/lit/ - Literature

>>20607464
No

>>20607464
>Fascism
no thanks.

>>20607464
Ironically, fascism is a wet dream for a bunch of powerless losers

I've read some works by Mussolini. Most of the time He just shits on the Benthamists and classical liberals in general (which I enjoyed),but also promotes pretty bugmanish vision,where individual is totally submitted to the state. Don't trust anyone who was socialist,they're minds are poisoned!

>>20607464
https://www.amazon.com/Fascism-Million-Oswald-Mosley/dp/1913176339

>>20607508
20 dollars seems like a good deal.

>>20607464
Thanks op ill check it out for sure. Thats pretty nice of you to post that.

>>20607545
$14 used

>>20607464
Garbage. Mosley was a libertarian chud

>>20607545
>>20607562
Not bad prices

>>20607464
Check 4+4chan they probably have it

>>20607501
What did you read by mussolini? What was it called ?

>>20607464
You can sometimes just look up the book name + pdf and find it.
I found audiobooks of it online, but too lazy to look past one site, so you do the rest.

>>20607562
Why buy used?

>>20607464
>It is at this point that we must pass beyond Shaw who sees in Götterdämmerung, as Nietzsche saw in Parsifal, the betrayal of the hero, the higher man who surpasses present humanity; they both believed him, for rather diverse reasons, to be not only desirable but essential. Yet, was Wagner’s vision an abnegation of the higher conception, a reversion to the thing it had superseded, or a new and necessary superseding of the higher, which was still inadequate to the supreme purpose? In Zarathustra, beyond the lion which represents the superman, comes the child which combines both the will to achievement and the will to beauty, “ein aus sich rollendes Rad, eine erste Bewegung, ein heiliges Ja-sagen.” If that, indeed, was Wagner’s dream, Nietzsche could not complain, and Shaw would not; yet neither realized it.
>Wagner alone saw beyond — beyond the vision of both Nietzsche and Shaw — to a new form, shadowy, as yet obscure, visible in outline only, but still a higher form: the mysterious shape of Parsifal. Here is the beginning of the will to power and the will to beauty in the mystical union which is all-achieving: the man comes who weeps because he has killed a swan rather than exults because he can kill a dragon, who holds the all-powerful spear on condition that he does not use it. Shaw should have understood that it is possible both to kill dragons and to weep over the death of swans — in fact he did, at least in adumbration.

>>20607501
Has there been a Fascist who wasn't a former socialist?

>>20607823
Stalin. Though his brand of Fascism was called red fascism.

>>20607497
Yeah, the whole point is that if a bunch of powerless retards come together they'll be powerful retards. That could alone be a complete theory of fascism.

>>20607786
Why not? It's a 70 page pamphlet, if you buy a lot of these things you can save a lot of money buying used. Here it's only like $6 cheaper but a lot of times it's more and it adds up. I'm not strapped for cash but new vs slightly worn/not written in used to save a few bucks is fine.

>>20607508
Lmao. I aint paying that for a pamphlet that's under 100 pages.

>>20607817
Wow, are all of Mosley's writings this good? Where is the best place to start with him? To be honest I always assumed he would be too political and pedestrian

>>20607817
oh my fucking god i just got fucking Parzival spoiled for me

>>20607863
He was absolutely a revolutionary socialist in his youth. You might as well say every bolshevik was a fascist.

>>20607823
Probably Hitler. I don't think he ever seriously engaged with marxism. Werner Sombart is another marxist who became fascist

>>20608352
Hitler is a debateable case, he was a volkisch socialist and certainly much closer to a socialist in intent and outcome than to the reactionary conservative elements. Even if you think he reigned in an "unsocialist" way, doesn't mean the vast majority of contemporaries wouldn't have seen the NSDAP takeover and transformation of the Weimar government machinery as a socialist takeover.

It's hard to assess NSDAP social reforms since the war and preparation for war were hardly normal circumstances, but they pioneered a lot of what is now standard welfare state and "green" policy. Check out the book "How Green Were the Nazis?" (the answer is very).

Remember, the New Deal and other programs like it in other countries were attempts to emulate Fascist and NSDAP policies to prevent similar parties from rising in those countries, and caused New Deal politicians to be labelled fascist by traditional conservatives.

>>20607817
Where is this from?

>>20607817
>>20608296
>>20608667
https://counter-currents.com/2010/11/the-meaning-of-wagners-ring/

>>20607497
>>20607879
On the contrary...

>>20607508
>>20607545
>>20607562
>>20607567
Lads be careful they have watchlists for purchasing things such as these

>>20608800
This is a pretty recondite book. Any list with a wide enough berth to include some random forgotten pamphlet by Moseley would be so large that it wouldn't really matter if I was on it anyway.

>>20608304
>DUDE you like won't believe it. When I was trying to run my freshly downloaded porn vid Big_Black_Cock_Porno.exe my $400/month antivirus said it was a "trojan virus". I was like "dude like what is that?" and I googled it and they said the name was based off the Trojan horse from Homer! Dude... I haven't fucking read Homer! It's still 200 items down my official /lit/ Non-Pseud Reading List bro I like haven't gotten to it yet! I was SOOO mad bro like deadass how could they do this? Now I like LITERALLY cannot enjoy Homer anymore I literally threw my copy of Iliad + Odyssey 10lb hardcover edition with illustrations ($700) in the trash! WTF. Spoiling books should be ILLEGAL.

>>20608392
>Remember, the New Deal and other programs like it in other countries were attempts to emulate Fascist and NSDAP policies to prevent similar parties from rising in those countries, and caused New Deal politicians to be labelled fascist by traditional conservatives.
Where did you read about this? Or did you reach this conclusion yourself?

>>20608800
If you aren't on a watchlist you aren't a true American.

>>20608793
I thought Ted was against civilization? Also hating rationality is correct. Either way, fascists and people who identify themselves as leftists are both losers.

>>20608922
nah I just started reading it this week because i found a beat-to-shit paperback copy of it from the 60s. Enjoying it so far

>>20608963
It's a pretty well known historical fact. The new deal is sometimes memed as the closest america came to fascism due to the disregard for checks and balances at the time

>>20610083
It would really solve all your confusion if you realize fascism is just another flavor of socialism.

>>20607823
Plenty. The thing about these ex-socialists who go fascist though is that I think this has something to do with the problem of subjectivity on the right. That is, they mostly abhor it. See a certain rightist archtype who abhors modern art. It's like they fear that if what is "good" is entirely arbitrary, then the mob is going to demand you agree with what is and isn't "good," even though there's no empirical way to measure such things.

It seems to parallel their attitudes about gender and sexuality, in that none of it can be subjective at all. Things need to be concrete or at the very least strongly reinforced by their perception of tradition, taboo and culture. Some say (and it's usually leftists who say this) that this is why rightists lack creativity and originality, because if you're a conformist who is shacked to tradition, then you aren't going to think anything new is even worth trying. Of course right wingers often disagree about this and both sides seem to view their ingroup as the creative innovators and the outgroup as conformist sheep.

Either way, fascism did attempt to present itself as a New thing when it arrived, and it also tried to present itself as radical -- *more* radical than the socialists and Marxists, in fact. And there were ex-socialists and ex-communists involved in this. Maybe that's because they were necessary to overcome the right's subjectivity problem, they weren't afraid of experimenting. At the same time, the fascists had extremely reactionary viewpoints about certain things. You could call them eclectics. Some seem motivated out of seeing revolution as a grand, romantic adventure and personal quest for greatness -- a dangerous thing in politics -- which communism stopped providing once it settled into boring Comintern meetings in the 1920s. The fascist attacks on communist meetings in Italy served as evidence for this self-regard as ultra radical.

There's also a different conception of what revolution is. For communists, revolution is a punctuated transition from one form of class rule to the next, and is principally a constructive act (one has a revolution to "build socialism"), so the drama and action in the revolutionary "moment" isn't, like, *the point* the way it is for fascists (and anarchists) who prize action for action's sake, although that punctuated transition is necessary for the communists.

Fascism is much more convulsive, and the fascists will throw everything in the sink to keep it going. They want to get their numbers up by any means necessary. They'll use socialist rhetoric one second and rail against the capitalists while also going on about patriotism, race hate, and dreams of empire. They like to believe the masses love them -- they tend toward populism -- while patronizingly believing that the "ordinary" worker is incapable of being educated, a belief they share with wealthy capitalists who end up bankrolling them to smash up those communist meetings I was just talking about.