Fascism

[Anonymous No.16373929]

/lit/ loves to talk about Fascism, but /lit/ doesn't seem to know what Fascism is.
Not even the people proclaiming themselves to be Fascists seem to know what it is.
People erroneously conflate it with Hitler's National Socialism, whose roots come from German Romanticism- or Traditionalists like Evola who explicitly stated himself to be "suprafascista" literally meaning "over" or "beyond" Fascism.
Everyone has seem to have forgotten that Fascism was a modernist movement with Marxist and Syndicalist roots.

So we are left with the philosopher of Fascism, neo-Hegelian Giovanni Gentile. His seminal work including "The Theory of Mind as Pure Act" and "Genesis and Structure of Society"
Gentile wrote "The Reform of Education" and was minister of Education in Italy. With his work he was able to turn the schools in Italy to among the best in Europe.
He was murdered returning from Florence in 1944 by communist partisans, from where he had been ironically arguing for the release of "anti-fascist intellectuals" from prison.

So has /lit/ read his work? Is there anyone well versed in Hegelianism who would like to weigh in on Gentile's Pure Actuality and Actual Idealism?

[Anonymous No.16373946]

>>16373929
based. have you read zeev sternhell's books?

[Anonymous No.16373947]

>>16373929
I love how one thread whining about "anti semitism" pops up and this is the next thign in the catalog. I mean its really coincidental isn't it.

[Anonymous No.16373967]

>>16373946
I would love too but I could never find any hardback copies of his book at reasonable prices.
Pretty much everything relating to Fascist philosophy is priced unreasonably here.

[Anonymous No.16374004]

Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt recently wrote an article about fascism ("Fascism Anyone?," Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20). Studying the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile), Dr. Britt found they all had 14 elements in common. He calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The excerpt is in accordance with the magazine's policy.

The 14 characteristics are:

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamor

[Anonymous No.16374012]

>>16374004
Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .

Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

[Anonymous No.16374028]

>>16374004
>>16374012
What are his sources?

[Anonymous No.16374029]

>>16373929
You're correct, I've only heard Gentile cited through Evola, and I don't recall it being particularly impactful to the wider argument.
I think the main problem is that Fascism (being the policy of the Italian party), or fascism (being the pejorative of the anti-fascists) and fascism of philosophical/political theory are all entirely different things. I believe Evola talks highly of the philosophy and was mainly against the politics of Mussolini.
It is very hard to get a good discussion when the terminology literally means "bad" in the minds of the "opposition".
But the Marxists are exceptionally dishonest in this because you could apply their logic to fascism perfectly well:
Real fascism hasn't been tried, it had been co-opted by dictators willing to subvert its principles when necessary, exactly like Lenin, Stalin, etc.

And why do the events of WW2 have to define the terms of political engagement thereafter? Why imply that fascism has to be and always will be anti-semitic like this >>16373947 ? Isn't this implying that Jews will never be on board with fascist principles? Why though? Surely they could instill themselves in their own land, and frankly have already been doing so. Is it it not deterministically racist to assume that Jews always want to perfect the culture of a nation and will never be on board with fascism in a country?
If this is the case, how does it do anything but legitimise the events in WW2?
But none of this is ever considered when applied to communism. For example, the soviets killed Christians in droves, yet Christians do not get the same automatic refusal of communism.

[Anonymous No.16374040]

>>16374004
>>16374012

Again, look at how fascism is allowed to be defined by the dictators that use it, but communists get free pass when it comes to mao, lenin, stalin, pol pot, kim il sung, jong il, etc, any fucking murderous commie bastard
because "it's not real communism", because they can refer you to the intellectual corpus.
But fascism has or at least had that to and has outright been oppressed.
A sickening double standard to be quite honest.

[Anonymous No.16374042]

>>16373929
Fascism is being gay and proud

[Anonymous No.16374045]

Im an unapologetic Antifa member/supporter.
I have lever 6k karma on reddit.
Let me just tell you that like Voldemort, fascism will never win.
We are many and we are everywhere.

[Anonymous No.16374046]

>>16374029
pervert the culture of a nation*

[Anonymous No.16374049]

>>16374028
References

Andrews, Kevin. Greece in the Dark. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1980.
Chabod, Frederico. A History of Italian Fascism. London: Weidenfeld, 1963.
Cooper, Marc. Pinochet and Me. New York: Verso, 2001.
Cornwell, John. Hitler as Pope. New York: Viking, 1999.
de Figuerio, Antonio. Portugal—Fifty Years of Dictatorship. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1976.
Eatwell, Roger. Fascism, A History. New York: Penguin, 1995.
Fest, Joachim C. The Face of the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon, 1970.
Gallo, Max. Mussolini’s Italy. New York: MacMillan, 1973.
Kershaw, Ian. Hitler (two volumes). New York: Norton, 1999.
Laqueur, Walter. Fascism, Past, Present, and Future. New York: Oxford, 1996.
Papandreau, Andreas. Democracy at Gunpoint. New York: Penguin Books, 1971.
Phillips, Peter. Censored 2001: 25 Years of Censored News. New York: Seven Stories. 2001.
Sharp, M.E. Indonesia Beyond Suharto. Armonk, 1999.
Verdugo, Patricia. Chile, Pinochet, and the Caravan of Death. Coral Gables, Florida: North-South Center Press, 2001.
Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977.

[Anonymous No.16374051]

>>16374049
Why are there no primary sources?

[Anonymous No.16374055]

>>16374049
>all post-war
>nearly all published in allied nations

See, this is the kind of bias that wouldn't fly elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.16374056]

>>16374042
They never actually hated fags.

[Anonymous No.16374058]

>>16373929
A lot of people talk about fascism, but few have actually braved the death camps.

[Anonymous No.16374067]

>>16374049
No primary sources, and all the ones I do recognize here are biased against fascism. Seems shoddy.

[Anonymous No.16374069]

>>16374042
Let me explain this pointless propaganda piece for you:

You see, war time entertainment relies on improvisation due to little resource, using a dress is a simplistic and easy way to make other people laugh. As you can see by the exaggerated pose and the smiles and laughter from the guys seated at the table, it was obvious a comedic performance.
Not to imply that the idea of putting on a dress would come naturally to every man, he probably did enjoy it a little bit, but it was seen as a humourous thing to do, not a sexual thing.
Easy way to make the lads laugh without being a comedian with a routine or jokes.

I know you wish to imply some kind of "gotcha" situation, but the fact is all sides did this shit and England didn't even decriminalise homosexuality until 1967, so I don't really think this has the weight you think it does.

[Anonymous No.16374073]

>>16374069
tranny cope

[Anonymous No.16374076]

>>16374004
ok, Stalinism is fascism by this definition. Also, how were the Nazis more sexist than the Weimar Republic?

[Anonymous No.16374078]

>>16374058
You could say the same thing about the gulags, but communists would point to theory instead.
Read Gentile.

[Anonymous No.16374081]

>>16374012
>Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
Art unironcially flourished in Fascist Italy.

[Anonymous No.16374084]

>>16374058
Google Rheinwiesenlager.

[Anonymous No.16374087]

>>16374073
I love threads like these. Always demonstrates how inarticulate anti-fa freaks are.

[Anonymous No.16374090]

>>16374012
>Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
>Obsession with Crime and Punishment
So, which on is it?

[Anonymous No.16374091]

>>16374004
Are you joking?

The guy is defining fascism according to the dictators who are supposed to have been fascists, not according to the philosophy that generated it (Giovanni Gentile).
It's the same - really the same - thing as defining Marxism according to what Fidel, Mao, Lenin, and Stalin had in common.
You don't define it like that. It's amateurish.
If you wish to define Marxism, you have to start from the concepts developed by Karl Marx and Engels in their works. By the same line of reasoning, if you wish to define fascism, you have to start from the concepts developed by such authors as Gentile, Mussolini, and Corradini.

That author you cited is a marvelous, beautiful example of how academia is corrupted and filled with pseudo-intellectuals who don't know what they are talking about, and who build complex "definitions" that sound very well-educated, but in reality arise from completely bizarre and indefensible premises.
Some of his "characteristics" are completely, utterly ridiculous:

>Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

He can't be serious... During fascism, Italy probably had more and better artists than the United States has had in its entire history, or than any country has today (this has nothing to do with fascism, it's just that Italy sometimes can be really good at producing artists). Pirandello, D'Annunzio, Marinetti, Ezra Pound, Carlo Carrà, de Chirico, Mascagni, were all active during fascism - some of them even supported the regime.
It was the Americans, not the fascists, who prosecuted Ezra Pound. And the Americans also later persecuted the communists during McCarthyism.
Was fascism intolerant? Yes, definitely. But so was America at many points in its history, and at any rate intolerance for some kinds of art has nothing to do with disdain for the arts. The Medievals were also intolerant for some kinds of art, but no historian will say that they had a "disdain" for art.

Others are just too non-specific:

>Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

Literally every radical ideology is like that. Including contemporary social justice ideology (in which the enemy is some mysterious entity called "whiteness"), and social democracy (in which the enemy is anything that's considered - by whom? by its its ideologues - to be non-democratic).

The state of contemporary academia is completely rotten.

PS: I am not fascist at all. I am a libertarian. But I absolutely despise people who throw complex concepts around without having studied them. I myself never actually studied fascism in depth, but I know enough about it to realize how that supposed political "scientist" is a fraud.

[Anonymous No.16374097]

>>16374091
>b-but it wasn't REAL fascism
Cope

[Anonymous No.16374099]

>>16374091
It's funny, you can reason with people, you can spell it out clearly that they have been manipulated and as you pointed out, like I have earlier in the thread, Marxism would not be given the same scrutiny.
But it never works. It is ignored. It is attacked.

Ironically, it only pushes me further to fascism.

[Anonymous No.16374119]

A reminder to everyone here ITT not to debate with people making falacious assertions and arguing in bad faith, it is a waste of time.

Intellectual and honest discussion coming from anybody is welcomed and encouraged. We can have an actual enlightening thread on /lit/ for once.

[Anonymous No.16374120]

>>16374081
Unironically love that pic
Got any more?

[Anonymous No.16374123]

>>16374099
>Marxism would not be given the same scrutiny.
Lmao. Your lack of self-awareness is breathtaking.

[Anonymous No.16374130]

>>16374119
>Ho ho!
based

[Anonymous No.16374134]

>>16374120
Italian Futurism might be of interest to you.

[Anonymous No.16374139]

>>16374004
Pinochet and Franco were authoritarian conservatives, not fascists. This is a babby-tier analysis.

[Anonymous No.16374141]

>>16374091
This. Good post.

[Anonymous No.16374142]

>>16374139
Didn't Franco back stab the Falange?

[Anonymous No.16374157]

>>16374091
Imagine typing so much and saying so little of substance.
>PS: I am not fascist at all. I am a libertarian.
kek this is just the cherry on the top

[Anonymous No.16374161]

>>16374099
>Marxism would not be given the same scrutiny
sure buddy
>Ironically, it only pushes me further to fascism.
being a deluded piece of shit is what pushes you further to fascism, not any outside forces

[Anonymous No.16374163]

>>16374157
>>16374123
>>16374097
Samefag

[Anonymous No.16374165]

Oh this thread just got spicy.

[Anonymous No.16374166]

>>16374139
>hurr durr they weren't peepeepoopooists, they were poopoopeepeeists it's totally different bro I swear
Shut the fuck up lol.

[Anonymous No.16374168]

>>16374163

[Anonymous No.16374169]

>>16374166
*sentences you to ONE MILLION years of unstoppable, unbearable, unendurable FULL BODY tickle TORTURE every organ, every inch of skin, TICKLED inconceivably sensitively forever*

[Anonymous No.16374171]

[Anonymous No.16374174]

>>16374040
Imagine lacking this much self-awareness.

[Anonymous No.16374180]

>>16374169
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.16374183]

>>16374171
>immunity from recessions

[Anonymous No.16374191]

>>16374166
Conflating "conservative authoritarianism" with fascism is like conflating marxist-leninism with anarchism.

[Anonymous No.16374194]

>>16374180

[Anonymous No.16374195]

>>16374123
Another inarticulate "no you".

It is not an apt comparison, because Marxists point to the primary texts and say "read this", which is fine. But you wilfully let anti-fascists define fascism and read this:
>>16374004
>>16374012

As opposed to this:
>>16373929

[Anonymous No.16374200]

>>16374174
You keep saying that but I don't think you know what it means.

[Anonymous No.16374201]

To be fair you guys are crying about 1 retard when the bulk of scholarship on Fascism disagrees with them

[Anonymous No.16374203]

>>16374166
There's a difference between maintaining the capitalist status quo and transforming society while allowing market economics to continue.

But you're probably an antifa person, so even Bernie Sanders is a fascist by your standards.

[Anonymous No.16374211]

>>16374201
>when the bulk of scholarship on Fascism disagrees with them
He is the scholarship on Fascism. He is to Fascism as Marx is to Communism

[Anonymous No.16374221]

>>16374211
Sorry I'm talking about this >>16374004 >>16374012

[Anonymous No.16374225]

>>16374211

I think he's talking about
>>16374004
Saying we are crying about that. But the point is that if people that are disingenuous want to cite why they don't like fascism, bad scholarship like that is an accepted source for them.
That's the problem, they simply do not have to engage with fascist scholarship to detract from it.

But try that with marxs and you'll have a marxist jumping down your throat in two seconds.

They claim to hate liberals but gleefully watch on as the entire status quo outlaws ant kind of fascist intellectualism that isn't sanitised and detached academia.

[Anonymous No.16374256]

>>16374097
What? When did I say that?
It literally was - in Italy.

In those other countries, however, it was not - unless it was founded upon the same philosophies (such as that of Gentile) which inspired fascism in Italy.
This is not a case of "real fascism wasn't tried!", because it was, but in Italy.
Now if you take someone like Pinochet, for instance, he was definitely an authoritarian, but did not have the same beliefs as fascists did, and therefore cannot be classified as a fascist. Pinochet lacked: the economics of fascism; its aesthetics; its historical references; its strong cult of personality (Pinochet was a lot more reserved than Mussolini, who looked as if though he was constantly waiting for the right moment to become a god). Perhaps the most important point is that Pinochet saw Chile's place in the world as very different from the way Mussolini saw Italy. While Mussolini distanced himself from liberal powers like Britain and the US, and fought imperialist wars in Africa, Pinochet never did anything of the sort.

You can be right-wing, authoritarian, anti-communist, and still not be a fascist. Fascism was an Italian movement founded upon a very specific political philosophy. I don't know why you wish to deny this basic fact of history.

>>16374157
What do you want me to say?
I refuted the academic "scientist". That was my goal. That was the substance I was looking for, and I achieved it.

>>16374049
1. No primary sources.
2. Oldest book is from the 60's.
3. Completely monolingual list, even though the author wishes to analyze a supposedly worldwide movement. How can you analyze fascism without citing a single book in Italian? Only American academics would be capable of something as fraudulent as this.

As I said, contemporary academia is a rotten affair.

[Anonymous No.16374266]

>>16374256
>You can be right-wing, authoritarian, anti-communist, and still not be a fascist.
There's a good quote by the French fascist writer Pierre Drieu La Rochelle: "Not everyone who wants to be a fascist is one. A mere nationalist cannot be one, because he has not the slightest idea of socialism."

[Anonymous No.16374278]

>>16374266
>The politic of Fascism revolves wholly about the concept of the national State; and accordingly it has points of contact with nationalist doctrines, along with distinctions from the latter which it is important to bear in mind.

>Both Fascism and nationalism regard the State as the foundation of all rights and the source of all values in the individuals composing it. For the one as for the other the State is not a consequence—it is a principle. But in the case of nationalism, the relation which individualistic liberalism, and for that matter socialism also, assumed between individual and State is inverted. Since the State is a principle, the individual becomes a consequence—he is something which finds an antecedent in the State: the State limits him and determines his manner of existence, restricting his freedom, binding him to a piece of ground whereon he was born, whereon he must live and will die. In the case of Fascism, State and individual are one and the same things, or rather, they are inseparable terms of a necessary synthesis.

>Nationalism, in fact, founds the State on the concept of nation, the nation being an entity which transcends the will and the life of the individual because it is conceived as objectively existing apart from the consciousness of individuals, existing even if the individual does nothing to bring it into being. For the nationalist, the nation exists not by virtue of the citizen's will, but as datum, a fact, of nature.

>For Fascism, on the contrary, the State is a wholly spiritual creation. It is a national State, because, from the Fascist point of view, the nation itself is a creation of the mind and is not a material presupposition, is not a datum of nature. The nation, says the Fascist, is never really made; neither, therefore, can the State attain an absolute form, since it is merely the nation in the latter's concrete, political manifestation. For the Fascist, the State is always in fieri. It is in our hands, wholly; whence our very serious responsibility towards it.

>But this State of the Fascists which is created by the consciousness and the will of the citizen, and is not a force descending on the citizen from above or from without, cannot have toward the mass of the population the relationship which was presumed by nationalism.

-The Philosophic Basis of Fascism, Giovanni Gentile

[Anonymous No.16374288]

>>16374266
Yeah, Pinochet was just a typical Latin-American military caudillo. Completely common phenomenon here in this region. Nothing to do with fascism.
He probably had more in common with Maduro than he had with Mussolini.

[Anonymous No.16374299]

>>16374012
>labor power is suppressed
Italian fascism literally promoted syndicalism, it was born from national-syndicalism

[Anonymous No.16374306]

>>16374166
Fascism rejects Christianity and is imperialist.

[Anonymous No.16374307]

>>16374299
To be fair, Communist and Fascist regimes both have a tendency to suppress "disapproved" labour movements.

[Anonymous No.16374309]

>>16374306
Neither of those are necessarily true. Also, Gentile was a catholic.

[Anonymous No.16374312]

>>16374042
Bros, in Seduction, Baudrillard makes a little off-hand comment about how fascists inherently love transvestism. Why is that?

[Anonymous No.16374325]

>>16374312
Because he wanted to undermine fascism without arguing in good faith. Like nearly every detractor in this thread.

Look at the level of response. Such a pathetic bunch these anti-fascists.

[Anonymous No.16374343]

>>16374091
With regards to disdain for the arts, it’s egregious that the author didn’t concede examples like Fürtwangler, who was actively anti-Nazi and was even accused of aiding Jews, but was left unharmed due to recognition of his immense talent. How is Heidegger explicable, either?

[Anonymous No.16374344]

if you want an erudite examination of fascism, one that actually engages with primary sources then you should read A. James Gregor

[Anonymous No.16374352]

>>16374343
it's all just a bunch of bullshit, I'm positive fascist italy was far less anti-intellectual than the department where that guy works

[Anonymous No.16374373]

>>16374325
But the section is not even about fascism, it’s completely without context.

[Anonymous No.16374378]

>>16373929
>Hitler's National Socialism, whose roots come from German Romanticism
Any books that traces Nazism to Romanticism?

[Anonymous No.16374380]

Amusing to watch all these nazis defend fascist "art" lol

[Anonymous No.16374411]

>>16373946
He was very clearly anti-fascist and an Israeli Jew, take his opinions with a grain of salt.

[Anonymous No.16374430]

>>16374411
Yeah but he's mostly expository and analytical, using primary sources extensively. His work never feels dishonest, and he's not polemical.

[Anonymous No.16374432]

>>16374278
This is essentially the distinction made by Dosto. He would have 100% been a Russian fascist.

[Anonymous No.16374440]

>>16374058
the guy who came up with holocaust denial was a prisoner in auschwitz

[Anonymous No.16374453]

>>16374380
What's wrong with fascist art?

[Anonymous No.16374488]

>>16374029
Did you that forefathers of the Likud party, the Revisionists and the Stern Gang, were Zionist fascists?

[Anonymous No.16374515]

>>16374430
I think he can be reductive in seeing the essence of fascism (and its "French roots") as being against the Enlightenment, individualism, utilitarian liberal-democracy, etc. (Neither Right Nor Left). In which case most objectors against the status quo can be dismissed as fascists.

[Anonymous No.16374528]

>>16374515
You're right - I haven't read his "Counter-Enlightenment" book but from what I've seen it's not a thesis I'd agree with. I tend to think the game of distinguishing "Enlightenment" from "anti-Enlightenment" thinkers is often arbitrary, reductive and based more on the author's personal political affinities than on anything tangible. Describing Edmund Burke - a Whig who advocated for Catholic emancipation, free trade, etc. - as an anti-Enlightenment thinker just makes no sense to me.

I found Neither Right Nor Left quite good though.

[Anonymous No.16374532]

>>16374453
He doesn't know any of it.

Indeed, many of the fascists - specially those who supported the movement in the early days - were at the forefront of modernism. Denying the value of fascist art only shows that one doesn't know anything about art in the 20th century. Ezra Pound, Carlo Carrà, D'Annunzio, Mascagni... And, of course, Marinetti, one of the decisive figures of early 20th century futurism, and a huge influence on, among others, Fernando Pessoa.

Also, if I am allowed to be more precise, it's not necessarily about "fascist art" (which did exist), but rather about "art made in fascist Italy by people who supported fascism". Ezra Pound didn't write "fascist art", as he simply kept writing in the same ideogrammic and free verse style he had found for himself 20 years earlier, but he still can be considered a "fascist artist", in a certain political but non-aesthetic way, specially if you look at the Italian Cantos. The same applies for other great artists who worked in fascist Italy and supported the regime: they didn't obey a fixed government plan, like the Soviets had to do under the rules of social realism. Italian artists who supported fascism were freer and much more in tune with the tendencies of modernism, specially futurism, but also surrealism, hermeticism, meta-literature, and others - some of them even helped to start those tendencies themselves.
Authors like Pirandello, Quasimodo, Ungaretti, and Montale were all living in Italy during the days of fascism, and freely publishing their books, which were at the very forefront of the modernist movements of that era.

Still, alongside those older and the more purely aesthetic styles aforementioned, there did exist a distinctively fascist type of art, which manifested itself specially in public buildings and projects. Pic related. You can see a blend of neoclassic and modernist (smooth, flat surfaces) features; and there's also a great rigidity and soberness, which differentiates it from, say, futurism.

[Anonymous No.16374552]

>>16374532
Futurism was based too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHSW_C5c-s0

[Anonymous No.16374621]

>>16374532
While some Italian fascist architecture are classico-modernist (your pic related; all the arches always remind me of De Chirico too), others are just modernist (or perhaps the classical sobriety persists, but then we should acknowledge this as a general tendency in early modernist architecture), for example Terragni's Casa del Fascio. It is not all too different from early villas of Le Corbusier or Mies van der Rohe (say, before glass replaced white-bleached concrete and marble). If modernist purism is "fascist", then at least the Italians were honest about it. But I don't know enough about that (the Rationalist architectural movement is often conflated with Italian fascist architecture, but perhaps there were significant differences?).

[Anonymous No.16374638]

The worst thing about American academia is that American prestige throughout the world is so huge that people simply assume that if you are a professor from some random U.S. university, then you necessarily are an expert on your subject and truly know what you're talking about.

And now it turns out that this mediocre and fake list >>16374004 has already been translated into my language, and even features on its Wikipedia. How depressing! People assume that it comes from an "expert", but, as has been shown, it is completely full of flaws, and the sources used by the author are all contemporary, secondary and in English (he's probably monolingual, anyway).
It is, therefore, no wonder that the term "fascism" has completely lost its meaning in public discourse, and now can mean pretty much anything you want, from Jordan Peterson to J.K. Rowling, as if philosophers like Giovanni Gentile had never existed, as if the Manifesto degli intellettuali fascisti had never been written.

This is why you should never trust people based on their academic credentials. The only thing these credentials prove is that their holders know how to play the game and how to convince other academics that they too can talk collegespeak.
This is how history is falsified. This is how complex philosophical theories are turned into cartoonish satire. This is how circles of fake experts who keep quoting each other are formed. This is how political discourse degenerates into nothing more than an orangutanic struggle between two intellectually deranged sides screaming at each other like a couple of gangrened, verminoid cretins of the utmost putrefied nature, fit only for crime, violation, and other sorts of villainous activities.

>>16374552
Yes.
By the way, Fernando Pessoa was hugely influenced by it. In fact, the two best futurist poems were written by him - the Ode Triunfal and the Ode Marítima. Harold Bloom considered them as two of the best poems of the 20th century.

>>16374621
Yeah, sometimes there weren't many differences, which goes to show that Italian art of the time was quite in tune with the art that was being made elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.16374684]

Moralists that try to appropriate Fascism are ignorant of D'Annunzio. I have read his early works, mad lad.

[Anonymous No.16374706]

>>16374684
yeah, all the petit-bourgeois on /pol/ thinking fascism is just a more "based" variant of republicanism...

[Anonymous No.16374736]

>>16374090
Kek

[Anonymous No.16374745]

>>16374099
>Ironically, it only pushes me further to fascism.
I get you anon, although I wouldn't consider myself a fascist anymore I highly advise you don't refer to yourself by that label to anyone for your own sake. Trust me.

[Anonymous No.16375827]

>>16374012 # >>16374028 # >>16374040 # >>16374076 # >>16374091 #
>>16374139 #
>>16374195 #
>>16374221 #
>>16374225 #
>>16374638 #

Lol

[Anonymous No.16375857]

Can anybody explain to me why commies hate fascists and vice versa?

[Anonymous No.16375885]

>>16375857
secular rationalists hate themselves, it's their jewish-christian inheritance.

[Anonymous No.16375897]

>>16374278
>>>Both Fascism and nationalism regard the State as the foundation of all rights and the source of all values in the individuals composing it.
Yeah this is why socialists are fascists too

[Anonymous No.16376181]

Any recs for books about Brazilian integralism and the AIB?

[Anonymous No.16376347]

>>16375857
Long story short it's the historical Cain and Abel (Or Jacob and Essau. Maybe even Capricorn/Saturn and Aquarius/Jupiter if you want to get symbolic and metaphysical.) Both arise from the same roots of socialist thought as reactions to liberal democracies (capitalism) assuming the role as primary governmental mode. Fascism was just too early a reaction and Communism too easily subverted.

[Anonymous No.16376375]

>>16373929
The way people (Marxists) talk about fascism (the Italian political movement) like it's some kind of ahistorical phenomenon with no connection to a particular time, place, or intellectual culture is obviously nonsense, but I'm still not convinced that any fascist or fascist-adjacent intellectual had more influence on the movement than Mussolini himself.
I read the A. James Gregor book on fascist intellectuals people are always recommending on here, and the biggest connection he provides between the various thinkers mentioned in the book is that they influenced Mussolini. Few of them had direct control over the policies of the Italian government while the fascist party was in power, and those that did eventually got replaced when their ideas stopped aligning with the goals of the government.
I can see why it's productive to cite guys like Gentile and Panunzio because they debunk so many popular myths about fascism, but in the end it still seems to me that the Grand Council of Fascism and Mussolini himself were the ones really responsible for developing fascist doctrine. Putting too much emphasis on the intellectuals leads to strange conclusions such as stating fascism itself didn't fully mature until the creation of the Italian Social Republic, when Mussolini had no real power and the intellectuals were free to come up with political schemes that had no real connection to reality.

>>16374029
>I think the main problem is that Fascism (being the policy of the Italian party), or fascism (being the pejorative of the anti-fascists) and fascism of philosophical/political theory are all entirely different things.
That's great way of summing up the problem.

[Anonymous No.16376675]

>>16375885
>fascism
>rationalism

[Anonymous No.16376881]

Fascism is a catch-all term for political heresy in the post-war lexicon. It is the vanquished enemy of the ruling ideology; out of pure laziness, wrong-thinking persons are called manicheans or pagans so that they are more easily dealt with and no dissent can agreggate around them. Having lost any original referent, fascism becomes anything and everything. American liberals and conservatives will call one another fascists for wanting to use the state to enforce laws.

[Anonymous No.16377081]

>>16374745
Not that anon, but I think most of us know not to give away our political stance in public. I'm studying law at the moment, so I wouldn't want a target painted on my back while I commit social suicide. But sometimes you just really want to say it, to get if off.

[Anonymous No.16377311]

Bump

[Anonymous No.16377402]

>>16376881
Orwell (a socialist) writes about how the term 'fascist' had become functionally meaningless even before the war.

His "Politics and the English Language" is a must-read if you want to understand how governments and politicians have and continue to pervert language for their own ends. I think it is especially relevant today.

[Anonymous No.16377667]

>>16376375

Post ignored by the pro-Fascists.

[Anonymous No.16377688]

>>16377081
The one dude in law school that talked about skull shapes was fucking hilarious but everyone else refused to talk to him once he showed his power level. He was a fellow shitposter and he and I would argue for long stretches about philosophy and the fascist v commie debate. Professors would call me a commie in class just to get me to shut the fuck up.

Hide your power level anon, it's brutal the social ostracizing you'll experience if neoliberal identity law students get a whiff. I'm a class reductionist so I really didn't give a fuck. Explaining anything about social interactions was like talking to an autist with that dude.

[Anonymous No.16377716]

>>16373929
Fascism came in too late it's the capitalist exsanguination for us all...

[Anonymous No.16377946]

>>16376675
YES.

[Anonymous No.16377986]

>>16377402
I wonder what le 1984 man would say had he been alive to see the mutation of terms like racism into structural racism or white supremacy into white privilege

[Anonymous No.16378085]

>>16377081
I still would advise against being fascist at all as the possibility of fascism gaining power is absolute zero in any western countries. Think about it, Mussolini already had sympathizers in the establishment and Hitler should've gotten the death penalty if it weren't for the sympathetic judge. Revolutions generally only succeed if the elites allow them to. I'm a Neomonarchist now as I find it to be a more feasible and Righter form of government. Inhabiting the sterotype of your enemy is bad, especially in these situations.

[Anonymous No.16378116]

>>16373929
If almost everybody, pro-fascist, anti-fascist, whatever, thinks and says that fascism and Hitler's Nazism are the same thing, then today they are, regardless of whatever origins the Italian fascist movement had in left-wing nationalist thought from France and Italy.

[Anonymous No.16378254]

>>16378085
Yeah, I am conscious of that as well. But I can't really *just* change politics like that. I'm just going to focus on building myself up first, and then later have a family. I don't have much hope for us taking power as you said, so I will just focus on what little I can do.

[Anonymous No.16378397]

>>16378254
That's the way to go about it, anon. It's very bizarre to have to hold your cards to tightly to your chest, but every now and again you get lucky. I found me an eco-fascist girl and if all goes well we'll likely do the same of homesteading with the intent to raise a family. The key to not becoming demoralized IS to do what you can in your immediate sphere. First it's developing yourself and your natural talents and proclivities while growing strong. If anything I consider that to be one of the strongest dedications to Fascist ideals the individual can have while any greater change is largely impossible.

[Anonymous No.16378404]

>>16378397
This sounds like cleaning my room with extra steps.

[Anonymous No.16378430]

Can any of the fascist anons in here give me a reading chart.
Or make one?
Very interesting thread.

[Anonymous No.16378436]

>>16378404
In a way. Basic hygiene and cleanliness is just a good idea. If, to be a romantic, the entire basis of communist ideas is, in practice, the reduction of everyone to one mean, than the inverse is true in fascism; the core lies in all individuals under the state working towards their max potential and to encourage the same in others. This includes developing things like good habits, self-discipline, and wanting to help your peers in the same way, then having meritocracy shake out the rest. If everyone does their part, the State is strong. That's why Mussolini chose the fasce as a symbol.

[Anonymous No.16378470]

>>16378430
Kinda still figuring it out myself, but:
Anything by Giovanni Gentile, Origins and Doctrines of Fascism especially
Italian Fascism and Spanish Falangism In Compairson
Fascism: 100 Questions Answered by Mosely
Political Theory by Schmidt
The Corporate State in Action: Italy Under Fascism
Leviathan
For-context reading
Mein Kampf
Fascism Viewed From The Right
Das Kapital

That's about what I have for the time being.

[Anonymous No.16378565]

>>16374161
Seethe more brainlet

[Anonymous No.16378657]

>>16374040
But at least Communists were for equality anon. Equality is good. Therefore Communism is good.

[Anonymous No.16378986]

>>16374097
National socialism wasn't even real national socialism, since nazi purged the SA, the left wing of the party, in 1934 during the crystal nacht.
In any case, wearing a nice hugo boss outfit doesn't make you less canon fodder for the Capital, and Hans who proudly had his NASDAP party member card, was still working early morning at the factory.

[Anonymous No.16379026]

>>16374051
average fascists understanding

[Anonymous No.16379087]

>>16373929
To be quite frank with you bossman I'm not up-to-date on my g*rman philosophers like Hegel and Kant but I have read many French philosophers and when one understands both Rousseau and de Maistre one can very easily see a truth about Fascism that none of their stock would like to admit - Fascism is borne of a liberal root. OP here has said Fascism is of a Marxist root and though one could argue that Marxism is just liberalism on steroids one can also notice that many of the central ideas of Fascism come from liberal philosophers. Meritocracy, for example - the obsession over the "strongest and the best" being given positions according to their abilities. Meritocracy cannot exist without a degree of egalitarianism because if you are truly awarding positions to the strongest and the best it means you have to disregard the class from which they came. De Maistre talks about this in greater depth, the inherent problems with meritocracy and how it posed a threat to traditional European hierarchies. Fascists embrace it yet ironically they also screech "SAVE EVROPA! FIGHT FOR TRADITIONAL WESTERN CIVILIZATION!"

[Anonymous No.16379108]

>>16374004
>>16374012
One only needs to observe the language this guy employs to tell he's not approaching this in the balanced way an academic should. I mean come on, "disdain for human rights", "rampant sexism", "obsession with national security". This is a load of horseshit.

[Anonymous No.16379518]

>>16379087
It is strange, isn't it? I feel like this is one of those examples of how much the terminology behind egalitarianism vs meritocracy have blurred over time. Alot of self-purported third-positionists also never really sort the TRVDITION of Evola from the parts which he actively criticized or did not endorse (not to even get started upon his views of race, which most Nazi larpers also don't read into at all) in regards to Fascism as a whole. Hell, few people ever bother to read in on the matters of the dirigistic and corporatist because they fly into the ideals out of spite then take on the half-cobbled together collection of several different 'far-right' concepts without doing the elbow work to synchronize them beyond an aesthetic.

[Anonymous No.16379529]

>>16379518
It's because the old concept of nobility is just genuinely alien to us. And if you're not a noble yourself it is a bit ridiculous to go singing the praises of blood nobility as a system.

[Anonymous No.16379568]

>>16379529
That sounds about right.
The partially-Marxist root of fascism are largely discounted because it seeks to achieve the same manner of social parity AS socialism/communism, but through very different means. Enough for them to be each other's eternal political opposite. I believe it's also why ever fascist movement that makes it far enough if inevitably stabbed in the back by the Reactionary/rightist influences that once borne it aloft/allied with it because that entire political bloc is aware it would seek to dismantle them from their position of power as well.

[Anonymous No.16379571]

>>16379108
>scientists can only describe data, never interpret them
t. never wrote a single science report in his life

[Anonymous No.16379603]

>>16379568
The closest modern parallels to nobility were the apartheid states in Africa I think. The quality of government ran from abysmal(Leopold) to pretty good(Ian Smith). These countries were basically administered by a white nobility.

That's how historical nobilities were formed anyway, like the Normans in England, or the Nordic conquerors of the Rus.

[Anonymous No.16379612]

>>16373929
Here's how I understand fascism. If anyone wants to add onto to this post be my guest.

Fascism is a branch on a third position tree. Third position ideals stem from universal phisophical concepts that manifest into material governments that organically grow and adopt to their national surrounding. This is why you will have differences on surfaces governmental applications between Italian Fascism and Spanish Falangism. Core universal concepts of fascism, but first we must understand third position is neither left or right. There may be parts of third position government that have aspects of that may be common with certain right-wing or left-wing beliefs but that is far as the resemblences go.
These are the components:
1. It is a collectivist philosophy i.e community over individual.
2. It is anti-materialistic i.e it puts value over what the naked eye can see, promotes spirituality.
3. It is idealistic political philosophy, i.e puts grand goals to achieve on individual level and communal level.
4. It is traditional and futuristic, it respects the values of the culture that was the expression of a people's ancestry and their sacrifice and it also puts technology and science to obtain the goals of the community.
5. It is law and order, punishing bad behavior not tolerating subversion, but rather rewarding discipline.
Many laymen try to describe Fascism by its materailistic components rather than its philosophical core.

[Anonymous No.16379633]

>>16374378
Elements of the Philosophy of Right by Hegel

[Anonymous No.16379639]

>>16379571
Yeah, what of it?

[Anonymous No.16379647]

>>16379612
That's pretty spot on, anon. I would also add that, in the fervor of being able to set up a concept of the national/state 'ideal' there is also a drive to tie discipline into self-development and nationalism as a whole. The idea of drawing the nation as a whole up, be it through shared efforts, identity, or culture seems to be an ever-present concept.

[Anonymous No.16379657]

>>16379612
I would add that it's to some degree explicitly pragmatic about political particulars, leaving them up to the leader(and subservient heads of office) to decide on a case-by-case basis, as a sort of living art, rather than codified by strict philosophy. Gentile/Mussolini emphasized that in the Doctrine.

[Anonymous No.16379681]

>>16379518
Aye, it's my strong belief that Nazi and Fascist elements so readily appropriate things without thorough analysis and consideration because they are desperate to establish a "past" or "base" of sorts. By their rhetoric they claim to be the protectors of tradition and the only ones who are capable of carrying it on but by realistic examination one can easily see there's nothing traditional about them, they're as revolutionary as the Marxists. The only different is they want to revolt into a different direction. They are as a boulder that is half hanging off of a cliff, they desperately and rapidly appropriate whatever they can to put underneath them so that their whole charade doesn't come crashing down.

[Anonymous No.16379688]

>>16379647
>The idea of drawing the nation as a whole up, be it through shared efforts, identity, or culture seems to be an ever-present concept.
This is why each nation has its own brand but also easily allies themselves to the same ends with other third positionists which creates a collective of every stripe, no matter how different the people and it state are.

Fascism in ideology, is an evolution of Sorel's national syndicalism and his myth of violence married with Hegelian idealism (which is in contrast to Communism's materialist inversion)

"Italians! Here is the program of a genuinely Italian movement. It is revolutionary because it is anti-dogmatic, strongly innovative and against prejudice."
- the first line of The Fascist Manifesto

[Anonymous No.16379695]

>>16374091
You can't actually think that what people refer to as fascism it's literally the original Italian fascism.

[Anonymous No.16379700]

>>16379681
I would compare the difference in revolutionary aspect between fascism and socialism to the difference between maturation and metamorphosis in an organism. The fascist state seeks to retain the characteristics of the past in essence, but move forward along the 'natural' prescribed path of development, whereas the socialist seeks to radically alter the constitution of the nation(or entire world). This is according to their stated goals more than the reality of their attempts at creating states I suppose, but even in the historical examples I think the pattern does somewhat hold.

[Anonymous No.16379710]

>>16374040
There really isn't a foundational author of fascism whom you can point to and say "fascism is what this guy meant don't look at those who applied it" like in communism.

[Anonymous No.16379712]

>>16379612
I agree that most people describing fascism focus on the purely materialistic bits like the uniforms and the adjacent stuff like the authoritarian politics, but I also think that many self-described fascists are also like that, like your average Neo-Nazi or whatever couldn't tell you anything about its transcendental aspects beyond the immediate stuff like 'discipline' or 'race' that themselves aren't examined.

[Anonymous No.16379713]

>>16379681
Not to mention that this causes the ideas of Fascism and it's offshoots to be embraced out of spite and desperation rather than a loving determination. Beyond even that, they fall into the same nature as Marxists because it becomes their identity, rather than a PIECE of identity. It is especially egregious in America because every area but New England and the South have no actual cultural roots for one to be raised in beyond vagueries. I consider myself incredibly lucky to have been born and raised in the land of cotton, and therefor have the benefit of a culture I can call home.

[Anonymous No.16379723]

>>16373929
>modernism
That's gay and old. I'll stick to my contemporary post-human philosophy and moomin style neo-luddism thank you.

[Anonymous No.16379730]

>>16379700
It is highly dependent on what kinds of fascists we are talking about. Some fascist regimes held true to their purported philosophy, others didn't. The Iron Guard was very much true to the spirit of the nation, Romania. The Fatherland Front was also true to the spirit of Austria. Conversely we can look at Pavelic's Croatia and the absolute lapse of all philosophical pretense. The same can be observed in Hitler's Germany (though many don't like when Fascism and National Socialism are grouped together). Hitler certainly spoke the same traditionalistic rhetoric but unlike others he had no interest in preserving the German tradition but instead tearing it down and building anew.

[Anonymous No.16379738]

>>16374087
Only on this site can you /pol/tards cope about how they HAD to be trannies and if you disagree you're antifa, lol

[Anonymous No.16379745]

>>16379688
Exactly! It is a general set of tools and principles which are very easily morphed to the lifeblood of a State in it's people and culture, and each different link in a third-positionist chain being able to cooperate around this.

>>16379712
>>16379700
>>16379681
I am happy to have shared a thread with such effortposters

[Anonymous No.16379746]

>>16379710
There is The Doctrine of Fascism, which being written in part by one of the actual Fascist heads of state is fairly authoritative. Obviously compared to the enormous corpus of Marx and his followers this is almost comically thin a theoretical basis, but the basics are mostly accounted for in that short essay. It's somewhat of an anti-theoretical ideology in the first place.

[Anonymous No.16379751]

>>16374055
>you have to read our rage essays about how jews are niggers and niggers are jews. you have to

[Anonymous No.16379755]

>>16379713
That's a very good point not stated often enough, the absolute lack of culture in the western US. I was tremendously lucky in being born down south to a pair of cultured yankees, experiencing the best of both cultures. I've been out west to New Mexico, Nevada, Nebraska, California, etc. There's nothing, by the time we reached there our culture had already become defined by materialism so that without historical roots giving some sort of base materialism became the sole "culture". It's so sad.

[Anonymous No.16379784]

>>16379755
I worked with a conservation corp through the eastern seaboard and, working in alot of rural areas, I was amazed at how it almost seems like the resultant destruction of the Confederacy had the effect of any rural area of the US (but not really past, say, Kansas and no higher than Kentucky) being largely recipient of a diluted form of Southern culture that had parts of it's own regional aspects borne aloft by the large German-integrated culture, especially in some parts of the Midwest, which in turn just made it more fragile to the consumerism you mention. It's sad that it's a thing in the South as well, but it feels less overt or easier to dodge. It's a horrible shame how the nascent American, legitimately American, culture was smothered in it's crib by capitalism.

[Anonymous No.16379790]

>>16379612
People forget that fascism is inherently Hegelian, study the political thought of Hegel first. Then study Giovanni gentile’s work (mind as pure act should be a major work here) then read the work of Carl Schmit and heidegger's thoughts on technology, once you have these you can then study the post modern theories on fascism, so read baudrillard’s simulacra & simulation then hop into deleuze and study what he means about the cancerous BwO/fascist body without organs.

That’s what a lot of big brain fascist theory looks like, basically Hegelian and post modern capital critique which accepts and embraces the Fascist elements of capital. Most of the time people who study gentile today and are truly fascist don’t label themselves as such. look into Jiang shigong (who’s a fascist in all but name) and A. James Gregor for more academic material on Fascism.

[Anonymous No.16379820]

>>16379784
It truly is, but it's something we knew was coming, or at least in retrospect can see the inevitability of. I believe that this was the right nation, born at the wrong time. Any nation born under the circumstances of ours in the time it was born in with, naturally, the popular political elements dominating any revolution was doomed to failure. Hell, the only thing that prevented France from descending into utter chaos was the fact that they had a rich millennia of history to call on. Had we the same perhaps we would be better off today but a nation without history from the get-go embracing those policies which would spiral into the culture-consuming monster that they have become can not be expected to do anything other than fail.

[Anonymous No.16379829]

>>16379730
That's true, Hitler is actually an interesting example because he had an unbelievably strong willpower and a very strange personality, he is a good test for the flexibility of a fascist-like state when its leader has radical impulses. The story of Nazi Germany is shrouded in controversy, but any way you cut it Hitler was a bit of a madman, depending which version you believe he was really quite insane, or just a bit unstable and obsessive. It seems obvious to me that it was a basically fascist state, the emphasis on race can easily be thought of as a peculiarly German necessity that fits within the bounds of the leader's discretion. It is interesting though to imagine a Nazi leader who chose to try to assimilate the German Jewry rather than cleanse them, since the real problems they had with the Jews were after all a small minority of journalists, bankers, etc.

Ultimately though the actions of Germany during a war against powers it could not possibly defeat due to their numbers are probably not the best case study for fascism. Even the cause of the war is a bit hard to discern without entering into conspiracy theory territory.

[Anonymous No.16379831]

>>16379820
Pretty much. As a result I feel like the best thing that America could do, as any manner of being a nation, would be to embrace a pre-Woodrow Wilson form of isolationism and leave the world stage for the good of every fragile culture state which we have leech-veins and for ourselves.

[Anonymous No.16379840]

Can any of the effort posters explain what a fascist economy looks like?

[Anonymous No.16379841]

>>16379820
Pretty much. As a result I feel like the best thing that America could do, as any manner of being a nation rather than the world's largest market for anyone to buy their identity, would be to embrace a pre-Woodrow Wilson form of isolationism and leave the world stage for the good of every fragile culture state which we have leech-veins and for ourselves. But that likely won't happen, and what we have is the slowbleed death of a would-be Rome. I know another anon mentioned earlier about there being a certain futility in aligning with fascistic ideals, but I do not feel like I could abandon something which just feels....right as a political place to keep, and I think that will go a long way in being able to help my children carve out a spiritual and mental niche, as well as a physical one, in the American-driven death of the human cultural identity at large

[Anonymous No.16379875]

>>16378657
False

[Anonymous No.16379919]

>>16379840
The Corporate State in Action is what you're looking for as a book specifically about that. It's incredibly hard to find any book about how the Fascistic economies and governments actually functioned from scratch.
Fascism, both the Italian form and as the baseline for any nation which adopts it, normally functions first off of a concept called economic dirigism, French for something like 'to direct' . In this system, it is the principle that any mid to high level capitalistic venture, and let there be no mistake fascism does not inherently push out the free market, answers to an economics wing of the government. Both in it's production, use of profits, worker policy and pay, etc, all that in return for the business being half (or in the case of emergencies such as war or disaster, fully) nationalized with the original founders of an enterprise being kept on as it's directors. Some businesses, from province-local to the heights of an industrial sector, also has the option of receiving grants, loans, or subsidies from the government so long as they continue to produce and work towards the national/State with a capital 's' interest. In times of emergency or specific advancement, the enterprise or industry has it's manufacturing/labor purposes directed to an active goal of the state, in times of rest it has a direction of operating on 'so long as it is good for the nation, it is allowed'. For class systems the government has the job of acting as facilitator between employer and employee, especially for things like workers rights and the line.
Just as well, welfare is provided in the major form of governmental work programs tied in with the above economic apparatus on a region-by-region basis.
In terms of banking there is also an explicit ban on usury so as to not create the labor-debt loop which we see in America today, as the best example. If I remember correctly, though it depends on nation to nation, the policy is that only the government itself is capable of granting a loan which carries with it an interesting, though this is usually done with the understanding that it would be small in interest to begin with.
All of this is done with the goal of something called economic autarchy, in which the nation aims to be as economically independant from the global market/system as a possible (being capable of manufacturing any of goods needed or consumed by the population). Fascism always has the goal of operating on economic nationalism at the very least
I hope that answers your question

[Anonymous No.16380313]

>>16374373
>so random
>validity of random statements is inherently amplified

[Anonymous No.16380327]

>>16375827

[Anonymous No.16380493]

>>16380327
This brings me such great pain.

[Anonymous No.16380517]

Fascism was refuted by the fact that it proclaimed it was going to dominate the world through sheer power and then immediately lost in an immensely embarrassing way. Any true believers in fascism are just coping.

[Anonymous No.16380528]

>>16380517
And yet the only important nominally Socialist state in the world, China, is practically Fascist,

[Anonymous No.16380580]

>>16374161

pea brain

[Anonymous No.16380611]

>>16375857

Fascism is a third way, so they hate liberals and commies. Commies basically by definition can't have a revolutionary movement other than themselves fit into their materialist dialectic, so they label fastists as reactionaries and hate them as much as the other reactionaries.