Is Fascism really capitalism in decay?
have fascists ever come to power at a time or in a place where capital wasn't under threat?
>>880432
No. There is no correlation whatsoever between the political beliefs of fascists and capitalists.
If anything, representative democracy is capitalism in decay.
>>880432
No. Capitalism in decay is third-world countries going to shit while the first-world faggots drink champaing and watch tv bullshit and then whining when the shit they are responsable for come knocking the door. Hope refugees destroy europe...
>>880449
Representative democracy has been intertwined with capitalism since the very beginning.
>>880451
What does Germany have to do with the U.S invasion of Iraq?
>>880432
Seeing how fascism's definition changes by the person you ask, I doubt it.
>>880432
Just think how far markets have come since the first fascists state emerged... the standards of living at the time would be almost unacceptable to many today.
>>880457
Then it's always been a poor system
>>880458
You think thats what i'm talking about???? OMG, i'm talking about first world company taking advantage of cheap labor and bribing our corrupted as fuck politicians to get raw material without taxes, how the fuck do you think you can afford a fucking iphone?
>>880473
TO WATCH PORN
>>880432
>capitalist in decay
Was Croatia in early 20th a capitalist society?
When will Britain and US of A be fascist?
>>880465
Let me guess; the French Revolution was a mistake.
>>880477
Yes. Austria Hungary had penetrated the village with the value form.
>>880484
Well after the guillotine and the rise of new monarchy in a few years later, yeah it was a fucking mistake.
>>880499
>muh reign of terror
A necessary measure.
And Napoleon was pretty great as far as monarchs go. He's one of the only historical kings or emperors I can stand.
>>880514
I view it the other way around. I can take Napoleon as the lesser of many evils when he was pitted against all of the reactionary European powers, but I would have much preferred there be no Thermidor and the Jacobin Republic survive.
>>880517
>Jacobins
>good
They were a bunch of intellectuals who abused the facade of the revolution to further their own political power. Tell me just how much benefit it does to the people of France to publicly execute thousands of Third Estate citizens? And how much freedom does it give to eliminate political opposition in order to establish a dictatorship? And how much liberty and equality did it grant to remove the power of the Church, which acted as the strongest barrier between the government and the people in any Catholic state?
Face it, they didn't want to bring democracy to France, and if they did, they apparently thought that just because a country is ruled by anyone other than a king, that instantly makes it a democracy. It was a monarchy under a different name.
>>880551
just at other catholic countries
>>880551
Many people resented the overthrow of the Montagnards.
For much of the years 1793-93 the National Convention was more or less at the beck and call of the people. The Terror was a response to a popular demand for immediate action against the enemies of the revolution. Many times, when the Convention passed unpopular laws or acted contrary to the popular consensus, the Parisians would literally storm the building and force them to heed their demands.
That's real democracy. No corrupt representatives, no money changing hands, no career politicians vying for votes, just the pure will of the people calling the shots.
>>880591
>just
*just look at
>>880474
What you're talking about has nothing to do with fascism. This is entirely free trades fault. You can't even say a type of government is a form of economics in decay that's like saying an apple is an orange in decay
>>880625
A dictatorship of the people is preferable to a dictatorship of one or an oligarchy.
>>880642
It's okay for thousands to be executed out of untempered anger, extremism, and propaganda for the sole reason that there's no king in charge?
>>880474
That's not capitalism in decay, that's just how it works.
It's stylistically designed to be that way and you can't undo that, but we can diminish the effects of it.
>>880661
The Republic was, at the time, subject to attack by hostile powers on all fronts intent on its destruction, and at the same time threatened by internal counterrevolution and plots.
The deaths of Third Estate citizens were regrettable, but the Terror was understandable given the circumstances. There were very good reasons to be paranoid. Had the European monarchies not been intent on crushing the revolution, thousands of people would have never died.
>>880432
It's right-wing socialism.
>>880682
So first it was
>Actually the Republic was a total direct democracy ruled by the mob without corruption and shit
And now it's
>the Republic HAD to be autocratic and genocidal because it was at war!
Which one is it?
>>880691
I never contradicted myself.
It took on a ruthless, dictatorial character at the behest of the people.
>>880695
Then do you think the same situation would have happened under a monarchy?
>>880593
>pure will of the people
>parisian radical activists drawn from the artisan class somehow represent "the people" or "the national will"
hmmm
>>880706
It wasn't just artisans. True, they were a large part of it, but regular workers were represented among the sans-culottes as well.
It wasn't limited to Paris, either. Many people in villages and cities across France implemented revolutionary reforms and actions independently.
Though granted there were certain areas of the country that were less than enthusiastic.
>>880714
>It wasn't just artisans. True, they were a large part of it, but regular workers were represented among the sans-culottes as well.
>It wasn't limited to Paris, either. Many people in villages and cities across France implemented revolutionary reforms and actions independently.
vendee and britanny obviously didn't feel that way. Anyway, many of the people you are talking about were enthusiastic bourgeois amateurs, not peasants
>>880682
>Had the European monarchies not been intent on crushing the revolution, thousands of people would have never died.
You're forgetting that France was the first to declare war because it was in the thrall of the girondins who were all about "muh purifying war that will secure the republic, spread the revolution abroad, unite the people against the common enemy." It all but assured that the revolution became more radical because raised the stakes extremely high
>>880714
No, it was pretty much limited to Paris. Like you said, "the Parisians would literally storm the building and force them to heed their demands". Where do people in other parts of the nation fit into that? Do they get their own militias that they get to march all the way to Paris every time they don't like something that the Assembly did? What if the Parisians didn't agree with them? Paris always got its way.
>Though granted there were certain areas of the country that were less than enthusiastic.
"certain areas of the country" being of course the vast majority of it. Obviously you know that much of the south erupted in open rebellion, and even those places that didn't had extremely low voter turnouts. Not, of course, heeding the previous statements about Paris, that it would have mattered either way.
>>880739
>>It wasn't just artisans. True, they were a large part of it, but regular workers were represented among the sans-culottes as well.
oops, i was going to say i agree. but even though the lower class was more represented than ever before, the middle classes more generally were left out of power
>>880745
here, i agree with >>880740, the federalist movement caught on because the montagnards kicked the girondins out of the assembly in 1793 with mob pressure. The montagnards promised to keep central power in paris and centralize government, while the girondins morphed into the federalist movement and went into open rebellion against the parisian jacobins.
>>880740
Also, the low voting turnouts is even more impressive when you consider that only about 50,000 "active citizens" were actually eligible to vote, out of a population of 25 million.
>>880432
You are right, but fascism is exactly the same as social liberalism or communism if you take away superficial differences. The same butthurt followers who think individual rights need to be trampled because of their feels. The same demagogues, adept at the art of manipulating people emotionally and taking advantage of their fears of sexism, racism or the jew. Social liberalism is modern capitalism in decay. Fascism is capitalism in the 30s in decay.
What we need to do is to support capitalism and stop it from decaying. Successful capitalism moves away from this towards prosperous educated good wholesome societies. Who wouldn't want that?
>>880805
Is this satire?
>>880432
To a very limited extent. It isn't capitalism in itself, but it could be quite appealing to the powerful in capitalism as an alternative to revolutionary socialism.
I quite like what Orwell said on the matter.
>Internally, Germany has a good deal in common with a Socialist state. Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, **and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism** – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. But at the same time the State, which is simply the Nazi Party, is in control of everything. It controls investment, raw materials, rates of interest, working hours, wages. The factory owner still owns his factory, but he is for practical purposes reduced to the status of a manager. Everyone is in effect a State employee, though the salaries vary very greatly.
Being reduced to the manager of your own factory is obviously preferable to losing that factory entirely to the state, assuming you accept it as inevitable you cannot retain full control by reforming capitalism.
>>880474
By having a job, you dumb dumb.
>>880817
No.
I don't get it. Why do antifa/anarchists/socialists/commies still view fascism as some sort of an relevant enemy, when the movement has been dead since 45.
>>880505
Yeah fuck you faggot.
>>881662
The movements themselves formed at a time when a lot of old fascist officials still held state positions, so for them it was a very real threat. As for now, it's tradition, I suppose.
>>880451
you can't even write champagne? ... American education everyone...
>using a swastika as a symbol of fascism
>>880678
Not entirely true for all instances though. For example, China now has the means to prevent this from happening to its inhabitants, but the corrupt government would rather improve their economy disproportionately than administrate safety regulations.
>>881681
>reading comprehension
He's obviously not American you knife it. Go back to /int/ memester
Rather than decay I would say under siege.
Fascism is ultimately self defeating: at the end of the siege both fascist leaders and populist policies get scrapped.
>>880451
t. Ahmed
>>880451
That edge
>a couple thousand people died hurr
Boko haram has killed 20,000 in Africa and it took two years for the U.S to send some scout drones to the area. People will die and that is unavoidable.
>>880432
I thought that was communism.
Capitalism enters a decay whenever monopolism takes over and free enterprise is no longer a thing.
>>880432
No, Fascism is capitalism losing control of its own containment forces.
>>880432
>Is Fascism really capitalism in decay?
No, it's the ultimate expression of capitalism.
Do you think it's a coincidence that Nazi-Germany came to be literally at the same time the USSR wanted to annex the entirety of Europe?
>>882799
don't do it
>>881662
Because they want power, and their ticket to power is fighting against "The System". Their power comes from being the underdog, the rebel, the freedom fighter. This persona falls apart when they aren't actually the rebellious underdogs, but the system itself.
So, they need an enemy. As basically every "Leftist" movement or group is funded by corporations or Sorosoi, the actual men pulling the strings are off limits. So, they make up a boogeyman: "Whites", "White" men, "The Rich", "The Bourgeois" (Used to refer to people in the present, not to the bourgeois of, say, Marx's day), etc.
"Fascists" are an easy boogeyman to use because every hates Nazis and Fascism = Nazis to the common pleb. It also tickles their autism because they can equate themselves to the Soviet Union fighting for Mother Russia to fend off the evil Fascisti invasion.
>>882813
It's not b8 at all.
There were plenty of wealthy industrialists in America and other parts of Europe that supported Nazi-Germany, for the specific reason that they were a wall against Communistic expansion.
socialism is gapitalism in degay, on its road to gommunism
t. marx :DDDDDDDDD
A communist would say that fascism is capitalism in decay
A capitalist would say that communism and fascism are both totalitarian and socialistic
A fascist would say that communism and capitalism are both materialistic and a plot to destroy and enslave nations
The point is, you can't get a non biased answer around here
>>882799
Then why didn't western capitalists side with Germany against the USSR?
>>882869
gee, i wonder why
>>882873
P U R E C O H E N C I D E N C E
>>882829
I hate Reds SO very much.
>>880457
Money buying power in representative democracies decay capitalism into corpratism
>>882829
I've never met a leftist who doesn't hate Soros.
>>884914
Only some far-leftists actually know who he is and hate him. Most normal leftists don't know about him.
