/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5450288]

who are some good fascist philosophers and writers

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5450293]

That's an extremely good question (coming from a fellow fascist). Unfortunately, Junger is not really a fascist, he's only right-wing in the most superficial of senses.

[Anonymous No.5450294]

>>5450288

Evola
Plato

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5450297]

>>5450293
I forgot to add that Giovanni Gentile is the only one that leaps readily to mind.

[Anonymous No.5450299]

Mishima?

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5450302]

>>5450294
Neither of them are fascist, they're both arisocratists, Plato being a proactionary aristocratist...like Nietzsche...Evola being a reactionary aristocratist.

[Anonymous No.5450305]

>>5450288

Emil Cioran
>He considered himself a “Hitlerist” and had similar views about Italian fascism.

Corneliu Zelea Codreanu

[Anonymous No.5450312]

>>5450302
>they're both arisocratists

nice euphemism. they were fascistic in a lot of ways and understood "race" to be much deeper than just biology

[Anonymous No.5450319]

>>5450288

If you don't read Savitri Devi then get the fuck out of my face.

[Anonymous No.5450323]

>>5450288
Mosley is the best actual fascist

[Anonymous No.5450356]

Quarantine the fascist plague

[Anonymous No.5450364]

>>5450323
I agree.

>>5450288
Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered
Fascism for the Million

[Anonymous No.5450377]

>Fascism
>Wanting to follow in the footsteps of the least functional, generally failure filled nations of 20th century Europe.

Not even a Communist.

[Anonymous No.5450400]

>>5450299
Probably, but he's only a good writer.

There aren't really any good "philosophers" in fascism (at least when dealing with their politics, see Heidegger) because fascism is inherently based on pandering to pride and vanity, and thus generally refuses to criticize itself leading to circle arguments and ideals before conclusions.

[Anonymous No.5450403]

>>5450288
Carl Schmitt is tops

[Anonymous No.5450406]

>>5450293
>coming from a fellow fascist

[Anonymous No.5450412]

>>5450377
That'd be Hoxhaism

[Anonymous No.5450450]

>>5450412
Yeah, I exaggerate. Fascism isn't the worst, but they still seem to have fucked an incredible amount of things up. The Nazis may have built the nation back up from pretty much nothing, but they just as quickly sent it crashing back down. It's a good thing Speer made a concentrated effort to try and preserve what he could of German industry towards the end of the war.

[Anonymous No.5450457]

>>5450450
>The Nazis may have built the nation back up from pretty much nothing
No, that was Social Democracy. The Nazis mobilised the rebuilt capital for obvious ends.

>but they just as quickly sent it crashing down
Their economy required constant primitive accumulation by expropriation.

>Speer made a[n]…effort
Talk to Mad Bomber Harris about that one.

[Anonymous No.5450467]

>>5450457
So what you're saying is that Nazism was even less successful than my already very low opinion held it to be?

[Anonymous No.5450471]

>>5450288
>Jünger
>fascist

[Anonymous No.5450473]

>>5450293
>fascist admitting that there's no real intellectual content behind his ideology

facists burn books OP, not read them. only retarded esoteric bullshit like evola

[Anonymous No.5450476]

>>5450467
its true, social democracy saved germany, which is why it experienced hyper inflation and then massive deflation all within the the decade before hitler came to power.

>that poster
>you

[Anonymous No.5450477]

Is it true that the Nazis really thought the sun was made of ice?

[Anonymous No.5450483]

>>5450477
Himmler actually believed that, but he believed a lot of shit.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welteislehre

[Anonymous No.5450489]

>>5450467
Correct

>>5450476
We're talking the last five years of continuous Junker/Syndicat enforced crisis, when the capital accumulation that social democrats had forced out of the petits-bourgeois and proletariat were rendered into stable infrastructure and currency.

Fucksake, learn your Weimar history. It should give you all the more reason to praise Hitler's capacity as a politician in the art of leverage.

[Anonymous No.5450491]

>>5450412
Not like they had much to work with

[Anonymous No.5450494]

>>5450491
Titoism, or Goulash Socialism, or heaven forfend actual proletarian self-governance would have made Albania less basketcasey than Hoxhaism did.

[Anonymous No.5450497]

>>5450489
>Fucksake, learn your Weimar history

do you have a reading recommendation specifically related to its death throes.

[Anonymous No.5450502]

>>5450497
Its been 20 years, and since then I've only read economic history articles occasionally.

[Anonymous No.5450504]

>good fascist philosophers and writers

lol those can't coexist

[Anonymous No.5450522]

I think there's a new version of this chart already, but I don't have it.
Of course, I haven't read a single one, so you're on your own on that one.

[Anonymous No.5450526]

>>5450288


So /pol/ invading and incessant shitposting is really a thing, huh?

The answer to your question whether there are fascists philosophers the answer is exactly that :None

Fascism does not have a philosopher that outlined what fascism is, neither is there a theoretical framework defining what the good society is.

Though people frequently cite thinkers like Heidegger,Spengler or Schmitt as providing a theoretical framework for Nazism, they are wrong, not only because the Nazi party never appropriated their works (But even heavily criticized some) but because the simple truth is that Fascism hates "thinking".

You may think this is ironic,since Nazi Germany produced some of the finest scientist like Von Braun and Heisenberg but this happened not because the "Conservative Revolution" of the Nazis had stimulated philosophy and science (these structures existing long before the Nazis), but because the Nazis had a near religious obsession with technological domination and advancement.

Only the Nazis could ideologically manipulate the masses through non-thinking (their emphasis on action and tradition being the very definition of non-thinking) ans use them to advance technological domination.

Keeping this in mind people often wonder what was the purpose of this vast number of concentration camps and the innumerable number of slave labor before and during the war. There was no real purpose, it was manufacturing for manufacturing's sake, Total War had entered every facet of life turning humans into assembly lines,that once broke down were left to die.

In such a way "Arbeit Macht Frei" epitomizes this blind unthinking obsession of fascism,work shall make you free only through death.

[Anonymous No.5450567]

>>5450522

>Blake
>Right wing

[Anonymous No.5450571]

>>5450504
>>5450526
this
Fascism inherently has no philosophical integrity whatsoever

[Anonymous No.5450596]

>>5450571
utilitarianism

[Anonymous No.5450628]

Lucien Rebatet

[Anonymous No.5450633]

>>5450596
yes fascism invented that yes

i want /pol/ to leave

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5450636]

>>5450312
If you think fascism is about race, you're poorly informed. Mussolini didn't even believe that race existed, and only politicized it to solidity ties with Germany.

"Race? It is a feeling, not a reality. Ninety-five per cent, at least. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.… National pride has no need of the delirium of race. "
-Mussolini, 1932

>>5450323
Mosley never wrote anything of note

>>5450403
Carl Schmittt is a conservative, not a fascist.

>>5450406
Not sure how that's more fedorable than the prevailing ideology here.

>>5450473
Evola wasn't a fascist just because he was far right. Rothbard was far right as well.

[Anonymous No.5450641]

Fascism is anti-intellectual. Fascists oppress and execute writers.

[Anonymous No.5450647]

>>5450633

>STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE

So it's ok for you morons to preach your insane left wing ideologies and what is deemed politically correct but if someone with a different viewpoint than you asks nothing but a harmless question you have to automatically break down and make a fuss about it? Nice victim complex buddy.

>>5450641

>Fascism is anti intellectual

I'm not a fascist but it wasn't just Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy that oppressed writers.


>USSR/East Germany

>What is the KGB and Stasi

>You've never heard of Das Leben der Anderen

FAGGOT

[Anonymous No.5450656]

>>5450647

And the /pol/fag mad keeps on coming.

Had you read any history or educated yourself in any way you would know that Stalinism was at the fore front of intellectual battles in university life in Europe up until the 60's.

To what extent it censored and banned intellectual works i another subject all together.
But the USSRS terror years are but an extension of the battle on what orthodox Marxism is, it wasn't just a power struggle but also a battle of ideas (Trostkyism vs Stalinism).

Such manner of intellectual thinking is entirely absent from Fascism,because as I said before Fascism has no real theory or thinking process behind it apart from the concept of "Conservative Revolution".

[Anonymous No.5450666]

>>5450647
⇒I'm not a fascist but it wasn't just

So you're saying oppression and murder are okay if other ideologies do it too? Shows how immature you are.

[Anonymous No.5450678]

>>5450656

>My professor didn't talk about it therefore there is no theory behind fascism.

Sure thing.

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5450683]

>>5450656
There is a nuance to fascism. Francoism, Mussolini fascism, and NatSoc are very different sorts (Pinochet was even arguably fascist, and very different from the other varieties). I'm not a Nazi, but I am a fascist. The thing is, fascism is such a four-letter-word among the philosophical establishment that it's hard to cultivate the theory and the possibilities. Fascism is used as synonymous for "bad" in post war thought. Adorno used it as psychological category for people who are sexually insecure, Barthes used it to refer to limiting language, Foucault used to a catchall for non-consensual power.

I don't blame the left for systematically cockblocking open discussion of fascism, fascists did the very same thing to leftists where the former had power. However, without trying to romanticize 4chan, I do expect its most intellectual board to be less knee-jerkingly polarized than even (yes) academic institutions.

Fascism DOES have an intellectual theory behind it, it was simply never permitted to blossom. Communism as a movement started very primitively with Babeuf, and only grew to intellectual respectability with Marx. There has never been a Marx of fascism because any sympathy toward fascism is signing one's academic death warrant. But I digress. The theory behind fascism is strength as a value system. To make every citizen as strong as potential will allow. In fascism, strength...in every sense of the word...is the most important thing. Fascism does not distinguish between strength and freedom. This makes its outlook very different from the left, but not necessarily unsophisticated.

[Anonymous No.5450702]

>>5450647
The Soviet Union desperately relied on intellectuals and intellectualism to give it a patina of legitimacy. NSDAP Germany relied on anti intellectual thinkers and attacked intellectualism. That's what we mean by anti intellectualism.

[Anonymous No.5450710]

>>5450683
Deal with Horthy and get back to us. /lit/'s pet fascists have generally become reactionaries over time.

[Anonymous No.5450712]

>>5450526
The fact that fascism isn't based on theory but rather an almost organic process stemming from a certain type of attitude is something I consider a possible benefit. Letting politicians play their power game rather than asking them to bring into existence the musings of academics can work quite well. Basing a living thing like a society on dead rigid writings with clearly defined goals and ideals is asking for trouble.

[Anonymous No.5450721]

>>5450305
Cioran was fascist for about five minutes when he was young, then he renounced all fanaticism and was in favour of a moderate, sceptical careful left.

[Anonymous No.5450727]

>>5450712
Fascisti generally believe that the nation is an organic culture and capable of internally differentiated self-conception through the power of man.

Praxis proletarians and their class-traitor hangers on from the bourgeoisie and nomenklatura believe that the working class forms an effectively undifferentiated subject capable of self-comprehension through reflective action.

Nomenklatura and bourgeois Marxist intellectuals believe that if only the proletariat implemented their ideas history would totalise itself.

To a certain extent working class marxists are closer to fascisti, in that they both believe in non-individual subjects. To another certain extent bourgeois marxists are closer to fascisti, in that both believe in the possibility of POWERFUL LEADERS intellectually totalising history.

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5450735]

>>5450710
>Deal with Horthy and get back to us.
Did he write anything of note?

> /lit/'s pet fascists have generally become reactionaries over time.

There is a good deal more high-end reactionary /lit/...partially because monarchies had a much longer run than fascist states...than there is high-end fascist /lit/. However a return to rule by the old blood is pure fantasy. Fascism on the other hand still has potential as something that can happen.

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5450739]

>>5450735
By "/lit/" I am indicating "literature"

[Anonymous No.5450760]

>>5450735
I lost a massive post. Excuse the terseness thereby.

Horthy ran a state. Very interesting. Compare to Peron or Pinochet. Read how he ran the state.

Reaction is more compatible with normal capital's ideologies. Fascism is when the state cannot discipline workers, and requires something more.

[Anonymous No.5450781]

>>5450666


>So you're saying oppression and murder are okay if other ideologies do it too? Shows how immature you are.

Did I ever say I approve of it/? I merely pointed out your ignorance.

>>5450683


>There is a nuance to fascism. Francoism, Mussolini fascism, and NatSoc are very different sorts (Pinochet was even arguably fascist, and very different from the other varieties

Not really, they are basically within the framework of the "Conservative Revolution", reactionaries in defense of "tradition".

>The theory behind fascism is strength as a value system. To make every citizen as strong as potential will allow. In fascism, strength...in every sense of the word...is the most important thing. Fascism does not distinguish between strength and freedom. This makes its outlook very different from the left, but not necessarily unsophisticate

You could not have spouted a more general incoherent collection of sentances.

Fascism cannot live without mystification, you hide behind a persecution complex but when I ask you what is the theoretical framework of Faschism, you fall back to a Pseudo-Nietzschean generilization( something extremely ironic since Nietzsche would have never had been a Fascist), that Foucault or Sartre would have no problem accepting.

Yet again when I ask you what was the reason why all these millions of people died, like all Fascists you have no hope but to fall on previous myths and cliche narratives (see Mein Kampf) to support blind action and violence against your intellectual enemies.

Because of this reason Fascism stands on wooden legs, it cannot stand debate and intellectual discussion because when it's myths are challenged it regresses into violence and censorship and as a result it rightfully flagged and looked down upon as a political position.

[Anonymous No.5450787]

>>5450526
>Keeping this in mind people often wonder what was the purpose of this vast number of concentration camps and the innumerable number of slave labor before and during the war. There was no real purpose, it was manufacturing for manufacturing's sake, Total War had entered every facet of life turning humans into assembly lines,that once broke down were left to die.

This is 100% true. I always see this as maybe the most beautiful example of the Weberian functional rationality.

[Anonymous No.5450792]

>>5450781
⇒Did I ever say I approve of it/?

You did. You used it as a fallacy to defend your infantile ideology.

[Anonymous No.5450796]

>>5450683
>The thing is, fascism is such a four-letter-word among the philosophical establishment that it's hard to cultivate the theory and the possibilities.

Its more than that. I would break your jaw with a shifting spanner and put your eyes out with a hot soldiering iron. Except I'm humane. If you're a worker I'd beat the fash out of you, if you're not, I'm happy to wall you. And I'm proud of that.

>Fascism is used as synonymous for "bad" in post war thought. Adorno used it as psychological category for people who are sexually insecure, Barthes used it to refer to limiting language, Foucault used to a catchall for non-consensual power.

All of whom are broadly rejected by praxis type marxists.

>However, without trying to romanticize 4chan, I do expect its most intellectual board to be less knee-jerkingly polarized than even (yes) academic institutions.

The intellectual and political power of marxism means that /lit/'s intellectuals tend to either be marxists or "progressive" pomos. I'm pretty sure the pomos here are adhering to progressivism because they're attracted to an "imaginary" of their own power: I do not attend to their thoughts, because, they're not praxical nor do they contribute to an ideology (Marxism or Anarchism) that can effectively inform praxis.

>Fascism DOES have an intellectual theory behind it, it was simply never permitted to blossom.

Yeah, nah, you've had since Napoleon III and you've never had a systematiser like Marx. Your values are less coherent than reactionary thought. I'm not sure its going to happen. As a system of ideas its a dead end rapidly found.

[Anonymous No.5450798]

>>5450760
But since he achieved regency by legitimacy other than inheritance, he was more in the vein of the "probationary" term I employed. A reactionary would have supported Charles.

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5450806]

>>5450796
>
Its more than that. I would break your jaw with a shifting spanner and put your eyes out with a hot soldiering iron. Except I'm humane. If you're a worker I'd beat the fash out of you, if you're not, I'm happy to wall you. And I'm proud of that.
That's great. You'd be willing to kill people for dissenting from your ideology. In that sense we are on the same page.

>Yeah, nah, you've had since Napoleon III
Napoleon III was not a fascist, to say he was is stretching the term immensely. He was only vaguely fascist in the Francoist sense, and only insofar as Franco deviated from common fascism.

[Anonymous No.5450807]

>>5450798
Well, given that he was the head of a progressive White reaction to put down revolution, and that he implemented a progressive national imaginary, I view him as solidly fascist.

[Anonymous No.5450816]

>>5450400
Embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.5450818]

>>5450806
>That's great. You'd be willing to kill people for dissenting from your ideology. In that sense we are on the same page.
We often agree on these points, but differ on who should do what to whom. Also we agree that it is admirable that held belief should express itself politically including through violence.

>Napoleon III
Broke a revolution, and implemented a progressive nationalist semi-racial "imaginary" founded in a conservative world view.

That's fascism for me, the anti-revolutionary violence, the national / racial imaginary, the progressivism, the conservatism.

I think Napoleon III is really important. He's my "tenuous." Franco is semi-fascist, semi-reactionary. Horthy is really amazing. Pinochet is solidly in. So is Salazar, the forgotten.

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5450819]

>>5450807
Oh, I thought you were saying he was a reactionary. Yes, I view him closer to a fascist than a reactionary, and a pretty good one. But....I think fascism needs to focus more on comprehensive theory than former idols. Fascism needs postulated value system and a full theory of state to accompany that. There has been something drawn toward this...The Doctrine of Fascism, for instance...but fascism needs to expand on theoretical critique of other systems...and beyond a mere manifesto.

[Anonymous No.5450825]

>>5450526
>so /pol/ invading
Fuck off, you paranoid leftist faggot

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5450839]

>>5450818
>We often agree on these points, but differ on who should do what to whom. Also we agree that it is admirable that held belief should express itself politically including through violence.
I think I should do it to you, you think you should do it to me. Opposite, but yet not.

>That's fascism for me, the anti-revolutionary violence, the national / racial imaginary, the progressivism, the conservatism.
Fascism is more than action, it's a condition. Fascism generally considers economics second to national solidarity and strength, but where economics are a factor, they run the gamut from libertarian (Pinochet) to socialist (Hitler). Fascism, if it's a reaction to anything, is anti-nationalism. Fascism is not concerned about defending private property, except as a secondary concern depending on the flavor of fascism. Fascism is ultimately concerned about cultivating national identity and strength; if that requires capitalism, then so be it; if that requires socialism, then so be it.

[Anonymous No.5450840]

>>5450666
Holy shit, I guess it's true that arrow cunt is the most retarded poster on this board

[Anonymous No.5450849]

>>5450819
>Producing an ideology of fascism
Well you could do this, but, for example, "Cow Protection" in Hindu culture is going to postulate a total value system that is differently grounded to, for example, Soumiism.

I'm not sure a fascist theory can be comprehensive in this way, and I think past approaches to "total" fascist thought have floundered in this ground.

One of the issues with using idols is that we can examine the actuality and practice. The fact that Horthy was overthrown from the _right_ is interesting.

Go it if you want to, but Marx's motivation was a deep understanding of alienation and the production process. I'm not sure that there's a connection to a real and underlying process that will motivate a fascist "Marx." Evola encounters the national as a mystical which is a half decent attempt. The SS's anti-thinkers followed the same process of mystification.

[Anonymous No.5450854]

>>5450839
>to socialist (Hitler).
Please please deal with Hitler's interface with the Syndicat trusts. Hitler is far less socialist than many people imagine. He rode a system of high finance capital trusts while smashing workers organisation rather than relying upon it.

The thing with national identity is that its an identity. You'd need to read and love identity politics and Judith Butler's performativity and deal with core issues of identity. Marxism and Anarchism's grounds are in production processes lying prior to identity. You'd need to find the "blood and soil" of nation to form an ideology of fascism.

[Anonymous No.5450863]

>>5450792
>infantile ideology
You obviously haven't studied leninism, trotskyism, Stalinism, anarcho-primitivism, mutualism, and etc

[Anonymous No.5450873]

>>5450854
Actually given I've raised blood and soil, you might want to go through Serbian and Polish fascism. Or if you're actually an intellectual read and comprehend the neue Slowenische kunst movement of art-politics during the Tujman/Milosevich fascism in Croatia/Serbia.

[Anonymous No.5450881]

>>5450863
I haven't studied astrology either, yet I can tell you why it's bullshit. You're arguing like one of these christfag retards who say "hurr durr you cannot disprove god if you haven't read the bible". I won't read any of your childish ideology rubbish. It has already been tested in reality and history showed us how flawed it is.

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5450884]

>>5450849
Mysticism is not a respectable theory. I don't think respectable fascist theory will happen for a hundred years, if it ever happens, because in the current climate it is like expect Medieval academic institutions to produce atheist works.

I have read Judith Butler. As for Marx, as much he hated forming his politics around identity, "worker identity" is functionally a very big part of Marxism, because it helps failures who work low-end jobs feel important.

[Anonymous No.5450889]

>>5450881
>It has already been tested in reality and history showed us how flawed it is.
Most workers revolutions were put down by fire and sword, very few collapsed through internal dissention, fewer still were coopted by nomenklatura.

Stable post-capitalist relations spring up all the time, even tendentiously within capitalism.

Hell, fascism will keep fucking happening until we eliminate capitalism. (From my perspective). Hitler didn't fucking stop Milosevich happening.

[Anonymous No.5450894]

>>5450881
>muh version of communism has never been implemented
Fuck off, I hope you get raped by one of your professors, you grotesque retard

[Anonymous No.5450895]

>>5450796
>Its more than that. I would break your jaw with a shifting spanner and put your eyes out with a hot soldiering iron. Except I'm humane. If you're a worker I'd beat the fash out of you, if you're not, I'm happy to wall you. And I'm proud of that.
Are you one of those angry vegan squatters?

[Anonymous No.5450905]

>>5450884
Yeah, but "worker identity" is really solidly rooted:

are you forced to offer your labour for sale to survive.

The actual historical identities such as "blue collar male white" are far more up Butler's alley.

As you note, Marx varies between the two.


Finding a similar grounding experience to "alienation in production" for fascism will be hard. I agree, mysticism isn't adequate for the western tradition. But as we noted with "blood and soil" maybe mysticism is adequate for some fascisms... if they're nationally specific.

But finding the blood and soil will be hard work.

[Anonymous No.5450927]

>>5450895
>Are you one of those angry vegan squatters?
No. I am not an angry man, people are amazed when my anger comes forth. And unlike the vegan squatters, I have inspected very seriously the conditions of successful violence, I will not speak of that.

1936 was a warning that few have heeded.

[Anonymous No.5450930]

the only good fascist is a dead fascist

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5450935]

>>5450905
Almost the entire population has to labor to survive, including the bourgeoisie, unless they live of their parents' labor or welfare, which the manchildren of proles do as frequently as anyone else.

[Anonymous No.5450937]

>>5450894
Are you retarded? I just told you that communism is bullshit. An ideology that denies human nature and caused the biggest genocides in history is definitely bullshit. Go back to /pol/, you illiterate piece of crap.

[Anonymous No.5450941]

Theory is vastly overrated. Fascism gave people a sense of belonging, being almost a political and religious hybrid. When you have your needs met and have a sense of unity and purpose and a yes and a no, most people don't care about dusty academics stacking jargon on top of arbitrary axioms.

[Anonymous No.5450949]

>>5450935
The bourgeoisie do not offer their labour for sale, nor do they "labour" as they have full cognitive control over the tasks they engage in. Have you read Hannah Arendt on the greek's conceptions of freedom including freedom regarding work? Might be useful in your construction of what power and culture are.

The bourgeoisie generally don't have to labour, since the late 19th century they've been able to hire intermediaries to perform the functions of capital.

>>5450930
We dealt with that above, thank goodness its anonymous here or Omnisexual and myself would be knifing each other.

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5450958]

>>5450949
>The bourgeoisie do not offer their labour for sale, nor do they "labour" as they have full cognitive control over the tasks they engage in. Have you read Hannah Arendt on the greek's conceptions of freedom including freedom regarding work?
Yes, she was a hack, and I suggest you contrast that with Hesiod.

>The bourgeoisie generally don't have to labour, since the late 19th century they've been able to hire intermediaries to perform the functions of capital.
They labor their asses off, they're completely career oriented and demand their kids get jobs before graduating highschool. The bourgeoisie lifestyle is workworkworkworkworkwork. It's neurotic.

[Anonymous No.5450959]

>>5450941
And this is why Omnisexual's project of specifying a real fascist theory of fascism as ideology is going to be a lifetime's project, and he'll probably only manage to be a Saint Simon if he's the hottest shit fascist thinker who manages to avoid mysticism or unsustainable claims.

[Anonymous No.5450967]

>>5450958
Let me be clear, I am using bourgeois to mean the owners of capital, in particular the owners of the commanding heights of capital. For example, Bruce Wayne.

In contrast, Steve's Discount Mattress Warehouse, a small capital, yeah, Steve works his arse off, but, at the same time he is not forced to offer his labour for sale.

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5450975]

>>5450967
Even the haute bourgeoisie tend to be workaholics. You think Steve Jobs wasn't neurotic about working?

[Anonymous No.5450982]

>>5450958
Thanks for the Hesiod, I found Arendt's accounts to be post-graduate. Maybe that's unfair, I'd been thinking about Foucault's more complex approaches. (Both of which are deficient to my field's treatment of labour, but hey).

When you hang around /lit/ and want to talk about fascism, do this. Prove by reference to the canon that you're an intellectual.

[Anonymous No.5450989]

>>5450975
By focusing on entrepreneurs who are active engaged in the functions of capital, you're avoiding the silent trust recipients. And in any case, we both agree that they exert. My argument was that they are not compelled to offer their exertion for sale, that they have a command over their exertion that differentiates their position from workers.

[Anonymous No.5450990]

>>5450937
No, you're retarded, cunt, I was never advocating communism, you obtuse cunt. Reading comprehension, it's important, you STEM retard.

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5451004]

>>5450989
The only people who can live very well without choosing to work, are those who are born into wealth (which most of the haute bourgeoisie are not, and of those who are, almost all of them choose work regardless).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2012/04/20/most-wealthy-individuals-earned-not-inherited-their-wealth-2/

So, let me get this straight: basically you're complaining that some people have the option to not work, but you don't have that option? Or are you simply complaining that you can't be your own boss (have to sell your labor)?

[Anonymous No.5451011]

>>5451004
I'm not complaining. I'm establishing a useful category, which is centred not on volition, but requirement to offer for sale; and on the nature of the exertion being without control.

Its a category without normative content, and highly predictive of wealth outcomes. The category directly indicates the capacity of an individual to control other's social labour.

I think we got onto this because this territory is Marx's core. And we were discussing the difficulty of specifying a similar fascist "fundament" without going into mysticism.

[Anonymous No.5451016]

>>5451011
You don't like having to sell your labor? Don't work for the bourgeoisie. Oh, wait, you need the means of production! But you should of course get to use those for free, because the means of production isn't an actual contribution, just the labor is.

[Anonymous No.5451020]

>>5451016
I'm sorry that you have reading comprehension problems, look up what "normative" means.

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5451040]

>>5451020
I know what normative means.

[Anonymous No.5451042]

>>5451040
You do, but the anonymous chap above responded to a post where I outlined a category that appears very deeply to be grounded in non-normative descriptions. That anonymous chap immediately accused me of producing a normative category.

Our discussions have been wonderful except for the violence we know we would do each other as political necessity; violence neither of us would lie about.

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5451061]

>>5451042
The trouble with your category is that subjugates. Most workers, at least in the U.S., would rather be capitalist bourgeoisie than socialist workers. A worker is a second-best, and if you can't be on top, then make everyone a worker. But national identity is already the top, it is not something most people who are conscious of it hope to transcend.

Now you can say, "Oh boo hoo, nationality is just reification, being a prole is objectively defined", but that's not entirely the case. Nationality is a group of people you aligned with in cooperation, it is a team, like the Greeks vs. the Trojans. That can be defined through action, but in order for that to happen, the team must become much more concrete. The leftist trend is to destroy national identity because it conflicts with class identity, they don't want you to be loyal to the former over the latter. But being a player for a certain nation can be very rigorously and legally defined, but for that you need a fascist system.

[Anonymous No.5451084]

>>5451061
You're drawing a normative conclusion from the category. Fair enough. I do too. But I differentiate the normative assumptions, and the category which lacks a normative assumption.

We both agree that "blue collar male manual white" is a normative category.

My argument about being "Polish," is that "Polish" might be like "Blue Collar Worker." That "Polish" isn't a non-normative category. Similarly "Nation" might not be non-normative. I find your project to find such a non-normative category interesting.

I'm okay with action defined categories, but they can be either normative or non-normative.

We both know there have been left-wing nationalisms, the majority of the pro-capitalist "left" have been just that. Cosmopolitanism is a deeply held normative ideal for most communists though.

[Anonymous No.5451101]

>>5450656

>Stalinism
>left wing

pick one. Stalinism is conservative, patriarchal communism

[Anonymous No.5451103]

>>5450302
>Neither of them are fascist,

Plato advised things even Hitler wouldn't have dared to do. Go read the Republic, faggot.

[Anonymous No.5451107]

>>5451101
If you want to learn about left-wing stalinism start looking into the communist party in Hungary's reaction to 1956.

[Anonymous No.5451110]

>>5450477
>>5450483

Some of them had occult beliefs about the universe being a war between fire and ice. That's why Hitler attacked Russian in winter, he literally believed that "fire" would win against ice. Or some bullshit like that.

[Anonymous No.5451112]

>>5451107
And with a looser definition of Stalinism, the Czechoslovak party's attempts to unfuck itself in 1968.

[Anonymous No.5451119]

First of all anti-intellectualism is a valid intellectual position.
Second, there are no good fascist philosophers. There are few good poets and writers, but that's all.

All intelligenstia on the right-wing of political sphere is and always was centered around heavier (traditionalism) or lighter breeds of conservatism.

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5451127]

>>5451103
I have read The Republic, "faggot", as I'm sure everyone on /lit/ has. The nation state didn't even exist back then.

>all authoritarianism is fascism
No.

[Anonymous No.5451131]

>>5451127
>I have read The Republic, "faggot", as I'm sure everyone on /lit/ has.

This should show how much of an idiot you are if you think most people here have.

The nation state is comparable to the city back then, faggot.

90% of ancient Greece would be considered fascist by the average cunt today. Many of Plato's ideas on how to create the perfect city are exactly what Nazis wanted to achieve.

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5451142]

>>5451131
The Republic is generally the first book anyone who is studying philosophy reads.

No, it isn't. A city state (which shares common ethnicity with its fellow cities), a multi-ethnic state, and a nation state are all very different.

I'm not interested in the average cunt, I'm not even a Nazi. Furthermore, the core of Nazi ideology is a homogenous Aryan race, which Plato didn't even a concept of.

[Anonymous No.5451146]

>>5451142
>The Republic is generally the first book anyone who is studying philosophy reads.

It isn't. You never start with something like this. You start with synthetic volumes and introductions, you don't just tackle a classic from millennia ago.

Plato didn't have to conceive of races because the question wasn't even asked back then.

Mixing wasn't on anybody's mind.

[Anonymous No.5451147]

>>5451131

Actually I think Plato is more universal version of a right-wing philosopher.

>hurr this concept didn't even exist back den!

Yeah, however his views reflect in at least 80% what today is called a heavy traditionalism, with a little smell of fascism, that's given, but with a monarch on top.

[Anonymous No.5451161]

>>5451119
Care to contribute a reason why you think fascism is so bereft of intellectuality?

[Anonymous No.5451163]

>>5451142
But Aristotle was a racial suprematist. He wrote the blondes are constantly freeze and therefore their blood's too hot and therefore they're too proud to subject themselves to any polity more complicated than the tribe. The southern races are, on the other hand, so cold-blooded and so docile you get humongous empires. It is only the Greek who have the exactly right mix of cold blood and hot blood.

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5451178]

>>5451147
But I'm not a traditionalist. I like "tradition", but I don't believe in caste-essentialism within the polis.

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5451187]

>>5451163
>unified
>Aryan
>race

[Anonymous No.5451227]

>>5451061

>The leftist trend is to destroy national identity because it conflicts with class identity, they don't want you to be loyal to the former over the latter. But being a player for a certain nation can be very rigorously and legally defined, but for that you need a fascist system.


Nationalism is reifiction because it is about an imaginary construct.
Please read Marx before you start criticizing the left,or you will come as just ignorant.

According to Marx nations,traditions and cultural practices are the "superstructure" imposed on the "structure", that is real conditions of labor and demand.
Thusly a social castes, conflicts and cultures arise out of the management of labor. For Marx asking what lead labor to be working in such conditions at a historical time,circumvents asking about only politics, because politics is subservient to economics. Real material conditions lead people into forming the "superstructure" which can take the form of ideologies such as Nationalism or religion.

[Anonymous No.5451250]

>>5451142
>>5451147
>>5451142
>>5451131

Plato was not a fascist you ignorant fucks, have you people even read the Republic?

The Republic is clearly outlined to be a Timocrasy , it is not based on any idea of "one people", a "country" or "race". Instead it is ruled by Philosophers and the whole of the state exist to sustain them,since only they can contemplate the Good and Justice. Because of this formation,castes exist to manage the stability of the Republic but not it's overgrowing in anything apart from it's limits(aka Athens and Rome). The biggest deference from the classical notion of tyranny and oligarchy (the kind Nietzsche fapped to) was that the rulers gained nothing and had no interest in ruling apart from the fruits of philosophy itself.

Furthermore Plato did not believe in any form of racialism. Aristotle does indeed seem closer to a biological explanation of intelligence and power, but Plato goes out of his way to prove that slaves have the same intelligence as free people and that women should be given political power.

True, he excludes barbarians from his republic but this exclusion was a typical xenophobic Greek reaction to any culture that did not speak the Greek language.

[Anonymous No.5451265]

>>5451161

Honestly I have no idea. There is Oswald Spengler who was quasi-fascist and a decent philosopher. Also Gottlob fucking Frege, greatest logician in history (some rank him second to Leibniz) and founder of analytic philosophy along with Wittgenstein turned out to be a deep reactionary and a fascist to a degree. However he didn't publish anything on political philosophy.

I think that fascism in a sense was created by radical politicians and wasn't given enough time to produce enough academia and then WW2 happened and it was forcefully, intellectually discredited. So. putting simply boomed and peaked early.

[Anonymous No.5451271]

1. We intend to sing the love of danger, the habit of energy and fearlessness.

2. Courage, audacity, and revolt will be essential elements of our poetry.

3. Up to now, literature has exalted a pensive immobility, ecstasy, and sleep. We intend to exalt aggressive action, a feverish insomnia, the racer's stride, the mortal leap, the punch and the slap.

4. We affirm that the world's magnificence has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed. A racing car whose hood is adorned with great pipes, like serpents of explosive breath -a roaring car that seems to ride on grapeshot is more beautiful than the Victory of Samothrace.

5. We want to hymn the man at the wheel, who hurls the lance of his spirit across the Earth, along the circle of its orbit.
6. The poet must spend himself with ardor, splendor, and generosity, to swell the enthusiastic fervor of the primordial elements.

7. Except in struggle, there is no more beauty .No work without an aggressive character can be a masterpiece. Poetry must be conceived as a violent attack on unknown forces, to reduce and prostrate them before man.
8. We stand on the last promontory of the centuries! Why should we look back, when what we want is to break down the mysterious doors of the Impossible? Time and Space died yesterday. We already live in the absolute, because we have created eternal, omnipresent speed.

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

10. We will destroy the museums, libraries, and academies of every kind, will fight moralism, feminism, every opportunistic or utilitarian cowardice.

11. We will sing of great crowds excited by work, by pleasure, and by riot~ we will sing of the multicolored, polyphonic tides of revolution in the modem capitals~ we will sing of the vibrant nightly fervor of arsenals and shipyards blazing with violent electric moons~ greedy railway stations that devour smoke-plumed serpents~ factories hung on clouds by the crooked lines of their smoke~ bridges that stride the rivers like giant gymnasts, flashing in the sun with a glitter of knives~ adventurous steamers that sniff the horizon~ deep-chested locomotives whose wheels paw the tracks like the hooves of enormous steel horses bridled by tubing~ and the sleek flight of planes whose propellers chatter in the wind like banners and seem to cheer like an enthusiastic crowd.

We Futurists, who for over two years, scorned by the Lame and Paralyzed, have glorified the love of danger and violence, praised patriotism and war, the hygiene of the world, are happy to finally experience this great Futurist hour of Italy, while the foul tribe of pacifists huddles dying in the deep cellars of the ridiculous palace at The Hague.
We have recently had the pleasure of fighting in the streets with the most fervent adversaries of the war, and shouting in their faces our firm beliefs.

[Anonymous No.5451278]

>>5451250

Why are you replying to me? Nonetheless he was a hierachical, heavy traditionalist and elitist. He has inherently right-wing position. And he is not fascist, haven't said that.

[Anonymous No.5451283]

>>5451271
> We will destroy the museums, libraries, and academies of every kind

This is why the futurists were shit.

[Anonymous No.5451296]

>>5451271

1. We want to sing of the danger of love, the daily creation of a sweet energy that is never dispersed.

2. The essential elements of our poetry will be irony, tenderness and rebellion.

3. Ideology and advertising have exalted the permanent mobilisation of the productive and nervous energies of humankind towards profit and war. We want to exalt tenderness, sleep and ecstasy, the frugality of needs and the pleasure of the senses.

4. We declare that the splendor of the world has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of autonomy. Each to her own rhythm; nobody must be constrained to march on a uniform pace. Cars have lost their allure of rarity and above all they can no longer perform the task they were conceived for: speed has slowed down. Cars are immobile like stupid slumbering tortoises in the city traffic. Only slowness is fast.

5. We want to sing of the men and the women who caress one another to know one another and the world better.

6. The poet must expend herself with warmth and prodigality to increase the power of collective intelligence and reduce the time of wage labour.

7. Beauty exists only in autonomy. No work that fails to express the intelligence of the possible can be a masterpiece. Poetry is a bridge cast over the abyss of nothingness to allow the sharing of different imaginations and to free singularities.

8. We are on the extreme promontory of the centuries... We must look behind to remember the abyss of violence and horror that military aggressiveness and nationalist ignorance is capable of conjuring up at any moment in time. We have lived in the stagnant time of religion for too long. Omnipresent and eternal speed is already behind us, in the Internet, so we can forget its syncopated rhymes and find our singular rhythm.

9. We want to ridicule the idiots who spread the discourse of war: the fanatics of competition, the fanatics of the bearded gods who incite massacres, the fanatics terrorised by the disarming femininity blossoming in all of us.

10. We demand that art turns into a life-changing force. We seek to abolish the separation between poetry and mass communication, to reclaim the power of media from the merchants and return it to the poets and the sages.

11. We will sing of the great crowds who can finally free themselves from the slavery of wage labour and through solidarity revolt against exploitation. We will sing of the infinite web of knowledge and invention, the immaterial technology that frees us from physical hardship. We will sing of the rebellious cognitariat who is in touch with her own body. We will sing to the infinity of the present and abandon the illusion of a future.

[Anonymous No.5451327]

>>5451110
Bullshit. Operation Barbarossa was planned to spring 1941, but was delayed due to the Italians fucking up in Greece.

[Anonymous No.5451330]

>>5451283
This is why they were great and refreshing. They wanted to blow up Venice and replace it with a concrete military harbour. They wanted to ban pasta. Gotta go fast.

[Anonymous No.5451336]

>>5451330
I'm completely repulsed. Sure, as a political/artistic/culinary movement they were interesting and made alright art, but I just can't into anti-intellectuals, or "intellectuals" who would want to destroy beauty to get their way.

[Anonymous No.5451352]

>>5451330

Fastah

[Anonymous No.5451392]

>>5451336
A willingness to shatter old idols can be a very good thing though. Too much curating leads to stagnation and too much self-awareness and postmodern reference games. A clean slate can be invigorating.

[Anonymous No.5451478]

>>5451392
You're the sort of person who thinks the destruction of the Warsaw Archives or the Library of Alexandria was a good thing, right?

[Anonymous No.5451509]

>>5451478
I certainly don't lament it. What do you think was lost?

[Anonymous No.5451593]

>>5450467
What is the purpose of the russian test fire image on a prototype German tank?

[Anonymous No.5451617]

>>5450288
David Myatt. (Vindex) - National socialism.
Ezra Pound - his economic essays and the cantos.
Nietzsche, for his interpretation by fascists.
Marx (communist manifesto) for some of fascism's class analysis.
Futurist manifesto.
But be aware that fascism is (predominantly) a vitalist, organicist, modernist movement, not a pro-intellectual movement. Fascism is about life, not intellect by itself. It is a reaction to the alienation and conflicts of modernity that seeks to restore order, mutual strength, vitality, depth etc. to life by taking the nation/race as an organic entity and both imposing and nurturing it into reality. It is not heavily an intellectual, rationalist movement, as much as the result of a yearning for wholeness and purpose, beauty and strength, in a world where peoples' last source of meaning after the death of God - that is, their folkways, and the organic development of their world/culture, has been stripped away from them. It is a looking back to an era when the world made sense and life had purpose, but not a desire to return to that past in form. Instead, to recover that world-feeling, by creating/discovering a national culture and identity, and by obedience/contribution to a leadership, becoming one with a surge of growth. Fascism is an instinctual, poetic worldview, like a religion. I don't personally feel it, but if I did I'd be a fascist.
I'm more of an individualist/nature worshipper/daoist person, but if you haven't felt the fascist feels I feel faintly forlorn 4u.

[Anonymous No.5451627]

>>5451336
>putting beauty above life
>putting art above the beauty of life-experience

[Anonymous No.5451664]

It´s my lucky day. An interesting /lit/ thread.

[Anonymous No.5451737]

>>5450457
>No, that was Social Democracy

Didn't know Adenaur and Ludwig Erhard were social democrats.

[Anonymous No.5451762]

>>5451227
According to Marx the "reactionary" nations would perish in the revolutionary frenzy. Marx was a genocidal idiot just like Hitler.

[Anonymous No.5451768]

The best writing in favour of fascism is the constant effeminate whining of antifa faggots on the internet. Read a few of their goony-ass posts and you'll be heiling Hitler hard enough to break your arm, just to make the douche chills go away.

[Anonymous No.5451773]

>>5451762
no, Engels wrote that.

[Anonymous No.5451781]

Asking why there is no fascist intellectual is like asking why there is no Black Panther Party intellectual.

Fascists were just street thugs, their rise to power was based on fights on the streets (and leniency by the judicial system that always let them go). Every intellectual who got closer to it ended up rejecting it (Werner Sombart, Oswald Spengler, Martin Heidegger etc).

[Anonymous No.5451787]

>>5451227
That imaginary construct recked the Second International so hard that every serious Marxist philosopher afterwards had to work with the concept of culture and how that affects the revolutionary struggle.

Except Althusser, of course.

[Anonymous No.5451788]

>>5451781
>Heidegger rejected Nazism

lel

[Anonymous No.5451796]

>>5450288
>good
>fascist philosophers and writers
How is that even supposed to work?

[Anonymous No.5451801]

>>5451781
heidegger actually notoriously didn't mea culpa

[Anonymous No.5451804]

>>5450288
Gabriel Dannunzio wrote theatre, poetry, novels, and political essays. and he kicked some ass during WWI with his plane, but he did not really get along with Benito

[Anonymous No.5451808]

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

[Anonymous No.5451825]

Some guys linked to the Action Française can also be considered fascist intellectuals, like Robert Brasillach, Lucien Rebatet, Abel Bonnard, Claude Jeantet, Pierre Drieu La Rochelle.

There were other intellectual collaborationists through Europe too, like Paul de Man and Knut Hamsun.

Ultimately, this thread is more about the complete ignorance of /lit/ about anything that goes beyond the vulgar Marxism taught at universities than about fascist intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.5451830]

>>5450656
You said it all. Stalinism was at the "fore from of intellectual battles". Which means that it was just a tactic to enlist the support of Western useful idiots like Sartre for the USSR, at the same time that intellectuals are persecuted in the Eastern bloc.

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

[Anonymous No.5451840]

>>5450641
Depends on who's running the fascist state. In all cases, however, democracy is anti-intellectual.

[Anonymous No.5451863]

The first place you should go for learning about fascism, in the general sense that most people mean volkisch/ultra-nationalist/authoritarian/mishmashy etc. movements, is Stanley Payne's book on Fascism. He covers everything from the Action Francaise described by >>5451825 to the Croix de Feu to Mussolini to D'Annunzio to the Pangermanist volkisch movements to the Nazis to Stalinist Soviet Communism to Japan's wavering after the Meiji restoration into a bunch of technocrats and militarist bureaucrats despite initial flirtations with more liberal government.

What you can do from there is pick off the major figures who seem interesting and read their work, or at least about them and their associates. It allows you to avoid the "what even is fascism what do you even mean bro??" line of questioning, because Payne is already making broad strokes.

[Anonymous No.5451874]

Read Kant. Hegel, and Marx. You'll see the evolution of fascism.

[Anonymous No.5451878]

>>5451874
That makes no sense at all. What the fuck does Kant have to do with fascism?

[Anonymous No.5451921]

>>5451768
Underrated post.

[Anonymous No.5451925]

it's more efficient to read about the radical center, than having to filter out national and Nazi moral allusions (unless that's what you're after)

[Anonymous No.5451981]

>>5451921
Goony is weird as an adjective, sounds like British slang

[Anonymous No.5452132]

>>5450288
Oswald Mosley
Aleksandr dugin

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5452228]

>>5451227
I have read Marx, thoroughly.

I know what the story is "according to Marx," but a common language, morality and culture expression is more than imaginary to me and most people on the planet.

[Anonymous No.5452274]

>>5451227
I'm pretty sympathetic to Marx but the idea that nationalism is imaginary and the class system is real is silly. (Does he really say that?) They're both pretty essential parts of social and cultural structure.

[Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus !!33slhp0V42i No.5452282]

>>5452274
Marx was a hardcore materialist. The acknowledgement of culture as a lot more than an illusion didn't really start until Gramsci. I think Gramsci and Marx would have differed considerably on that point...but just about every serious Marxist today likes Gramsci.

[Anonymous No.5452433]

>>5451336
>but I just can't into anti-intellectuals, or "intellectuals" who would want to destroy beauty to get their way.

topkek
Kill all academics

[Anonymous No.5452537]

>>5450294
>Plato
>fascist

Not that again....

[Anonymous No.5452573]

>>5450526
>So /pol/ invading and incessant shitposting is really a thing, huh?
How dare people talk about books on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.5452614]

Heidegger, Schmitt, A. Rosenberg, Plato

[Anonymous No.5452689]

>>5452274
"imaginary" has a specific meaning in the humanities. It doesn't suggest that an imaginary isn't real. It does strongly suggest that the imaginary is produced culturally.

>>5451830
If you think intellectuals were solely persecuted in the soviet-style societies you have problems. Persecution tends to make intellectuals better. It is fêting that destroys them. Try Aczel and Meray _Revolt of the Mind_.

>>5451787
>that every serious Marxist philosopher afterwards had to work with the concept of culture

Not every serious one other than Althusser. And it is hard to explain how Frankfurt, a school of German idealists who claim that culture is determinate are in any way Marxist.

>>5451737
It's pretty obvious that you're illiterate because you got cued to Weimar and decided to talk about the Bonn state.

[Anonymous No.5452692]

>>5451830
It's rather amusing to hear old KGB people like Yuri Bezmenov be very candid about how it was their pet supporters among western intellectuals, journalists and culture writers that they picked out first to execute.

[Anonymous No.5452754]

>>5450967
Diogen wasn't forced to offer his labour.
Marxism itself is an ideology which demands the existence of a working class.
The "working class" could very well stop working, but then, on what would marxists have power with their state?

>For example, Bruce Wayne.
Good example of a marxist. Fuels crime on day time so that he can go eccentricaly-dressed to fight it at night.
Same way some fuel social problems through welfare and general laissez-faire so that they get to complain about them...

[Anonymous No.5452770]

>>5452754
Around here we require literacy, coherence and citation for that lying outside of the expected common knowledge of an undergraduate.

I have never seen expectations so cruelly thwarted. Well done, you are the king of the cretins.

[Anonymous No.5452855]

>>5452692
>western

Bezmenov was stationed in india, not to say the Soviets didn't have similar designs in the west.

[Anonymous No.5453153]

>>5451509
>I don't lament it
>what do you think was lost
Oh the ironings

[Anonymous No.5453197]

>>5453153
Please elaborate

[Anonymous No.5453432]

>>5453197

He means it's ironic because you don't know what's lost because, well, it's lost. I kinda think that supports the fascist's point though, I mean, how can you bitch about something when you don't even know what you're bitching about? It's just lost potential, and humanity has always had that in abundance.

[Anonymous No.5453444]

>>5451110
typical unrealistic observations, I bet you think the Greeks believed they would reach the gods if they climbed Mt. Olympus.

[Anonymous No.5453472]

>>5453444
Nice trips.

Many people lack the historical empathy to understand mysticism adequately. SS mysticism explained an inexplicable world. SS mysticism did not provide an adequate tool to command the world to obey, however, as loss rates of the "cream" of the Waffen SS in Poland and France demonstrate. The theories of the SS regarding blood vitalism, for example, did not change the most effective way of reducing emplacements by infantry assault.

Obviously, mystification isn't fundamental to fascism, look at Pinochet.

[Anonymous No.5453627]

>>5450288
Start with the Futurists

[Anonymous No.5454307]

>>5453472
Why is Pinochet fascist, again? Because leftist kids do not like him?

>“Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”

This is fascism, according to Mussolini himself, how can a regime that pursued economic liberalism and the creation of intermediate organisms between individuals and the state (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gremialismo)) be considered fascist?

[Anonymous No.5454380]

>>5451250
>Timocrasy
God I love Tim. Don't you love Tim?

Tim should be our leader.

[Anonymous No.5454384]

>>5450567
You can find just about every ideology in Blake's work in one place or another.

The dude was complicated as fuck.

[Anonymous No.5454394]

>>5454307
Did you bother to read any of this thread where the definition of fascism was extensively debated? No you didn't.

[Anonymous No.5454402]

>>5454307
I dunno, it's probably the junta and internment and torture of dissidents. That's just a guess.

[Anonymous No.5454442]

Giovanni Gentile
Robert Michels
Ugo Spirito
Gabriele D'Annunzio
Filippo Marinetti
Francis Parker Yockey
Maurice Bardeche
Emil Cioran

>hurr durr Fascism has no intellectuals

Read some actual scholarship about Fascism instead of Marxist agitprop.

http://www.amazon.com/Mussolinis-Intellectuals-Fascist-Political-Thought/dp/0691127905

http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Fascist-Ideology-Zeev-Sternhell/dp/0691044864

[Anonymous No.5454445]

>>5454402
Not at all. It is the modernisation and the recapitulation of the nation combining conservative and progressive features in a programme of mass action.

The state is only one form of total nation.

[Anonymous No.5455064]

>>5450288
Spinoza is a good choice. He's probably a bit more liberal than a lot of "fascists" or whatever, but he demanded a strong state and a willingness to use violence to enforce the state's will, as well as declaring that the ideal state is inseparable from the people's religion. That and an intolerance of even vocal dissent puts him pretty strongly in what I consider fascist territory.

Thanks for reminding me, OP. I'm going to go read Tractatus Theologico-Politicus now.

[Anonymous No.5455157]

>>5450889

[Anonymous No.5455176]

>>5455157
It has been never tried? It has never been properly implemented. Of course it has been tried, but it failed without even being close to what it should have been.

On the other side fascism and capitalism have been properly implemented.

[Anonymous No.5455182]

>>5451392
>A willingness to shatter old idols can be a very good thing though.
You would love Wahhabism.

[o No.5455193]

>>5455157

I can't believe someone went so far in misunderstanding an argument as to actually create an image responding to their illusion of what it means.

[Anonymous No.5455196]

[Anonymous No.5455231]

>>5455193
to be fair, vulgar marxists often effectively state this.
In a lot of ways the failure of soviet marxism is something that reinforces communist demands, since only marxist analysis can give a comprehensive understanding of the disaster, and a solution to the problems within it.

[Anonymous No.5455235]

>>5455231
>since only marxist analysis can give a comprehensive understanding of the disaster, and a solution to the problems within it
hahahahahahahhahaha fuck you

[Anonymous No.5455865]

>>5455157
if you would ask them, they'd say they were doing socialism, not communism.

[Anonymous No.5455901]

>>5455196
oh fuck off, 12 year old boy

[Anonymous No.5456035]

>>5455231
I hate marxist historians. They're worse than evangelicals

[Anonymous No.5456088]

>>5456035
Which ones have you read?

[Anonymous No.5457828]

bump

[Anonymous No.5458555]

>>5455182
too old, away with it

[Anonymous No.5458833]

>>5454402
So Fidel Castro is fascist too?

>>5454445
Pinochet's military regime was never intended as representative of "mass politics". Quite the contrary, it was technocratic to the core.