/lit/ - Literature

you guys really give me the creeps

>>4811357
Why? Who said I am a fascist? I am curious to learn every side of it.

>>4811349
Start with the Greeks
Or D'Annunzio, and Evola.

Discourses on Livy

>>4811368
I have read a bunch of Machiavelli. What about this makes it a work of Fascist literature if I may ask?

>>4811368
get out

>babby cant find anything himself
>needs advice every fucking day
typical nazifag

>>4811349
heidegger
spengler
jung

a

>>4811371
Strong support for religion as a state tool, even though Machiavelli says it's bullshit.
Strong support for national identity as required for state control.
Strong support for frequent war to keep people from questioning the state.
The idea of subordinating both classes to the needs of the state.

Machiavelli supports a two-party system as easier for the state to control than a vanguard party, as it keeps the people blaming each other for problems instead of the state itself. But other than than he's quite in line with Mussolini, who of course took a lot of inspiration from Machiavelli.

Have a look at futurism

Ernst Jünger, Carl Schmitt, Mosley, E.M Cioran, even Carlyle might count as well.

Also pic related, Imperium by "ulick varange" aka Francis Parker Yockey

>>4811349
Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

>>4811406
>Machiavelli supports a two-party system as easier for the state to control than a vanguard party, as it keeps the people blaming each other for problems instead of the state itself.

Anything by Rebatet

>>4811456
how is cioran fascist?

>>4811461
Ignore this idiot.

>>4811349
start here

>>4811461
Fascism are the herd-people Zarathustra speaks of. The populace, Doesn't speak too well of them.

>>4811406

You... haven't really read much Machiavelli. And even if you have, you really haven't.

How about you read Livy and think a while and write some notes about it. Maybe a couple essays. And talk to a scholar, or someone(s) who really do "get it", as much as you can get a theoretical text.

Until then, don't talk about Machiavelli.

As others said before you should read Oswald Spengler and Plato. READ ALL OF PLATO'S WORKS.

>>4811782
>women in love
gaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy.... seriously

>>4812041

>Plato
>fascist

All aboard the lit-crit bandwagon.

>>4812063
Stop being so critical. Plato is Proto-fascism at it's best

>>4812098
You can say he is proto-totalitarism, he definately was only fascist.

>>4811349


theres also a similar book where he gives the same treatment to national socialists (notes on the third reich).

>>4812056
I don't know. I've read a few of his works but I never remember reading anything that I would consider sympathetic to the far right. I think many of these are added based off of Wikipedia reads of the authors political views.

>>4812000
>How about you read X and think a while and write some notes about it. Maybe a couple essays. And talk to a scholar, or someone(s) who really do "get it", as much as you can get a theoretical text.
why my dear Anon if everyone on /lit/ did this there'd be a grand total of four threads opened a month

>>4812129


they were added based on threads where people suggested stuff to add (so probably yes).

>Could /lit/ please show me what some good fascist philosophy/literature/poetry is?
/pol/ ;)
They even made a chart which is clearly done by someone who's read the books he's recommending.

isn't it sad how despite our idealizations of the ubermensch all we'll end up with is a bunch of goose-stepping steel-for-brains thugs at best

isn't it equally sad that despite all the promises of democracy empowering the individual all we end up with are impotent hedonistic subhumans instead

My Life by Oswald Mosley.

>fascism failed even faster than socialism in most cases
>fascists still think they are red-pilled

>facism
>reading

how can fascism have failed when leftists seem to believe the world establishment is ran by fascists

>>4812506
It's the media. Society of the Spectacle, The Media is the Massage, and all that.

>>4812347
Four good threads a month would be significantly better than what usually passes for discussion around here.

>>4812579
Society of the spectacle is one of the most moronic theoretical works to garner respect it neither deserved or earned. Please don't fall into this

"For My Legionaries" - Corneliu Codreanu
"The Trouble with Democracy" - William Gairdner
"The Doctrine of Fascism" - Benito Mussolini (should go without saying)
Anything by Oswald Mosely, the best of which is "100 Questions" which you can find in .pdf in 2 seconds on Google
"Obras Completas (Complete Works)" - Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera
"Bolshevism From Moses to Lenin" - Joe Sabram (here is the pdf: jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/Bolshevism_From_Moses_to_Lenin.pdf )

...these are just off the top of my head, there are many many more books on these subjects, but 90% are going to be by idiots who don't know what Fascism truly is, don't care and are just writing a historical account, or have something against it. To really understand Fascism read the treatises' and programmes of the people who practiced it.

>>4812574
They just have the definition wrong.

>>4812591
What makes you say that?

>>4812574
>how can fascism have failed when leftists seem to believe the world establishment is ran by fascists
No, the capitalists run the establishment. The fascists are just their dogs.

>>4812621
maybe, but I found the conceptional extremely funny. If the world really is run by a worldwide shadow cabal of warmongering capitalist militarists, why on earth is it that the crowds of "progressive" contrarians have become culturally and institutionally normative

inb4 the usual THE PROLETARIAN WILL REVOLT. Fuck off revolution kiddies

>>4812638
you guys are cute when you act like that

>>4812644
>the crowds of "progressive" contrarians have become culturally and institutionally normative
You seriously don't know? Did you miss the entire past century? To calm the masses before they revolt capitalism had to make some "sacrifices": let "progressive" movements exist so the masses get some bread crumbs and feel they aren't desperate enough to risk their lives fighting. The so-called "leftists" like Obama are but a joke, something to vote if you don't like hardcore neoliberalism, but it's obvious that nobody that isn't going to do what the huge lobbies want is going to win any elections.

>>4812686
I'm sorry friend, but we need to be honest here. The very same people criticize the system are now actually running it. And nobody from the top to bottom is "Changing the course", so to speak

this can't entirely be reduced to feigning innocence with a sheeple/wool-over-eyes defense. Everybody in the know is in on it. The professionals are bobos, the academics are marxists, the millionaires are too busy donating to africa and the statesmen were all edgy anti-establishment schoolchildren and it makes no god damn difference whether they want equitable or not. The system isn't changing. Quit pretending it's a global conspiracy you're not in on

>>4812742
>The very same people criticize the system are now actually running it.
lol tell me more

>>4812767
see: obama, the power elite, everything else I have just mentioned

I'm just about done at this point

>>4812574
In this joke you have to realise that fascism is actually a form of socialism.

>>4812767


http://theden.tv/2013/07/29/the-cathedral-and-the-bizarre-benjamin-crumps-manufactured-consent/

>>4812506


>isn't it equally sad that despite all the promises of democracy empowering the individual all we end up with are impotent hedonistic subhumans instead

switch 'despite' to 'because of' and youre on the right track.

??? tier:

???

god tier:

//Counter-Enlightenment i.e. Joseph de Maistre//

good tier:

//Might is Right & Julius Evola esoteric//

Zizek tier:

//"light" Fascism//

true National Socialist tier:

//Reactionary Nationalism against Bolshevism//

"red" pill:

//Compensates for lack of personal accomplishment by identifying with the success of his race//

//Delusions of persecution//

//Blames the world's problems on ethnic group in lieu of encountering the complexities of global politics//

//Believes use of the word "nigger" is a revolutionary act//

>>4812810

>>4812814
except it's now known as "green pill"

>>4812853

>>4812904
>>4812899
>>4812814
these are retarded

>>4812780
I actually laughed because of that. A point for you sir

>>4812917
>these are retarded

Dogmatist.

>>4812772
>obama, the power elite, everything else I have just mentioned
Niger, please...
Those are 100% ok with the system as it is (maybe with the exception of academics). You have a VERY narrow image of what criticizing the system means. Specially the Obama part. If you really think USA will ever structurally change its neoliberal politics you're absolutely retarded. As I said before you, some "progressive" institutions to make the masses believe something important has been done doesn't change the system, it's part of the system.

>>4812780
Go tell this to any local neo-nazi crew. Don't forget to take someone with you to tape it and post the video here.

>>4813163
Like any "neo-nazi crew" knows a thing about Socialism and Fascism. Neo-Nazi's and Skinheads don't even know a thing about National Socialism in general.

>>4813265
If the blackshirts, blueshirts and brownshirts were so socialist why did they lynch the commies? Why were they nationalist (when it's clearly opposed to socialism)? Why didn't they support the syndicates protesting against the capitalists?

>>4812574
Because for most people "fascist" is a buzzword for anything authoritarian

>>4813381
>If the blackshirts, blueshirts and brownshirts were so socialist why did they lynch the commies?

Well, that's because they weren't Socialists. They were Corporatists who believed in Class Collaboration. But even if they were, Socialism is merely an economic programme it is not in-and-of itself Communism.


However, there were a few, such as the Strasserists who had more "left-wing economic" tenets that would be better described as National Syndicalism which did acknowledge and condone class conflict and wealth redistribution. The line drawn between these groups was merely the theories of Sorel and the further development of them in the conservative revolution. Though there was always a hatred for Marxist's and especially Bolsheviks.

>>4813381
Also, don't confuse the Italian Blackshirts or the Irish Blueshirts with National Socialism, because they weren't. Fascism and NS are not one and the same, they're actually very different, though NS is a brand of Fascism there were many, many others as well who didn't share the same economic tenets and ideologies, the only connection was ultra-Nationalism, collectivism, Militarism and totalitarianism. They used different means to get to these ends depending upon the cultures and people of that nation. Groups like The Iron Guard, the Rexist's and Austrofascists were staunch traditionalists and believed that the religion of their peoples was of the upmost importance to the Nation, while others like the Nazi's and the Ustasha had biological race as the dominating factor of their Nation while others could care less of race for the most part. Then you had groups such as Union of Bulgarian National Legionsn who were basically extreme Monarchist.

>>4813381
If the Catholics were christian why did they burn protestants?

>>4811363
>Evola=Fascist, top lol

Protip, start with Mazzini ;)

>>4812000
>scholar
So we can have the cute little Rousseaus who think it's satire? and the sweet little Gramscis who think it's an exposition for the working class so they know what's REALLY going on?

please

The problem with these discussions of fascism is that too many people accept propaganda uncritically. They're willing to accept some criticisms of democratic and Marxist societies, but then declare that any fascist state will be a utopia. They can accept the difficulty or impossibility of putting Marxist theory into practice, but then turn around and say that this myth of the racially unified state is perfect and cannot ever fail, only be failed through flawed implementation

Here are some more critical viewpoints:
The Anatomy of Fascism - Robert Paxton
The Third Reich series - Richard J. Evans
The Nazi Seizure of Power - William Sheridan Allen
Behemoth - Franz Neumann
The Authoritarians - Bob Altemeyer
Dark Continent - Mark Mazower
Black Sun - Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

I might also add Umberto Eco's article on Ur-Fascism, based upon his experience growing up in Mussolini's Italy. It shows the sort of double-think necessary to become a fascist, and explains it much more clearly without any mystical bullshitting.

>>4814079
no emilio gentile, or Renzo De Felice

NIGGA PLZ

>>4811349
>good fascist philosophy/literature/poetry is?
Doesn't exist m8

>>4811627
Not that guy, Cioran works aren't fascist but if IIRC he had fascist leanning, but i don't see how that personal stuff affects the kind of work Cioran did.

>>4813140
>the truth is, they're just not being revolutionary enough!
>comrade, not revolutionary enough!
>yes, they aren't revolutionary enough comrade...

this is why critical theory is by all accounts a joke. I've spelled it out left right and center for you, but of course the infusion of the system with leftist rhetoric just isn't pure enough for 100% stalinist conformity- so clearly the tautological solution to the tautological problem is REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAN STRUGGLE.

like a moron. Just go home

>>4812041
yea, I'm going to take this obvious bait. You're either deliberately misconstruing plato and/or an idiot. To mark Plato as remotely fascist is to misconstrue every one of his fundamental points

>>4813587
>Though there was always a hatred for Marxist's and especially Bolsheviks.
Why?
I'll tell you why: because they weren't socialists, they were POPULISTS. Actual socialism, the one that makes the establishment tremble, is what they hate. They were financed by the bourgeoisie to fight exactly what the bourgeois feared.
>>4813633
>don't confuse the Italian Blackshirts or the Irish Blueshirts with National Socialism
I was talking about the spanish blueshirts, but yeah. Fascism, national socialism and national catolicism aren't the same. But all of them are against socialism.
>ultra-Nationalism
Yeah, this is the main point, this is exactly what makes them essentially different from the socialists.

>>4814218
>but of course the infusion of the system with leftist rhetoric just isn't pure enough for 100% stalinist conformity
But I'm talking about changing the system itself not about leftist rhetoric, you narrow-minded fuckatrd.
I'm not a fucking commie, I don't even consider myself a leftist yet I hate this system as it is, so fuck your retarded labels, ok?
And all of the people you talked about are nothing but an essential PART of the system, as in the system as it is could not exist without people like Obama.
Leave it to the other guy, seriously. You're just too retarded and ignorant for this discussion. You are an embarrassment for the intelligent right-wingfags.

>>4813641
This compaction would be equivalent to Bolsheviks vs Mansheviks or Anarchists vs Stalinists during the Spanish Civil War, man. People from the same side fighting over specific stuff, not people from OPPOSITE sides.

>>4814508
>I'll tell you why: because they weren't socialists,

I agree with you; Fascists are not Socialists. No one here, except for you, was ever questioning this. Fascist economics is usually based on Corporatism, which does share a few ideas with Socialism but definitely aren't one and the same and everyone recognizes this. Even National Socialism has been acknowledged by supporters as not being what we would consider modern Socialism.

Corporatism eliminates private property and puts the means of production back in the hands of workers. The State exists to facilitate between the workers and the owners of the company in order to peacefully settle disputes while maintaining the corporate hierarchy in management. This is mirrored in socialism. Corporatism is the application of actual idealism to economics as opposed to dialectical materialism. They both erode the role capitalism in society and ultimately come to similar conclusions, they are just two separate approaches.

>Yeah, this is the main point, this is exactly what makes them essentially different from the socialists.
Well there is a lot more than just this that separates them (i.e. Class Collaboration), though ultra-Nationalism is one of the bigger disagreements.

>>4815917
>No one here, except for you
>>4812780
And why would you need to say this >>4813265 when you agree with me? Sounds like their opinion is different than yours.
>Corporatism eliminates private property and puts the means of production back in the hands of workers
Well, corporatism in this sense has been proposed since forever by leftists.
>hey both erode the role capitalism in society and ultimately come to similar conclusions, they are just two separate approaches.
Yeah, different justifications, autarchy and all that stuff, but true.
>while maintaining the corporate hierarchy in management.
This, this is the part I can't understand. How do you pretend to change anything while maintaining the same hierarchies? The capitalists aren't willing to let the workers own the means of production, this is why they supported ultra-nationalist (fascists, ns, national-catolicists, etc) groups to oppose the syndicates.

>>4814061
>implying rousseau and gramsci weren't right about machiavelli
now get out

>>4816394
>Rousseau
>right about anything

>>4816394
>having a brain made out the doodoo

>>4816406
Getting rid of harmful sorts of industry and technology is pretty nice in my honest imho

Read Enlightenment-critique (both left and reactionary) to get the bigger picture. Read Hegel.

Avoid literature that's self-proclaimed fascist like you would with other ideologies if you want genuine discourse.

>>4812568
>what existed largely as a single movement that attempted to straight up rip out the world by its roots failed because anglophones hate fun
>lots of the ideas that where but forward by that movement where absorbed by those same fun hating people to start ruining their own fun and also make sure homeless people could have food and jobs and shit
>acting like this is comparable to almost any other movement other than maybe communism
Also socialism is doing great right now so idk what you're thinking.

>>4816352
>Well, corporatism in this sense has been proposed since forever by leftists.
And it was heavily implanted in that sense by fascists, who where hugely influenced by leftist and modernist thought.
>This, this is the part I can't understand. How do you pretend to change anything while maintaining the same hierarchies?
Except they didn't, there where huge social and economic changes under fascist governments, much more so than in none-fascist countries at the time. In the case of Germany, Hitler started re-making most of the institutions from scratch (churches, boyscouts, schools, ect.) with huge oppression against groups and hierarchies that opposed him. I think the biggest divide is that fascists where more focused on idealism than materialism and didn't really give many fucks about the economic side of things, while leftiest can't appreciate fascism as a spiritual and idealistic movement and just see violent loonies doing lots of stuff while changing very little in sense of economic hierarchies
>>4814528

>muh sides
Just fucking kill yourself god you're stupid

>>4816394
>Machiavelli was a 1500's socialist ironic hipster
Machiavelli was an Italian nationalist trying to unify Italy because he wanted to save her from external takeover, which of course was a serious threat that eventually occurred.

>>4811456
>ernst jungr
>pro-fascist

Someone didnt read on the white cliffs

>>4816864
Feminister are your favorite colors pink and green? Or some variation of red and green? Maybe red and teal or any other silly thing that's red and green? Or turquoise and pink or orange or smth?

>>4816352
>And why would you need to say this >>4813265 when you agree with me? Sounds like their opinion is different than yours.

Because you said "Neo-Nazi's", which I am not, so yes their opinion is different than mine. I prefer Maurras Integralism and Mosley's brand of Fascism, not retarded Neo-Nazi /pol/ shit.

>>4814079
Evans' was the best work id read on the Nazi state. His chapters on the Nazi education system were awesome, and fairly damning

>>4816875
>smith
Is that an actual color?

>>4816956
It means "something" for people living in the year 2014
also, do you like those colors :--))))

>>4816967
Are you a wizard?

>>4816967
Oh my fucking god kill yourself retard

lel at the people who call fascism right wing.

*currently wearing a smith colored sweater vest*

On a side note, I'm also wearing a reversible jacket. One side is flannel. The other is plaid.

Heil hailstorms!

>>4816972
No, I just believe in human nature, scientism, and most forms of pre-enlightenment spirituality.

>>4816984
>Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social hierarchy or social inequality.[1][2][3][4] Those affiliated with the Right consider social hierarchy and social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[2] typically justifying this position on the basis of natural law or tradition.[4][5][6][7][8] Within the right-wing spectrum, views differ on whether hierarchy and inequality stem from traditional social differences[9] or from competition in market economies.[10][11]

>>4817004
So what traits do you think all humans have in common at all times?

>>4817007
And left believes in abolishing the hierarchy. Centrism believes in working with it, and Nazism/Fascism are centrism. I as a sort of Fascist believe any man could be a King, but not all men can at the same time.

>>4814508
and it turns out the sheep was a contrition rightest after all. Why are you even arguing with me, socialist type leftism became vogue after the 60's in north america and has come into contact with almost everyone as a a result

>omg ur dumb
10/10 argument evolalord

>>4817018
Ah, kind of like a mobster?

>>4817010
Nothing, diversity exists. That's why I know you're green and red.

>>4817037


say no to nominalism anon.

>>4817024
Sort of like a mobster, but more like a gangster. A mobster would be more akin to a single royal family line, a gangster understands that some guy from the country or the ghetto might just walk outside one day and make the best King ever seen.

>>4817040
I don't really say no to anything

>>4814237

>State should have castes of Lehr-, Wehr- and Naehrstand
>"It takes a village" shit regarding childrearing
>If you're not an adult male, no private property for you :(
>Necessary lies for peons
>Must keep the aristos pure otherwise we end up with plebs everywhere
>Monarchy is good if the King's really smart, guise
>Fuck poets

Yep, not a fascist at all.

>>4817049
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H4E3Bk1Cno

>>4817067
Plato was just shooting the shit

>>4817078
I really, really <3 u, ma'am

>>4817078
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3-uqHjoBJU

>>4817084
So were the SS.

Fascism is nothing different from what the current administration is based around currently.

In my opinion Epicurean philosophy is somewhat fascist.

>>4817220

CARLOS!

>>4813584
Kind of like "communism" is a buzzword for every fucking thing that's not communism?

>>4817229
>In my opinion Epicurean philosophy is somewhat fascist.
It could be described as conservative, but it's not very authoritarian

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWR3bMZCQ70

>>4817250

No, not really. At least fascists can define fascism.

>Demagogue - I am a communist
>Observer - hey that guy's communist
>Faggot - LOL DAS NOT "REAL" COMMUNISM

ex-Fascist here, I urge Fascists to look into Traditionalism/Counter-Enlightenment

>>4816889

>>4817275
Fascism is essentially moderate state capitalism.

Fascism is by definition, revolutionary (Hitler spoke of a National Revolution). In modern sense, it might be considered right wing, but in a traditionalist perspective, it is the usurpation of Divine Rule by violent, tyrannical plebeians.

>>4817442
>moderate state capitalism.

You can argue the same for all Authoritarianism such as Leninism.

>>4817445
>but in a traditionalist perspective

Join the Traditionalist thread Anon.

>it is the usurpation of Divine Rule by violent, tyrannical plebeians.

My main problem with National Socialism and Fascism.

>>4817445
Something can be right-wing and revolutionary, it's just you can't be a conservative revolutionary.

Traditionalist perspective isn't really relevant to today, and traditionalist perspective itself is not unified. France, for instance, was about mediation of power between barons and the king until Louis XIV centralized everything, and that only lasted until Louis XVI.

>>4817449
Leninism is extreme state capitalism. Lenin himself called it state capitalist monopoly.

>>4817454
>it's just you can't be a conservative revolutionary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Revolutionary_movement

>>4817474
They're counterrevolutionary.

>>4817445
>(Hitler spoke of a National Revolution)
As in his nationalism, his nation was good enough to rule over other nations.
The original nationalists fought to break free of empires.

>>4817454
>Traditionalist perspective isn't really relevant to today, and traditionalist perspective itself is not unified.

And that is where I have to agree with your "Minarchist socialism based on empiricism".

I am surprised that someone as intelligent as you is against Traditionalism.

You should post in the /trad/ threads on /lit/.

>>4817491
Traditionalists are against traditionalism, they don't understand it. Tradition is motion, not stagnation: the divine right of kings was based on Christianity, which was radically oppposed to both Jewish and pagan tradition, but Christianity became tradition due to acceptance and force of arms. Stagnant traditions are not very traditional.

>>4817681

>Tradition is motion, not stagnation.

>Christianity became tradition due to acceptance and force of arms

Traditionalism does not imply past values nor does it imply divine rights.

On a side note, when you say you are Socialist to you assume it is a charity based system or an enforced system?

Do you have any historical examples of your Socialist beliefs?

Fascists can read?

>>4816406
>doesn't know that Rousseau was the founder of Civil codes in Europe
>being such a faggot

>>4817727
Cooperatives are examples of my socialist beliefs.

>>4811782
thats some bullshit, only two are marked as bat shit crazy so what would I get out of this

>>4814061

Not implying Rousseau was right.

I'm implying Machiavelli only advocated some of those tactics in certain situations, and always with the intent of bettering the state.

And the best way to better the state was to enrich the people. To be moderate. To not be intolerable and despised. An armed and free people. The Prince was suggestions to a single type of ruler, a Prince, the unlimited executive. In Livy, Machiavelli continually praises the tribunes. Points out the flaws in the Tarquins and others who attempted to consolidate power.

There are serious moral implications in Machiavelli.

>>4812347

You're right. I'll attempt to be more tolerant.

>>4812495
I'd love to see it if you have it.

>>4816984
>programs to help the disabled
hmmmmmm

>>4818314
>Free showers!

>>4817265
>it's not very authoritarian
When it comes to morality, it declares what is already present in the operating functions of daily life is essentially all there is to work with in determining the utility of individuals.

>>4818326
And this shows what signs of authoritarianism?

>>4818341
In terms of morality, it shows that individuals with a fresh perspective on it are not encouraged to input any subjectivity until proper credentials have been attained. Fairly authoritarian if you ask me.

>>4818361
Christianity, as amorphously heretical as it was and continues to be, was supposed to be rock solid and immutable. This aspect of epicureanism is just that bit of the scientific method of test for verification that we still use today. I don't see this as authoritarian. Especially on a social/govt level

late her sleep.

>>4818389
It's existence presupposes the validity of objective moral models of valuation.

>>4818453
As does the law.

>>4818472
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgHNtzxO0y8

>>4817442
>Fascism is essentially
lol

>>4816845
>who where hugely influenced by leftist and modernist thought.
So influenced by leftists that they started killing them, yeah.
>Except they didn't, there where huge social and economic changes under fascist governments, much more so than in none-fascist countries at the time.
No shit, nigger. I'm talking about The rich-ass motherfuckers losing their privileges, not killing anyone who disagrees with you. The bourgeois supported the fascists AND tried to crush all kind of workers' syndicates.
>I think the biggest divide is that fascists where more focused on idealism than materialism and didn't really give many fucks about the economic side of things
Yes: fascists were focused on the appearances, while the proletariat was more focused on having food and not being oppressed.
>while leftiest can't appreciate fascism as a spiritual and idealistic movement and just see violent loonies doing lots of stuff
Fascists adopt some leftist imagery and slogans to manipulate ignorant working class people. Muh spirituality and idealism is just a way to make people focus on the forms while the content is THE SAME. The capitalists, the ones who ruled, supported the fascists. How the ones who run the shit are going to want significant change? The only change they want is the total disappearance of their enemies (the nonconformist workers who have some dignity). The fascists are the dogs of the capitalists. yeah, the local capitalists because muh race and muh traditions and muh evil juice, but the fucking capitalists who are very interested on the materialist real and don't really give a fuck about idealist bullshit as long as they keep owning the means of production and keep the poor oppressed.
>while changing very little in sense of economic hierarchies
NIGGER, please. The total disappearance economic hierarchies is, in my humble opinion, a significant change on economic hierarchies.

>>muh sides
>Just fucking kill yourself god you're stupid
This doesn't look like a huge argument. Fascists have always ALWAYS considered themselves right wing and have hated and killed any kind of leftists.

>>4818747
>materialist real
*realm

ignore them
let wannabe-nazis simmer in their own juice
without contrahents their threads und up with "so i've read $list of edgy d-list celebs from 1920s and 1930s, who else should i read? t. evolakid"
never any real discussion among themselves. they are like space monkeys from fight club.

>>4818781
>simmer in their own juice

I laughed

>>4818747
>So influenced by leftists that they started killing them, yeah.
Do you mean the clashes with unions in Italy? Because those had more to do with nationalist stances than actual political differences, and was closer to street fights than organized murder. Nazis targeted churches, school groups, and even their own party members so I don't see how them being against communist groups is at all suiprising or a sign that they where opposed to their oppinions.

>Im talking about The rich-ass motherfuckers losing their privileges
There where tax increases for the rich under Italian fascism, unused land started getting distributed, under nazi rule government sponsered worker unions where created and the general standard of living went up for the proletarient. If I remember correctly nazi germany was the first country to create programs for the unemployed, and Mussolini as well as many high ranking fascists where previously socialists and communists.

>Fascists adopt some leftist imagery and slogans to manipulate ignorant working class people.
They also adopted actual leftist work programs and started empowering unions and the lower class in ways that made the rest of the world look like morons during the great depression
>Muh spirituality and idealism is just a way to make people focus on the forms while the content is THE SAME.
Except it wasn't. You obviously have never read a history book because there where huge changes in every part of peoples lives under fascist governments.
>The capitalists, the ones who ruled, supported the fascists. How the ones who run the shit are going to want significant change?
There was significant change under fascist governments, much more so than any other government at the time (excepting maybe the soviets). If you look at fascist rule relative to how the world actually was at that time (instead of relative to your own ideology) it was an extremelky radical movement.
>The only change they want is the total disappearance of their enemies (the nonconformist workers who have some dignity). The fascists are the dogs of the capitalists. yeah, the local capitalists because muh race and muh traditions and muh evil juice, but the fucking capitalists who are very interested on the materialist real and don't really give a fuck about idealist bullshit as long as they keep owning the means of production and keep the poor oppressed.
You clearly don't understand what idealism or materialism even are you stupid fucking prol. Why the fuck is it so hard to read a book before having strong opinions about things?

>>4818747
>This doesn't look like a huge argument. Fascists have always ALWAYS considered themselves right wing and have hated and killed any kind of leftists.
Neither of these things are true you fucking retard.

>>4818781
are you really decrying wannabe nazis when revleft has existed for years and somethingawful has unironic antifa celebration threads where they post pictures of germans in neon pink outfits like they're in that warriors movie

there are bigger fish in the sea, cf. obese tranny communists

>>4818891
>What tastes worse, dog shit or cat shit?