Most members of the fascist party were member of the socialist party and sindicalista

most members of the fascist party were member of the socialist party and sindicalista

How are they not left wing?

it rejected marxism with a nationalist imperialist premise, having unions and social workers don't make you a marxist

I'm not convinced politics operates on a left-right spectrum.

It’s “the third way”. All this division into left and right is inherently liberal (ie traces its roots to the French/English/American revolutions). Marxists and Fascists don’t really give a shit because they’re inherently anti-liberal.

They didn't really believe in anything, as it turns out, socialism and facism are just ideological means to justify giving yourself absolute control over the state. When they were in charge the stopped caring about what bs the claimed to believe.

good take

brainless libtard take

Mostly true, about Fascism at least. Mussolini installed a classical liberal economist as minister of treasury. The national """"socialists""""" abandoned the left (economically) appealing aspects of their 25 point program, and killed more left leaning members as well as shit like

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Meeting_of_20_February_1933#:~:text=The Secret Meeting of 20,campaign of the Nazi Party

They weren't leftists retard.

All socialists were just as bad, they manipulated uneducated poor people into giving them power and then massively fucked them over. No different then the rest

Fascists aren't socialists, troglodyte.

All socialists were just as bad, they manipulated uneducated poor people into giving them power

The other way around and it was extremely retarded too
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_Enrolment

Why can't you fuck off to or Anon Babble you useless piece of shit?

The end result of socialism is replacing the 1% (ultra rich) with the 0.001% (the Party).

At least the 1% in Capitalism will give you some trickle down. The Party will just give you a loaf of bread and tell you to fuck off.

210641191 OP

left wing

right wing

Made up nonsense that has no correspondence to reality.

In short, these words do not have a fixed and immutable meaning: they have variables and are conditioned by the circumstances of time, place and spirit. We Fascists completely ignore these empty terms and above all despise those who are terrified by these words. These frightened fools abound especially in Parliament. That's why no ministry has been formed yet. That's why, almost certainly, there will be no government.

—Mussolini

210641251

Marx rejected Marxism.
They are anti-liberal in the sense that Martin Luther was anti church. i.e, my version is more true and more honest. Both Marx and Gentile fall squarely into the liberal tradition and critique liberalism on its own terms and propose that the liberty professed by liberalism is a false one.

210641363

Laughable to claim that mussolini had complete control over the state. Funnily that is what the fascist propaganda claims. In reality mussolini was deposed by a vote. And really if mussolini had any totalitarian control Matteotti would have lived and the PSI assimilated into the PNF.
Appointing a liberal economist doesn't mean anything. Neither does Appointing a socialist economist for that matter. Material problems do not have ideological solutions and it is very easy to argue the merits of an intensification of social stratification from the standpoint of scientific socialism. "The worse, the better" as Plekhanov said.
Anyone with a penchant for power recognizes the need to manipulate people.
Some were, some weren't. Mussolini was the center between them.
In In 1971, approximately 9% of Soviet adult citizens were members of the communist party. To compare the wealth of an apparatchik and a bourgeois one percenter is laughable enough to constitute parody of discourse...

At least the 1% in Capitalism will give you some trickle down

Americans really are parodies of themselves at this point. You are literally living through and have lived through the biggest wealth transfer to the rich in human history with the 1% funneling up as much wealth as possible both under Biden and Trump.

He rejected Marxism when World War 1 arrived
Now, to know exactly why, that's one of the main questions Italian historians have been trying to answer to for decades

This is also very true, Mussolini was absolutely not an idealist, to him ideas and ideologies were instruments to carry forward his projects and nothing more

Appointing a liberal economist doesn't mean anything.

He rejected Marxism when World War 1

The country is young, but its institutions are old; and when — If I may be allowed to quote once more from Karl Marx — a conflict between new forces and old institutions begins to shape itself, that means that the new wine cannot any longer be kept in the old skins, or the inevitable will occur. The old forces of the political and social life of Italy will fall into fragments.

We Socialists who were in favour of intervention advocated war, because we divined that it contained within it the seeds of revolution. It is not the first instance of revolutionary war. There were the Napoleonic wars, the war of 1870, the enterprises of Garibaldi, in which, had we lived in those days, we should have joined in the same spirit and same faith.

Mussolini, 1915
What does it mean? The liberal does fancy economic magic that is right wing? The socialist does fancy economic magic that is left wing? What even is meant by 'liberal' here? Ricardo was the liberal, and the whole of classical economy not withstanding Marx himself rests on these shoulders. Alas it it necessary to think more broadly than these meaningless meme words.

What does it mean?

The Abolition of Inheritance Tax:
This action was part of a larger effort by De Stefani to reduce taxes, regulations, and trade restrictions.
It can be seen as a move towards laissez-faire economics, but it was also a calculated move to boost business confidence and support capital investment.
The abolition of inheritance tax, while appealing to some, also contradicted the Fascist emphasis on state control and the collection of wealth through taxation.

We Socialists who were in favour of intervention advocated war

Oh yeah, socialists definitely love war and WW1 definitely wasn't the major defeat of European socialism since the Paris Commune

So much this. Anon Babbletards are historcally illiterate retards.

There is no contradiction. The south was taxed to increase the industrial base in the north. State control or freedom is a question of pragmatism and goals at a given time.
Socialism is not consensus. Mussolini explains very well his reasons for the war and neither a pro war or anti war position has anything to do with socialism.
You are a retard and have made no arguments. Even your pic shows how retarded you are. This is a discussion on Mussolini

Mussolini explains very well his reasons for the war

Absolutely, he tries at least, but

neither a pro war or anti war position has anything to do with socialism

This is completely retarded, wars are an exercise in imperialist hybris by the capitalistic elite, to defend entities (nations) which are completely rejected by socialists

There is no contradiction.

There have been multiple examples demonstrating fascists=/=socialists. You being a mouth breather aside.

Mussolini explains very well his reasons

Fascists Italy was not socialist, knuckle dragger.

Even your pic shows how retarded you are. This is a discussion on Mussolini

The pic shows how out of your mind and depth you are. The argument I'm making is that fascist shitheads like you are right wing retards with nothing to do with the left. Slit your wrists.

This

Imperialism is a historical development of capitalist production and a necessary component of history as capitalist production is a necessary prerequisite to socialist production.

There have been multiple examples demonstrating fascists=/=socialists

Fascist does not equal socialist because you are comparing two categories that are not equal. Fascist does not equal socialist in the same vain that socialist does not equal socialist. The Sorelian and the parliamentarian have about as much in common as a bourgeois and a proletariat.

Fascists Italy was not socialist, knuckle dragger

Of course it is not socialist. Socialism is not a political system. It is a mode of production for the purpose of utility, and explicitly an abolition of production for the purposes of exchange.

The pic shows how out of your mind and depth you are. The argument I'm making is that fascist shitheads like you are right wing retards with nothing to do with the left. Slit your wrists.

Very emotional, like a woman. Except I have not given my political position, only demonstrated my knowledge to lay(wo)men such as (you).

based take

Fascist does not equal socialist in the same vain that socialist does not equal socialist

? You make no sense I hope you realize this.

The Sorelian and the parliamentarian have about as much in common as a bourgeois and a proletariat.

Fascists desperately attempting to have anything close to theory is never not funny. Sit down Evola.

You make no sense I hope you realize this

It is necessary to distinguish between socialism and socialism, between two or more ideas of the same socialist conception. The crisis of Marxism in the 1890s, the split between orthodox and heterodox positions. But indeed, in the tradition of ruthless critique, none can be more subject to criticism than revolutionary phrase mongerers. But all this has been said in Marx's Poverty of Philosophy, particularly the usage of abstractions in the discussion concerning the concrete. The error of a great like Proudhon, and an error of (you) as well.

Fascists desperately attempting to have anything close to theory is never not funny. Sit down Evola.

Fascism is not even from Evola's generation. Evola would have been a teenager when the Fasci was founded and a child and an adolescent when Mussolini was writing for the PSI. You don't really know anything that you are talking about.

It is necessary to distinguish between socialism and socialism

You don't really know anything that you are talking about.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/

? You're not posting something i haven't read, shitforbrains.

If you have read anything from Marx or Engels you wouldn't post laughing pepes at distinguishing socialism and socialism. Between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. You are a joke.

You are a joke.

devolves argument into insults

doesn't say anything

My business is done and my point is made.

The only point that has been made clear is that you have a babby tier understanding of socialism.

Splendid. Now, may you explain how?

Your equating of fascism with socialism. How many times must I repeat myself?

I have already stated that I have done no such thing and that I would not even equate two different conceptions of socialism so I don't quite understand what you are bickering about nonsensically.

two different conceptions of socialism

Fascism isn't a conception of socialism. My god you are dumb. Go play in traffic.

Fascism is not an 'ism'. It is a not a political ideology with a list of tenants in which you can follow more or less of. Neither is socialism. The former is a political conception at a given time and the latter is an economic category with conflicting conceptions of conflicting people.

I have said, and have only said that one very well could have professed both faiths. Michelle Bianchi, Edmondo Rossoni—all students of the class struggle baptized in the trenches. Corridoni would have been the same had he survived the war. The merits of Rossoni, even in politics he still professed the class struggle. All of them workmen. Meanwhile some smug American that has never seen the inside of a factory acts holier than thou and critiques these them because the state propaganda taught him to.

some smug American that has never seen the inside of a factory acts holier than thou and critiques these them because the state propaganda taught him to.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

has nothing to say

How are they not left wing?

for one, they banned trade unions.
second, they outlawed the socialist party as well as any "political formation that seeks to have one class (the proletariat) prevail over the other (the bourgeoisie)"; that was more or less what the penal code they wrote said.
third, while communism turns authoritarian because it claims to safeguard muh workers against the reactionary forces, fascism is totalitarian simply because it sees the State as the force whereby every social formation finds legitimation. the fact that the State is their moral guide explains why fascism seems incoherent at times: because whatever is deemed best for the State works

Mussolini installed a classical liberal economist as minister of treasury.

fascism endured for 25 years. de stefani was only minister for three, and that was when the state was excessively bloated due to the recent great war. post-1929 it was very different

socialists are fascists and its not even hidden. Just look at europe where they ban songs, books, phrases, everything the government doesn't like, even prayer in some places. During the covid protests when that one socialist group took over part of oregon? it became a completely fascist shithole within hours.

The reason people denied it for so long is because socialism is good in theory and people tried to stay civil, but that is all out the window at this point and its time to just admit that socialism is just another stage of fascism

for one, they banned trade unions.

Lenin did the same and he details why convincingly in State and Revolution.

second, they outlawed the socialist party as well

This is because of the failure to absorb the PSI after Matteotti was assassinated. Compromise was not possible after he was murdered. Mussolini claimed responsibility for it in the moral sense, but not the material sense. The postwar investigation showed him innocent as did Matteotti's own son.

Shut the fuck up you retard, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Shit eater.

it's not the same. in the early soviet union power had been seized by the forces of the proletariat. in fascist italy this never happened and the forces of the "reaction" created the corporative system to prevent a bolshevik revolution. the latter sought to build socialism. the former sought to annihilate the class struggle for the sake of national unity

in the early soviet union power had been seized by the forces of the proletariat

February Revolution and the October revolution were two different things. Lenin destroyed the SRs and the worker's councils. The suppression of the Putilov and Astrakhan Strikes is quite famous.

created the corporative system to prevent a bolshevik revolution

This is also another myth the Fascists themselves created. There was no hope for revolution in Italy. The strikes in Italy were for better wages, not for the creation of a revolutionary government. It's why the PSI split with the PCI. Mussolini said the reason why revolution was not possible was because there are not two classes in Italy, but many classes. During the unrest he claimed to support the strikes for the creation of the workers councils and the 8 hour day. He did not support the strikes for wages and the halting of production and its why in their photo ops you can find pictures of them working during the strikes. Famous photo of Ines Donati with a broom during the street sweepers strikes.

Famous photo of Ines Donati with a broom during the street sweepers strikes

Fascism is anti-liberal and anti-socialist. But ultimately, both liberals and socialists love to accuse each other of being fascists.
Fascism's core tenet is that the one thing that matters over everything else is the country. Freedoms and rights are granted by the government in the sole interest of the nation (not the working class, not "the people", not God) and that's the end of it. The State is a supreme entity whose rights prevail over everybody else's.
If the current economic conjuncture makes it necessary to intervene in the economy, so be it. If the opposite is necessary, so be it. It's only inconsistent when you fail to understand that

Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.

Fascism is anti-liberal

Of which liberalism does one wish to speak? I distinguish two principal forms of liberalism. For one… liberty is a right; for the other a duty. For one it is a gift; for the other a conquest… One liberalism conceives liberty rooted in the individual, and therefore opposes the individual to the State, a State understood as possessing no intrinsic value—but exclusively serving the well being and the improvement of the individual. The State is seen as a means, not an end. It limits itself to the maintenance of public order, excluding itself from the entirety of spiritual life—which, therefore, remains exclusively a sphere restricted to the individual conscience. That liberalism, historically, is classical liberalism—of English manufacture. It is, we must recognize, a false liberalism, containing only half the truth. It was opposed among us by Mazzini with a criticism, that I maintain, is immortal. But there is another liberalism, that matured in Italian and German thought, that holds entirely absurd this view of the antagonism between the State and the individual.

Fascism is anti-socialist

It is necessary to distinguish between socialism and socialism—in fact, between idea and idea of the same socialist conception, in order to distinguish among them those that are inimical to Fascism. It is well known that Sorellian syndicalism, out of which the thought and the political method of Fascism emerged—conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism. The dynamic conception of history, in which force as violence functions as an essential, is of unquestioned Marxist origin. Those notions flowed into other currents of contemporary thought, that have themselves, via alternative routes, arrived at a vindication of the form of State—implacable, but absolutely rational—that finds historic necessity in the very spiritual dynamism through which it realizes itself.

Not necessarily wrong but simplistic and lukewarm take

Dumb af. Unless you live in some hunter gatherer tribe where you can beat the shit out of the asshole trying to create a monopoly on berries you are going to have a upper class regardless of ideology. The most curropt and scrupleless are always going to take advantage and scam and bully their way to the top. The only way to mitigate this is an well informed, well educated population that is brave and has trong values combined with a rock solid and fair legal system that advocates for them

Cuban life expectancy is higher than ours btw

In 1971, approximately 9% of Soviet adult citizens were members of the communist party.

Most of those are Outer Party members, not Inner Party. 1984 was a statement of fact about the USSR, not some wacky prediction like many think.

Most of those are Outer Party members, not Inner Party

That doesn't mean the original statement is not wrong. The difference in the wealth disparity between the upper and lower party is how much coca cola you have access to. If you think even the upper party has wealth like the 1% you are insane.

The left-right interpretation of politics is fundamentally flawed.
Fascism originates from socialism/communism, what differentiates it is that communists are obsessed with intellectualizing their movement and that's something backed in since Marx.
They want to prove that they're scientifically right, and they write long tomes about how actually all of history can be correctly interpreted through the lens of class warfare and value extraction or whatever.
Fascism in it's primitive pre-realised state liked the collectivism and also hated liberalism. Which is why it was part of socialism, but it came into it's own through the shock of WW1. Which made the pre-existing rift obvious and inescapable.
Fascism is romantic, it's of the heart rather than the head and it naturally despises the socialist obsession with formulation and academic credibility.
While the socialists looked at what the world war meant for them through their theories and mental constructs the fascists looked to their instincts. The former were against the war (except Lenin who only cared about it as a means to end the old order in Russia), while the latter rallied around the flag for national greatness.
In conclusion that they're similar in some ways, but fundamentally different in other. People who say they're the same focus on how anti-liberal both are, but that's a liberal-centric way to view politics.

not true

Heartfelt post but nothing of substance.
Read what I wrote then go back to /balk/

no

I am the only bugi flag that has the right to discuss fashism. Read Renzo de Felice you dumb goy.

you're a yank

OP is a brazilian on a VPN btw

тихo мaнгaл

you will never be Bulgarian

Idc

hey buddy, what if those far-right extremists back in the day... were actually leftist?

whoa

reading this nonsense more and more these days. another psyop?

far-right extremists

Meaningless