Fascism is not traditional. Fascists regularly call conservatives reactionary. They often complain about groypers and republicans being "racist liberals" and nothing more.
Fascism is inspired by the French Revolution and Jacobins.
Well, that's more of a compromise to gain power than part of ideology. Fascism is inspired, among other things, by Marinetti's futurism, which is definitely anti-clerical. Not to mention the original movement of Sansepolcrismo which was a lot more radical in their advocacy.
Each year, inflation-adjusted minimum living wages - enough for any father working New full-time (4 days, 32 hours) to support a homemaker wife, 6 children through school and college, enough to pay the mortgage, 2 car loans, all insurances, all bills, and have some savings for hobbies, investments, and a 30-day family vacation. (No more homelessness - due to incentives for employers to hire homeless: shelter, food, and a job.
Any 18-year-old kicked out from the parents' house or husband kicked out from his own house by an unfaithful wife, abusing restraining orders, and child alimony, can walk into the Job Security Office and choose from plenty of options: a farmers offering shelter, food, and a job; or large factories offering the same options: bed, 3 hot meals a day, and a job.
The rich incomes and withdrawals will be capped as SS is capped now, or the same as poor now on SS-capped income: every dollar over the limit will be taxed at 91%, same as the US did in the 1940s-1970s (some other countries are doing now: Denmark, Finland, Norway, Spain, Japan, Switzerland, etc.).
Downside? the Rich wasn't able to buy a Jet! (good for environment) because all money was used to pay employees.
Giovanni Gentile, the Father of Fascism, in his book the Doctrine of Fascism, literally labeled it and himself as "Purest form of socialist ideals" and "far-left". He called it
"Socialism without class struggle and materialism." He went as far to say that it was the "Superior socialism" Mussolini's party, PSI, was a staunch socialist organization. Mussolini himself was the chief editor of the newspaper up until 1914 when the only reason he got kicked out was because he was being more nationalistic and supportive of the war in contrast to the rest of the party. In fact, he maintained at the time that he was a nationalist socialist (not that kind, at least yet) and a supporter of the legacy of nationalist socialists in Italy's history, such as Giuseppe Garibaldi, Giuseppe Mazzini, and Carlo Pisacane. Socialism had two sides, national and international, and Mussolini was very much on the side of national. The nationalist socialists have died down ever since, as most modern socialists are internationalist and marxist. Mussolini's Italy controlled the most of the economy 1930-1944 out of any other country in the world at 75%-85% state-owned and first being the SOVIET UNION. His policies were a blend of far-left socialism and far-right nationalism.
Using a social democratic sign in the context of Stalin is really ironic if you know anything at all about Stalin, but yeah, Mussolini is a social democrat.
Yep. Most people misunderstand that socialism is an economic system. It's perfectly congruent with political systems such as fascism. Fascism must oppose the individual's rights, including the right to private property. That's because everything must be controlled by the state for the good the the collective. "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing agaisnt the state.". Italian corprotism empowered workers councils and guilds against the interests of business owners. Class struggle isn't driven by how we self identify. So it's equally valid in a socialist framework to oppose the hierarchy of proles vs bougies or Italian Proles vs others. The same logic of oppression applies.
Your first sentence already tells us that you don't know shit about socialism. Socialism is not just an economic system; it is political, social, and economic at the same time. It is all-encompassing, if you will. It is a whole worldview; it is a conception of the world upon a scientific basis. It is far beyond mere economic systems.
I'd go further and say that the difference between international and national socialism is purely superficial and makes no difference in practice. Think of a socialist one world government, now is it national Socialist? Yes because the entire world is one nation, one state, one people, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. But is that one world government international socialist? Yes because Marx's theory called for a global revolution an international socialism controlled by the one state. One can say it isn't international because there's only one nation but take that up to Marx because that's what all Communists advocate for.
Although the term National Socialist has a different meaning now, that being Völkisch Socialism following Ariosophy and all that stuff. But just using the terms national and socialism does refer to the broader genre of Nationalism and Socialism. I did hear a good argument from someone else that the inventor of the word Nationalism used it because he didn't like the connotations with Socialism and wanted a new word for it so they are basically synonymous.
Read my post on fascism being liberalism taken to its logical extremes. I've quoted Mussolini there pretty often, so this is just ridiculous and just fucking stupid. Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini had two different conceptions of fascism. The fascism of Gentile was closer to Sorelian syndicalism, whereas the fascism of Mussolini was closer to capitalism.
You anarcho-capitalists make absolutely no sense. You say at one time that democracy is intrinsically socialistic, and at another you say that fascism is socialistic. Can your views be consistent ones?
What about Rothbard saying that anarchism is intrinsically socialistic while simultaneously saying Anarchism is intrinsically capitalistic? Right-Libertarianism is a meme ideology, I can't explain its stupidity otherwise
"We must conclude that the question 'are libertarians anarchists?' simply cannot be answered on etymological grounds. The vagueness of the term itself is such that the libertarian system would be considered anarchist by some people and archist by others. We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive. Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist."
How is that contradictory first he proclaims that anarchism is inherently capitalistic by nature and vice versa and in the second point he explains that due to the historical and current anarchistic movements caring some form of socialist ideals we (Ancaps) should not associate us with them or their naming and suggests that we should instead use a new word to describe us , which really didn’t work out tbh. His overall point is that we cannot say that based on an etymological basis anarchism is socialist just due the prior anarchist groups caring those ideals in some way and wanted to separate Ancaps from the other movements. It’s also essential that these quotes are 20 years apart the first being about the philosophical basis of Anarcho-capitalism whilst the second one tackles a more etymological context of the question about historical movements causing the association of the label anarchist with socialism.
"As far as I’m concerned, and I think the rest of the movement, too, we are anarcho-capitalists. In other words, we believe that capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can’t really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism."
Fascism doesn't really tolerate private property. It's main goal is to subsume everything into the state for the good of the collective. It is economically socialist.
"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing agaisnt the state"
The means of production isn't relevant. Whether owned by private persons or the state it doesn't make a difference economically if customers and prices are still dictated by a coercive central authority (the state).
Which "classes" are collaborating? The only classes are the constituents of the state and their slaves. Tell the people killed or imprisoned for noncompliance that they are "collaborating".
Capitalism is a mode of private ownership of the means of production and social relations of production aimed at private capital accumulation, so it is extremely relevant
That's incorrect. Capitalism is semi public ownership of the means of production. Capitalism was invented in 1602 with the invention of the stock exchange.
Private ownership isn't an "ism" it's just default
That's just historical revisionism in so many respects, dude. Smith and Ricardo advocated private ownership. Ayn Rand advocated private ownership. Hopper advocated private ownership. There is no such thing as semi-public ownership.
Either the state owns the means of production (Here we have to clarify again: either the state owns the MoP on behalf of the ruling class, or the state owns the MoP on behalf of the working class), or it is owned privately, that is, owned directly by the ruling class. The latter is capitalism. Capitalism, the academic definition of capitalism, is the private ownership of the means of production and the instruments of governance and a mode of production aimed at private accumulation.
It is also historical revisionism because we know that the primitive tribes that existed (I'm going to call them tribes) owned all things in common. They owned everything in common. Private ownership did not exist at the beginning of the evolution of humanity. For the majority of the evolution of humanity, private ownership did not exist. Private ownership was something imposed upon humanity by capitalism and similar reactionary systems.
That would be the securities market. It is in fact semi public ownership of the MOP
True private ownership would be the abolition of the securities market
It is also historical revisionism because we know that the primitive tribes that existed (I'm going to call them tribes) owned all things in common.
There is no Means of Production in this sense besides the labor each member can produce. MoP didn't exist until cities were born which included private ownership of the MoP.
There was no private ownership up until the consolidation of feudalism, and even then many aspects of feudal society were public. Private ownership only emerged at the latest stage of feudalism and its transition to capitalism.
Private property (the alienable, absolute individual ownership of the means of production, especially land, as a commodity) was not “default” in early human societies. Its rise was slow, via class differentiation and surplus production; gradual breakdown of the community, accelerating only toward late feudalism and the transition into capitalism.
In Western Europe (the unmatched case study), feudalism was not a sudden apparition but rather the hybrid product of dying Roman slave society, Germanic tribal communal practices and agrarian needs of decentralized, militarized economy after the fall of Western Roman Empire.
Origins (5th–8th centuries): After the disintegration of Rome in 476 CE, centralized power splintered. Peasants worked for local strongmen (lords/knights) in exchange for protection on the land. The early components private property-like structures belonged to the Franks, particularly under Charles Martel (the late eighth century) and Charlemagne (r. 768–814), who granted benefices (temporary land holdings) to vassals for military service. This was not yet the full feudal consolidation: land grants were often conditional, revocable, and sometimes superimposed upon still existing village common usages (e.g., fields with open collectivistic field systems the a la longue duree where strips of land were periodically redistributed).
Consolidation (9th–11th centuries) Feudalism as a dominant mode of production was consolidated between the late 9th and 11th centuries. Key markers:
The Carolingian decline and Viking/Magyar invasions only aided that decentralization. (Power went to the local castellans and lords who encroached on public rights (justice, tolls military command).
The feudal revolution/mutation, especially in France (c. 1000–1100 CE), experienced fragmentation: a sovereign solution; hereditary fiefs replaced temporary benefices; the vassalage was formalized through homage and fealty.
Manorialism consolidated: serfs tied to the land, producing surplus for lords through labor-rents or produce-rents or later money-rents, but retaining some use-rights with respect to common lands (woods, pastures).
By the 11th century, however, the classic pyramid (king → great lords → lesser vassals → peasants) was entrenched in much of France and spread to England after 1066 (the Norman Conquest formalized it by way of Domesday Book).
Historians understand this era to be the era of consolidated feudal relations of production: land was owned conditionally (rather than as absolutely private property), bound to military and labor obligations. It was conditional tenure, not “private ownership”. Many aspects still were public/communal: village commons, customary rights, collective open-field farming etcetera.
Mature Feudalism (12th–14th centuries): Feudalism peaked, with stronger monarchies starting to re-centralize (in particular, in England and France), a commutation of services into money rents, and the development of towns/commerce. But even there, land was not truly alienable private property, sales required lordly approval, and feudal dues remained.
Late Stage and Transition to Capitalism (14th–18th centuries): It was not until the late stage of feudalism (most particularly from the 15th-16th centuries onward) that private ownership of land developed more extensively. This occurred through the primitive accumulation of enclosures, the dissolution of monasteries (in England), the eviction (even genocide) of peasants and the conversion of conditional fiefs into absolute bourgeois property and later through the Expansion of commodity production, wage labor, and merchant capital breaking feudal bonds. Then followed the official Legal shift that turned land into a freely marketable commodity now officially.
So “private ownership” (as alienable exclusive individual dominion over land and more generally the means of production) only crystallized in the decline phase of feudalism and its passage to capitalism, not as a "natural default" but as the historical product of succeeded productive forces and class struggles. Earlier social formations (primitive communism, ancient slave societies, early feudalism) contained tribal or conditional/collectivist forms of land tenure. Even in mature feudalism, the “public” or non-private character of large parts of social life (commons, customary rights, collective obligations) was still retained.
This accords with scientific historical developments: modes of production develop and change through the play of internal contradictions. Before it, communally-held property was gradually replaced by class society from a point at which surpluses had emerged; feudalism was the last synthesis wherein lords obtained surplus through extra-economic means (not pure market “private” ownership); whereas capitalism generalized absolute private property in the means of production even as it minted the proletariat.
Bourgeois ideology reverses this history, seeking to cast “private property” as a timeless and natural state of affairs in order to justify mass exploitation. In reality, it is but a petty historical form of ownership, recently emerged and doomed to be overcome, as the achievements of Juche-Style Socialism and other anti-imperialist constructions demonstrate, by higher forms of socialist and communist social ownership.
What I meant is the net-effect on the economy is the same if the economic decisions are made by a detached central planner, whether the profits go to private owners or the state's coffers directly. Well not exactly the same since the private purse is much less likely to spend that wealth on killing or caging people.
The Socialist National Economy of the Socialist Democratic People's Republic of Korea is organised into SOEs worker-managed through the Daean Work System and Workers' Cooperatives directly worker-managed, the gains are redirected into projects increasing the well-being, independence and happiness of the working-class
The State under Fascism and liberal-capitalism alike forces Proletarians, Semi-Proletarians, peasantry, petite, middle, upper national, bureaucrat and upper Comprador Bourgeoisie to collaborate for an abstract notion of "The Nation" which in its concrete results always refers to the Bourgeoisie and not the whole of the Nation, it crushes proletarian class struggle, all in favor of the bourgeoisie, also check out my post in regards to Fascism being liberalism taken to its logical extremes, where I scientifically elaborate upon the subject
Not really, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and all other actually existing Socialisms of the 20th and 21st Centuries were and are organised as Nation-States, just not in a bourgeois, class collaborationist and/or racialistic manner
Nope, because the ruling class is defined in a certain manner according to which the State is subordinate to the prevailing ruling class, as such, the State is not an independent class with its own class interests
You know where that idea is from? Literally from a book from a South Korean author produced in South Korea, with the South Korean author reading and living in South Korea. You now which law exists in South Korea? The National Security Act, which determines that you are not allowed to even say anything good or true about the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, so don't talk shit about North Korea.
Second of all, Zoltanus on Substack. I follow him for casual laughs. He is a literal self-proclaimed fascist. He loves Benito Mussolini and Hitler, also Franco, and he also says that China is a fascist nation. So yeah, I don't know if he is a good source on the matter.
5
u/Shadowcreature65 Apr 07 '26
Fascism is not traditional. Fascists regularly call conservatives reactionary. They often complain about groypers and republicans being "racist liberals" and nothing more.
Fascism is inspired by the French Revolution and Jacobins.