Thread 17888627

Why is it impossible for anyone to accurately describe Fascism and/or Nazism? I've come to believe the fault is with Umberto Eco and his intentionally vague and deceptive description of Fascism combined with the sort of paranoid delusion of far-leftism allowed to run wild.

Eco delibertly defined Mussolinis philosophy in a vague way and at time deliberately (as I see it) mislead the reader. The cornerstone example of this is "corporatism" which is often taken to mean when private businesses run the state.

>>17888627 (OP)
its a combination of revolutionary socialism and german or italian idealism, nothing more nothing less.

Postmodernism enables letting your emotional reaction to a word influence its actual definition. It's the mistake people make when they emotionally decide what axiom they would like and then define their epistemology and metaphysics from there.

>>17888661
cont; I forgot to add, this has ruined public discourse for almost a century now. 2000 year old boyfuckers in togas debated in better faith than we do now.

>>17888664
>>17888661
I agree. I do think in general "debate" was plagued by retards banging their heads against each other saying "No, Im right!" but at least the elites and intelligent came from a place of trying to reach the truth together through debate.

With post modernism, truth is subjective so now debate in open forums is just this stupid zero-sum game of using any underhanded trick to get your "truth" to be "the truth" for normies and its worse because even the "educated" behave like this.

>>17888627 (OP)
>this person who is demonstrably smarter and more successful than I am said something I disagree with, please assure me I'm correct and he is wrong, I cannot stand the cognitive dissonance
maybe stop being a fascist retard who worships other fascist retards
they lost, by the way
you lost
and you will lose again, even if enough retards like you get their way for a while

>>17888687
Exactly, truth and "being right" is a tool to achieve the political agenda of whatever group you belong to instead of discovering reality together. It's sickening.

>>17888627 (OP)
Nothing to gain by taking a nuanced and realistic approach to what our society is founded on opposing. It's the image that counts.

>>17888627 (OP)
Ultra-Authoritarian Nationalist.

Boom

>impossible for anyone to accurately describe Fascism and/or Nazism?
>National Socialism

>>17888627 (OP)
It's just a bunch of queers getting together and having some strongman tell them what to do with their lives. Pathetic shit really.

>>17888897
Trump's a lib

>>17888627 (OP)
Umberto Eco's list of fascist traits is very popular but it seems more based on vibes.

Part of the problem is that fascism is kind of based on vibes. Theory wasn't a strong point for movements devoted to the inadequecies of reason and the superiority of instinct and will. There are people who recommend Giovanni Gentile, but the intellectuals were more decorative elements to fascism and not the substance of it. The communists were different and Lenin was an intellectual in addition to being a politician, and if you were a communist, you'd end up finding yourself citing Lenin as an intellectual authority in your arguments.

But the fascists were also different from traditional authoritarian rightists in that they sought to appeal to the masses. At the time, there were a lot of old-fashioned authoritarian conservatives like Franco and Mannerheim. They didn't have a particular ideological agenda other than being anti-communist and having the same biases as land-owning aristocrats and military men in Europe did. There was also a strong nostalgia for the Middle Ages in which each social group had its part to play in an "organic" collective. There are notions of old-fashioned chivalry too and dislike of rationalism and the modern bugman existence. They felt that the communists were going to turn people into souless automatons.

The fascists appealed to a different social base from the conservatives. They didn't appeal to church and king but wanted to get the masses in the mix. They appealed to tradition and certain aspects of that, and they didn't like modern art. But they sought to replace the church and king with their own party which was like a cult. The Nazis also had crazy ideas about breeding a super-race through eugenics. It's like revolutionaries for counter-revolution. The Nazis also adopted a red flag and called themselves the National Socialist Workers Party and made May 1st a state holiday:
https://youtu.be/oYZjNdKH6s8

In other words, it might be helpful to nail down what they had in common with the non-fascist right (anti-communism, nostalgia for trad / Middle Ages and the "corporative" model, which was tied up in that). But also what they didn't have in common, which was building a mass movement. Mass politics. Mass rallies. This was a whole thing fascism. Then you throw in some crackpot theories.

That's part of the appeal of it. I think people who sometimes get drawn to Hitler as a "misunderstood" figure do so because they have certain prejudices which they have in common with other rightists, and they're also told that Hitler was a crazy dictator but then they see the mass participation of Germans in this movement, which also makes liberals uncomfortable. All progressive-minded people identify with mass democracy, but what if the masses are xenophobic? You have mass nationalism or mass xenophobia. That's very disturbing. But if tens of millions of Germans were into this and actively participating in this as a mass movement, were they wrong? Well, I think so (and I think most Germans would agree with me), but it feels very powerful.

It belonged to an age of mass movements. You see this as a theme over and over again in fascist movies. Look at the beginning of Kolberg, which is a Nazi film that depicts the defense of this East Prussian city during the Napoleonic Wars, and the people in the city are engaged in mass politics as they mobilize to "unleash the storm," which I don't think was the reality during the actual battle in the war, but this is how the Nazis saw themselves:
https://youtu.be/lsoQOQvNrAw

Its the Cult of the Big Black Cock

securing cult agendas by enforcement of the state for the subjugation of the common man

not to be confused with vain symbols branded on cattle involved in dialectic theater...aka useful idiots

Because the Elite are fascist,
plebs are plebs whom are nothing but an expendable means to an end

>>17888888
Nobody checked these fucking digits? This board is reddit

>>17888888
CHECKED

>>17888627 (OP)
I just found out about this Eco guy and he's obviously trying to be as passive aggressive as he can. It's the hallmark of liberal ideology to approach a problem with as much subterfuge and hidden bias as possible, rather than confront directly. Still have not read his book but it doesn't seem to hold much value on that subject. It is interesting since you can use it to dissect liberalist paradigms and methodologies. The most egregious attempt to "understand fascism" is how willingly ignorant Eco and the liberal camp argue from, usually by confusing the means and the ends. For the liberal, having undemocratic systems of government is juxtaposed with their own reference to upholding an illusion of democracy, and the Ecoists and liberalists will say that it is the end goal of fascism, whereas the for the nationalists it is merely a means to an end. The actual goal, building a nation either materially or culturally, is neglected entirely, it seems. Thus the argument has shifted away from what nationalists actually talk about to what liberalists think is important, and the means to achieve nationhood are swapped with the endgoals.

It's national socialism bro

>>17888888
Checkerino

>>17889092
Trump is a sociopathic narcissist with no ideology or even philosophy. He's just a creature of the nightmare society at this point in his strange life.

The real redpill is that fascism and nazism are both a leftist ideology. The ot thing that makes it right wing is its nationalism, but then again, the USSR (and North Korea and Kampuchea)was heavily nationalistic, but people always retort with "but it wasnt real communism".

>>17889407
when people say "leftist" what do they really mean? What actual factors determine if an ideology is left? Because it seems to just be an amorphous insult, probably just based on the sound of the word I bet, it rolls off the tongue and has a singsong lilt which makes it attractive to sophists.