wasting time shit flinging about what fascism is and isn't.
I don't want to do this anymore, i'd have a better time preaching to a crowd in the street.

All philosophical discussion on /lit/ should be prohibited unless a particular book is referenced in the OP.

>>16946987>>16947001
>>16947208
>>16947245
>>16948078
>>16947881

>fascism
fascism is the glorification of the republic and the public servants running it, which is indeed nietzscheanism applied to humanism and humanists are just glorifying sex and humanist morality

What the fuck is your deal you fucking chuds

>>16948957
eat shit bootlicking fascist chud

>>16948957
Chuds were pwned

>>16948939
>I don't want to do this anymore

Because you got owned, it happens kid.

>>16946987
How the hell is it hedonistic, first of all

>>16949070
How did I get owned?

redditors and /pol/tards are alike in their criticism of things they've never bothered to study by themselves

>>16946987
fascism and nazism are the femboy form of capitalism. No one can refute Gorki at this point of history, that should give you a hint. Pol, real life fascists and capitalists are the same: ill constructed and weak human beings afraid of congoloid orangutans.

>>16949281
Gorki never said that