/lit/ - Literature

>>18770225
>Its naiveté is painful.
This describes all leftist thought

Anarchists are just fascists in denial. They pin everything on "natural" brotherly and social instincts between men, when in reality those instincts come from being an organic part of a Volk, a shared superpersonal unity with its own past and future. Nearly everything anarchists say is correct if you just replace "... once the bourgeoisie is overthrown and we all spontaneously and healthfully join together" with "... once the bourgeoisie is overthrown and we all spontaneously and healthfully join together in our natural volkisch communities."

Communists often have good instincts too, the same as the anarchists, but they just as often poison them with years of self-delusion, because they are unwilling to accept the inevitability of primal communities and differences between nations because Jews tell them communism MUST be a nationless universalist Rousseauist technocratic utopia without any of the downsides, so they try to force themselves to love totalitarianism. Some break from the stress and become liberal demi-Marxists, perpetually bitter, others become tankies and start taking estrogen. Many such cases.

>>18770235
I'm trying to "educate" myself to argue politics better, but that's religion-level demagoguery with no parallel with the concrete world. Albeit cryptic, christian ethics still predicts people are awful and threat everyone with eternal damnation if you don't behave, but believing all that human being need to be altruistic is to take care of basic needs and give access to tech is dumb

>Anarchists are just fascists in denial
Considering every self-announced anarchist was a college-educated communist and punk-gang members, you're surprisingly on point

>because Jews
Oh, wow. OK, I'm not paying attention to anything else you have to say

>>18770255
This. This is directly related to the meme that Rousseau was the first fascist.

>>18770225
>as if they're not complete assholes to each other since the dawn of time
This is actually Kropotkin's claim. Anthropology has since supported him by the way.

>>18770255
>Anarchists are just fascists in denial.
This.
The coming anarcho-fascist coalition is soon.

>>18770255
>>18770411
also please drop the anti-semetic rhetoric. yes some jews can be shitty, but have more nuisance than that.

>>18770388
>Anthropology
Pseudoscience
How has it supported him?

commies and anarchists seem to have a completely fictional view of society and the human race

its like someone gave them a few puffs of a joint and a free hot dog at a music festival once and they decided they would base their entire world view on this experience

>>18770225
I read his other book (The State, Its Role in History/ Гocyдapcтвo, eгo poль в иcтopии) at the institute, and wrote essays on his biography. He was a good man. Lenin was fundamentally bad, even if he had not become a politician - he would have harmed others in a different way, he had an evil soul. Kropotkin really felt a physiological rejection of violence and that is what led him to such naive ideas. He was a very smart man, he wrote scientific articles about glaciers, he quickly learned. When he speaks of revolution, this also means a non-violent revolution, one might say a moral one, and not what the Bolsheviks did.
In general, I sympathize with him (not his ideas), as an honest but short-sighted person.

>>18770456
Lenin wasn't evil. He has been through a lot.

>>18770225
>immutable ""human nature"" that exists ""since the dawn of time"" without changing to new conditions
Boomer talk-radio tier, somebody get the spookmobile

>>18770420
Just look up the way hunter-gatherer bands lived, i.e. like 90+% of human history. Marx called them primitive communists for a reason.

>>18770475
we were fucking amoebas for 90% of history so what

>>18770475
Families are pretty authoritarian. Or used to be prior to divorce laws and criminalizing child labor.

>>18770475
Even if that were true (which it probably isn't, we know of many hunter gatherers, both present and prehistoric, who engaged in and died from violence), there is a reason that lifestyle isn't feasible beyond a small number of people living together. That mode, if it even ever existed, is impossible in the current world and will never happen.
The noble savage myth is false.

>>18770225
>as if they're not complete assholes to each other since the dawn of time and thus human nature and unavoidable
how philosophical of you. fuck off

>>18770225
>that in truth are closeted communists.
Hehehe. These “communists” you’re thinking of are closeted closeted liberals. Anarchists are genuinely trying to reach actual communism. Unless they’re anarcho-liberals/anarcho-capitalists of course. They’re out in the open liberals.
> He insists people will toil to feed their fellow men
As they they’ve been shown to do throughout history. (Payment isn’t originally money, I’m sure you’ll be shocked to learn)
> He also believes the populace will organize itself into comissariats that will procure resources and share it fairly.
Something they’ve also done plenty of times, and can certainly do again with little fuss.
> How much wishful thinking
Yes, we hope to get another shot at out lost freedom and make it work this time. A big goal, a big challenge, absolutely.

Read this next.

>>18770469
In that case we are adapted to being, xenophobic, warmongering cutthroats, because so were the conditions of the last 3000 years at the very least, even if you hold Rousseau's style of beliefs on prehistory.

Hardly a material for kropoopkin style anarchists.

>>18770255
>Anarchists are just fascists in denial
No. Only “ancaps” are. You rusty meme spigot

>>18770497
Families have a justifiable hierarchy. Sometimes they’re trash, and it’s usually because one of them is an authoritarian who locks the other out as a mere beast of burden.

Do the math, folks!

>>18770411
nope. Camus explains the difference very succinctly in The Rebel. Communists (anarchists are included) is the victim praising the executioner, whereas fascism is the executioner praising the executioner. With anarchism, there is justice, with Fascism, there is only capitalist decadence and depravity .

>>18770255
Based, leftism only works in high-trust monoethnic societies (which is why corporations are trying so hard to make those disappear from the Earth). Take the Strasser pill.

>>18770559
So weak

>>18770571
If a worker's state ever appears you will be fed into a woodchipper in the nearest public square. Dykes are a product of capitalism, now please proceed to seethe, cope, and self-mutilate.

>>18770571
YOU
>>18770485
idk if it was you or the other butterfly, but one of you recommended me this book

>>18770475
Wholly untrue, even stone age peoples still had to compete for hunting/fishing rights to certain spots. There isn't even distribution of wild forage and animals to hunt in nature, some spots are obviously better than others and even prior to settled agriarianism there was warfare for certain ranges of land.

>Be me.
>Be in commie book club.
>We read the Bread Book to start.
>Everyone in the group: "This sucks, let's read Engels."

>>18770563
If I was being mischievous, I'd look forward to today's Strasserists getting purged hard by today's new breed of Musk-worshipping hustle gang crypto bros who are "making capitalism for me," which is what libertarianism turned into, totally reconciled with neoliberalism with all the rebellious parts sanded off. Then they'll flee for their lives on a ship, which capsizes, then they wash up on the beach on commie island and I'll be there, standing, looking at them and saying: what did you expect was going to happen you idiot

>>18770536
>Anarchists are genuinely trying to reach actual communism
Exacly my point. They're not actually anarchists.

>As they they’ve been shown to do throughout history
There's no parallel on modern automation in history. If they united was for not starving. You need to be terribly fucked to starve in the modern era, wich is a portrait of how much fucked as people muslim and african countries are without proper,civilized and actually progressist centralized leadership.

>we hope to get another shot at out lost freedom and make it work this time
And if that doesn't enslave others, you're free to try. Actually, you're free to try it right now. Just start a commune like many did. It will work, believe me. You know, unless you're just another demagogue trying to get elected by convincing you'll be able to pull this out globally. Then you'll just fail, and I hope you don't enable any destruction while failing it, like many more before you.

>>18770225
I'll just repost the answers I got on /pol/

>>18770225
The "fraternal and sharing nature of the human being" is only achieved through unity and shared goals. Without a ethnically homogeneous society, without extreme nationality, without honored tradition, without religion, and without truth, we have nothing but ourselves.

Individuality is strong. Individuality is useful. Individuality is power.
BUT.
United Identity is too. The individual makes up the group and the group makes the individual.

Fight for your morals, fight for your yourself, fight for your family, fight for your community, fight for your race, and fight for your nation. Fight for your ROOTS.

I love you my brothers. God bless.

>>18770558
>ancaps
>austrian nuts who believe in capitalism with no restrictions
>fascists
>neo-hegelian idealists who did not advocate for a system but historically practiced keynesianism with ever increasing socialization of industry
geez these two are exactly the same
>>18770561
camus is a c-rate philosopher who never picked up fascist literature in their life. there is no evidence fascism is "capitalist decadence" considering that fascism was born out of revolutionary interventionists who wanted to bring down the Hapsburg monarch

>>18770225
Maybe he would be correct if we were not living in a multicultural, rootless, demoralized, Godless society, but I bet he's not willing to admit that truth.

Why should I share with a man who I have nothing in common with? Why should I risk myself for a potential enemy? Why should I help a Godless man?

>>18770610
>If I was being mischievous, I'd look forward to today's Strasserists getting purged hard by today's new breed of Musk-worshipping hustle gang crypto bros who are "making capitalism for me," which is what libertarianism turned into, totally reconciled with neoliberalism with all the rebellious parts sanded off. Then they'll flee for their lives on a ship, which capsizes, then they wash up on the beach on commie island and I'll be there, standing, looking at them and saying: what did you expect was going to happen you idiot
What the fuck are you on about you gibbering tranny

>>18770558
>No
youre literally proof of that statement though

>>18770635
>camus is a c-rate philosopher who never picked up fascist literature in their life
camus literally discusses Hitler in The Rebel, but okay.
>capitalist decadence" considering that fascism was born out of revolutionary interventionists who wanted to bring down the Hapsburg monarch
the aesthetics of fascism was derived from futurism (which was a capitalistitc art movement) and the decadence movement (literally the literature of capitalist and cultural decline). Aristocrats have taken down monarchies a lot in the past. that doesn't mean they're socialists.

>>18770646
I mean that's what happened to those guys.

>>18770636
>Why should I share with a man who I have nothing in common with? Why should I risk myself for a potential enemy?
That sounds really demoralized to me. I'm not going to take any risks, I'm not going to risk myself for a potential enemy (who could be potentially anyone).

It's very narrow to me. Because people do risk themselves for people who are "not like them," and they don't wait around for someone in power to give them permission before acting.

https://youtu.be/ksZh_AP-ZSE?t=6022

>>18770595
>If another state is founded around the already existing state you are in, I will imagine you will be murdered.
Sadist nonsense. Save it.

>>18770602
Really?

>>18770621
You don’t know what the commune even is. FAKE POST. You aren’t reading this book!
OPs a troll.

>>18770635
>Fascists are just anti-system Hegelians who advocate Keynesianism
PbpbpbbHAHAHHAHHAHAHAH

>>18770681
In no way ever. You posing as one of those anarcho-punkers? Read a book, Skidmark

>>18770688
hitler is literally not a fascist and if camus ever picked up a book concerning political philosophy he would know this
>the aesthetics of fascism was derived from futurism (which was a capitalistitc art movement)
>art movement
>capitalistic
what
>decadence movement (literally the literature of capitalist and cultural decline)
in the late 19th century where capitalism just started beginning?
>Aristocrats have taken down monarchies a lot in the past. that doesn't mean they're socialists.
that may be true and the fascists did consider themselves to be the aristocrats but the interventionism of the fascists was purely for socialist reasons. even Kropotkin supported the entente.

>>18770701
Butterfly, practice sucking on a long dildo while you make posts for the rest of the night:3

For our future :)

BTW nice post you are very smart

>>18770701
>PbpbpbbHAHAHHAHHAHAHAH
ok, then what? you never engage with me butters, and I'm always the one who defends you in posts.

>>18770706
Well there's a saying I heard once about futurism which is that you can only really "be" a futurist if you're incredibly rich. Back then, those types didn't have problems with captains of industry, they just didn't think the crop of rulers around town at the time had enough verve and energy. Case in point:

https://youtu.be/gYG_4vJ4qNA

>>18770701
intellectually speaking you exist entirely on denial though, your entire world view is you taking ideas, then denying the reality of those ideas in favour of some flowery hyper romanticized utopian dream version that exists nowhere but your own head

in your anarchism there is no raping and killing priests, coordinated massacres of "unbelievers" who dont play ball with your revolution or actively work against it, your revolutionary community is not placed within real life context of the world as a whole where it will be under constant threat and have to exist under the protection of other ideologies or enforce its independence against literal impossible odds

you are so fucking immersed in denial its beyond insane

>>18770752
being rich is not anti socialist in the slightest. the whole point of socialism is that your wealth is being robbed by the bourgeoisie class. in socialism everyone is supposed to well off economically- "rich" even.

the futurists were influenced heavily by nietzsche, obviously they would not make a virtue out of poverty. in their manifestos they would refer to themselves as anarchists, after mussolini got into the government there was a split between the futurists who supported mussolini and the futurists who did not.

initially, pretty much all futurists were behind mussolini, even the syndicalists Alceste De Ambris. however, they did not appreciate when mussolini toned down his radicalism (dropping anti-clerical rhetoric, class collaboration)after he got into the government. mussolini says he did this for pragmatic reasons.

in the end, the crux of the matter is that leftists just disagree with mussolini's tactics. is replacing the bourgeoisie with a hereditary bureaucracy à la Lenin really much better than Mussolini's "class collaborationism"? (rhetoric which he promptly dropped at the beginning of the Italian Civil war)

by the way, in Marxist dialectic, full maturation of capitalism is necessary before the implementation of socialism can begin. in this regard mussolini was closer to Marx that either Lenin or Stalin because he recognized the historical necessity of the bourgeoisie class.

"Stalin will never make socialism; rather Mussolini will"
-Bombacci

>>18770706
>fascists aren’t fascists. Only anarchists are fascists

>>18770713
I don’t care what type of capitalism an authoritarian government uses. Lenin was a crypto liberal and would be insulted to hear me call him that. Mussolinis brand was pseudo-socialist/state socialist, same as Hitler though, a big fat lie that unraveled into stupid statist authoritarianism. Same shit in the USSR. Sorry if I seem cruel to you. Can’t see who you are.

>>18770752
Oh fusion energy. At what cost?

>>18770754
My points ITTs are usually to clear up the muddied waters. Liberalism marketed you to death and now you think the sky is what you walk on and day is night

Mmmm butterfly is mmmm very smart :3

She moans too while she owns you all :3

>>18770255
Absolutely based. Why should I care about people of different races? Let every nation and every race fend for themselves

>>18770706
>even Kropotkin supported the entente
source
>decadence movement (literally the literature of capitalist and cultural decline)
in the late 19th century where capitalism just started beginning?
yes. the artistic decadence produced by the development of capitalism
>>18770706
>what
futurism was bougrious and interested in triumph, dominance, and competition. cornerstones of the ethos of capitalism.

>>18770225
>muh human nature means we bad!
Why do people always embarass themselves like this?

>>18770818
>b-but liberalism

>>18770411
I think that's just Fiume. But I think they exist on a similar ontological plane.

>>18770461
>>18770456
I was listening to a historian who wrote a biography of Deng Xiaoping. And the interviewer asked him, how could he shoot those people at Tiananmen Square? It was actually around 700 people who died not 5,000. Either way, the biographer said, look, Deng had spent 11 years in war in which millions of people died -- that little midget was a field commander during that war. His first wife died after giving birth to his first child, who died a few days later. He lived through the Cultural Revolution which he opposed and that was a civil war. He had seen a lot of death in his life, and he understood that the assumption of power in the world is not a peaceful process.

There's no room for moralism here. Let alone what the rulers of capitalist countries did and have done themselves.

And those students had been out there for two months and the situation was starting to become unglued, and the costs of that would be political disorder for a billion people, which could very well lead to much more serious consequences for the country if it was allowed to continue. So he made the order and never regretted it. From a long-term perspective, was he wrong? Maybe.

https://youtu.be/sbQ9c0L8RT0?t=623

>>18770829
pathetic little man

>>18770816
>"Stalin will never make socialism; rather Mussolini will"
>-Bombacci
Bombacci was hanged alongside Mussolini by Italian partisans.

>>18770818
hitler is not a fascist, the nazis never called themselves fascists, their philosophies were completely different, and their economic model was completely different.

>>18770818
I don't appreciate you talking that way about Lenin. He made many mistakes I digress but like I told you yesterday you are in an easy position to judge these men who made do with what they have. Lenin's actions directly resulted in a material increase of the living standard of the Russian peasant. I agree that his treatment of Leftists were not good and his actions in the Kronstadt Rebellion were despicable. Lenin had tunnel vision, but the man has been through some ungodly horrors so obviously when he sees opportunity he would pursues it at any cost.

The Italian Fascists were Disneyland compared to the Bolsheviks by the way. Yes, they denounced Marxism (not that you should care because you're not a Marxist) but like I said >>18770816 Marx remained in their consciousness and they still understand the development of capitalism as a historical necessity in dialectical materialism.

it's easy to judge these men, in their shoes I doubt you would have acted much different.

>>18770833
>source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_the_Sixteen
You argue with me yet you do not know these basic facts
>The superannuated anarchist Kropotkin, who had a weakness ever since youth for the Narodniks, made use of the war to disavow everything he had been teaching for almost half a century. This denouncer of the State supported the Entente, and if he denounced the double power in Russia, it was not in the name of anarchy, but in the name of a single power of the bourgeoisie.
-Trotsky
>yes. the artistic decadence produced by the development of capitalism
capitalism was just barely beginning in italy at that time. do you even know history my dude.
>futurism was bourgeois
it was petit-bourgeiois at most, but there were many classes. these are poets and painters we are talking about.
>interested in triumph, dominance, and competition.
as opposed to what? defeatism, submissiveness, and alliances?
>cornerstones of the ethos of capitalism.
you dont even know what capitalism is
>>18770864
you think I don't know that?
ah yes, the virtuous partisans who handed power back to the king and subsequently the americans.

>>18770923
Hitler was not a socialist he was a fascist.
Ron Paul calls himself a libertarian. Libertarians are anarchists. Ron Paul admits to stealing the word.
Similar statists have similar lies they tell in order to deceive

>>18770847
>I think that's just Fiume. But I think they exist on a similar ontological plane.
nah musso was super influenced by blanqui, proudhon, stirner, and nietzsche. if anything fascism was just an extension of his ego.

>I was listening to a historian who wrote a biography of Deng Xiaoping. And the interviewer asked him, how could he shoot those people at Tiananmen Square? It was actually around 700 people who died not 5,000. Either way, the biographer said, look, Deng had spent 11 years in war in which millions of people died -- that little midget was a field commander during that war. His first wife died after giving birth to his first child, who died a few days later. He lived through the Cultural Revolution which he opposed and that was a civil war. He had seen a lot of death in his life, and he understood that the assumption of power in the world is not a peaceful process.

>There's no room for moralism here. Let alone what the rulers of capitalist countries did and have done themselves.

>And those students had been out there for two months and the situation was starting to become unglued, and the costs of that would be political disorder for a billion people, which could very well lead to much more serious consequences for the country if it was allowed to continue. So he made the order and never regretted it. From a long-term perspective, was he wrong? Maybe.

good posts. this is something that people who have breads in their tummies to get into self righteous indignation.

>>18770961
Mussolini was a fascist, not Hitler. How historically illiterate are you?

>>18770961
i didn't call hitler a socialist, or a fascist. i prefer your own description of him "liberal on crack"
(hitler also called himself a liberal btw)
but in genealogy there is no relationship between hitler's national socialism and mussolini's fascism.
there's no such thing as statism, by the way. it's an abstraction. do you know what states are? individuals. when you say you "oppose the state" what you're really saying is that you oppose a certain kind of organization of people- and so you must respond to them in the only proper way. violence.

>>18770962
>>18770923
>ah yes, the virtuous partisans who handed power back to the king and subsequently the americans.
Well I'll remind you that Deng admired Stalin too. I don't think he would've agreed with Bombacci. He thought he was 70% good, 30% bad. Or 70/30 correct/incorrect. And he promised he would never do to Mao what Khrushchev did to Stalin. Read his interview with that Italian journalist.

And that's how you get this:

https://youtu.be/xxzzsO9_-VU?t=295

But then people go "oh well they're capitalists now." But I think it's a very short-term mindset. A few decades of reform? What does it look like 30 years or 50 years from now? Or a century from now? Or 200 years from now? It's hard to foresee, but things are already changing there right now.

That's also my problem with anarchism, because it exists solely in the "now," and that's why I think it's ontologically similar to fascism. It's action-for-action's sake. But left unsaid is a strategy. For anarcho-communists, it's like snapping your fingers and communism happens. But that's a different thing from the conquest of political power, and holding that power, preserving it, and then adjusting to changes which are larger than the individual human will, or even whole countries, to do much about.

I would take from Nietzsche (although maybe in a different way from the futurists). And also Machiavelli and Gramsci -- who died in Mussolini's dungeons. Machiavelli and Gramsci definitely understood the ennobling effect of duration. And I think it's important for communists to have past glories to point to as a reference point for where they can go in the future if the possibilities open up. Deng made reforms which were probably wise in context of the times, and also pointed to Stalin and Mao. I wouldn't point to Bombacci.

The individuals here are not so important though (like "Stalin" or "Bombacci"). It's what they mean in context.

>>18770961
>Hitler was not a socialist he was a fascist.
and fascism is DIRECTLY formed from socialist thought and Hitlers policy reflects that, butters.
read a book for christ sakes

>>18771082
you read a book instead of wikipedia

>>18771101
>youre correct and i have no actual argument:the post

>>18770609
warfare does not predate the mesolithic, you are just straight up making stuff up

>>18770990
>there's no such thing as statism,
Read >>18770536


>>18771082
>Which explains perfectly why Hitler went to war with the Soviets
Except no.

>>18770923
Or, I would say, Bombacci's problem is that he chased short-term gain and lost sight of the bigger picture. The same happened to Khrushchev. In other words, opportunism. You'll chase gain wherever it goes, but be careful because you might end up bankrupt.

History is more tortuous. Or a seesaw. It doesn't move in a straight line. It's more like a spiral or a cyclone.

https://youtu.be/WtTgsu_JtNU

>>18771106
you made a baseless assertion and then told the other party to read a book. if you actually read any of the mountains of literature on fascism you would know you are wrong

>>18771118
>>Which explains perfectly why Hitler went to war with the Soviets
what does that have to do with fucking anything, are you retarded? why would you post this? this literally does not even attempt to refute the objective fact i posted

do you consider yourself someone who engages in socialist thought as an anarchist?

>>18771129
oops wrong image

>>18771129
LOL how is it a baseless assertion? do you even know what fascism is? this is wild lol

>>18770923
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_the_Sixteen
i've read the manifesto, thanks. nowhere is there any fascist politics. Democratic Socialist, perhaps, but certainly not fascist (unless you're a braindead stalinist, in which case opinion discarded).
>it was petit-bourgeiois at most, but there were many classes. these are poets and painters we are talking about.
that's fair, but futurism in italy was fascist, and very different from rusisan futurism (but still at odds with the working class).

>>18771135
State socialists, liberal republics, constitutional monarchies. “Western Style Democracies” are statist monstrosities.

Yes, I know their abstractions well enough. They’re exactly what Stirner called them. Spooks. We make them with our very ignorance, the same as we can only unmake them with our intellect. And we are perfectly capable of this

>>18771178
>once again doesn't even attempt to address the topic at hand, for the second post in a row

all i read is denial denial denial

>>18771067
I agree with you that a long term plan is always good, and short sighted idiots think socialism happens overnight, when it's very well obvious communism is a plan for hundreds of years down the line.

Marxism is strategic, while anarchists are tactical. But this very much has to do with the difference in thinking process between the revolutionary and the intellectual, theory and practice. Their minds work differently and obviously they will use different means to achieve the same conclusion. I admire Deng Xiaoping greatly, to me China is in the correct direction even though left-coms will repudiate it for being state-capitalist while not understanding the necessity of capitalism in the historical process.

However, I will remind you that china today practices a corporatist model just like fascism in the way they organize society by sectors as opposed to marx's class. I'm going to give Gregor's book "A Place in the Sun: Marxism and Fascism in China's Long Revolution" a read to try to peace together the whole situation in china. there's a lot on my reading list as it is.

>>18771082
>and fascism is DIRECTLY formed from socialist thought and Hitlers policy reflects that,
nononono. hitler's policy was not socialist it was prussian socialist larp, aka liberalism.

>>18771118
>lenin had a state so he's a closeted liberal
dude... i don't know where to even begin with this.

>>18771122
i don't agree with this. he saw early on where the ussr was headed, many fascists did. a hereditary bureaucracy just isn't marxism, and life under stalin from what I imagine was quite horrible. I am still not discounting his achievements.

>>18771149
>i've read the manifesto, thanks. nowhere is there any fascist politics. Democratic Socialist, perhaps, but certainly not fascist (unless you're a braindead stalinist, in which case opinion discarded).
i did not call any one of them fascists, I said kropotkin supported the entente and you asked for a source. i am not a stalinist, I am an orthodox "sansepolcrismo" fascist. to put this into perspective I score on the lib-left on a political compass test.
>that's fair, but futurism in italy was fascist, and very different from rusisan futurism (but still at odds with the working class).
i just told you there was was a split in the italian futurist movement between those who supported mussolini and those who did not. even Marinetti left the fascist party after Mussolini decided to pursue a less revolutionary route.

>>18771211
>its not socialist, its just a different type of socialist

>>18771178
>Stirner
THE protofascist, btw.

>>18771225
prussian socialism is literally not socialism, there has literally never been a socialist state anyway.

>>18771232
Fascism has a ton of spooks

>>18771238
let me guess, you think socialism is limited to modern conceptions of what a socialist community should look like, right?
socialist thought has been around since antiquity at least, obviously longer, and it doesn't always take the exact same form retard

>>18771261
no it doesn't, lmao. it only looks that way because mussolini let italians who were already spooky to believe in the spooks they still believe them as to not upset them. he called italian people a race of sheep.

fascism, when stripped down to it's barest form, even Gentile's philosophy is quite literally "I CREATE THE UNIVERSE I WANT". that's all.

>>18771267
socialism is community ownership over the means of production, something which has never existed at all, and the nazis did not advocate for community ownership. like i said they were prussian style "socialists"

>>18771178
Butters what was that utopian novel you posted a few months ago

>>18771337
butters went quiet because men are talking.

>>18771300
yea as i said, you are literally so fucking stupid you think this specific conception of socialist thought is the end all be all of socialist thought

"community ownership over the means of production" is just socialist ideals of class struggle brought to a very specific blunt logical conclusion , nothing more, nothing less. the fact that marx speculated that class struggle would take society down this specific route does not mean it is the end all be all of socialist thought you tremendous fucking brainlet

>>18771195
It addresses it and wrestles it to the ground. OP is a troll or denying what he just read outright.

>>18771211
No, Lenin did capitalism (while being a state) because he didn’t think they were ready for the commune. Same as China not being quite ready for it yet. They’re still doing capitalism.

>>18771232
Haven’t read Stirner, I see.

>>18771337
William Morris’ News from Nowhere?

>>18771347
except socialism was still this even before marx. socialism always meant community ownership. you can make up new things and call them socialist and that doesn't make them socialist in the conventionally understood meaning of the word. the reason why prussian socialism is called prussian socialism instead of socialism is precisely because it wasn't socialism.

>>18771367
>addresses it and wrestles it to the ground.
no it doesn't. prove it. explain how it does

>>18771367
>William Morris’ News from Nowhere?
yes thats it, thanks butters

>>18771370
>its called socialism because its not socialism, not because it directly utilizes socialist thought to address issues of class struggle

this cope is getting out of fucking control

>>18771375
Read The Conquest of Bread

>>18771407
that makes 4 posts in a row of you desperately deflecting

>>18771397
hitler utilized jesus's thought. does that make him a christrian? if prussian socialism was socialism it wouldn't be distinct from socialism. fine, call it socialism. I don't mind! but it most certainly is not socialism in the conventionally attributed meaning of the word! it's as close as you can get to modern day liberalism!

>>18771367
>No, Lenin did capitalism (while being a state) because he didn’t think they were ready for the commune. Same as China not being quite ready for it yet. They’re still doing capitalism.
they did capitalism because it's a NECESSARY STAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF HISTORICAL MATERIALISM.
if you don't like it, take it up with Marx.
>>18771367
>Haven’t read Stirner, I see.
Haven't understood Stirner, I see.
All butterfly wants is to live in peace and harmony in moominvalley, go on walks and enjoy the pleasantries of nature and alone time- the anarchist way as snufkin does.

yet our snufkin, who, if the inhabitants of moonminvalley were threatened by another force, would immediately resort to fascism. what gives?

>>18770847
You need to know the answer to the question: what is my goal? And even then to see what means are used.
Kropotkin decided that his goal was not to be part of the world of violence. In general, he could have made a career in the army, possibly retire as a general. After seeing what the army was doing, he decided not to be a part of it. He could become a scientist and would be known today as a talented geographer and biologist, but he decided that he could not live while others suffered under the yoke of tyranny. And he became what he became.

What did Deng want? It's hard for me to say.

>>18771419
Hitler was literally catholic so yea

>>18771464
yeah his actions really show it.

>>18771419
>you don't like it, take it up with Marx.
We do. Turns out we were right.

>>18771418
What do you want now?

>>18771475
They literally do

>>18771475
and just to address the point you thought you were making, if someone read christian theology then utilized the ideas of the theology to reach a different conclusion regarding how to achieve the same goal of salvation or whatever, i would without a doubt feel pretty safe referring to it as christian in nature since it is literally just taking christian theology and building on it

>>18771480
>5 posts

>>18771367
>>18771381
such a good one.

>>18771480
well i'm not going to argue with you against that because i'm not a marxist and I think dialectical materialism is magical thinking-HOWEVER

"capitalism" wasn't supposed to develop the way it did in the USSR. Lenin was too eager to force it and directly went against Marxist thought which is why he had to "go capitalist" and use some absurd rationalization how "russia is capitalist" because some rich peasants use other peasants to grow cash crops. the failures of the bolshevik revolution were precisely because it wasn't marxist. now compare lenin to someone who was more to true to marxist thought like rosa luxemburg.

marxism is for direct democracy and abolitionism of the state and marx would not approve of lenin's socialist experiment in a backwards undeveloped country. nowhere did marx advocate for some revolutionary party vanguard

did ya read marx?

>>18771486
>napoleon was catholic
you out of all people should be aware that people can call themselves something yet not be that thing.

you know how the romans converted to christianity on their death bed to have their cake and eat it too? that's what you're looking at over here.

>>18771531
the bible isn't christianity. christianity is christ.
anyway from what I read about hitler's thoughts on christianity they were not very high.

>>18771480
by the way
>We do. Turns out we were right.
what did you guys do again?
all you do is criticize criticize, criticize, but what did you accomplish? (you) meaning anarchists- who today would even have great difficulty organizing out of the fear of accidentally telling someone what to do.

>>18771573
>from what I read about Hitler's thoughts on Christianity
/pol/ posts dont count as reading anon

>>18771573
>did ya read marx?
I hear about his defense of this kind of statism, from his heated debates with Bakunin at the First International, but I also know Lenin took it in his own direction.

> you out of all people should be aware that people can call themselves something yet not be that thing.
A Catholic tradition. Going by Against His-story, Against Leviathan, the whole west are liars lying to themselves.

>>18770571
just out of curiosity can you actually explain how anon is lying with statistics, or are you just presenting a book as some sort of get out of jail free card because you dont actually have a point to make?

>>18771703
The US is a peculiar set of states within the still most powerful nation on earth. As such they also have an over active secret services division that regularly psyops it’s radical edges, corralling them into mostly harmless activities. In no way is that picture presenting information of much use to anyone. No correlations can be drawn from it.

>>18771606
do my posts sound like i get my information from /pol/? he didn't hate christianity but he didn't hold it as his dear faith either. you can say he's about culturally catholic and that's about it.

>>18771623
what is the state? is it a monopoly on violence?
newsflash for you butters, there's no such thing as a "monopoly on violence"
everyone can employ violence, groups of people just somehow manage to be more efficient at it. indeed there can be a multiplicity of states in a single landmass. states are just some abstract organizations, they literally don't exist apart from the people who compose it

so when you call yourself anti state, you're just calling yourself against a group of people, or more specifically, against your enemy. what you call the "state" is just your "friend-enemy" distinction. sure, your enemy state may not be voluntary for you, but it sure as hell is to the people who compose the enemy state.

and this is just the beginning, there's a gentile thread up >>18766661 you should check it out. from now on i'm going to use state as a synonym for "world" or "universe"

anyway you're just against "involuntary governments", aka: rejection of ownership of people, by other people, so you're just saying that you're against this abstract idealist thing you perceive to be your enemy. good for you!

that's a necessary step in achieving your idealist state! so essentially you wish to create a democratic state(world) without unjust hierarchies and in fascist idealism this is something which is perfectly attainable.

so, how will you be doing this? well obviously by fighting the government you dislike, which in a revolutionary socialist scenario would most certainly be constituted by people who WANT to be a government, therefore you would be fighting a voluntary association of free people (who want to tell other people what to do), so it's your voluntary association of free people who doesn't want to tell people what to do versus another voluntary association of free people who WANTs to tell people what to do.

maybe you'll win, who knows, but what do you reckon to do with the people who DON'T want to listen to you, which, historically speaking, would be a good chunk of working people?

anyway i've been going on for too long. you're just an anti government fascist. simple as that.

>A Catholic tradition. Going by Against His-story, Against Leviathan, the whole west are liars lying to themselves.
yeah maybe i don't know enough about Catholicism.

>>18771211
>I will remind you that china today practices a corporatist model just like fascism in the way they organize society by sectors as opposed to marx's class.
I think you're getting caught up in "ideal" definitions or fussing over the particulars a bit much. And it's not like the CPC leaders are dummies who haven't read Marx and Lenin. At the same time, "actually-existing fascism" (don't say "wasn't real fascism") had all kinds of different economic models in different countries, or authoritarian right-wing regimes of various kinds, which is the side that Mussolini and Bombacci picked when the chips fell. Only Italian fascism is "pure" for some, but I'm not letting you wriggle out of this. Also no fascist regime survived the death of its leader -- that's also different.

Sometimes China's system is called "state capitalism," which they reject, but that was also a term used by Engels with different definitions before Trotsky (rather negatively), describing a system where the state controls the economy but capitalist exploitation is still permitted. Lenin also used the term for the NEP as a transitional state to a socialist economy governed by workers. So, I don't think the categorical label of "state capitalist" or "corporatist" or whatever "ism" you like is all that helpful or insightful here. I would rather define "state capitalism" as state-facilitated or planned growth basically just for its own sake. There are forces in China that are in favor of that but it's further away from the ideal type than even say South Korea which is probably the purest example

And of course, one major difference is the question of imperialism, which if you believe Lenin is something driven by the class character of the regime. Mussolini's Italy invaded and attempted to colonize Libya and Ethiopia, and they were very brutal about it. They slaughtered people in those countries. Muammar Gaddafi didn't let the Italians forget it either when he paid a state visit to Rome with a picture attached to his chest of a Libyan resistance fighter executed by Italian fascists (if you've seen the famous photo). And people say Gaddafi was a fascist! It's unbelievable! I wouldn't let you wriggle out of that one either.

I do think imperialism was something the USSR engaged in, but I think the corrupted nomenklatura effectively became a bourgeoisie who were like "fuck it lol let's do capitalism so we can buy more stuff with our money as opposed to stagnating." But they were trapped in their ideology so they denied that they were a bourgeoisie. Maybe China could go that route, but I wouldn't describe China as an imperialist country right now. It's not comparable to the revisionist USSR when they were knocking out Eastern European capitals with tanks and invading Afghanistan. I think the Chinese are more like: we have capitalists but they don't form a class for itself and individual boojies have to do what the party says or else the consequences will not be very good for them.

>>18771799
yes they seriously do. Hitler was highly critical specifically of the compromising humanist turn the church itself took in order to sustain itself politically, which he rightfully saw as a betrayal of christian values on part of the church, which is not an uncommon stance among Christians, and hell, with the Vatican II there is an entire movement spawned by this issue that asserts every pope since then is illegitimate

people certainly love to twist twist this to say he was" anti christian" though

>>18771799
>newsflash … there's no such thing as a "monopoly on violence"
I am aware that it’s a spook. I need to convince many others of this (among other things), Anon.

> when you call yourself anti state, you're just calling yourself against a group of people
The spooks in their heads that they hold sacred and traditional. They know not what damage it does. (Most of the time)

>>18771797
thats a whole lot of unfalsifiable presumption, its no wonder you avoided outright stating it

>>18770635
>camus is a c-rate philosopher who never picked up fascist literature in their life
you committed philosophical suicide long ago

>>18771211
>'ve read the manifesto, thanks. nowhere is there any fascist politics. Democratic Socialist, perhaps, but certainly not fascist (unless you're a braindead stalinist, in which case opinion discarded).
>i did not call any one of them fascists, I said kropotkin supported the entente and you asked for a source. i am not a stalinist, I am an orthodox "sansepolcrismo" fascist. to put this into perspective I score on the lib-left on a political compass test.
you were clearly implying that they supported fascist politics you bad faith fascist scum. i'd scrape you off my boots

>>18770225
read mutual aid, and start with the Thomas Huxley before it. also read The Origin of Species and Marx, you can't really understand Bread Santa without it.

OP here.

>>18770701
I'm halfway through it. I was expecting the extremely based anarchist that goes to the middle of nowhere and built the community he believed should exist with their own hands. All I got until now was on the thread opener.

>>18770681
"Ancaps are fascists" is lefty drivel. They have money, you don't; if they were fascists they would be in the government compelling you to do what they want. You're under no state threat for not working for Jeff Bezos.

>>18770842
I dunno, man, everyone with any kind of proper moral code had some centuries of civilizational effort by some religious institution or another, or by becoming some colony or another. Human beings are terrible in-natura and the only reason that I'm not a complete anarchist is because I really believe there's no other way but the leviathan to beat the populace into any shape resembling a civilization. Today's problem being, the leviathan only wants to feed itself instead of encouraging te populace to generate its own wealth.

>>18772992

ancaps are fascists in denial the same way regular anarchists are fascists in denial. they just have different ways of filling the power vacuum of society. either way its still going to happen though

>>18772999
What about me? I believe the state authority should have as little moral or legal authority as possible while being able to keep cohese nationality, armed forces, police and a legal system that arrests thieves, rapists and murderers.

>>18772992
Ancaps are sincerely liberals. But ancapistan will leave open fascist exploitation, so some fascists are hiding behind ancapist ideology

>>18773042
I can't see how fascism can exist without a government to enforce it, or without a de-facto corporate dictatorship with the police needed to enforce population compliance being paid by the aforementioned corporations. Also, it woudl'nt be fascism, because there would be no nation or race under corporate supremacy. It would be something else

>>18770225
great video on the topic
https://ugetube.com/watch/the-spanish-civil-war-breadtube-and-rise-of-the-new-right_7bnE3KODGoAnvAC.html

>>18773048
That is the point being made.
You retain capitalism and the state grows back.
Same as the other way around

>>18773061
>That is the point being made
I can't see it.

>You retain capitalism and the state grows back.
What I refer was private police. It wasn't instituted democratically, or even by elected autocrats or any government institution. I also can't see how we're more close to corporate tyranny than we are from government tyranny. The ones stealing my money and threatening me with prison if I don't comply to their bullshit isn't the corporations

>>18771703
>or are you just presenting a book as some sort of get out of jail free card because you dont actually have a point to make?
It's this. A classic butterfly argument tactic.

>>18773076
If the Ayncaps gets a “no state” world, the wealthiest have all the leverage in contract negotiations, from wealthy rivals to peons. If the peon squats and steals from the capitalist, the capitalist hires guns. A mercenary army and what we have is several small states revealing themselves. With the funds, state grows back

>>18773080
It was explained, book or not, and the frog didn’t accept it. Probably couldn’t understand.

>>18770225
Lenin called Left-Communism an infantile disorder, poor bastard had to deal with these people within his movement.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/

>>18773108
Rightwing communism is cultist. Nothing mature about it.
They were the minority cancer within the movement

>>18773118
It's practical and had real world success, unlike babydick utopians.

>>18773032
the only way i could really see a society like that ending up is that the people all pull it in a million different directions and and socially speaking it ends up in complete chaos and likely violence and absolute depravity while companies profiteer off the mess and are able to gain more power and capacity to exert control over peoples lifestyles whether they realise it or not, best case scenario it balkanizes, worse case scenario it doesn't and actually keeps function as a chaotic hell on earth that no one wants to be apart of but cant seem to escape

>>18773147
How pragmatic

Any day now. Glad there’s such a groundswell of support for the interim dictatorship period we’ll have to endure for a few more centuries. Yay Xi Jingping. Our hero

>>18770225
>He also believes the populace will organize itself into comissariats that will procure resources and share it fairly. How much wishful thinking there is inside lefty people's head to believe such bullshit?
This is already happening in first world countries that are not America. I don't have to work at all if I don't want, and the wagies will toil for my benefit (and still vote the same socialist parties in year after year, so it's like they enjoy labouring for NEETs).

>>18770255
>Anarchists are just fascists in denial.
Possibly the so called anarcho-communists, idk.
Anarchists have nothing to do with your nonsense; for us _even_ ancoms are at least 50% right (anarcho) but your statist-collectivist ideology is just 100% wrong - there is no common ground between us whatsoever.

>>18773382
btw, the conservatives for example are statist-individualist, so with the 50% agreement we can talk with them too. But fascists are tankies in denial for us; you can guess what we think of them.