Impper posted:
no, but those who give it the good old college try are my greatest heroes

can you break that down a bit. why are they ultimately irreconcilable

Impper posted:
oh, i thought you were sorta trolling me. i think i wrote extensively about this in one of my books, or at least, i have at some point. i'll write something up for you tonight if you're genuinely interested. a lot of people would disagree, but it's my opinion that at a basic level communism & fascism are a clash of objective ideologies, or even stripped down from that, of objective world views. two absolutes do not mix, or if they do, it's on an extremely superficial & dismissive level - what immediately comes to mind is when muslims talk about how they "acknowledge that jesus was a real prophet" - well, of course you do, but if things really get hashed out, the christian god and the muslim god are not quite on speaking terms, even if weirdo liberal types constantly like to say "it's all the same god, MAN!"

i am genuinely interested but i don't see that as incompatible with trolling

Impper posted:
t's on an extremely superficial & dismissive level - what immediately comes to mind is when muslims talk about how they "acknowledge that jesus was a real prophet" - well, of course you do, but if things really get hashed out, the christian god and the muslim god are not quite on speaking terms, even if weirdo liberal types constantly like to say "it's all the same god, MAN!"

that's really ignorant / wrong fyi

babyfinland posted:

DRUXXX posted:

Impper posted:
t's on an extremely superficial & dismissive level - what immediately comes to mind is when muslims talk about how they "acknowledge that jesus was a real prophet" - well, of course you do, but if things really get hashed out, the christian god and the muslim god are not quite on speaking terms, even if weirdo liberal types constantly like to say "it's all the same god, MAN!"

that's really ignorant / wrong fyi

much like the OP

sorry paco but this is a pedantic argument made by someone who doesnt have a firm understanding of the words hes arguing over. ill write a more thorough response later when im not tired but i didnt get the sense that you have a handle on what youre talking about at all

looking forward to it

Impper posted:

babyfinland posted:

DRUXXX posted:

Impper posted:
t's on an extremely superficial & dismissive level - what immediately comes to mind is when muslims talk about how they "acknowledge that jesus was a real prophet" - well, of course you do, but if things really get hashed out, the christian god and the muslim god are not quite on speaking terms, even if weirdo liberal types constantly like to say "it's all the same god, MAN!"

that's really ignorant / wrong fyi

much like the OP

sorry paco but this is a pedantic argument made by someone who doesnt have a firm understanding of the words hes arguing over. ill write a more thorough response later when im not tired but i didnt get the sense that you have a handle on what youre talking about at all

looking forward to it

be prepared for something that finds an impressive amount of disdain for its reader, or a list of boring articles no one will read

almost nobody could be said to know (or at least be able to predict) even the first thing about fascism's material relations. this is because of two things, first of all the extreme historical contingency of every fascism and even every system that's resembled fascism in any way; but second of all that fascism actually does rely almost entirely on historical contingency, and especially national and "spiritual" or even "aesthetic" differences, that ultimately depend on a nation's pre-existing material conditions.

So what is fascism then? Something highly specific and extremely dependent on historical contingency of circumstance. You're not talking about fascism here so much as you are talking about nationalism. But even so, you should be able to discuss what nationalism is without having to qualify your statements to the point of irrelevance to the general signifier with disclaimers that nationalism in any particular manifestation will be specific and contingent to a given historical circumstance. This is a given.

So we have already a confusion or undefined difference of nationalism and fascism.

i guess i'll begin by saying that fascism in no way is a "good" thing when it comes to the political realm . . .

Oh boy. Your first actual claim: it is evil. Heard this before. Let's see if you get any farther than Zionists and liberals with your analysis.

fascism works by asserting objectivity, whether that's along aesthetic, national, idealistic, philosophical, or whatever other boundaries

So fascism is ideological. Fine.

it works by reconstituting the individual subject through this objectivity and in subservience to this objectivity

Woe is the pitiful individual subject. I long for the day that we might liberate the individual from totalitarian projects of pure evil.

in this sense it can only "work" in broken down societies since there must be a schism in enough subjectivities that something like a mass reconstitution of the identity is necessary; for this reason you only see political fascism in degenerating liberal societies like weimar germany, and otherwise failed states or failing states where fascism is "always growing," e.g. the rise of skinheads in post-collapse russia, or even today with the weird fascists who are emerging as europe degenerates more and more.

ok this sounds interesting. What is a "subjectivity", how does it "break down", why does this require reconstitution en mass, is fascism then simply our name for this reconstitution, or are there alternatives and do we then require a more precise definition of fascism as a subcategory of post-break down mass reconstitution?

that objectivity is very subjective - that is it is contingent and it relies on historical circumstances and things as slippery as "national identities"

Are you simply saying that fascist ideology is nationalist, and therefore provincial?

we can move from this narrative mode of thinking to a material mode - each fascism had its idiosyncratic qualities, but each fascism was also opportunistic

I'm not sure how we're moving to a material 'mode' in ascribing personality traits to abstract and heretofore undefined ideological phenomena, but let's see.

the material conditions for fascism are extremely opportunistic.

This doesn't make any sense to me.

in the case of the germans, there was a large contingent of "aesthetic fascists," that is essentially conservative revolutionaries who were with the nazis when it came to the german identity, about volk, about a true socialism for the german people, but who were discarded in the early 1930s when political power had to be grasped by an alliance with the industrialists and capitalists: and before long, the germans were dealing with american businessmen and the aesthetic fascists were dispensed with in favor of growing the nazi party and the german economy.

Ok I think we're getting somewhere now. Is fascism then primarily an aesthetic mass reconstitution of nationalist ideology, mystifying the continuance of capitalism in the face of economic crisis? Is fascism simply a justification for the alliances between the previously dueling factions of the capitalist class?

does this mean the nazis "betrayed fascism?" not at all: the characteristics of fascism still remained--

Those characteristics being...let's check our list: "in no way a good thing". "asserting objectivity", "reconstituting the individual subject through this objectivity and in subservience to this objectivity", "contingent" and reliant "on historical circumstances", "extremely opportunistic".

all german activity was in service of advancing the cause of the german nation; the german subject was purposed to advancing the objective cause of the german nation; and by that point germany's economy relied on the war machine

Oh. Well you mentioned the subordination of the subject to the transcendental cause of the nation, but you also talk about nationalist commitments and war-centric economy. The former, (and arguably the second as well) are simply nationalist, not particularly fascist, and the latter is something novel in the post that you had't brought up yet. So fascism is also about war-centric economy, I guess. Is this because it is capitalist, and reliant on accumulation of wealth? Why is it relatively more war-centric than liberal capitalism, or is it? Is there some drive towards primitive accumulation, perhaps in the face of national breakdown post-crisis? Is that perhaps our definition of fascism: the post-crisis marshalling of a national capitalist class towards expansionist primitive accumulation, justified to the working class with a mystifying nationalist mythology?

when an economy relies on its war machine, war then becomes inevitable, for a war economy can only be sustained for so long without there being an actual war.

Right. Capitalism.

in this sense we can't "blame" the nazis for going to war, since essentially they were forced, if even by their own hand. as for why germany came to rely on a war economy, well there again is the historical contingency: germany has always relied on war, has always been warlike, had relied on war earlier, and had just been humiliated in war. i don't know that there is anything they could have done about that. germany turned itself metaphorically into a fasces, every subject coming together at the bottom to support an axe head at the top; and if you are a fasces, what can you do but strike?

Speaking of mystifying nationalist mythology....

but i suppose the point i'm making is that there are no set material relations for fascism.

Oh.

the nazis were fascists from the start - a lot has been said about the actual material conditions of nazi germany, that they were essentially capitalists or whatever, having alliances at every point with the industrialists and capitalists. i don't think that's exactly right.

Oh.

a lot of people have proposed that state socialism is the state directing the industry, and that fascism is industry directing the state, or that fascism is a seamless alliance of the state with industry, but that's only superficially true.

Cool, let's talk about model forms as if they were Greek gods feuding over Mount Olympus, this is productive.

conceivably, if a fascism were to take root among a people who haven't faced a great deal of national humiliations, and who haven't got powerful industries entrenched in the nation that will seek to ally with the fascists, a fascism could be "okay"

What? Why? How would that happen? One of you defining characteristics of fascism is it's origin in the mass reconstitution of "broken down" "subjectivities" (still not sure what this means). What would a non-fascist fascism be then? Is fascism something other than this mass reconstitution then? The picture is getting blurrier and blurrier.

in reasserting their nationalism and trying to fight against international corporations, who have become very sovereign and in some cases more powerful than many individual states, and as global corporations begin to exercise unilateral control against states with little fear.

Is this another late-introduced characteristic of fascism, a "fight" by a populist nationalist state against international corporations? How does this cohere with the historical example of fascism's backing by corporations at every turn? Even in the contemporary: the Tea Party, the various Zionist groups, the populist parties in Europe, the Islamist reactionaries, etc. (Are these groups fascist?)

it will be a true struggle of "the people" against these entities, and none of them will be left wing in the least haha. it's a new world out there thanks to neoliberalism and globalization.

Are these two ideas linked? They appear next to each other. Maybe they are. You're the writer, but you said you're tired, editing your new novel and all. In any case, why won't any populist struggle take left wing forms? How does neoliberalism and globalization alter the game?

i don't think anyone knows what is going to happen, but i certainly don't think it's wrong to "run from fascism," since the realities can be pretty ugly.

Brave words, friend.

. i don't think it's going too far to say that a lot of beautiful things are corrupted by the reality of this world, by "power," and it sounds like a silly thing that gets said in a shitty historical epic, but i think even then there is some truth in it.

Ok. So you're defending populist movements based on idealist aesthetic mythology on the basis that reality corrupts our dreams. That's rather confused; you're conceding the inevitable corruption of a movement (after saying you don't blame people for discarding such a movement for precisely the same reason). It seems implicit in your argument here that reactionary nationalism is some sort of default that people fall back on, and that revolutionary movements are a dreamer's house of cards. Isn't this profoundly liberal and reactionary? Isn't it false? Isn't it true that revolutionary anti-capitalist politics the only political stance founded in historicism, and thus the stability of truth, while the idealism and mythological fantasy of reactionary capitalist ideologies, such as fascism, are but mystifications covering the gap of the unsustainable capitalist social relations?

today fascism is probably a "lesser of evils" when it's fighting against some exploitative corporation without any loyalties to any nation or people except the shareholders anymore,

And what loyalties does fascism have? You said it's opportunistic. Is fascism actually populist or nationalist in anything but it's marketing?

in the meantime aesthetic fascism has never harmed anyone

In the end I'm disappointed that you don't mention, or even seem familiar with, the academic debate surrounding the definition of fascism. The typologist arguments (Stanley G Payne, Roger Griffin) vs Marxism (which generally disavows any revolutionary potential in fascism, as it focuses on class relations which remain exploitative in a Marxist model) vs structuralism (I think you tend towards the structuralist view which is primarily concerned with ideology). It's a fascinating topic and something highly relevant and instructive, and it deserves a real good look by our scholars in residence IMO.

cleanhands posted:
I sort of made up the first world bit out of my ass because i didnt know how better to phrase it. sorry everyone

:^I

Tsargon posted:
also impper-san is at least correct in saying that fascisms on the up and up, although it will naturally look a good deal different this time around than it did last time. look forward to it!

How would you define fascism?

babyfinland posted:
words

sorry this quote system is awkward, plus i don't like reading the things i write. in any case:

i thought about it and it seems that a political fascism would be impossible without nationalism, which isn't to say that fascism cannot exist without nationalism, being based as it is on personal power structures, the family in particular. so there is a personal fascism, a mode of organizing of sorts, but then there is also a political fascism, which relies on the nation, or perhaps must live in the nation (fascism's nationalism versus communist style internationalism, for instance?). this is why i made the point that it is historically contingent, and at least differentiated from nationalism which as you said is necessarily contingent.

as for your joke about "my first claim," well, i do find political fascism, and fascism in general, to be distasteful. but that's a personal matter

ok this sounds interesting. What is a "subjectivity", how does it "break down", why does this require reconstitution en mass, is fascism then simply our name for this reconstitution, or are there alternatives and do we then require a more precise definition of fascism as a subcategory of post-break down mass reconstitution?

i do use this term too freely. on some level it's simply the individual's capability to act autonomously and independently, free from collective duties, and able to fill its needs regardless. liberal societies encourage this level of independence, and i don't think it's going too far to say that it's inhuman; though it's sustainable so long as things are not "breaking down," so long as the society can maintain this mode of living. when a liberal society does sputter, all of the individuals suffer, i do think that there can be other reconstitutions: for example the communists seek to reconstitute the individual through communal rejuvenation, whereas fascists purpose the individual toward the collective. in any case, i'm not sure how comfortable i am defining fascism as simply the mass reconstitution of individuals in a society in a certain mode.

Ok I think we're getting somewhere now. Is fascism then primarily an aesthetic mass reconstitution of nationalist ideology, mystifying the continuance of capitalism in the face of economic crisis? Is fascism simply a justification for the alliances between the previously dueling factions of the capitalist class?

i'm not sure

Is that perhaps our definition of fascism: the post-crisis marshalling of a national capitalist class towards expansionist primitive accumulation, justified to the working class with a mystifying nationalist mythology?

What? Why? How would that happen? One of you defining characteristics of fascism is it's origin in the mass reconstitution of "broken down" "subjectivities" (still not sure what this means). What would a non-fascist fascism be then? Is fascism something other than this mass reconstitution then? The picture is getting blurrier and blurrier.

certainly these two definitions clash. i do like the former definition; however, i think part of this is that i want to talk about two fascisms: first, the constitution of the individual subject through subordination to a collective will, and second to the one you mention, the "post-crisis marshalling of a national capitalist class towards expansionist primitive accumulation, justified to the working class with a mystifying nationalist mythology." the post-crisis marshalling may require a drive toward the first definition of fascism i've given, though it seems to me that it's not necessarily the same thing

Is this another late-introduced characteristic of fascism, a "fight" by a populist nationalist state against international corporations? How does this cohere with the historical example of fascism's backing by corporations at every turn? Even in the contemporary: the Tea Party, the various Zionist groups, the populist parties in Europe, the Islamist reactionaries, etc. (Are these groups fascist?)

this seems too contingent to answer sufficiently; however, i was saying that it seems like this will be more of an issue today than it was in the past for the "various fascisms."

Ok. So you're defending populist movements based on idealist aesthetic mythology on the basis that reality corrupts our dreams. That's rather confused; you're conceding the inevitable corruption of a movement (after saying you don't blame people for discarding such a movement for precisely the same reason). It seems implicit in your argument here that reactionary nationalism is some sort of default that people fall back on, and that revolutionary movements are a dreamer's house of cards. Isn't this profoundly liberal and reactionary? Isn't it false? Isn't it true that revolutionary anti-capitalist politics the only political stance founded in historicism, and thus the stability of truth, while the idealism and mythological fantasy of reactionary capitalist ideologies, such as fascism, are but mystifications covering the gap of the unsustainable capitalist social relations?

i think that, for example, the bolsheviks were something entirely different from the fascists. i'll agree that revolutionary anti-capitalist politics have the stability of truth, however, i'm not sure that this lends much of an advantage. but this is my pessimism & misanthropy speaking. in short, i don't always disagree with goatstein when he says things like the mass prefers mystification. though i'm not entirely sure where i "truly" stand here

And what loyalties does fascism have? You said it's opportunistic. Is fascism actually populist or nationalist in anything but it's marketing?

i'm not sure. hopefully the fascists who earn power are idealists. not a very material argument, but it does seem true that the fascists do rely on mystification to continue unsustainable material relations; hence why the fascists who thrive probably do not have loyalties, do not have ideals: ideals can only cover for an unsustainable relation so long

Crow posted:

Tsargon posted:
a bunch of good lookin guys out havin fun

so opportunists, then, lol

Look up in the sky, tell me what you see (the clouds)
Naw nigga not me (yeeeeeah)
I see opportunity, I'm an opportunist
Nigga ya heard what I said, I'm an opportunist (jeah)

we're all opportunists *dodges lasers while waiting for liberal-capitalism to raise his Hoary Hand, so as to expose the glowing red badge of imminent revolution*

6. Gentile defines fascismo as follows:
“1) a mass movement with multiclass membership in which prevail, among the leaders and militants, the middle sectors, in large part new to political activity, organized as a party militia, that bases its identity not on social hierarchy or class origin but on the sense of comradeship, believes itself invested with a mission of national regeneration, considers itself in a state of war against political adversaries and aims at conquering a monopoly of political power by using terror, parliamentary tactics, and deals with leading groups, to create a new regime that destroys parliamentary democracy;“2) an ‘anti-ideological’ and pragmatic ideology that proclaims itself antimaterialist, antiindividualist, antiliberal, antidemocratic, anti-Marxist, is populist and anticapitalist in tendency, expresses itself aesthetically more than theoretically by means of a new political style and by myths, rites, and symbols as a lay religion designed to acculturate, socialize, and integrate the faith of the masses with the goal of creating a ‘new man’;
“3) a culture founded on mystical thought and the tragic and activist sense of life conceived as the manifestation of the will to power, on the myth of youth as artificer of history, and on the exaltation of the militarization of politics as the model of life and collective activity;
“4) a totalitarian conception of the primacy of politics, conceived as an integrating experience to carry out the fusion of the individual and the masses in the organic and mystical unity of the nation as an ethnic and moral community, adopting measures of discrimination and persecution against those considered to be outside this community either as enemies of the regime or members of races considered inferior or otherwise dangerous for the integrity of the nation;
“5) a civil ethic founded on total dedication to the national community, on discipline, virility, comradeship, and the warrior spirit;
“6) a single state party that has the task of providing for the armed defense of the regime, selecting its directing cadres, and organizing the masses within the state in a process of permanent mobilization of emotion and faith;
“7) a police apparatus that prevents, controls, and represses dissidence and opposition, even by using organized terror;
“8) a political system organized by a hierarchy of functions named from the top and crowned by the figure of the ‘leader,’ invested with a sacred charisma, who commands, directs, and coordinates the activities of the party and the regime;
“9) a corporative organization of the economy that suppresses trade union liberty, broadens the sphere of state intervention, and seeks to achieve, by principles of technocracy and solidarity, the collaboration of the ‘productive sectors’ under the control of the regime, to achieve its goals of power, yet preserving private property and class divisions;
“10) a foreign policy inspired by the myth of national power and greatness, with the goal of imperialist expansion.”

he takes this modest 10 point programme and rearranges it into this form:



now, obviously, this is only a starting point. or rather its the endpoint that a deeper, more succinct concept of fascism must be constructed towards