/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21722931]

The legacy of stirner is picrel
It's pretty obvious why radical egoism leads to fascism in the end

[Anonymous No.21722938]

>>21722931
As does Marxism.
>>>/infrared/

[Anonymous No.21723022]

>>21722931
How was the book, OP?

[Anonymous No.21723153]

How does "the state isn't a real thing" lead to "nothing but the state"?

[Anonymous No.21723154]

>>21723153
>germany and italy both failed to form modern states due being populated by small principalities and city states
>germany and italy become fascist
well it does seem fascism is a response to failure to coalesce a modern state.

[Anonymous No.21723160]

>>21723154
open a history book, retard.

[Anonymous No.21723163]

>>21723160
no you

[Anonymous No.21723500]

>>21723153
You end creating a fascist state in your efforts to dismantle the liberal state

[Anonymous No.21723597]

>>21723022
https://c4ss.org/content/56480

[Anonymous No.21723780]

>>21723597
fuck him

[Anonymous No.21723917]

>>21722931
>individualism leads to conformity to dictatorship
It’s the thinest of thin soups.
Water-soup and saltless

>>21722938
Marx always stood for dictatorship in his political philosophy. That’s why he opposed Stirner. See how this doesn’t make sense?

>>21723154
The Prussian and Austrian empires broke up to form nationstates. “Fascism” is just secular and military royalty. Roman imperialism all over again. It’s why it’s been likened to eating shit.

>>21723500
Oh the irony that the fascists are liberals trying to kill the free people’s movement.
De Sade is the origin of fascism, not Stirner.

[Anonymous No.21723998]

>>21723153
Because you seethe that state exists so hard you kill everyone who doesn't conform to your no state policy, which has to be organized a la state law.

[Anonymous No.21724032]

>>21723998
That doesn’t address a thing.

Look. Stirner’s basics isn’t going to get a free world of anarchists roaming around. Everyone cannot operate that way. They won’t. But with a sufficient amount of people following some brand of Strinerist egoism and Nietzschean Übermensch, or Kaczynski style back to nature anti-tech stuff, you do not get a fascist state, but a small band of warriors and their slaves occupying a town.

Marxism leads to fascism. We’ve seen it, repeatedly. Individualism just leads to individuals.

[Anonymous No.21724065]

>>21724032
>muh "but a small band of warriors and their slaves occupying a town"
Yeah, Stalin was most based ubermensch because he ruled with iron fist over his slaves.

[Anonymous No.21724148]

>>21724065
Donno what this post is supposed to mean.
Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin all incorporated the reactionary rightwing to crush the revolution, be they individualists or collectivists, no Stirner-ist individualism about it. Just that Marxian dictatorship of party elites, IE fascism.

[Anonymous No.21724167]

>>21722931
Yeah that’s because fascism is actually in your interest if you’re a normal person.

Like Nick Land said, fascism is just realistic socialism that actually works.

[Anonymous No.21724171]

>>21724148
I guess it's very hard for you to imagine that egoistic ideals lead to you being crushed under someone else's boot, not vice-versa.

[Anonymous No.21724206]

>>21723917
>individualism leads to conformity to dictatorship
Mussolini was the most lax dictator in Europe. He wasn't even a dictator. He was the prime minister in a diarchy.

[Anonymous No.21724216]

>>21724167
>realistic socialism
No, it’s just state authoritarianism. Nothing “socialist” about it. Marxism=fascism

>>21724171
No, not at all. Have I not made this clear enough yet? If individuals don’t unite well enough the collective conformists of the rightwing will trounce you. As we’ve seen so many times.
The people interested in freedom from such dictatorships need to organize their “union of egoists” sufficiently. States spend a lot of time and effort dividing the masses of slaves

[Anonymous No.21724229]

>>21724206
Too bad he sided with Hitler. He had a little China circa 2010-2020 there didn’t he

[Anonymous No.21724232]

>>21724216
>If individuals don’t unite well enough the collective conformists of the rightwing will trounce you
And now you show how short-sighted you are because that inevitably leads to "union of egoists" extending their grasp until they control entire kingdoms and empires. You know, countries.

[Anonymous No.21724394]

>>21724232
No, a union of conformists. A small circle of fascists unite to lord it over the brainless conformists who will march into a war and certain death. You can only conceive of an elite of egoists. This is the status quo throughout the “civilizational” experiment. Stirner was hinting at how to break that cycle by acting as though you were free and just taking it. No conformity can happen this way. This is just theory of course, and it is Stirner’s shortsightedness, not mine, that leads back to “fascism” or dictatorship, same ol’ same ol’

[Anonymous No.21724403]

>>21724394
>Have I not made this clear enough yet?
You were arguing as if you ascribe to that theory.
>This is just theory of course
And the practice is what he have now.

[Anonymous No.21724482]

>>21724403
Well pardon.
There is no practice of Stirner’s egoism. State schools, private schools, Christian schools, don’t tell people about him and only mention Nietzsche to say he’s bad news or even fascist.

[Anonymous No.21724489]

>>21724216
>No, it’s just state authoritarianism. Nothing “socialist” about it.
Except for the welfare state.

[Anonymous No.21724504]

>>21724482
Is what they do everyday

Is that your paycheck anon?

[Anonymous No.21724521]

>>21724482
They even removed the chapter on Stirner out of the Penguin edition of Camus' work and most philosophers deliberately kept quiet on Stirner, either for reasons of plagiarism (Nietzsche) or sheer fear for his power (Husserl).

[Anonymous No.21724530]

>>21722931
>yfw you realises the fasces is literally the Union of Egoists

[Anonymous No.21724544]

>>21724530
>"BUT YOU MISINTERPRETED WHAT HE SAID! NOOOOOOO!"

[Anonymous No.21724686]

>>21724489
States, kingdoms of varying types have always provided something for their laborers. Even a slave will get a slave house.

>>21724504
Try that again.

>>21724521
I didn’t know that.

>>21724530
>>21724544
It isn’t. You fail to understand one or both

[Anonymous No.21724693]

>>21724686
>You fail to understand one or both
Libtards say same thing about Deleuze, Foccault etc. You aren't special.

[Anonymous No.21724709]

>>21724693
I don’t know those philosophers.
Stirner’s philosophy is on individualism, and does not advocate nor lead to conformist dictatorships. A union of egoists, briefly touched on in his book, is a collective working in synchronicity. If it fell to conformity to a centralized statehood it would immediately no longer be a union of egoists.

>you aren’t special
Not in special ed like some people ITT, no.

[Anonymous No.21724711]

>>21724709
>and does not advocate nor lead to conformist dictatorships
Neither does communism in theory.

[Anonymous No.21724719]

>>21724686
>States, kingdoms of varying types have always provided something for their laborers. Even a slave will get a slave house.
Well that's the point, that's basically the extend to which socialism can realistically successfully get implemented, like the Nordic socdem compromise.

[Anonymous No.21724726]

>>21724686
>States, kingdoms of varying types have always provided something for their laborers. Even a slave will get a slave house.
Literally no different than Oceania.

[Anonymous No.21724734]

>>21724711
>Neither does communism
You’re probably thinking of Marx and Lenin again. I already mentioned above, they’re fascists. “Dictatorship of the proletariat” is fascism and abhorrent and antithetical to actual communism.
Take the example of China and North Korea. They’re not free of state or capitalism. Quite the opposite. How is this so hard to grasp for people? These people are under fascism.

[Anonymous No.21724745]

>>21724719
That’s all just varying types of state-capitalism and therefore not NOT communism but reformist half-measures that never actually lead to the goal of the commune. Missteps. All of them.

>>21724726
>Oceania
Who-what?

[Anonymous No.21724753]

>>21724734
>These people are under fascism.
No shit. Communism motto is "It will work this time." but always ends up being fascism. Same with egoism. Niezsche's ideas are literally fascism if you don't read Kaufmann's gay translation.

[Anonymous No.21724764]

>>21724745
>That’s all just varying types of state-capitalism and therefore not NOT communism but reformist half-measures that never actually lead to the goal of the commune. Missteps. All of them.
Well it's either that or a failure/pipe dream. I'd rather be a prole in misstep Norway than in no step Somalia.

[Anonymous No.21724768]

>>21724745
>doesn't recognize 1984 reference
I think we are done here.

[Anonymous No.21724775]

>>21724753
You’re just now joining us ITT? Read the previous posts first.
Revolutions have thus far been squashed by conformist fools. The attempt to escape the cage isn’t what leads to the cage. We’re already in it. You suffer Stockholm syndrome, anon

[Anonymous No.21724781]

>>21722931
Wtf I love anarchist-individualism now?

[Anonymous No.21724804]

>>21724764
The very comfy corner of the prison planet is indeed an enviable place to hide out while the guards ravage other cells. I once thought like a common porch monkey, house negro, like you too.

This failure pipe-dream is the original mode of humanity and you never fully eradicate it. Of sure, a thousand generations of slave hood go from birth to death, yet somehow there’s still people that dream of freedom.

>>21724768
I’ve only read his nonfiction so far.
You know, Homage to Catalonia and all that

>>21724781
Fascism is conformity. Union of egoists are synchronization (and envisioned as temporary)

[Anonymous No.21724822]

>>21724032
>Everyone cannot operate that way. They won’t

'People' who require a state should be forcibly prevented from creating one until they die off or learn to be useful, self sufficient human beings. Active support of any form of state is a declaration of war on your fellow man.

[Anonymous No.21724839]

>>21724822
If the majority of the lower classes just united and where able to convince even more, the statists would give up eventually.

But society needs to stand in this organized way and strongly. So direct democracy all around is the only way.

[Anonymous No.21724846]

You know, between all the declarations from recent publications saying how liking things such as bodybuilding, old literature, spending time outdoors, and now anarchic-individualism all make you fascist, I'm starting to think that fascism is a Good Thing. Unironically.

[Anonymous No.21724864]

>>21724846

[Anonymous No.21724932]

>>21724864
hahahha this is literally American education perfectly encapsulated

[Anonymous No.21724945]

>>21724864
but I think its actually had the opposite effect. thats why you have so many cucks because they have to prove desperately that they arent evil

[Anonymous No.21724970]

>>21724945
The wheat is separating from the chaff

For every Rick and Morty beta male there is an autistic Korean hyperfascist NEETcel fixing the netcode for an Unreal Tournament / Thief total conversion mod that nobody plays anymore. When the time comes, the Rick and Morty beta males will burn away like an old growth forest and the Korean hyperfascist will grow into a beautiful sturdy oak and play Thievery with me and recommend me good chiptunes

[Anonymous No.21724976]

>>21724686
you seem to have an idea in your head and ignore all the evidence to the contrary to keep it alive. Fascist states owned a lot of important infrastructure and the things they didn't own they controlled in a way. They aligned society and all its industry to pursue the goals of bettering its people. That is in a way socialism but the part of marxism they rejected was egalitarianism. They didn't call themselves socialists for fun bud.

[Anonymous No.21725037]

>>21724970
>will grow into a beautiful sturdy oak
What kind of spookspeak is this?

[Anonymous No.21725187]

>>21724846
Fascism is liberalism and they continually steal terms for their own use. Capitalism is forever rebranding this way.

>>21724945
Cucks are conformists. (You’ve seen /pol/) Fascism. A bundle of sticks.

>>21724976
Sounds just like China. When you moving, bud?

[Anonymous No.21725207]

>>21725187
>Sounds just like China. When you moving, bud?
nta but it sounds like every contemporary developed nation.

fascism actually won the ideological battle of the 20th century, people just branded it in different ways.

https://dailycaller.com/2016/10/17/the-f-word/

read tricky nick's piece it's good

[Anonymous No.21725214]

>>21724229
Yeah but the thing is all the ww2 powers were pretty awful. Stalin, FDR, Churchill and Hitler were all awful. All of them war mongerers. He should have stayed neutral. Despite being a war mongerer in WW1 Mussolini was one of the only ones that wanted peace. Joining ww2 for him was an existential crisis.

After Italy fell he wanted to flea to Switzerland, he had certain documents. He blamed the allies a lot of the war and called them jusr as guilty as Hitler.

[Anonymous No.21725221]

>>21725207
>but it sounds like every contemporary developed nation.
Except for the “egalitarianism” according to that anon. Yeah, it does. Oligarchy vs. dictatorship do have their differences, but I hate them both

[Anonymous No.21725225]

>>21725214
Mussolini? He was eager to go lead the Salo Republic.

[Anonymous No.21725241]

>>21725187
So what do you conform to?

[Anonymous No.21725279]

>>21723917
>de Sade is the origin of fascism
retard alert

[Anonymous No.21725285]

>>21725241
Myself.
I advocate direct democracy as the only way to arrange a functional society. There is no contradiction between collective and individualism. Doing so would be easy and advantageous to all the world. Getting there is quite difficult, I know.

> Man is truly free only among cqnally free men; the slavery of even one human being violates humanity and negates the freedom of all.

[Anonymous No.21725306]

>>21725285
>cqnally
Equally. Damn pdfs

[Anonymous No.21725326]

>>21725285
Direct democracy is impossible in anything but small tribes where everybody can know and interact with everybody else, and even then, all communities and societies have intractable disputes that can't reasonably be solved by further debate and dialogue, e.g. because a critical decision needs to be made. Such differences and disputes scale up as the population scales, so that you get huge differences in basic worldview and subtle feeling about the world even between people who live in the same area. And again, when critical decisions need to be made, you necessarily have to disrespect people's ultimate right of democratic veto. Two classic examples are the imprisonment of conscientious objectors unless they consent to being drafted, and the imprisonment of tax evaders even if they have sincere convictions about tax being theft. The "democratic consensus" is necessarily reified into a police state with a monopoly on violence that then imprisons these people.

Locke had no solution to this problem except that he thinks when the problem is the tyranny of the police state (the ruler), "the people" will naturally rebel and create a new social contract. But he doesn't account for the much more common scenario in which part of the community says the state's actions are valid and another part doesn't. When the civil war ends with one side losing, the victorious side doesn't acknowledge the validity of the crushed opponent's right to rebel, it just says "finally we disciplined those crazy people and criminals." This is why the American Civil War is so interesting, because the Confederacy was probably legally and constitutionally correct that states could secede.

Rousseau tried to solve the problem by talking about how "the people," in the sense of a mass of individuals, needs to cathect is individual energies into a single "The People," and that the state really obeys the will of The People, not the people, because the latter is impossible. Rousseau was following classical political theory which viewed it as impossible or impractical to represent the capricious wills of endless individuals at a state level. At SOME point, a decision-making authority is suppressing what is "merely accidental" about the plurality, and what is essential and normative. But again we have the classic democratic problem of individuals whose desires have thus been classed as incidental counter-rejecting this classification as ITSELF incidental. Rousseau didn't have much of an answer either.

Around the same time, guys like Montesquieu and other intellectual fathers of the American and French Revolutions wrote a lot about republicanism and democracy, and mostly concluded that direct democracy is logically incompatible with republicanism. A mass of individuals is not a republic, it is actually more likely to be or to become a tyranny. The "publica" in "res publica" is Rousseau's The People, not individual persons.

[Anonymous No.21725329]

>>21725225
Yes because Italy was invaded by Germany. Mussolini was already dead during Salo. The only thing Salo was about was survival.

[Anonymous No.21725534]

>>21725285
>I advocate direct democracy as the only way to arrange a functional society. There is no contradiction between collective and individualism.
>tyranny by 51% of the population is just

[Anonymous No.21725538]

>>21725326
>Direct democracy is impossible in anything but small tribes
The size works to our advantage. And so too would a free economy, that’s the abolition of taxes, bankers etc. The abolition of prisons too.
Where there need be international supervision, say transportation, air, sea, rail, you might have elected specialists, but that would be their sphere of influence alone. Criminal murder trials my call for elections for judge-juries …
All can work out once we collectively put our minds to it. It would be the most socially healthy world

[Anonymous No.21725559]

>>21725534
N-n-n. A 51% vote for easy procedural votes like when to reconvene etc. thresholds for more important things can be set as high as 75%, 80% whatever your area agrees to. Something really important needs to consider the dissenting voices and work on concessions and such.
>oh noes! The tyranny of the majority!
Literally for the first time in history.

[Anonymous No.21725577]

>>21725559
How do we vote on the thresholds? Wouldn't that first vote be a 51% vote?

What if the 51% votes that the vote threshold to kill people for being homojewpocs should be 51% so they could kill them democratically?

[Anonymous No.21725583]

>Fascism is when you have a state

Do people really?

[Anonymous No.21725592]

>>21725577
>kill people
This kind of infringes on people’s autonomy, don’t you think?
Your neighborhood made up of genocidal neonazis?

[Anonymous No.21725601]

>>21725583
>pretending fascism is anarchism and not a tyrannical nationalist statism
Maybe you’re thinking of the lonely white supremacist

[Anonymous No.21725603]

>>21725592
>This kind of infringes on people’s autonomy, don’t you think?
I didn't realise we had a constitution already, who made that? Was it a democratic process?

[Anonymous No.21725612]

>>21725603
>now we’re writing up a constitution for our new republic
I can see you just got here. Please see the usher for a recap

[Anonymous No.21725691]

>>21725612
Honestly though who decided that individual autonomy precedes and overrules democracy? Is direct democracy inherently incompatible with the death penalty or killing of any type? What about imprisonment or corporal punishment or mere deprivation of the essentials of life?

[Anonymous No.21725834]

>>21725691
It doesn't.
Prison serves no purpose. If someone is loony, they need a medical confinement.
If there's a murderer, molester or rapist, they'd be held for trial, but who's to stop revenge killings or righteous self defense? A healthier world will result from one that doesn't produce sociopaths, so these things will grow more rare. That's what the Bakunin quote hints at here >>21725285

[Anonymous No.21725844]

>>21725834
So how do you deal with criminals? Declare everyone who acts immoral insane and confine them in non-prison?

[Anonymous No.21725861]

>>21725844
What criminal?

[Anonymous No.21725867]

>>21725834
>Prison serves no purpose. If someone is loony, they need a medical confinement.
You mean like communists did when they defined people as mentally abnormal for dissenting? You think all crazy people are catatonically crazy? 99% are lucid enough to say "no" when you say you are "just confining them medically," then say you're in fact the crazy one.

[Anonymous No.21725871]

>>21725861
Maybe criminal is already too legalistic a term, but let's say people who behave in such a way that the majority find extremely disagreeable, like your examples of murderers and rapists.

[Anonymous No.21725935]

>>21723153
The state isn't a real thing, but it's a useful tool. Fascism is the full scale mobilization of the imaginary aspects of the state (national glory, militaristic pagentry, imaginary idealized communities, etc.) towards various paticular ends.

Autocracy also seems more naturally egoist as a political model, by relying on informal relationships between people in power... Up to and including a supreme individual who singularly embodies the Nation as an idealized individual agent.

[Anonymous No.21725997]

>>21725225
M. refused to have anything to do with that up to the point that Hitler threatened to destroy several major Italian cities and massacre their civilian populations if he didn't. Painting him as an enthusiastic lucky is disingenuous at best.

[Anonymous No.21726095]

>>21725997
Man, I wish he really did threaten that.

[Anonymous No.21726117]

>>21725997
From the Wikipedia? It's citing pop history books. Try reading what Skorzeny says he said to him on the plane back from the Gran Sasso raid He didn't like the Germans' heavy-handed behavior, that's different from not fundamentally still wanting Fascism to live.

[Anonymous No.21726218]

>>21726117
Skorzeny was a Nazi shill and the actual facts of how Mussolini was brutally strong armed into leading the Salo Republic beforing being murdered by communist thugs have been scrubbed from wikipedia years ago.

[Anonymous No.21726223]

The legacy of Stirner is huge desu, since it includes the entire legacy of the plagiarist Nietzsche as well, as well as existentialism, absurdism, nihilism and postmodernism. Stirner is basically the true father of our age.

[Anonymous No.21726308]

>>21722931
You can justify any behavior with egoism. You do what is "beneficial" to yourself. It can lead to whatever.

What about De Sade?

[Anonymous No.21726411]

>>21723998
>Because you seethe that state exists so hard you kill everyone who doesn't conform to your no state policy, which has to be organized a la state law.
you just described communism and every other revolutionary mentality ideology

[Anonymous No.21726441]

>>21726223
being exposed to delusional takes like this is how browsing /lit/ can really be detrimental to your intelligence.

[Anonymous No.21726818]

>>21726441
I forgive you since it's not well known, so I'll give you a starting place despite being rude:

http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/ennietzsche.html

[Anonymous No.21726841]

>>21724775
>Revolutions have thus far been squashed by conformist fools.
Yes, and this will always happen.

[Anonymous No.21726859]

>>21723154
What about all the other fascist states and movements

[Anonymous No.21726881]

>>21726859
Hungary: failed modernity, serfs until 1947.
Spain: failed modernity.
Portugal: failed modernity, castrated by Great Britain, used as a lap dog.
Chile: failed modernity.
Norway: failed modernity.
Croatia: failed modernity.
Yugoslav Republic of Serbia: failed modernity.
Croatia: failed modernity on repeat.

Yeah, it seems like they all fail at modernity, but it makes the correlation look more and more non-causative.

[Anonymous No.21726893]

>>21726881
I was following this until Norway, can you describe the fascism of each case from then on?

[Anonymous No.21726947]

>>21725997
KYS!

HITLER LITERALLY WANTED PEACE NOT WAR YOU FUCKING ITALIAN TRAITOR FUCK.

Victor and the monarchists and vatican was right to BTFO mussolini and the italian fascists who were an embrassment and strain to hitler

https://www.ostarapublications.com/product/what-the-world-rejected-hitlers-peace-offers-1933-1940/

[Anonymous No.21726950]

>>21726881
>spain

>failed

retarded moment

[Anonymous No.21726955]

>>21726893
Norway's Quisling. This is in part a joke about "Germany as a failed state," when the German state was so effective that it survived Nazi *and* OKH misrule. Norway's civil society rapidly enabled fascist government. The "resistance" was minimal. Society cooperated.

Ustase Croatia is famously infamous. Look it up.
Croatia under Tudjman is not sufficiently famously infamous.
Serbia under Milosevic is sufficiently famously infamous.

In 1941 Ustase croats did the traditional go over the mountains and kill other southern slavs, as was traditional, but reimagined it through a lost national imaginary of super hyper croatia.

In 1987 the Serbia and Croatian nomenklatura elites used nationalist reimagination to fuel ethnic narratives of loss.

We may as well chuck modern Hungary in along with two other modern governments, you know which ones.

Fascism is a latent possibility in liberalism. It uses liberal concepts of nation and race to fuel a participatory state. It is possible pretty much everywhere.

I've given this lecture 20-30 times in the last 5 years, and I've got a head cold, so please forgive me for being a bit hostile about having to do the schtick again when all I want is a clear sinus and a wank.

[Anonymous No.21726958]

>>21724686
striner is garbage.

rothbard is garbage.

austrian economics and randianism is based.

[Anonymous No.21726963]

>>21726947
>>21725997
No fascist infighting you fucking niggers we have enough problems.

[Anonymous No.21726968]

>>21726955
I assumed your Norway and first Croatia were post-WW2 since Chile came before them, hence I was confused and figured this was some leftypol schizo interpretation of innocuous center-right governments as fascist, especially since they didn't "fail modernity" they were destroyed in WW2. Second Croatia is still a meme but whatever.

[Anonymous No.21726970]

>>21726963
Italian Fascists are the niggers of world war two


embrassing fucks

[Anonymous No.21726982]

>>21725285
like switzerland and early america???

[Anonymous No.21726988]

>>21726955
Ustase gets a lot of bad rep for le serbian holocaust

[Anonymous No.21727034]

>>21726955
What's your take on the apparent links between Catholicism and Fascism? It seems like most Catholic countries were ambivalent and/or supportive of fascism, and the bulk of fascist theory comes from deeply Catholic countries.

[Anonymous No.21727075]

>>21726988
>Ustase gets a lot of bad rep for le serbian holocaust
I see you think they didn't go too far enough.

>>21726968
>Second Croatia is still a meme but whatever.
I mostly bring up Tuđman to force left Germans into hysteric guilt trips about arming fascist light infantry to fight other fascist light infantry in Southern Europe. Milosevic is the more interesting fascist par fascism. Tuđman is more interesting as a fascist in terms of NATO's post 1980 flirtations with fascism-without-WWII-connections.

The list was ordered by me bringing up "and another thing"s until I got bored.

[Anonymous No.21727098]

>>21727034
Isn't it more a link between Catholicism and success? Or perhaps Catholicism and failed modern states? Rexism was unnecessary. The French fascists outsourced their coup d'main to the Germans (for a second time) in WWII.

Napoleon III is arguable a fascist, the first fascist, but he was culturally Concordat-Napoleonic-Enlightenment rather than catholic as such.

The Young Turks weren't particularly catholic, nor were in the Indonesians of Konfrontasi.

Failed European States with little option for a non-rupturous right settlement were more likely to be Catholic, thereby successful fascisms were more likely to be Catholic. The determinant is failed state structures.

Neither of Australia's underground fascist movements had to be activated. One was organised by a very British Jewish man. The other by Methodists. In both the Victorian and NSW cases, the activation of an extraparliamentary solution wasn't necessary. Victorian labour didn't have balls, and Lang didn't have guns.

[Anonymous No.21727119]

>>21722931
>It's pretty obvious why radical egoism leads to fascism in the end

I mean I grew up in the mincecore scene in the early 00s and now I want to see niggers die, so yeah, but I'm not sure I'm a fascist, maybe I'm just a racist.

[Anonymous No.21727130]

>>21726947
>hitler wanted peace with jews in london so he fan invade ussr in peace
He still wanted war nigger

[Anonymous No.21727149]

>>21727119
>but I'm not sure I'm a fascist, maybe I'm just a racist.
Does "The Nation" exist as a subjectivity? If you don't know what a subjectivity is: does "the nation" have a personality and think?

Does "The Nation" exist in "the essential determinant of race." For example race can be cultural an in "Italianness" or it can be in purported grandparenthood as in "Germanness (Aryanism)" or it can inhere in blood as in "White Americanism" such that one drop is a contaminant in theory (but not in practice)?

Does the existing order of things need to be toppled by heros of the race to protect The Nation from being defiled, polluted, and raped? (Possibly raped by communists, usually communists, sometimes anarchists, but only if those anarchists are communists).

Is the racial enemy historically indistinguishable from Communists? If you are in South Eastern Europe you *may* substitute Muslims. If you are in the United States you may substitute Powerful Built Black Men with Huge Intellects and even Huger Intellects That Intimidate me so I want to Suck their Intellect.

I mean "what is fascism" isn't a difficult question to answer. It isn't all that important in your case because you need to be kicked into spending years being fed through a tube before death from multiple systemic infections, but if you really need to know for yourself: if you have an obligation to become a hero to protect the nation as an inhering embodied race from defilement (ie rape) by black islamic communists then you're probably a fascist. If you just hate black people because you're a stupid fuck who is sexually fixated on black men then you're just racist.

[Anonymous No.21727161]

>>21727149
Retarded post

[Anonymous No.21727163]

>>21723917
>Secular
Fatherland Front Austria, Rexist Belgium, Falangist/Francoist Spain, Iron Guard Romania. I have no doubt if Fascism lasted longer it become more and more steeped in esotericism and religious symbolism.
>Military royalty
Like how Fascists directly competed with the military for power? Or how the military crowned it's own as Fascist dictator? Only true in the case of Spain, which was again only true by subverting the Falange.
Holy fuck, you are actually retarded.

[Anonymous No.21727166]

>>21725867
meds.
now.

[Anonymous No.21727167]

>>21724206
>>21724229
Not really. Fascist Italy was flailing regardless of Nazi alignment.
Invading Greece and Abyssinia was stupid but necessary to maintain legitimacy. He was screwed either way.

[Anonymous No.21727179]

>>21725935
>but it's a useful tool.
For lazy authoritarians. They already are egotistical. Stirner is about the rest of us waking up to the potential of our emancipation.
Thread was over early on. There's nothing left to say. OP book is a piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.21727180]

>>21727167
He invaded Abyssinia because Italians were migrating en masse. Having colonies mean Italian labour stays in the Italian nation, instead of having people emigrate to America or whatever.

I don't actually know why Mussolini invaded Greece. I have never seen a primary source document explaining why. Most likely has to do with gaining a foothold in Egypt and the Suez canal, a major military objective.

Italians soldiers did not expect resistance from Greeks. There are stories of Greek soldiers finding perfumes and other trinkets intrndef to be gifts for Greek women.

[Anonymous No.21727183]

>>21727180
>intrndef
Intended

[Anonymous No.21727186]

>>21727098
>Napoleon III
Not fascist by any stretch.
>The Young Turks
Also not Fascist. Don't know enough about Indonesia to comment.
> failed state structures
Expand please.

[Anonymous No.21727191]

>>21727180
Mussolini predicated his entire regime on call backs to the Italian past.
There's a good article (can't remember it now, it's late here) that explains for Fascism to work it must always be aggressively expanding or have an economy teetering on recession entirely. It's also convenient for dictatorships to maintain authority by venting frustration on foreign enemies, through propaganda or in extreme cases war.

[Anonymous No.21727192]

>>21727186
Early nationalism is fascist enough for examples. You clearly don't know enough about it.

[Anonymous No.21727193]

>>21727192
No, it isn't.
Your definition is far too broad to be reasonable by any measure.

[Anonymous No.21727200]

>>21727192
Not one major scholar of fascism would agree with you:
>not Nolte
>not Sternhell
>not Griffin
>not Payne
>not Gregor

[Anonymous No.21727205]

>>21727191
>Mussolini predicated his entire regime on call backs to the Italian past.
No he didn't.
>that explains for Fascism to work it must always be aggressively expanding or have an economy teetering on recession entirely
Fascism Italy only began expanding in 1935. This was 13 years after Mussolini became prime minister.
>or have an economy teetering on recession entirely
National debt lowered under Mussolini. GDP grew at a normal rate compared to the past as well as to other developing nations (which Italy was)
>It's also convenient for dictatorships to maintain authority by venting frustration on foreign enemies
Yes but I just explained why Italy invaded Abyssinia. Italy was overpopulated and there was an emigration problem.

[Anonymous No.21727209]

>>21725844
Depends on what the crime is and if the community is willing to forgive.
If the community doesn't want to live with this person, they could vote to kill him or to throw him out of the community.

[Anonymous No.21727215]

>>21727193
>by any measure.
>Nationalism cannot be measured by nationalism
>Not the French kind anywayyy!

>>21727200
They're nationalists with agendas

[Anonymous No.21727218]

>>21727215
Every single leading mainstream academic writer on fascism since 1945 is a nationalist crypto fascist?

[Anonymous No.21727223]

>>21727193
He's not me. I'm long winded.

>Napoleon III
Claimed frenchness was inhering as a cultural identity rooted in soil. Engaged in energy politics. Used cultural configurations as a politics in itself.

Napoleon III is the archetype of Marxist analyses of fascisms. I mean you can go down other pathways, but West German Marxist sociologists were *really* fucking guilty about something when they outlined a theory of fascism in the 1960s. Can't think of what…

Personally I use Horthy as my archetype of fascism.

>Young Turks
I dunno, there are a lot of Armenians who were quite successful Ottoman subjects, but weren't great members of the Turkish Racial Nation. That Ataturk was "Nicer"…

So state structure failure is when there's a blockage in politics which the existing institutions can't handle. Consider Jack Lang. NSW was faced with a political crisis where the UK wouldn't let NSW build what NSW capital demanded, because the UK turned the capital tap off. Jack Lang attempted to turn on the capital tap with power and passion. This posed a threat to Britishness in NSW, and two fascist paramilitaries formed: a more British One in the Old Guards, and a more Australian One in the New Guards. These both mobilised and engaged in proto-politics in case Lang wasn't dismissed.

However the British State due to some stuff that happened from 1620-1820 was very capable of dealing with crises: the Person of the Crown in NSW dismissed the Premier. If NSW didn't have this "relief valve" then the Guards would have had to have been activated to maintain capital control in NSW.

A lot of "New constitution" states in Europe lacked legal measure of relief, or depth of party politics and institutions, to allow for rapid changes in state politics within the existing state apparatus. The King Couldn't Just Appoint A Spending Prime Minister (non-communist), Mussolini had to march on Rome.

Weimar couldn't just get a violent old Junker to kill a lot of socialists and force the KPD underground: Hitler had to be appointed to kick shit. Junkers didn't know how to operate Weimar as a police state: Hitler [ie: the NSDAP apparatus] did. And yes it was largely appointing NSDAP leaders to positions, and then ordering the police to not intervene when the SA took unlawful mass actions.

[Anonymous No.21727226]

>>21727200
>Griffin
Yeah, Peter Griffin has some good stuff to say about fascism. Oh you meant Roger. I'm so sorry.

[Anonymous No.21727238]

>>21727179
If everyone just follows their ego without agreeing on any basic principles of organization, then you'll end up with a might makes right hobbesian scenario and that eventually leads to the formation of the state, you dumb anarkiddie.

[Anonymous No.21727250]

>>21727205
>No he didn't.
He appropriated Roman imagery and emphasized the betrayal of Italian colonial interests in WW1.
> Fascism Italy only began expanding in 1935. This was 13 years after Mussolini became prime minister.
Does not contradict what I said.
>National debt lowered under Mussolini
That's blatantly false.
>Abyssinia
I wasn't disagreeing.

[Anonymous No.21727258]

>>21727223
I agree Napoleon III was a nationalist but I don't conflate the two.
The Young Turks were liberals trying to impose a Turkish Liberalism. Genocide often goes hand in hand with Fascism but they aren't one and the same.
>state structure failure
Interesting.

[Anonymous No.21727277]

>>21727258
I see Napoleon III as reconstituting national honour through a project that is so collective an inhering that "raciality" is a reasonable category to use. Not going to piss in your beer over it though.

>Young Turks were liberals
You might want to look at some of the fascist programs. Fascism is not reactionary or conservative. Modernity has happened and will continue to happen in the fascist imaginary. Modernity must be disciplined as the female monstrosity that it is. Modernity must be raped into shape. Think about the British Liberal's view of the proletarian or Indian or Chinaman here. Genocide isn't the sin qua non I'm using on the Young Turks: restoration of an racial nation is.

>State stuff
It really fucking is interesting isn't it? Fascism is only "deployed" when existing movements fail to achieve the outcomes of stability that a "block" of capital at the national or regional level demands. There's more fascism in the funds than there is in Billy's skin, blood, accent, or lexicon.

[Anonymous No.21727278]

>>21727179
Striner is about the individual waking up to his unique, even egotistical, emancipation. Not about an idealized project for "the rest of us."

[Anonymous No.21727290]

>>21727250
>He appropriated Roman imagery
And? So did the Amerians in their architecture and constitution. Taking something from the past that works isn't the same as taking everything from it, and the only thing Mussolini really took from the Romans were some aesthetics, which isn't really Roman at all. Rather it is romantic interpretation of Roman imagery. The Roman salute is not roman at all, but a contemporary invention from a famous poet (D'annunzio)
>Does not contradict what I said
Clearly it does because expansion wasn't 'constant' as you said. Every single country on Earth at that time was invading another countries. The Italian nation did nothing unique in that regard.
>I wasn't disagreeing
There are practical reasons to invade and occupy someone elses land. It's realpolitik, not ideology.

[Anonymous No.21727293]

>>21727180
>There are stories of Greek soldiers finding perfumes and other trinkets intrndef to be gifts for Greek women.
Based Italians. I'm convinced that the only popular demand for colonialism within Italy was the desire for strange
https://youtu.be/BdiqI_mdLQk

[Anonymous No.21727361]

>>21724521
i used to think academics fear stirner and the silence about him was some kind of bad faith thing because they have shiver down the spine only to think about his ideas.
but after meeting and living with some real tangible academic teachers and counselors, i know they really (if they read him) would read stirner as some retard who is saying nonsense, or they would think he is not saying much about the real historic course of philosophy and really dont think much about his egoism, thinking is some kind of polemicist just for the sake of controversy. academic people take society for granted, they are sociable, diplomatic people at heart and mind. stirner will always be for outcasts. not really for academic people. that is the reason for the silence, i think.

[Anonymous No.21727380]

>>21727361
You need to do a Sociology of Humanities and Arts on stirner's position:

The most important work is Marx and Engels shit beating him for 3 times the length of his own works, and Marx and Engels didn't even publish the beat down.

It is impossible to get a job with that as your BIG TICKET CV ITEM.

Now if you *DID* want to get a job doing Stirner studies my advice would be to do Stirner versus Land, a sociology of failed petits bourgeois, and try to wedge your way into a History and Philosophy of Science / Science and Technology Studies department.

[Anonymous No.21727397]

>>21727238
>>21727278
You haven't read it.

[Anonymous No.21727494]

>>21727397
>everyone should just stop being a wagie lol
Literally idealism
He doesn't even understand that people are caught up in material processes and social relations beyond their control

[Anonymous No.21727529]

>>21727494
>He doesn't understand Germans in the 1800s were caught up in the social fight of their lives
lol filtered.

[Anonymous No.21727781]

>>21725583
Fascism is the exaltation of the state above the individual. Of course the mere existence of any state is an assault on the individual and justifies killing everyone who supports it. Fascism is just even worse than a regular state.

[Anonymous No.21727802]

>>21727494
It's only idealism if you're a coward.

[Anonymous No.21727808]

>>21727215
>nationalism is fascism

Are you the moron who edited wikipedia to present ANARCHO-nationalism as a form of fascism(ultra STATISM)?

You can be an absolute ethno nationalist without believing in fascist economic or political principles.

[Anonymous No.21727921]

>>21726411
Yes. Funny how the shoe fits unity of egoists so well.

[Anonymous No.21727925]

>>21727397
>read my meme philosophy
lol no
Stirner is just Ayn Rand for hipsters

[Anonymous No.21727977]

>>21727802
heroic sentiment

[Anonymous No.21728298]

>>21727290
>Roman
That's disingenuous though. Fascist Italy clearly used more Roman imagery than the US and consciously tried to insert itself into that lineage.
>Clearly it does because expansion wasn't 'constant' as you said. Every single country on Earth at that time was invading another countries.
I realize you are exaggerating to prove a point so I won't be pedantic, but the expansion of Italy was far more rapid and also qualitatively different from other European expansion.
>There are practical reasons to invade and occupy someone elses land. It's realpolitik, not ideology.
All the reasons I provided are also Realpolitik - invading to expand resources or solidify political positions are all realpolitik.

[Anonymous No.21728307]

>>21728298
>government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically.
https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

[Anonymous No.21728352]

>>21727925
>No NOOO NOO WON'T READ. NOooooOOOOOooo

Leave /lit/

>>21727808
>ANARCHO-nationalism
Like the book in OP is pushing? No. I am the opposing viewpoint on this. A nationalist and a fascist both practice capitalism. I don't care what flavor. It's like comparing baseball teams, whereas I promote hikers, and Stirner, the lone mountain climber

[Anonymous No.21728365]

>>21728298
>That's disingenuous though. Fascist Italy clearly used more Roman imagery than the US
How can you measure that? Really, what does the use of imagry in architecture or symbols tell us about a political movement? Is there some deep metaphysical meaning behind a choice in architecture? What does 'Roman imagry' even mean? Rome lasted for millenium, it's history long and intricate. It had times of prosperity and times of decline. I already stated that some of the Roman 'imagry' the Fascists used weren't even Roman at all. They had the Fasces, used commonly by every nation to represent justice. Mussolini called Italians 'Roman', but indeed it is common for many Italians to take pride in the Roman Empire.

But what does the form of imagry of the Fascists tell us about it's substance? Does it tell us anything about policy, law, events, or anything of the sort? It doesn't tell us anything at all! Only that the Fascists liked eagles, and the Romans also liked them. Other than that this information tells us absolutely nothing.
>I realize you are exaggerating to prove a point so I won't be pedantic, but the expansion of Italy was far more rapid and also qualitatively different from other European expansion.
How so? England, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal all had colonial posessions. Italy too needed them, because of the aforementioned emigration problem. Emigration hurts the economy, and the solution was more land.
>All the reasons I provided are also Realpolitik - invading to expand resources or solidify political positions are all realpolitik.
Then what is the problem with invading countries? If it's 'realpolitk' you cannot say Fascism is predicated on expansion. Nations are predicated on expansion. Nations vent frustration on foreign enemies? What are Fascists? They are just people, governing a country. There is no ideology to follow, no book of Fascist tenants. Just realpolitk. Like democracy, dictatorship, or any kind of political system. Just agents of will.

[Anonymous No.21728368]

>>21728352
>NOOOOO YOU MUST WASTE TIME ON MY EDGY PHILOSOPHY NOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.21728392]

>>21728352
>"if you don't read, leave /li-"
newfag spotted

[Anonymous No.21728457]

>>21728392
>Hey, buddy. /lit/ don't Reid no mo, sees? *Pulls switchblade* *pops bubblegum*

[Anonymous No.21728462]

>>21728365
>How can you measure that?
Objectively. American obsession with Rome never went beyond names. The Senate, cities, etc. never mirrored their Roman counterparts. Italy went beyond an aesthetic.
>no book of Fascist tenants
There literally is. There is no one solution to problems posed in politics - the questions and answer are all formulated according to the political system. You can make any given number of decisions within a political system, but those decisions are conditioned by whatever system.
It's why you don't see democratic countries invading their neighbours (save for some third world shit holes)
Just because everything is an agent of will doesn't mean there are no identifiable patterns, or that you can't distinguish ideologies.

[Anonymous No.21728514]

>>21728462
>Italy went beyond an aesthetic.
How? Can you explain?
>There literally is
There isn't. If you're thinking of the doctrine of fascism Mussolini ordered all copies to be recalled because he changed his mind.
> the questions and answer are all formulated according to the political system
The questions and answers are formulated based on what the goals of the rulers are.
>It's why you don't see democratic countries invading their neighbours
Democracies don't go to war with one another because they are all ruled by the same people.
>Just because everything is an agent of will doesn't mean there are no identifiable patterns
Yes but you are looking at the wrong places.
>or that you can't distinguish ideologies.
But what you call 'ideology' is just the psychology of an individual and their political aims. Why do you think Fascism is called an incoherent political ideology? Because Fascism is not an ideology at all, but simply Mussolini's Realpolitik. That is why Fascism was at once Monarchist, once republican, once left, once right, once liberal, once reactionary, once revolutionary. They acted in accordance to what was tactically necessary at the time.

[Anonymous No.21728557]

>>21728352
>A nationalist and a fascist both practice capitalism

Nartionalism can have any economic system. Fascism is an anti capitalist collectivist ideology born out of Italian leftism, even when people retain 'ownership' of industry it is controlled by the state claiming to represent the people. The people running Krupp in WW2 did not actually own anything, their 'property' was only theirs as long as the state believed they acted in the interests of the volk.

[Anonymous No.21728569]

>>21728365
>There is no ideology to follow

>Fascist political philosophers write books explaining what the ideology is and where it came from
>people claim they 'had no ideology'

[Anonymous No.21728571]

>>21723153
because it's the whore of Babylon

[Anonymous No.21728588]

>>21728514
>Italy went beyond an aesthetic.
The specific justification and motivation for the ideology was Roman tradition (not the Republic) I've already explained this in previous posts as well.
>Democracies don't go to war with one another because they are all ruled by the same people.
Oy vey I wished you had saved me time by stating outright what your beliefs were.
>Fascism was at once Monarchist, once republican, once left, once right, once liberal, once reactionary, once revolutionary.
Fascism is called those things but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Mussolini's own influence doesn't mean that Fascism didn't exist as a doctrine.
I also don't think we're arguing against points. I would say pragmatism was a cornerstone of Fascist policy but it's not fair to say the totality of Fascism was Mussolini's individual goals.
Same with the incoherent political ideology, I don't agree. It's evident to me it ran on it's own internal logic.

[Anonymous No.21728609]

>>21728588
>Oy vey I wished you had saved me time by stating outright what your beliefs were.

>everybody who opposes our corrupt globalist system hates Jews

Why do you stand with the enemy?

[Anonymous No.21728622]

>>21728609
I do not.

[Anonymous No.21728625]

>>21728588
>The specific justification and motivation for the ideology was Roman tradition
No, it wasn't. May you explain how?
> I've already explained this in previous posts as well.
You haven't explained what Roman 'tradition (whatever that is) has to do with Fascism.
>Oy vey I wished you had saved me time by stating outright what your beliefs were.
My beliefs are irrelevant I am just trying to argue objectively.
>Mussolini's own influence doesn't mean that Fascism didn't exist as a doctrine.
Then what is the doctrine of fascism? There was a book, called the 'doctrine of fascism' but Mussolini went 'whoops! this is no longer the doctrine of fascism'. and changed his mind. There has to be a reason for that, don't you think? Doctrine of Fascism is just one of Mussolini's written works. His collected works are over 25 volumes. If you are going to characterize the 'doctrine of fascism' from that 50 page pamphlet, there are 10,000 other pages of works waiting for you to be analyzed.
>Same with the incoherent political ideology
Of course, though I didn't call it incoherent, I just said it was not some kind of ideological system, with a logic or a metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.21728678]

>>21728625
>You haven't explained what Roman tradition
In their own words they use the Roman tradition. It's not just according to me.
>Then what is the doctrine of fascism?
Extreme Nationalism, the centralization of political power and the economy, rule by a single dictator etc. It's not hard to find these.
>I just said it was not some kind of ideological system
That's the main part I was arguing against.

[Anonymous No.21728756]

>>21728678
>In their own words they use the Roman tradition
Where?
>Extreme Nationalism
What does this mean?
>the centralization of political power
There was a parliament!
> the economy
Economic policy was very different throughout each year. One of the first things that was done under Mussolini was privatization and the destruction of monopolies in favor of new industry.
>rule by a single dictator etc
But Fascist Italy was not ruled by a single dictator. There was a king, and Mussolini was primine minister. In 1943 the parliament voted Mussolini out and had him arrested!
>That's the main part I was arguing against.
But what is this ideology? Here is a quote from another 'doctrine' of Fascism, from Mussolini's own 'Diaturna'
>Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth … then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity... From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.

[Anonymous No.21728857]

>>21728557
>Fascism is an anti capitalis
Wrong. Capitalism in the hands of the state still functions as capitalism. I don’t call it “free market” here

[Anonymous No.21728866]

>>21728857
>a mode of production in the hands of the state
wut

[Anonymous No.21728883]

>>21727361
I think it's mostly the simple fact that he is so destructive/negative and that there is little to be done with that for academics. They like philosophers that allow them endless wankery like Hegel.

Same reason the Greek Sceptics have never been refuted but philosophy just quietly moved on because their first priority is having philosophy to do, not truth. It's like a sophism industrial complex.

[Anonymous No.21728929]

>>21728756
>Where?
Repeatedly. It's so widespread you can read almost any Fascist literature and it comes up.
>What does this mean?
Using definitions from other sources -
nationalism - Nationalism is an ideology that emphasizes loyalty, devotion, or allegiance to a nation or nation-state and holds that such obligations outweigh other individual or group interests.
>There was a parliament!
Mussolini reworked the parliament so extensively it did not function as a representation of the people's vote (plurality receiving the majority)

Other than that, interesting quote. I've only studied the Iron Guard in depth, so I have no ability to draw on extensive Fascist documents etc. My only exposure has been through history textbooks, works by Mosley, the Doctrine of Fascism (although I read this some years ago) and an essay collection.

[Anonymous No.21729001]

>>21728929
>Repeatedly. It's so widespread you can read almost any Fascist literature and it comes up.
Mhm which ones?
>Nationalism is an ideology that emphasizes loyalty, devotion, or allegiance to a nation or nation-state and holds that such obligations outweigh other individual or group interests.
I think this is a very bad definition. Nationalism has appeared numerous times in history, each of them had taken a different form. I wouldn't think that the Nationalism of Rousseau and that of Charles Maurras are comparable.
>Mussolini reworked the parliament so extensively it did not function as a representation of the people's vote
Yes, the parliament voted and the parliament represented the people.
> I've only studied the Iron Guard in depth, so I have no ability to draw on extensive Fascist documents etc
When I talk about Fascism, with a capital F I am only talking about Mussolini and Italy. I reject the theory of there being any kind of generic Fascism.

[Anonymous No.21729113]

>>21729001
>Mhm which ones?
Doctrine of Fascism, I wasn't aware Mussolini didn't like it.
>I think this is a very bad definition.
I'm curious what yours is. I usually limit it to the development of Nationalism with the rise of Liberalism in the late 1700s early 1800s onwards.
>When I talk about Fascism, with a capital F I am only talking about Mussolini and Italy.
That's interesting, and I can see your viewpoint. I'd have to read more to argue for or against that.

[Anonymous No.21729279]

>>21724970
weirdly specific

[Anonymous No.21729324]

>>21729113
>Doctrine of Fascism
roman empire wasn't mentioned there!
>I'm curious what yours is.
I like Gentile's.
>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.
>That's interesting, and I can see your viewpoint. I'd have to read more to argue for or against that.
If there was any universal way to characterize fascist ideology the 1934 montreux conference wouldn't have failed!

[Anonymous No.21729401]

There is only one individualist political philosophy, "traditional" liberalism (what is now called civil libertarianism). All the sophistry in the world cannot change the fact that a police regime that subjects all life to centralized control by the party is the exact opposite of individualism.
The real question is why a fascist would attempt to appropriate individualism for his state-worshipping philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21729410]

>>21723917
>De Sade is the origin of fascism
A small black spot in an otherwise excellent post.

[Anonymous No.21729730]

>>21729324
Doctrine of Fascism:
>The Fascist State expresses the will to exercise power and to command. Here the Roman tradition is embodied in a conception of strength. Imperial power, as understood by the Fascist doctrine, is not only territorial, or military, or commercial; it is also spiritual and ethical. An imperial nation, that is to say a nation which directly or indirectly is a leader of others, can exist without the need of conquering a single square mile of territory. Fascism sees in the imperialistic spirit — i.e., in the tendency of nations to expand — a manifestation of their vitality.

[Anonymous No.21729790]

>>21725285
I find it preferable if I am ruled by distant bureaucrats than some nosy collective of neighbors. The former allows for at least some personal freedom.

[Anonymous No.21729794]

>>21729730
>>21729730
This really doesn’t say much of anything other than
>imperialism good!
What world power didn't practice imperialism then, save for the Soviet Union? (And even then it invaded mongolia, baltics, finland, among others)

This really doesn't have anything to do with rome at all, other than ROME WAS POWERFUL, WE TOO WILL BE POWERFUL

Catch my drift?