/lit/ - Literature

>>19928869
Bloody hell, my pic was posted sides ways a-fucking-gain! How do I change this?

>>19928869

Only conservative libraries censor books. Liberalism is based on critical thinking, not propaganda.

Based Italian discovering his roots

anon i dont mean to be rude or anything, but is there something wrong with your hand? why is it so dark?

>>19928885
Is that so? I came to uni as a trad Conservative but at the same time I thought that it wouldn't hurt to at least listen. Sure, a lot of anti white talk from the professors and reading materials but I at least try to listen instead of being a argumentative twat. And I have in some aspects.

>>19928885
lol

>>19928890
Haha, got me there ngl.

>>19928892
I think it's due to being born in the South. The climate is hotter there and therefore my people have developed darker skin to adapt to the climate.

>>19928893
Funny thing about propaganda. If you make your stories from the stories made, and the stories made aren’t there, then how can you even make the story that you can’t make the story?

Funny thing about learning. If you only go to school to reinforce the stories that you have, then how can you even make the story that you can’t make the story?

Funny thing about having stories that you are trying to protect. If something contrary comes along, it becomes anti (fill in your story here).

I don't think your liberal education and its critical thinking is going to find anything to stick to.

You should use your money to buy crypto instead.

>>19928869
>I read propaganda
>It changes my mind
Well, you are a nigger. You get fooled easily.

>>19928877
Take the photo in landscape next time my negro

>>19928885
Lmao

>>19928965
Ur the real nigger

>>19928965
I never read propaganda unless you're referring to Osama's speeches and interviews. That wasn't really propaganda but rather him expressing his views on why he did the things he did and it was expressed in a way that made him understand his perspective. Ofc as a Christian I disagree but he's far from the psychopathic mad man the west makes him out to be. Also, how do you not know that you're the one falling for propaganda? "America is great and everyone else around us is evil and bad". If that isn't propaganda then I don't know what is.

I just took the time to read what the other side had to say and it gave me a more informed perspective. I doubt you've ever even read Osama's works but basing it off of fox news or whatever news they have in your country.

>>19928952
> I don't think your liberal education and its critical thinking is going to find anything to stick to.
Maybe and I am a traditional Catholic but to deny myself the knowledge and not seeking the best the other side has to other and only have a caricatured presentation of my opponents in my head isn't gonna help anyone.

> You should use your money to buy crypto instead.
Way ahead of you. Safemoon to the moooooooooooooooon!

>>19928990

I think you confused what anon meant by "propaganda."
Propaganda is not only what is printed, but what is not, or, more to the point, what is said about other writings or ideas that are lies, mainly to get you to NOT read them, then making it impossible to read them by destroying them. Its intent is to manipulate not inform, whereas a “liberal as in liberty's” library's intent is to inform, not manipulate. A "liberal as in liberty" library does not censure based on ideas, and so no actually decent college is NOT going to have a book simply because it is controversial or makes you uncomfortable, unless, of course, it is nonsense and they don't want to buy it. Although a library is going to be biased, because of budget or customer base, a good library is not going to refuse to have or obtain a book for you.

There are libraries, however, that do censure because their aim is to indoctrinate and manipulate, not inform.

You can tell a lot about a community by its library. The whole concept of liberty is that rationality and science can inform each of us willing to inquire, and each of us can make their own decisions. This is completely contrary to conservatism that states that the authority molds its people to be what can be "authorized" by rejecting those that can't, and that this creates a "natural" or "ordained by god" order or hierarchy that makes decisions for you. It works by exclusion, which is why conservatives never state what they are, but only what they are not through propaganda. You are left not being able to even know what you can’t know, or that you can’t know it.

>>19929129
Thanks for your insight. But I honestly don't think the other anon has this level of insight. He was concerned about me reading Osama and broadening my perspective. But I do appreciate your comments here and how nuance propaganda actually is. I've noticed the same with fascism. It seems like fascism is mainly defined by what it is not as opposed to what it is. Anti Marxism, anti individualism, anti egalitariannism and not much on the pro side. But then again this might be uninformed since I'm only starting to study this stuff. I'd like to hear more about your views. Are you a respect pronouns and coloured hair liberal or just a free market and casual sex wanting liberal. Again, sorry if I mischaratcerise.

>>19929217

I don't know what a liberal is, or a conservative. Liberty and conservation are directions; liberal and conservative are places made mostly by the other side. Unfortunately the world isn't as simple as a bunch of parts that make a bunch of wholes. The new wholes always change the parts reused, and both together make and are dependent on how they are seen, and so I see in terms of making and its steady states in making, not as anything that is made. This allows me to see when all the steady states of steady states of steady states change when any one of them are perturbed.

When you make from what is made expecting the what is already made to remain the "same" you get into trouble when it does not. So we don't so much make as we just occlude what doesn't fit with what we have already made, and try to continue making with what we have that simply never remains in its steady state for long. The trick is to try and watch from the making, not from the made, but that is a philosophy light years beyond what is discussed on an image board rehashing books that keep spitting out the same failed made, over and over.

With the exponential communication outside of our local stories brought on by the internet, people are starting to realize this. Paradox, contradiction, hypocrisy, schizophrenia, inconsistency, irrationality, different fundamental beliefs… these are the hallmarks of the day.

That makes everyone angry and confused and ripe for both ready-made answers, and manipulation of those who like things the way they are. It is a rough time to be conscious.

>>19929217
NTA, Actual Dago here, Italian Facisim is essentially a product of the industrial revolution in Italy; that rejects alot of humanist thinking, liberalism being considered not only wrong but dangerous to the self and the group. It functions much like a religion in it's collectivist nature, much like how the Cathedral makes one feel like a small, imperfect mote in God's eye, Fascist art and architecture does the same, it's scientific to an insane degree, with worse than Qin Shi Huang Di's legalism where the individual is an object of the state who's sole value is derived from their use to the state and therefore the greater society which are one. This colectivism is founded in Italian culture which is much more clanish and familial than more northern European nations and the focus on the state and the inclusion of the state into society at every level is also founded in the Catholic heritage. The Aesthetics and romanticisation of Rome comes partly from post Renesance thought and Italian Nationalism during unification. Above all Fascism isn't simply a political system to a Fascist but more like a way of life, like being a Buddhist or a virtuous Christian. IMO of course

>>19929217
Hi anon, glad to hear you're interested in the topic of fascism. I'd characterize my own views as fascist in the broad sense of the word - as an ideology, but not the specifically italian version of it.

In regards to the "(fascism seems to be) defined by what it isn't" - comment, I'll give you a general overview of our tenets as I view them. If there's any other fascist or third-positionist in the thread, I'd be glad if they chimed in and corrected me.

Ad Anti-individualism:

We believe that people - human beings/individuals - need a meaningful community and thus a sense of social duty in order to realize themselves. The "individualism" that capitalism/liberalism breeds is one of narcissism and superficiality, and ironically leads to stagnant and grey personalities, devoid of vitality and fit only as a cog in the machine of capital. Therefore I wouldn't necessarily describe us as anti-individualism, insofar as we believe that collectivism in some way is the path to self-actualization for the individual. Others may disagree, but this is my take on it.

Anti-marxism:

We accept the criticisms of capital, but we do not accept the idea of class warfare and materialism (although class warfare is indeed part of some fascist ideologies). To illustrate - we believe the nation to be organic, and thus the state must be so as well. Hierarchies are formed naturally, and we see no reason to oppose that, though we generally want to uplift the population as a whole through a unifying principle- this principle can take any form, be it race (Natsoc Germany), religious nationalism (The Iron Guard), cultural nationalism (Falangism), etc. The point is that it's a higher principle that can unify the people, and thus its form may vary according to the region. Thus we agree with marxism when it comes to capitalism, but we find its solutions inadequate, its goals flawed. Economics-wise, fascist ideologies can vary broadly, and some may be very close to marxist thought, and others less so. Historically, fascist economies have been mixed, and the italians and portuguese implemented corporatism, while the Falange wanted syndicalism - until they got betrayed anyway. I'm reading up on economics to form my own view on the matter currently.

Anti-egalitarianism:

As mentioned above, we favour the idea of an organic and hierarchical state. Why treat the club-footed the same as an olympian runner on the track field? The most competent should rule, the fastest runner should represent the nation, etc. But in this way, we also actively encourage meritocracy and growth; not in meaningless economic terms, but in the human condition itself. The ultimate goal of the fascist is the creation of the New Man - the Man of vitality, dignity, determination, authority and passion. For in the end, it is humanity itself we seek to improve.

>>19929217
>>19930861
Also, to add on to what I mean by an organic state - think of society as a body with limbs and a head. Each part must work together for a person to fully function. Therefore, we stand for class cooperation. But this can only happen if capitalist parasitism is eliminated.

anon is growing up and realizing that the world according to /pol/ is not very accurate.

Nice, I've been wanting to check out Gentile for a while now. Let us know how it is when you finish it. Also, fuck off nigger.

>>19930405
This is very fascinating >>19930861 would you agree with his representation of fascism?
It seems like fascism is truly a product of its circumstances. Gentile starts of his writing by saying "like all sound political conceptions fascism is thought and it is action. Action in which doctrine is imminent and doctrine arising from a given system of historical forces in which it is inserted and acting upon from within" sorry if that sounds wrong I'm quoting from memory. But it explains the reason why scholars have had difficulty in defining fascism since it takes the form of whatever nation it is a part of. Brazilian fascism, Spanish fascism and British fascism, looking at it from the outside, who seem to have no connection besides the name. But I am attracted to the idea of the state being a religion but I wish fascism had a more concrete definition then just a loose collection of ideas and negations.

This is OP btw

>>19928869
my local library had a copy of Tragedy and Hope, which was a little surprising.

>>19931417
nice

>>19928869
My uni library has a whole row on antisemitism, including the Protocols, The International Jew, and The Turner Diaries.

>>19928890
WE ARE WHITE!

>>19930861
>NOOO YOU CAN'T BE WELL READ AND ARTICULATE YOU'RE A FASCIST SO YOU'RE AUTOMATICALLY AN IGNORANT DUMB REDNECK AND NEED TO BE EDUCATED BY US LEFTISTS

>>19930861
Interesting. Thanks for sharing. Where can I read more about this? Do you have any specific book recs? TIA

>>19928869
>Osama's
Osama is a better person than Dubya

>>19930861
>Anti-individualism
The hyper-individualism preached by current liberalism is a tool of hyper-capitalism, a way to cut off people from that invaluable safety net that was the traditional family and to make people powerless, desperate serfs living paycheck to paycheck and therefore incapable of demanding better working conditions or to abandon abusive jobs. The goal is to atomize people to make them weaker, easy prey for the capitalist machinery.

It's hilarious that leftists are the ones supporting this hyper-individualism. Then again, if they were smart they wouldn't be leftists.

>Anti-marxism
You need to be fucking braindead to be a marxist. It was forgivable a century ago, when it was just a theory still waiting to be tested, but if after a goddamn century of real life experiments (Russia, China, Cambodia) you still don't see the glaring and unfixable flaws of marxism (unfixable because they're intrinsic in the theory), then you're a fucking idiot.

"Hey guise, unchecked capitalism treats us like serfs, so instead of fixing it by creating checks and balances, how about we abolish private property and the laws protecting our capital -- and therefore our possibility of improving our own condition -- and give all the power to a small group of guys that are gonna be above the law and can turn us into actual literal serfs, and if you try to criticize them, they throw you into reeducation camps or straight up kill you?"
Great idea.

>Anti-egalitarianism
Trying to force everyone to be at the same level does 2 things:
1) Mistreats the better individuals, because since it's impossible to elevate the lower ones, everyone must be brought down to the minimum common denominator.
2) Makes society stagnant, since you've eliminated the prime reason to work harder than the laziest individual, invent shit, create shit, etc.

Today I learned I was a fascist without realizing it.

>>19930861
What books should I read to learn more about fascism? It's always been a foggy topic, I've never been able to exactly pinpoint its fundamental beliefs.

>>19928869
>I originally thought that he was a evil mad terrorist guy who wanted to take over the world and make everyone a Muslim
I mean, he was evil and did want to make everyone a muslim. All muslims do, it's one of islam's most basic tenets. The believers must fight until "all the world is for Allah and Allah's religion is victorious".
He might make some good points about how the USA are also kind of cunts, but that doesn't make him any less evil and suprematist.

>>19930405
What’s a good book on Italian fascism?

>>19933154
My diary desu.

>>19933104
Corporation culture chases profits, preferably quick ones. They promote individualism because they need to sell things, not cut off the "safety net". If they were in the business of power you'd see them advertise community just like propaganda does.
You give too much credit to corporations, in a way they are powerless - they have to chase profits and in a mostly short sighted way.

>>19930405
Fascist here. This is an awful post.

Gentile's Actualism does indeed reject a lot of humanist thinking, but this is much to do with the fact that Fascism was intended to be a humanism par excellence. 'Nihil humani a me alienum puto'. The type of Humanism associated with Liberalism considered the state to be seperate from the individual, an evil albeit a necessary one at that. This was the central critique of Gentile on the Liberal conception of the state because liberalism considers the state dialectical to the individual. His has nothing to do with Liberalism or individualism being harmful to the 'collective', but that opposing the state to the individual is harmful because the state is a universal expression of will.

Fascist art and architecture was rather 'modernist' and Mussolini ironically to your post called art the 'domain of the individual' and said that the goal of the state should be not to 'undermine art'.
Fascists especially early on were a minority in parliment and the idealistic thinking which saw a return thanks to Gentile and Croce were largely ignored in universities in favor of positivism.

Your post is making Fascism come across as one big group think when historically it's the opposite which was true. Gentile always welcomed criticism and was quite fond of having intellectual disagreements. He had anti-fascist colleagues right up to during the Republic of Salo. Famously after he finished writing 'Genesis and Structure of Society' he told one of his colleagues 'your friends [partisans] can kill me now'. Among intellectual circles in Italy today his death is still considered to be an affront to morality.

>>19933169
>They promote individualism
The entire system promotes individualism. The media, the education system, all of it. The zeitgeist is that the best way to live is to move out of your parents' house as young as possible, work any job you can find to support yourself, indebt yourself to attend a mostly worthless college, etc. This creates people too poor to build families and to quit shitty jobs which whittle away at their mind and body and eventually turn them into defeated shells. They make great customers because the cure for this lack of meaning is purported as being buying shit. So corporations get an immense supply of lowly paid servants and customers at the same time.

Generally, when you try to understand who's behind a plot, you should ask yourself "Cui prodest?" Who benefits from this? And when you dig into it you find out that corporations are behind pretty much everything. They lobbied to pass the laws that made the current economic situation too shitty to allow people to have decent job options, and they still lobby to keep the situation like this. They pushed for a certain spin in education that convinced people that individualism was the best lifestyle. They're behind pretty much everything that is said and done in our society. We've been living in a corporatocracy for a while.

>>19933217
And of course most of the (((people))) behind those corporations belong to a certain small-hats cult, but you can't say that.

>>19933154
You have to understand Italian history first starting with the Risorgimento. You cannot understand Fascism otherwise.

>>19930861
>>19933104
>fascism
>anti-marxism
If owing your worldview to it, revising it, and making it stronger is 'anti' then sure.

I suppose Marx was anti-hegelian as well.

>>19933316
>owing your worldview to it
>making it stronger
I wish people who don't know what they're talking about would just shut the fuck up.

>>19933323
>Fascism as a consequence of its Marxian and Sorelian patrimony . . . conjoined with the influence of contemporary Italian idealism, through which Fascist thought attained maturity, conceives philosophy as praxis.

>It is necessary to distinguish between socialism and socialism—in fact, between idea and idea of the same socialist conception, in order to distinguish among them those that are inimical to Fascism. It is well known that Sorellian syndicalism, out of which the thought and the political method of Fascism emerged—conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism. The dynamic conception of history, in which force as violence functions as an essential, is of unquestioned Marxist origin. Those notions flowed into other currents of contemporary thought, that have themselves, via alternative routes, arrived at a vindication of the form of State—implacable, but absolutely rational—that finds historic necessity in the very spiritual dynamism through which it realizes itself.

>Anyone who speaks of communism in Italy today is a corporatist impatient about the necessary delays in the development of an idea that is the temperate correction of the communist utopia and the most logical and therefore truer statement than what one can expect from communism.


Do YOU know what you're talking about?

>>19933337
>The dynamic conception of history, in which force as violence functions as an essential, is of unquestioned Marxist origin.
In other words, they accepted that social change required violence to be enacted, but that's it. Apart from that, fascist refused and even directly contradicted the most basic tenets of marxism (abolition of private property, internationalism instead of fierce, proud nationalism). It's ABSURD to conflate fascism with marxism.

You sound like one of those guys with very low reading comprehension and a very high wish to appear smarter than everyone else, so you read about complex issues, completely misunderstand them, then regurgitate the most outrageous-sounding take in order to attract attention. I bet you also like to say that nationalsocialism was a lefty ideology because "it's called socialism, duh".

I repeat: you don't know what you're talking about.

>>19933337
>"I bet you're one of those midwits who consider two completely irreconcilable ideologies different just because they're in fact different."
>"Real high IQ people know that they're actually the same."
I'm also a vegan who eats meat and fish every day.

>>19933356
>fascist refused and even directly contradicted the most basic tenets of marxism (abolition of private property, internationalism instead of fierce, proud nationalism
These are not the most 'basic tenants of Marxism' you idiot. Marxism is not an ideology with 'tenants'. It's method of materialist critique. Every syndicalist in Italy supported economic liberalism. The fact is that Italy had not the industrial capacity to transition towards anything resembling socialism- it was thus necessary to foster free trade to increase economic production. This was precisely the same critique the Menheviks had against the Bolshevik and their advocacy of state centralization, but I suppose the Mensheviks weren't Marxists either?

I also suppose the university press of the Italian Corporatist School would publish Marxist works because they were 'anti-marxists'?

>You sound like one of those guys with very low reading comprehension and a very high wish to appear smarter than everyone else, so you read about complex issues, completely misunderstand them, then regurgitate the most outrageous-sounding take in order to attract attention.
This is precisely you. Moron.

>>19933367
Neither Marxism or Fascism are 'ideologies'. They cannot even be 'irreconcilable' because they don't even deal with the same subject. The former economics, the latter philosophy.

>>19928869
Why are you of Ethiopian descent?
Also quality thread OP well done

>>19933377
>tenants
>'tenants'
Fucking idiot. You can't even read or write and you want to discuss with me? Little shit.

Marxism, like all ideologies, has its basic tenets. It's absurd to deny something so self-evident. Without basic tenets, marxism couldn't even exist. Anybody could make up their own ideology and call it marxism.
This is just an attempt to confuse the issue because you know you're wrong. Little shit.

>This was precisely the same critique the Menheviks had against the Bolshevik and their advocacy of state centralization, but I suppose the Mensheviks weren't Marxists either?
The fascists also drank water like the anarchoprimitivist. Coincidence? Of course not, they were clearly following the same ideology!

>>19933382
Another brainlet take. What is it with this subject that attracts the worst mongoloids out of their dens?
Fascism had a strong philosophic component, but obviously also dealt with economics, like any state ideology needs to do. Obviously. Imagine fascist ministers having to make a decision in some economic matter and being incapable of doing so because "we don't deal in economics, only in philosophy".
You're hilariously stupid. And you clearly think of yourself as smart. Are you a 22 year old polsci student?

>>19933377
>This is precisely you
Yeah, I also choose to regurgitate the most outrageous sounding take in an attempt to sound smart. The outrageous idea I'm regurgitating now is that 2 completely different ideologies were different. I know, shocking.

Look, you said something stupid. It's obvious to everyone and the more pseudo-expert excuses you blabber, the more cringeworthy it becomes. Just be quiet and cut your losses.

>>19933395
This post literally says absolutely nothing. It's not even worth it to respond to you. You have never read a book on anything you're talking about. You are a subhuman.

>>19933407
>I c-could debunk you b-b-but it's not even w-worth it!
The last howl of the defeated mutt.

>>19933407
You might have read books about marxism, but you sure as fuck didn't understand them. Saying that marxism doesn't have basic tenets because "it's a method of critique" is pants on head retarded. The scientific method is also a way to investigate reality. That doesn't mean it doesn't have tenets because "it's not an ideology". It has very clear basic tenets (primacy of empirical evidence over divine revelations or simple guesswork; necessity to test hypothesis in ways that try to disprove them instead of simply looking for more confirmations, etc.).

You come off sounding very juvenile, very ignorant, very pretentious, and frankly not too smart. Like a Sally Rooney's character.

>>19930861
This man has effectively posted what I came here to say

>>19933377
>Marxism is not an ideology with 'tenants'.
Well then it should lower its rent.

>>19933377
>Marxism is not an ideology with 'tenants'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Marxism#Main_ideas

>>19933428
>primacy of empirical evidence over divine revelations
That's not a tenet of science, that's a tenet of scientism. Science is concerned purely with its subject matter, in fact science IS its subject matter, nothing more and nothing less. It has no tenets as such unless it is hypostatized into an ideology or a worldview.
>necessity to test hypothesis in ways that try to disprove them
This is also a method, and not a tenet. In so far as one believes in a method, then it is a tenet, but in so far as one "believes in science" (as opposed to something else) then one has already gone beyond science.

>>19933458
All right, I'm out. This fucking idiot just said that the primacy of empirical evidence over divine revelations or simple guesses is NOT a basic principle of the scientific method. He actually typed this shit and clicked "Post". He unironically, seriously just said it, and I refuse to waste one more second with a fucking ignorant imbecile of THIS magnitude. Talking to a retarded pigeon would be more productive.

>>19933458
>the scientific method has these tenets
>no it doesn't, that's a method not a tenet
Your inability to understand what you read is astounding, and at this level it might be pathological. Get tested.

>>19933458
>that's a tenet of scientism
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. STOP MAKING YOURSELF RIDICULOUS.
Scientism is a positivist philosophy that glorified science and stated that it had the power to answer all questions and give man all it needed (even on the spiritual level). The primacy of empirical evidence over revelations or guesses is a tenet of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. But you don't get that, because you can't even distinguish between the two. Because you're a 20 year old mongoloid who goes through philosophy books simply to regurgitate their big boy words at parties and look smarter than you are in the vain hope than an artsy whore will touch your 3 incher. You don't really understand anything of what you read. You're not even fully human.

>>19928885
Pathetic.

>>>19929129
conservatives never state what they are, but only what they are not through propaganda
>>19929217
>It seems like fascism is mainly defined by what it is not as opposed to what it is

You claim to have an open mind, but you are so far gone you don't even realize it. "Conservative" thought and "conservative" philosophers are not paraded to you in the mainstream media, therefore you assume they don't exist. You only know of "conservatism" through the constant and omni-present stream of propaganda spewed by its opposers, and you assume it has a negative definition.

Are you American/British? You may be excused, because these countries have by far the most politically-oriented interpretation of history and organization of public discourse. But if you are French and for instance don't know who De Benoist is and still try to argument anything about conservatives you should probably do an hero.

Tbqh, if you are American, claim to know anything about Fascism and don't know who James Gregor is you should still do an hero.

>>19933461
I accept your defeat

>>19933467
>>19933477
lmao seethe harder boys

>>19933415
What is there to debunk? You didn't say anything. You said 'Fascists are not Marxists' [something which I never even said] because they did not abolish private property. Many Marxist organization did not, and the abolition of private property is not a tenet of Marxism. The precise word Marx used was 'aufheben' not 'abschaffen'. 'Marxism' is not opposed to 'Nationalism', take one look at every state which modeled itself after Marx's writing and an intense patriotism has always been a part of their zeitgeist [Vietnam, China], even suppression of other ethnic groups. The Fascist 'nationalism' was pan-italian, when Fascism came along Italian unification barely occured half a century ago. That was where their 'nationalism' came from. In fact what do you even mean by 'intense nationalism' because in Fascism, nationalism was also one of those tendencies which was subject to critique. Especially the Liberal conception of mationalism. To simply say 'Fascism is mationalist' doesn't mean anything. What precisely is the 'nationalism' which you are alluding to? because Fascism makes distinctions of different kinds of Nationalisms.

So supposedly in your post Fascism went against 'Marxist' tenets yet those two aspects you described have never been 'Marxists tenets'.
I drew a comparison to historically Marxist parties that did not espouse these supposed 'tenets', then you come along and string this retarded nonpoint:
>The fascists also drank water like the anarchoprimitivist. Coincidence? Of course not, they were clearly following the same ideology!
What does this have to do with what I said? Absolutely nothing.
>Fascism had a strong philosophic component, but obviously also dealt with economics
What are you talking about here? Fascism as a regime? 'Fascist ministers.' We are talking about philosophy over here, not the functions of the Italian state or it's ministers. I think it's safe to call Gentile the 'philosopher of F-ism' and in his works he barely gives 10 pages to the subject of economics- namely calling it mechanical and the antecedent to organic pursuits such as politics or philosophy. So no, F-ism does not have any stake in trying to define an economic worldview. It never did. There was a component element of the state in Italy that dealt with economic matters, the Italian Corporatist school. Other than that F-ism has no economic practice that was is in itself 'Fascist'. The organizations within Fascism that did study economics built from Marx.

So tell me, oh scholar of Fascism—when did Mussolini's Fascio break from Marxism? Because Mussolini was the leader of the Italian Socialist Party up to and during World War one where he carried a medallion with Marx’s head on it in his pocket. When did he become 'anti-marxist' can you tell me? I suppose he was hung up along with a former founder of the Italian Communist Party because he was 'anti-marxist'?

You are stupid. I don't even have room to write all I have to say. You're dumb.

>>19933528
>>19933428
The other poster uses the word 'tenet' to denote a system of belief. The equivalent would be of saying the 'theory of relativity' is a 'tenet' of the scientific method when it in fact isn't, but rather the theory of relativity came through the process of scientific method. Same for the Marxist theory of class warfare.
>>19933415
>>19933428
You are both idiots. And it's idiots like you two who are the reason I should stay the hell away from /lit/. It's just me lecturing you morons at this point. Wretched people. Takes far more effort to respond to your stupidities than is worth.

>>19933528
>what is corporatism
>what is the charter of Carnaro
>who is Alfredo Rocco
>who is Giuseppe Bottai
>who is Ugo Spirito
>what is the labour charter of 1927

Lmao if you don't know about things it does not mean they don't exist. Read more

>>19933528
>So tell me, oh scholar of Fascism—when did Mussolini's Fascio break from Marxism?
When he read Sorel and Oriani you fucking retard, you marxists act like marxism is still relevant and was never wrong, turns out it was discredited and dead before the end of the nineteenth century you fucking retards. Marxism only remained popular in the public discourse because WW2 made it so that any alternative to Capitalism and Communism were destroyed, but this does not imply that Communism or any post-marxist ideology is actually viable.

>>19933556
>>19933556
Who did I post a fucking picture of here you dumb fucking retard? >>19933377
Corporatism was not a 'theory' until Ugo Spirito came along. Until then it was a method to reconcile class differences through the state aperatus. That was precisely what those 'labor charters' were for. Spirito's corpus includes so many works on Marx and communism.
>Spirito [nel Convegno di studi corporativi di Ferrara del 1932] parlò di «Individuo e Stato nella concezione corporativa» sostenendo che il corporativismo doveva segnare la fine della lotta di classe, ma nel senso che capitale e lavoro si sarebbero fusi, e che si sarebbe dovuto arrivare alla «corporazione proprietaria». Coerentemente con questa impostazione, che faceva del corporativismo «il liberalismo assoluto e il comunismo assoluto», Spirito proponeva che, come primi provvedimenti, dovesse essere inserito un rappresentante dello Stato nei consigli di amministrazione delle maggiori aziende, e dovesse inoltre essere assicurata una cointeressenza, oltre al salario, ai dipendenti. Quasi non bastasse, il filosofo disse che fascismo e comunismo non dovevano essere contrapposti in maniera antitetica. (Indro Montanelli e Mario Cervi)
>>19933570
Sorel was very much within the Marxist Materialist tradition you absolute fucking moron. 'Mussolini abandoning Marx after reading Sorel' is like saying Augustine abandoned Christianity after reading Plato. It was Sorel's work and Mussolini's expulsion from the Italian Socialist Party which led to Mussolini abandoning parliamentarianism. You damn idiot.

Stop writing to me about shit you don't know anything about.

>>19933146
No, the quran says that God hasn't even decreed for all humans to be Muslims so it's futile to try to convert everyone in the world. No smart muslim would want that either and neither did Osama. Take hadith with a grain of salt. A lot of them are contradictory.

>>19933388
I'm not. I'm of congolese descent. Specifically democratic one.

>>19928885
So all these libraries banning Tom Sawyer because it have a no-no word are hardened republicans

Also, the irony of just admitting if you're a lefty today you're just a fascist

>>19933488
>You claim to have an open mind, but you are so far gone you don't even realize it. "Conservative" thought and "conservative" philosophers are not paraded to you in the mainstream media, therefore you assume they don't exist. You only know of "conservatism" through the constant and omni-present stream of propaganda spewed by its opposers, and you assume it has a negative definition. Are you American/British? You may be excused, because these countries have by far the most politically-oriented interpretation of history and organization of public discourse. But if you are French and for instance don't know who De Benoist is and still try to argument anything about conservatives you should probably do an hero. Tbqh, if you are American, claim to know anything about Fascism and don't know who James Gregor is you should still do an hero.

Sorry I wasn't born with innate knowledge of Conservative ideology? Like, wtf? The whole point of my endeavour hear is to open my mind more to new perspectives and get to a point where I understand Conservatism better. Also, im in the UK.

>>19933590
Then why you say "So no, F-ism does not have any stake in trying to define an economic worldview. It never did." If by this you mean that Fascism did not plan to release the Economic Bible and found a new church like your friends did, well yes, they did not have that pretense, and if you think that anyone should set in stone the economic worldview for the next 1000 years you are the retard.

>>19933635
>Then why you say "So no, F-ism does not have any stake in trying to define an economic worldview.
Because it doesn't.
>If by this you mean that Fascism did not plan to release the Economic Bible and found a new church like your friends did
It didn't but Sprito wrote extensively about corporatism. Again, he said that Fascism and Communism are not contradictory to one another. Have you even read my posts?

I like how you assume I am a 'Marxist'. (As if marxism really exists) I am more informed about Fascism than you ever will be. You have never read literally anything by Fascists and it fucking shows.

>>19928869
>nigger hands
Opinion discarded

>>19933644
>Have you even read my posts?
Nope, too long lol

>>19933644
> Fascism and Communism are not contradictory to one another.
Yes that are. Fascism is collectivist and centralised whereas communism is literally anarchist.

>>19933760
You are retarded.

>>19933447
Anon, ladies and gentlemen, here all week.

>nigger hand
>/lit/it doesnt get the joke
Typical

>>19933760
Communism is not 'literally' anarchist. Anarchism and scientific socialism operates on completely different definitions of 'state'. In Marxism state is a tool of clase rule, and when classes have become obsolete then so will using the state as a tool to subjugate another class. Fascism is not 'collectivist and centralized'. Fascism is not 'anything'. The first thing the Fascists did after the march on rome was reducing the size of the state and liberalizing it. You are so dumb. These political ideas are just that: ideas. Not systems which you autisticallu follow like some retarded death cult.

>>19933154
Italian here.
Try looking into Piero Gobetti’s works: he was a young anti-fascist liberal who wrote intensively on the history of Italian politics in the late 19th and early 20th century.
In his magnum opus “ La rivoluzione liberale. Saggio sulla lotta politica in Italia” he writes about post-unitary Italy and the conditions it created for the rise of fascism. The latter are the focus of the 4th and last part of the book.
Gobetti stated: “Fascismo come autobiografia della nazione" which basically means “Fascism as the nation’s autobiography”.
He claimed that the conservativeness and idleness of the ruling bourgeoisie class, along with the ignorance of the masses, created a fertile ground for fascism to sprout and grow without anyone opposing to it.
He was a brilliant young man, you should definitely read him and Gramsci if you want to dive into the history of fascism and anti-fascism in Italy.
Related fact: both his son and his wife fought as partisans during WW2; Piero unfortunately died at 25 in 1926.

>>19928869
That hand evokes visceral disgust. Hilarious post btw.

>>19933760
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>19928885
5/10 bait

>>19935703
Julius Evola.

>>19928885
Bait

>>19930861
Is there always a one-party political party?

Has it always been associated with white nationalism?

What the fuckis this thread

>>19936720
A pretty good one if you ask me.

>>19936630
Not him, but I don't see how you can have a "multi-party political party". If you mean state, then yeah I think that's one of the major points of Fascism/NatSoc. The National Socialists were more willing to play the game of "competing in the market of parties", but I have a feeling that Total Aryan Victory would look a lot like the PAP in Singapore: yes, ~theoretically~ another party can do stuff, but in practice it's just understood that The Only Party That Matters will listen to whatever you want anyways so why bother making a new party when The Only Party That Matters is really just a tool for getting stuff done.

I think that characterizing Fascism/NatSoc as "White Nationalist" is a misnomer, in particular because the Italians and Germans would disagree with this. Rather, White Nationalism is how Anglos interface with Fascism/NatSoc. If you look abroad, you can see other examples of something similar in the PAP, the BJP (India), and even the CCP (China). But then, Fascism/NatSoc are so fucking murky that there's just as many arguments for those three being Fascist/NatSoc as there are them not. I don't see why these ideas are something that only Whites can engage with, however.