/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Equating fascism to dubstep is disrespectful.
But yea, fascism is an overused term thrown around by progressives, especially as a generational slur millennials are now using against their juniors.

>>485614 (OP)
I don't think fascism has a precise definition. You can say that it is what the Germans were in the 40's. But you can see parallels of what happened around WW2 in our time with what America is doing (for example the Palestinian genocide) and expansionism in general. Capitalism tends towards crisis and capitalism in crisis tends towards war and genocide.

I would argue that fascism today looks like Zionism. Racist ideology mixed with violent expansionism.

You can also roughly divide the world into two alliances at the moment, pic related. There are countries that took in nazis post WW2 instead of killing them, equate communists with fascists and in general cannot fully and honestly condemn nazism because they are fundamentally no different.

My personal thinking is that at this point you can take any single issue, let's take the ongoing genocide in Gaza as the obvious one, and see who is funding this. Those are of course fascists but the word doesn't matter here. They're bad guys. Next we can look at who is counter-protesting the pro-Palestinian movement: yes there are plants and feds but there are less vocal people that maybe only posting online in support of Israel, they are obviously fascists too since they're pro-genocide and pro-colonialism. But here is my main point: there are other people who are either completely silent on the issue, or act annoyed that pro-Palestinians are disrupting ordinary life with their peaceful protests.

These people, that heard the news, saw the protests, and cannot in good faith claim ignorance, that still go to Starbucks and refuse to speak out against genocide are the real supporters of fascism today. At some point when you stand by and watch as horrible shit happens to people, and you do not take a side, that makes you complicit.

I propose bringing back a simple slogan to combat this: "If you're not with us you're against us".

(image context: https://press.un.org/en/2024/gashc4428.doc.htm)

Trotsky probably had the most coherent definition of fascism: it's simply the violent reaction on the part of the capitalist class to a failed revolution. Fascism isn't something you "resist", it's a scenario you prevent from happening by winning the struggle against capitalism.

>>485623
>prevent from happening by winning the struggle against capitalism
I think we failed to prevent it this time anon.

>>485623
No that's a bad definition because what counts as a failed revolution is way too fuzzy.

Also it doesn't really track with WW2. The Russian revolution succeeds and then arguably big capital installs fascism in Germany in order to use (and ultimately sacrifice) it in a violent reaction to a revolution that didn't fail.

By Georgi Dimitrov's definition, fascism is generated by the most reactionary faction of imperial finance capital. That's sort of the standard definition.

>>485624
>I think we failed to prevent it this time anon.
Technically you could see Ukraine as fascist, because they abolished elections, all the opposition politics/media, killed innocent people like Gonzalo Lira, and of course they sacrificed huge amounts of people on behalf of the reactionary imperial finance bourgoisie. However i would rather count Ukraine as partially fascist. I think there is a stronger case to see Israel as having gone full fascist.

So in that sense yes you would be correct that it wasn't prevented.

Whether it was preventable is another question. Like what would have changed the course of Israel ? Or in Ukraine's case, that was set in motion with a CIA color revolution in 2014. That was a novel technique and there weren't any counters at the time.

>>485620
This. Except for:
>but there are less vocal people that maybe only posting online in support of Israel, they are obviously fascists too since they're pro-genocide and pro-colonialism.
I don't think all of the lazy people are Fascists, although some of them are. Libs who were like "the genocide is bad, sure, but everyone should vote for it anyway because abortion" are maybe the most insidious doormen to Fascism around, because they pretend to be opposing it while offering ineffective critiques and ultimately supporting it. So, to be sure, I disagree with you on your point about the lazies, but there is still a good point to be made for people whose "laziness" does fall into a much more sinister camp.

>>485626
You realize Germany had a revolution after WWI, and then the Nazis only came to power when the socialists and communists failed to seize power. Trosky's definition very much tracks with the German case.

>>485627
>So, to be sure, I disagree with you on your point about the lazies, but there is still a good point to be made for people whose "laziness" does fall into a much more sinister camp.
Yes we have to exclude people who are simply ignorant because they live under a rock and have daily lives to deal with. But I'm talking about liberals and cowards.

Let's re-examine this quickly. I have two problems, one is simply moral and it's the easiest to explain:

Can you do harm through inaction? If you are within reach to save a drowning child out of a pool when no one else is around, but you don't, are you not a piece of shit? Maybe cringe but Isaac Asimov's first law of robotics comes to mind: a robot shall not harm a human or through inaction allow a human to come to harm.

The second is a more practical question, can someone through inaction actually be working against a socialist movement? Can non-participation be an active counter to progress?

Well what if this person was educated on the matter and asked to participate in an issue affecting everyone in the country but they choose not to?

I'm not actually sure if this causes harm. But I think this is what bothers me: the reality is more like a fight. Think school. When there is a fight you often see people not stepping in when one of the aggressors is winning but they step in and call for civility when the other side is winning. They aren't belligerents but you can see which side they're helping.

So I'm curious what you think of the old slogan. It's divisive on purpose but I think it cuts through lib bullshit and let's everyone know where you stand. Hopefully it kicks some people in the ass to not be so passive and expose others as traitors.

>>485626
>>485620
Read Fascist theorists, it absolutely is an ideology with it's own tenants and theory, no different from Marxist Leninism or Neoliberalism. Its a ideology of Traditionalist futurism and nationalist social organism. There is a reason Italy and Nazi Germany and other Fascist groups were obsessed with healthy eating and other woo New Age practices, because Fascism holds that all of society acts as a living organism. This is why Fascists are also against immigration, as it's a foreign element entering the body. This gets paired with a master/slave morality, hence why Fascists hated Christianity despite being "traditionalists" and hated Conservatives for being slavishly devoted to class hierarchy and Christian values.
Zionists are no more Fascists than literally near everyone on earth was "Fascist" before the end of Colonialism. Zionism is just 19th century colonialism with a Jewish coat of paint. Everything Zionist say is word for word the crap the British, French, Belgian whatever imperialists said during the age of empires and their actions mirror the actions of Colonial empires. Zionists are not Fascists, they are Zionists. They are bad and evil in their own way.
>>485623
These definitions are post hoc justifications by Leftists calling everything and everyone Fascist. Again, Fascism is an ideology with actual tenants, practices and goals. If it doesn't involve traditionalist futurism, Social organism, master/slave morality, anti-christian/conservative reaction etc it isn't Fascism, it's just conservative authoritarianism or whatever. The Democrats are not Communist, Pinochet, Trump, guy who criticises children being put on HRT are not fascist.
Fascism does not exist in any meaningful fashion post-WW2, all the Fascists were subsumed into Liberalism and became butthurt LGBT worshipping, open borders, American worshipping, neolibs who despise the left and Russia purely out of WW2 loser trauma.
The closest you might get are pagan traditionalists in Eastern Europe but even then they are typically luddites and reject futurism, which is the core of Fascist theory.

>>485629
Yes from the national perspective the revolution failed in Germany and the result was a fascist counter revolution.

However you said that having a successful socialist revolution prevents fascism and it means people don't have to resist fascism. And that's just not true. The Russians had a successful socialist revolution and they ended up fighting against fascists anyway. So don't do the political tunnel-vision thing where one pretends that the rest of the world doesn't exist.

>>485663
>Read Fascist theorists, it absolutely is an ideology with it's own tenants and theory, no different from Marxist Leninism or Neoliberalism.
I tried that, you know as a exercise in know-your-enemy. And it's not coherent enough to be a theory or an ideological worldview.
Let me give some insights into aspects of fascist "theories".

One winter day some Nazi forgot to put coal into the oven that heats the water and took an especially cold shower, But he felt strangely invigorated, because exposure to cold jumps up the metabolic rate to heat the body back up. That also creates a natural high that feels really good. Many cultures in cold regions figured out the up-sides of dipping in ice-cold water, usually followed by a sauna session. However the fascists turned that experience into Aryans are special Ice-people with a hole origin story, alternate geological history and physics. They're not the first to make up mythology out of mundane shit like cold. But you can't call stuff like that a theory.

>Its a ideology of Traditionalist futurism
Italian fascism (Musolini type) borrowed the aesthetics and slogans of the futurists, but they didn't pursue any of the goals the futurists had.
>and nationalist social organism.
This is just word salad, let me explain:

First the shape of an organism at the most basic is an enclosed body, nations would be like an exploded carcass that splattered it guts all over the place, but it remains alive because little ants interconnect the dispersed organs.

Social organization in all forms do not mimic biology. Biology is a mad free for all where everything expands along metabolic pathways with random cross-connects. Imagine biology inspired social organization to be like the mail-man breaking into your house to deliver the mail, steal your coffee and clip the toe nails of your dog, clean your toilet and then take a shit in your bathtub. Biology works but it's chaotic as hell.

>Fascists are also against immigration, as it's a foreign element entering the body.
Ok i think i have to explain to you how the political game surrounding immigration works.

Capitalists do not want to stop immigration at all, they want to make immigrants illegal so that they do not have any rights and become easier to exploit. That means they will undercut legal citizens in their job-hunt even harder and push down wages for workers.

The purpose of the liberals is to ensure the immigrants are let in and the purpose of the right is to declare them as illegal persons that have no rights. In all of this the liberals do not want to rob immigrants of legal rights, and the right genuinely wants to keep immigrants out. But when those two positions collide it results in a crappy half-way position between the two. And the result is explained in the paragraph above.

My guess is that fascism goes one step beyond that and create slave-labor facilities where those immigrants are worked to death. And then when immigration drops off they would begin cannibalizing the previously legal citizens, they would create a ancestry lineage charade where they sort people into the protected group and the people who just have lost their privilege to be treated better than a slave. It'll all be fake, because it'll just be a pretense to keep the slave-labor facilities supplied with slave-labor.

>There is a reason Italy and Nazi Germany and other Fascist groups were obsessed with healthy eating and other woo New Age practices, because Fascism holds that all of society acts as a living organism.
I don't know where you are getting this from, but fascism in Europe in the 20th century had a shitty food supply. Nutritional quality of food dropped to shit, they used nasty industrial byproducts as food additives, trying to get rid of garbage by feeding it to people. They make the worstjunk-food look good by comparison.

>Zionists are no more Fascists than literally near everyone on earth was "Fascist" before the end of Colonialism. Zionism is just 19th century colonialism with a Jewish coat of paint. Everything Zionist say is word for word the crap the British, French, Belgian whatever imperialists said during the age of empires and their actions mirror the actions of Colonial empires. Zionists are not Fascists, they are Zionists. They are bad and evil in their own way.
You should read Domenico Losurdo, he masterfully explains the link between colonialism and fascism, as colonialism returning home.

One of the reasons why i think that Israel has become fascist is because all fascist nations commit national suicide in a particular way. First the society degenerates into strange forms of crude brutality that are unthinkable in normal societies. Like they had demonstrations where people demanded the right to rape prisoners. And after that they embark on some kind of crusade for the good of the nation like "the 1000 year Reich" or "Greaterisreal". In reality they become sacrificial pawns for imperial capital. In WW2 The worst aspects of imperial capital sacrificed Germany in a attempt to take down the Soviet Union. And it's beginning to look like Israel is being sacrificed too. Isreal's 7 war-fronts somehow are directed against factions, in the middle-east/west-asia, who gave the middle finger to imperial capital in one way or another. While i'm not entirely convinced of it yet, it's definitely a picture that's beginning to form.

The only ideology that does this holistic nation thing, you seem to be looking for, in praxis, is Juche from the Democratic people's republic of Korea (North Korea). They hate fascism even more than the Marxist Leninists, like they had an international outreach program, and somehow they got duped by some fringe fascist org into thinking they're like a local communist chapter in Europe or maybe somewhere else i don't remember details. And they got so mad, they issued shoot on sight orders for these people, and they had to change laws to make that happen.

Literally no one on the internet gets fascism right in its meaning, despite a wealth of historical information and writing from the fascists themselves about what they did and intend to do. It's funny that in all of the discussion the obvious - look at what the horse's mouth is saying - is ignored. Fascist organizations aren't difficult to miss and they will tell you they want to kill all of the communists and socialists and democrats in the world as a start, and give you their reasons why. The cowardliness of the left is so conditioned into them that they defeat themselves and they're the only ones who have doubts about what fascism is. Whether anyone else cares about stopping fascists is another question altogether.

If you're looking for fascism as a stable political idea, Futurism and Nietzschean moral "thought" are the obvious indicia. The fascists wrote considerably about the origin of their movement in syndicalism, the origin of the Blackshirts in Italy, and what is known about Mussolini's history (since he spoke English and was for a time a well-regarded and "normal" world leader). The Nazi Party has been described by god knows how many sources and by neo-Nazis who never left "the real movement". Fascism is not so specific that it is a fantastical unicorn, but the first people to lie about fascism are the post-1945 revisionist slime like Eco (worked for the fascists, sickening that this asshole is promoted as an anti-fascist). Then if you really know what Gramsci was, he was basically saying fascism or something like it was how the revolution would happen - a coup of the state and corruption of its institutions. They were abandoning mass politics because they saw in the 1920s that no longer worked for their aims, evidence being the first world war and all that followed. More and more, the communists were divorced from any democratic interpretation of "communism", and really doubted anything we would consider "communist" that the USSR aspired to be. The communists were all for the institutions now, and to hell with the now-worthless masses, us "sacks of potatoes".

The corporatist obsession was more of a post-war retrenchment of Germanic essentialism and the core Nazi spiritual principles. The analogy of the body and corporation was used by the fascists, but this is not unique to fascism. Communism doubted the corporate state but the "party of new type" was effectively "Communism Inc." Political elitism, which posited the political elite as the corporate "brain", was found in liberal and socialist thought, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a political elite doesn't have all of the scientific answers to the world. The fascists simply did not want the rabble to live, but they knew a state bureaucracy was necessary for this new type of polity that came about in the 20th century. What is often called "corporatism" is more properly understood as the technocratic reconstruction of society, and that happened everywhere. No one anywhere denied biological politics - this was the height of overt eugenics, when it was borderline illegal to not be a eugenist as a literate person. Even good Lysenko wasn't really opposed to eugenics as such - he was raising a much more peculiar point about whether genetic information was real, which was at the time an open question since the geneticists in the US were saying clearly the eugenists shouldn't make these fantastical claims about life that they were making, as Morgan did. But that's a whole other matter. The communist world had elements that wanted "socialist eugenics", which appeared more humanistic but carried all of the bigotries any eugenist view of humanity must.

One thing I try to tell people is that we're not getting "fascism" as such. We're getting full eugenism, and that leads to a novel situation that no political ideology or "system" adequately describes. But, fascism still very much exists and informs far more thought than we're "allowed" to acknowledge. The "cultured fascist" artfully denies their link to Nazi atrocities but upholds the thinking of the German ideology, and to fascist conceptions of the technocratic polity as their preferred, "efficient" model. The thing we're getting is very much endorsed by those who would be fascists in that time, in the same spirit and for the same purpose. What has changed is that what the fascist wanted to do with fascism is now the only idea - "there is no alternative" is precisely this. They don't "need" fascism or a particular projection for some ill-conceived ulterior motive or because the rulers have a fetish for it and don't know what they're doing. What we're getting is fascism for the poor and a type of socialism for the rich. The "national socialist" stage of history is gone forever, but "national socialism" was neither national nor socialist. Nazism or the slop that was "national socialism" was about cannibalizing the nation and selling it off, and that's all the Germans did from 1933 to 1945. There are arguments from fascists about whether Germany was "fascist" at all, since the Nazis continued the German State of before with little interruption. Germans despised democracy to their core and mocked the idea, and were told how much stronger they are than weak and gay democracy. Fascism does not have a monopoly on anti-democratic impulses, and while no interpretation of fascism was democratic in the sense that we would consider worthwhile, it regarded a "democratic" basis that was subsumed within the state. The interests of the state and its office-holders were to become the interests of the masses, and there was not explicitly anything forbidding a low rank scumbag from becoming a fascist, as long as he remembered what it was for and that he's there to become an elite himself. What was forbidden was any sense of political equality or legal rights, and look at where we are today in the liberal order of things in the 21st century. In our time, freedom is now "freedumb" and the concept is now "fake and gay".

>>485669
Good post, decently organized, makes clear points and is easy to read.

>>485670
>>485673
Unhinged wall of text by someone with an inflated ego.

>>485678
You and you mother are whores.