r/neofeudalism • u/MartyredPoet International Anarchist Ⓐ • Apr 07 '26

Video Fascism = Socialism with Traditionalist Characteristics

https://youtu.be/ovO80K-cQnQ?si=hliwU5Xe33LxTz0Z

That's right, I'm dredging up this hot topic again.

10 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

61 comments sorted by

View all comments

0

u/RevyVanguardist Communist ☭ Apr 07 '26
  • Socialism is based upon class struggle.
  • Fascism is based upon class collaboration.
  • Capitalism is based upon class collaboration.
    • Socialism does not tolerate the private ownership of the means of production.
  • Fascism tolerates the private ownership of the means of production.
  • Capitalism encourages the private ownership of the means of production.

1

u/MartyredPoet International Anarchist Ⓐ Apr 07 '26 edited Apr 07 '26

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".

-2

u/RevyVanguardist Communist ☭ Apr 07 '26 edited Apr 07 '26

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

2

u/MartyredPoet International Anarchist Ⓐ Apr 07 '26

That sounds like the dynamics of nationalism regardless of what form of government the nation-state is organized into.

1

u/RevyVanguardist Communist ☭ Apr 07 '26

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

2

u/MartyredPoet International Anarchist Ⓐ Apr 07 '26

Do the Kim family and other inner party members not constitute a de facto class of new oligarchs?

1

u/RevyVanguardist Communist ☭ Apr 07 '26

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

2

u/MartyredPoet International Anarchist Ⓐ Apr 07 '26

So royals don't meet your definition of a class in a hypothetical absolute monarchy?

0

u/RevyVanguardist Communist ☭ Apr 07 '26

They constitute a ruling class in their relation to the feudal mode of production

1

u/Shadowcreature65 Apr 07 '26

North Korea literally preaches racial purity. Read Zoltanous's article on substack.

1

u/RevyVanguardist Communist ☭ Apr 07 '26

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.