![Common Sense [640x624 - 24KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/Hw5zBY.jpg){kind=link}
Cherrypicked? From my original statement?
Cherrypicked from history. You're only counting internal communist subversion which had already mostly been suppressed by other groups.
There's also the issue of your sample size: Fascism and national socialism only had one opportunity to succeed or fail each. Your conclusion is like saying coins always land tails up because that's how it worked that time I tried flipping one.
I'm not saying fascism or national socialism are the ideal social form, merely they are good and proven medicines for red fever and that we should be figuring out a prescription that works for america going forward.
Eh... I'd take them over what we have now that's for sure. It's just that looking back through history, whenever you accept an emperor and give him universal power to fix all your problems it's pretty much guaranteed decline from there. There are far more caesars than there are cincinnati.
The Romans started out as a proud independent people, each of whom considered himself personally responsible for the defence and advancement of his society. By the time the emperors were done with them, they were tax cattle welcoming the invaders in because the germans didn't milk them as hard.
National socialism as it was expressed in europe was tailored for each nation in europe which had it, German national socialism wouldn't fit america, we need to be the tailors for any ideology, the same with fascism,
Here's the problem with that: natsoc and fascism aren't some kind of political blank cheque you can mould to whatever you like. They're probably the best defined political ideologies in history. It sounds more like you want a general ethno-nationalist movement.
in truth America might accept an emperor before a fuhrer for all the difference such distinctions are worth, the work ahead of that date is in admitting our involvement in WW2 was a mistake, and to scorn a hundred years of so called progress for what it really was, kike subversion to profit bankers, speculators, and investors and rob working men of their lives for barely tenable wages.
Yes. No matter what happens there's a century of propaganda to undo. That won't be easy.
Our broken society must be re-engineered.
Agreed
There's also the issue of your sample size
Spain, Germany, Italy, I might be stretching but I'd include some of the south american military juntas as natsocs or fascists, and if you look carefully not at self identification in practice as compared to the writings of Franco, Hitler, Mussolini and others but at what actually is I would say Russia today is effectively a national socialist government with a fascist dictator, it has a republican flavor and has adapted to capitalism as chinese communism has but essentially it's a nationalist society and government with a state guided economy, not a fully planned economy but the state can intercede at will. I believe a few middle eastern nations have met this standard as well, we called Gaddafi a commie in the US but he was much more natsoc, egypt had such a period under military rule, a few places in south asia could fit this bill too. I would say "military dictatorship" has been a western cope for natsoc/fascist, pretty much all such states arose in opposition to internal corruption employed by soviet subversives in the state or communist rebels in the area.
Natsoc doesn't just mean hitler's germany, capitalist democratic republics look different from one another, communist nations have variations as intense, so too with fascism and national socialism, we just hide this fact from ourselves because americans have a psychological need to win and admitting that we dint really defeat communism or national socialism is about as crippling as thinking about a thousand years of islamic rape and slavery in europe, or losing vietnam.
As much of a human fart as zizek is I think he's essentially right that it is our generation's business to move beyond the political dichotomy of the last century. I think that means fashioning new ways from the best of the previous ideologies and not being so afraid of mixing them up a bit.
We already face erasure, experimental systems are better than sticking with a broken one.
The problem with that analysis is that fascism and national socialism are tightly defined ideologies. If you try to redefine them in a loose manner then where do you draw the line? How do you decide what national socialism is and isn't? If I say the USSR was national socialist how do you prove me wrong? You've already torn up the definition.
"Republic" by contrast is an extremely broad word, covering most things that aren't monarchism. It shoudl be expected for republics to differ.
As much of a human fart as zizek is I think he's essentially right that it is our generation's business to move beyond the political dichotomy of the last century. I think that means fashioning new ways from the best of the previous ideologies and not being so afraid of mixing them up a bit.
I fully approve of that, I just don't get why we need to lift names from some of the broken ones. If you invent something new, call it something new.
We already face erasure, experimental systems are better than sticking with a broken one.
Right, I agree. Actually I support maximum experimentation in the form of voluntaryism.
(post is archived)