Slop.

i'm not sure if I like that diagnosis either. At best you could say fascism is capitalism's defense in response to specific circumstances regarding a confluence of various things all happening at once, including but not limited to inflation, restless population, stark economic class division, and a pre-existing imperial state apparatus that either has nowhere to go or has become so bloated it turns inward. Also necessary would be either a robust leftist presence or at least the perception of a large leftist presence. Now this guy is a liberal, but Robert O. Paxton is a pretty good historian who defines fascism as "suppression of the left amidst popular enthusiasm." And while I think there's more to it, that is a huge component of it.

I say this because capitalism has other defensive tools for other circumstances, especially circumstances in which no robust leftist organization exists. Like austerity for instance, that one is a much more wielded tool in capitalism's immune system. Another would be increasingly complex abstraction of labor value, like I could point to the corporate raiding strategies that publicly traded companies took in the 1980s, and even the legal countermeasures put in place afterwards were part of further abstraction.

yeah so it is a good pithy statement to say fascism is capitalism's defense mechanism, but i do believe we should be aware there are others and that fascism requires certain circumstances to actually get off the ground. Since I do think there's a difference between an earnest fascist political movement and imperialist genocidal capitalism using fascist rhetoric (we have both of those two in the USA right now)

I am much more on the "actually existing fascism" train

Defense mechanism isn't entirely inaccurate, but it puts the cause at opposition to capitalism instead of internal to capitalism's need to expropriate

my dumb ass is out here having a real job meanwhile this guy gets paid to be wrong on the internet and probably makes way more than me

The real proof that much of the west is functionally illiterate

Mussolini and Hitler certainly differed on their approach to race. Like Mussolini famously stated that he did not believe racial purity could exist. But he also stated already in the early 1920s (Before Hitler rose to power) that fascism arose out of the racial needs of Aryan-Italians.

For me nazis are just "communists" (populists, really) who betrayed internationalism. Sorry you're not better than other workers coz you live on the right side of your made up lines

actually in both communism and fascism mother yells at you to do stuff. that's what authoritarian means. liberalism might not be perfect but it's the only system that provides us with a wide variety of cereal mascots

~~Our first unironic iberotropicalist~~. Fuck i fear this joke migbt be too dumb and european.

Lusotropicalism is a weird idea that portugal practised non racist colonialism and developed a sort of multicultural nationalism, because of its history as a nationality developed from multiple groups like visigoths, romans and moors the portugese were inherently less racist and their colonial projects were also inherently less racist. Iberotropicalism is the same idea but Spain.

Fascism is a response to Communism. Fascism was made after WWI, after the Soviet Revolution. Fascism was invented to stop Communism. The premise of Fascism is the inversion of Communism. In response to whatever Communists want to do, Fascists say they want to do the opposite.

Fascists did look at Communist concepts and changed them to be the opposite. For example, Mussolini believed that one of the main pillars of fascism is class collaboration, which is the opposite of class struggle. Marxists believe that the working class should struggle against the capitalist class, with the goal of abolishing class. Fascists believe that the working class should collaborate with the capitalist class for the purposes of Nationalism, they think that their own nation will become stronger if the working class just submits to the capitalist demands.

As someone else pointed out, "race communism" does sound a lot like "national socialism". I think this demonstrates how Fascists distort communist concepts. Fascists want to trick workers away from being Communist. Even like the symbolism of Fascism itself feels like a distortion of communism. Fasces, a bundle of sticks being stronger than a single stick. This seems like a distortion of the concept of labor organizing.

There is a concept in fascism, nazism, white supremacy called "race consciousness", someone who is conscious of their own race in relation to other races. I believe Mussolini had this concept as well.

Communists believe in class consciousness. Fascists believe in race consciousness. Communists believe in class war. Fascists believe in race war. Class war is real, race war is not real.

Mussolini, the founder of Fascism, used to be a good communist and head editor of the most popular Italian communist newspaper. He was expelled from the party for his pro-WWI stance, but promised that he would continue pursuing socialism no matter what.

He obviously betrayed all of his ideals in the process of becoming a fascist, but right-wingers believe that he indeed never stopped being socialist, and that fascism was just the non-Marxist pursuit of socialism outside of the normal left-wing Italian parties.

i think it probably comes from fascist roots being traced back to yellow socialism. but more than that i am not sure fascism actually does support free private enterprise. i mean fascism is so messy and loosely defined and every implementation is different but there can be an aspect of picking winners and losers by the government that is beyond what would happen in a free enterprise system.

anyway "race communism" is an awful way of describing fascism. every way of describing fascism is an awful way of describing fascism but i feel like lenin's description of it being capitalism in decay is probably the only good one or at least the least bad one.

First and foremost the "fascism is socialism" crap is so widespread because it is convenient to the ruling class. It is one way in which you can justify having a safe centrist ideology that will be socially acceptable and not get you in trouble with powerful people.

It is no coincidence that there are these superficial similarities, fascism was developed as an antidote to socialism, a form of inoculation that would make the same kinda of appeals while being completely harmless to the bourgeoisie.

Like all other good pieces of propaganda it has a kernel of truth, while being fundamentally different and opposite ideologies, fascism and socialism shares some superficial differences that are easier to spot for the historically and politically illiterate than the deeper structural changes that actually matter.

Fascism and socialism are both revolutionary in rhetoric, saying that the old system must go. This puts both in opposition to the liberal-conservative mainstream. But while socialism is revolutionary in praxis, fascism is revolutionary only in aesthetics while being materially conservative.

Another superficial similarity is the appeal to the downtrodden masses, both makes promises of bread and dignity. Again, this puts both socialism and fascism at odds with the mainstream who openly detest the people. While socialism is actually about delivering on those promises, fascism is all about entrenching the class rule that leeches off the people while only delivering on those grand promises to a small in-group.

This idea that fascism somehow has something to do with socialist or communist ideas is so prevalent, but where does it come from?

Chuds think:

Mussolini was a socialist, ergo fascism is just communism. And hits like: Hitler was a communist who wanted to kill all Christians.

Libs think:

Fascists are "authoritarian", tankies are "authoritarian", therefore both are the same.

I had a guy once tell me that socialism could still lead to imperialism because "the state could benefit its workers by invading another country to steal its wealth and give it to them."

I asked him what he thought "workers of the world unite" meant and his response was "that's just a slogan"