>National Socialism and any other form of conservative revolution was a false revolution, or at least a completely inauthentic political movement, because it wasn't Communist
Why do so many people parrot this garbage, as if the only way a movement can be 'authentic' is if it abides by a set of principles nobody outside the Ivory Tower cares about? Zizek always says this.
What's worse is when they call the rise of fascism "capitalist triumph" or some other retarded shit.
I laugh every time people try to use the dictionary strawman of Fascism, as it is a one size fits everything.
When in reality, Peroism, National Socialism, Francoism, and Fascism are all very different things.
I would define fascism as "for the health and well being of the people".
As in capability, not equality, not liberty.
>>466035
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/jun/27/less-than-nothing-slavoj-zizek-review
There are plenty of places in Zizek's work where he says this kind of thing.
And you can't just equate National Socialism with liberal capitalism.
>>465930
>National Socialism
>Conservative
>>466610
This, holy fuck. NS is about as radical as possible.
>>466602
>And you can't just equate National Socialism with liberal capitalism.
Fascist economics are a hell of a lot closer to "liberal capitalism" within a varieties of capitalism thesis than, for example, nomenklatura capitalism.
>>465930
I don't know what baffles me more, that you call National Socialism for conservative or that you claim that many people say something I've never ever heard anyone claim.
>>465930
>Conservative revolution
Talk about an oxymoron
>>467758
>NS is about as radical as possible.
Junkers expropriated: 0
Syndicats nationalised: 0
Prussian officer corps replaced with unskilled bozos: 0
New idiot camp for unskilled bozos created: Waffen-SS
Not very "radical"
>>467763
They aren't similar enough that you can equate them, any more than you can equate Italian fascism and Juche.
>>467804
this
>>467819
>Waffen-SS
>unskilled bozos
kek
post wiki screencaps pls
