is tik right when he says that fascism, nazism and marxism should all be understood as distinctive varieties of socialism, the last two supremely more murderous and evil than the first one?
is tik right when he says that fascism, nazism and marxism should all be understood as distinctive varieties of socialism, the last two supremely more...
Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis dumb homosexual.
>Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis
LOL&LMAO
it very principally is and if you disagree with that notion you're just ignorant, clearly having never engaged with marxism on any level. you don't have to agree its a good or valuable method but that is literally what it is
a method for figuring out how to starve your population as quickly as possible
how about you open a sociology 101 book instead of shitting up the board?
how about you open mein kampf and the gulag archipelago
Right... because fascism didn't have that either. Lets forget the fact Trotsky himself said Mussolini largely borrowed Marxist class theory.
Sure, while simultaneously jettisoning the entire class struggle thing, the most fundamental concept in Marxist theory.
He really didn't Jettison that either. He just added a racial competent to it. Was Leninism not Marxism because Lenin modified his theories to current historical conditions just as Mussolini did?
My dude, class collaboration is one of the fundamental tenets of fascism.
From "The Doctrine of Fascism" (1932):
>Such a conception of life makes Fascism the resolute negation of the doctrine underlying so-called scientific and Marxian socialism, the doctrine of historic materialism which would explain the history of mankind in terms of the class struggle and by changes in the processes and instruments of production, to the exclusion of all else.
>That the vicissitudes of economic life - discoveries of raw materials, new technical processes, and scientific inventions - have their importance, no one denies; but that they suffice to explain human history to the exclusion of other factors is absurd. Fascism believes now and always in sanctity and heroism, that is to say in acts in which no economic motive - remote or immediate - is at work. Having denied historic materialism, which sees in men mere puppets on the surface of history, appearing and disappearing on the crest of the waves while in the depths the real directing forces move and work, Fascism also denies the immutable and irreparable character of the class struggle which is the natural outcome of this economic conception of history; above all it denies that the class struggle is the preponderating agent in social transformations.
>it asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men
My dude, a "workers & peasants" and a "peoples' democracy" is literally that by a different name.
You can't be this moronic. You just can't.
underage.
lets not pretend anyone gives a shit about anything but "applied marxism"
>"applied marxism"
No such thing exists illiterate Black person
Yes
No, because when he uses the phrase "socialism", he means "when government does stuff" when the most commonly accepted defenition is "communal ownership of property".
Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany had private property. They weren't corporate puppets like Commies make them out to be but they weren't socialist by any common meaning of the word.
>"communal ownership of property"
That is communism though.
Socialism is when the government the government evolved from being a peacekeeping entity and a dispute solver and becomes something more like a caregiver to it's citizens.
nope, read literally any theory to find it out yourself. Socialism means communal ownership of MoE (not exactly all property, but only the kinds that generate value). It's doable but kinda stupid.
Communism is the unreachable utopia with three defining features - money is nonexistant, there's no borders between nations and no class divide. So a purely theoretical construction
Socialism is the idea if you kill enough people; equality will emerge. Socialists just sell socialism to you as sunshine and rainbows because you're stupid enough to take them at face value.
> when the most commonly accepted defenition is "communal ownership of property".
According to whom? Because that's certainly not the definition of Socialism given by Marx and Engels.
socialism used to be nationalistic and anti-semitic before Marx hijacked the term
yes
Fascism was really warlike and wrapped up in glories of conquest and empire. It was bizarro because it was extremely militaristic and right-wing / nationalist and seeking a new nobility forged in battle while also emerging out of revolutionary syndicalist traditions and adopting elements of avant-gardism and technological accelerationism. Aesthetics wise they were like Grimes when she was still dating Muskrat (which should tell you a lot)
And commu ism wasn't? Wasn't the whole idea behind communism that they needed to take over the whole world for it to work properly?
In theory, a perfect communist society would erase divisions among people, including class, caste, race, nation, and religion. The world would forever be at peace as humanity works together in socialist brotherhood. For the fascist, peace itself is a HATEFUL concept. Those who espouse such things like "world peace," for a fascist, should have their throats cut. So, naturally, communists and fascists are enemies.
>For the fascist, peace itself is a HATEFUL concept.
Fascism wasn't nearly as edgy as you'd like to think. The rationale wasn't that peace was inherently bad, but rather that a good war was superior to a bad peace. A big deal of inter-war Italian nationalism was irredentism over not receiving enough territorial concessions after WW1. The Italians felt that the current post-WW1 peace had snubbed them, but that doesn't mean that they hated "peace" as a general concept like moronic teenagers.
Yes, and depending on your flavor of fascism the endgame would be similar. National socialists for example wanted the world to be composed of a series of ethnostates, all of whom would be beneath the German state which would lead the unified earth. They wanted to preserve the many cultures of the world and give them reservations if you will. The Communists on the other hand wanted to destroy cultures and create a global melting pot and replace all language with an international one, hence they were so obsessed with shit like Esperanto and they introduced so many loan words into Russian.
Nazi warmongering was a result of the urgent threat that communism posed towards global diversity. They saw history was cuinating to where one system would control the planet and they wouldn't allow it to be communism.
Now let's talk about fascism, not national socialism.
>Fascists who went to war
Mussolini
Hitler
>Fascists who didn't go to war
Franco
Salazar
Pinochet
Gusto
Hernandez-Martinez
And technically Petain
I'm sorry anon, your idea of peace being inherently anti-fascistic isn't holding up to reality.
you're a neo-nazi, you have zero credibility.
I'm an anarchist actually who despises all forms of central authority. It's just erroneous to say that fascists are inherently warmongering and I don't tolerate idiocy and revisionism.
>le wholesome hitler wanted separate but equal! nazism is about preserving diversity!
shove it up your ass
Tell me then anon, why create an independent state of Croatia, Ukraine, Slovakia, etc? Why did nationalist movements all across the world align themselves with the Nazis as opposed to fight them?
Why did the Shah of Persia rename his country to "land of the Aryans" and begin aligning Iran with Germany? It totally wasn't because the Persians were being oppressed by the British and threatened by the Soviets and they saw the Nazis as allies in the fight against British colonial exploitation.
>why are puppet states useful? why do political actors enter allegiances on an enemy-of-my-enemy basis
>It totally wasn't because the Persians were being oppressed by the British and threatened by the Soviets and they saw the Nazis as allies in the fight against British colonial exploitation.
But it was.
It's called sarcasm anon
Not an argument
>Fascists who didn't go to war
I think is this context you could also say Mosley since he was very anti-war and even advocated for a different version of the EU.
That anon only listed off fascist heads of state, otherwise he would've listed codreneau as well. It's pointless to theorize about what ifs because actions speak louder than words.
No. TIK considers capitalism as "no government", which has never happened and never will happen. For him capitalism is just a nebulous idea of "freedom", completely fricking divorced from reality.
The first thing capitalism would do is set up governments to control its own interests and tell citizens all the decisions are for their own wellbeing.
>which has never happened and never will happen
That's because of course, "no governement" is the most extreme version of capitalism you can go to. It is stupid, so we compromise and go a little on the left of it for it to work.
Your post doesn't really refute TIK's definition.
Left/right isn't a yes/no, it's a scale, you can place yourself in any point of the scale.
No, the horseshoe has endings on the right and the left, despite how close they might be.
>the last two supremely more murderous and evil than the first one?
this is wrong
marxism is the worst
>all variations of socialism
Yeah duh. Socialism is literally just social economics. AKA you help the collective at the expense of the individual. Giving us things like cheap edcation, healthcare for all and government paid roads. All social projects. societies are just varying degrees of socialist even America with the capitalist aspect being individuals being allowed to own property, freely spend money etc.
TIK is is moron though since he literally called taxation theft and thinks state capitalism is an oxymoron because capitalism is individual so state and individual can't be together as one economic system. Also 90% of his definition of capitalism and socialism is reading an online dictionary and using the etymology of the original greek words.
Calling fascism just a variant of socialism is wrong though since it was first and formost an idea of the role of the state with the economic policy taking more of a second place.
National socialism was primarily about volkism part of which is about socialism and guess what? the other part is about nationalism
For the most part, yes.
>believing the Black Book of Communism
lol
underage? soviet slaughter has been widely known since the 20s.
Maybe if you're living in the early 1900s it would make sense, but you don't typically associate hardcore nationalism/irredentism/warmongering with modern socialism in the context it's typically applied to policies in a democratic nation.
Mussolini was literally a socialist who's father was friends with Bakunin. Mussolini spent his early political youth translating the workers of Peter Kropotkin, Max Stirner and Bakunin. The idea that socialist ideas have no influence on his fascist beliefs is just pure lunacy.
socialism believes and advocates for class struggle while fascism advocates for class collaboration. Instead of the workers taking arms and seizeing the rights of production, in a fascist state the state forces workers and the owners to work together for the good of the fatherland, at least in theory
Socialists and fascists both just lie about their intentions. At the end of the day; they just want government power. morons like you just fall for it.
if they aren't loyal to their ideas then they should not be called as such
No, they come from diametrically opposed philosophical positions. Stop taking anglo opinions on continental politics serious.
leftypol troon post.
wrong Black person don't confuse me with a leftoid
>they come from diametrically opposed philosophical position
fricking lmao.
It's just an extreme form of Rationalism vs Romanticism.
tik argues from the anglo myth that economy and the state can be separated when in fact they cannot. in his mind any action of the state on economy is socialism, so there's no meaningful through line in what he puts that label on. using 'socialism' pejoritavely while appealing to a fantasy randian ancap utopia that can never and has never existed in reality is a rhetorical dead end and any attempt to engage with it head on is doomed.