Communism
>it's inevitable that factory workers will kill their employers and distribute the factory equally, even though this hasn't happened yet 2 centuries later and the world is a lot different now
Fascism
>social change is solely the fault of jewish people. if we kill all jewish people, society will stay the same forever, and we'll go to space
It seems like political ideologies are basically retarded. What are some books that will convince me otherwise, or strengthen my thesis?
political ideologies are retarded, but your understanding of them are on par with a redditor or soundcloud rapper.
>kill their employers
no
>distribute the factory equally
no, what the fuck does that even mean?
>even though this hasn't happened yet 2 centuries later
yes, nothing will ever happen that hasn't happened yet
>and the world is a lot different now
Yes, it has the internet and video games now. I know these are the only things relevant to an underage Yea Forums lurker, but thankfully they're irrelevant in the historical picture. What's relevant is that capitalism is still here, and that it still follows the direction Marx said it would (centralization, periodical crises, eradication of borders and social ties, wars, etc.)
also
>thread is about communism and fascism
>the pic is of some anarchist faggots
>What are some books that will convince me otherwise
just reading any book whatsoever would make you much smarter at this point. it's called newbie gains here on /fitlit/
pic related.
>Fascism
>>social change is solely the fault of jewish people. if we kill all jewish people, society will stay the same forever, and we'll go to space
>this is what retards actually think Fascism is
This is your brain on libertarianism.
„Joos are ebil” isnt a core tennet of fascism you fucking autist
It's close. The actual core tenet is that there's always some corrosive group that, once removed, would leave the civil society functioning as a harmonious organism. It can be Jews, but also various kinds of "degenerates", promiscuous women, the postmodern neo-marxists, rap ethusiasts, etc.
They are only retarded when taken to the extreme. Centrism is the true red bill, and being flexible with you politics based on the change a certain population needs.
Do you think fascists, assuming they would be in full control and in a world without external enemies, would/would hypothetically end up in some sort of a purity-spiral? You know, where everyone (or, at least in the political sphere) tries to out-virtue-signal each other and rats out anyone that doesn't keep up with these ever rising vanity-standards — or for political or personal reasons?
"Centrism" isn't a political philosophy. Being 'centrist' or 'moderate' is completely reliant on one's cultural frame of reference. Being pro-slavery in Rome would be 'centrist.'
Individuals aren't the source of societal senescence. Institutions that cannot adapt to changing circumstances or are capture by special interests create decay.
We are obviously not talking about Roman time, you retarded tripfag.
The last part of The Origins of Totalitarianism by Arendt
Sublime Object of Ideology by Z
The Sayyid Qutb reader
Political Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) by David Miller
damn. every anprim on earth in one spot
t. Seething commie
Nice bait
So what are we talking about? American politics? European politics? Chinese politics? Because all of these frames of reference are different. A conservative in America dislikes socialist policies. A conservative in China wants to draw China back into Maoism. When you say 'centrist', it means fucking nothing. You are retarded.
Lmao even if that were true does this view of fascism seriously not make you take a second look at today’s society saying “it’s the men” “it’s the white people”
It’s a willingness to accept that human existence isn’t neutral, and that certain manners of doing it are detrimental to something you want to preserve.
I would hope so. In an ideal society the legislative body would be required to pass increasingly aggressive anti-anarchist legislation on a daily basis, and every legislator opposed would be labeled an anarchist and subdued.
You are literally saying
>we live in a society
Grow up.
I guess America is fascist now?
"it's the white people"
"it's the republicans"
"it's the rednecks"
"it's the russians"
"it's the neonazis"
There's not always a corrosive group. Fascism wants unity of the nation, Jews outright refuse to integrate and have an extremely strong ingroup preference.
Look at Brazilian Integralists. Even though racially the country is very diverse, their goal was further racemixing instead of removing a particular group.
Also if we look at your definition, wouldn't communists be considered fascist as well? There's always various kinds of "bourgeoisie" that need to be removed. Every time an attempt at implementing communism fails, it's the fault of this "bourgeois" group
Why do we have to have nations though? Why is a nation important at all? Who gives a fuck where the arbitrary line is on the map and what kind of cloth we put on a pole?
>anarcho primitivists
>part of the dsa
>*takes off shirt* omg so primitive dont rape though silly bois teehee
>bringing folding chairs to some grass mown boomer designated camp ground, AKA the places with the least anarchy and the least primitivism
these fags are undoubtedly fags but I hate them a little bit less knowing there are faggier fags out there who would call them "ableists" or TERFS or whatever faggy terminology they use
Because social trust is one of the most important factors when it comes to whether a society functions.
>lmao it's just arbitrary lines
brainlet
Then why don't we just make city states? I sure as hell don't have any "social trust" for people outside my city, let alone my state. You cross this county line and you die? I still don't get it. Please explain.
You have trust in the common currency, you trust in the common language, you trust in the common institutions. Retard.
Everyone speaks English (or will eventually) and every currency in the world is based of the US dollar. I don't get the point.
He's right tho.
>Do you think fascists, assuming they would be in full control and in a world without external enemies, would/would hypothetically end up in some sort of a purity-spiral?
Yes, that would be the sole possibility, since getting rid of the supposedly corrosive element wouldn't actually resolve social antagonisms. That's because they weren't caused by it in the first place. The antagonisms would still be there, so they would need to be projected at another group, and so on and so on.
(((special interests)))
Sure, this is a proto-fascist tendency that applies to all liberals (in the broadest sense possible), because to be liberal is to misrecognize the actual basis of social antagonism.
So "it's the fault of the greedy 1%" or "it's the fault of irrational people who don't trust science" is analogical to the Nazi "it's the fault of the Jews", although fascists take it to absolute extreme. But they take it to the extreme only because they only really appear at times when the social antagonism is at its extreme (I mean fascists as a serious force. Internet larpers will always be there).
>Also if we look at your definition, wouldn't communists be considered fascist as well? There's always various kinds of "bourgeoisie" that need to be removed.
That's correct, but only because this is a common liberal/fascist misunderstanding of communism. For communists it's not a matter of removing one group, because they recognize that the conflict is inscribed into the very fabric of civil society itself and attributing it to one corrosive element is a mistake. Marx:
>The condition for the emancipation of the working class is the abolition of every class, just as the condition for the liberation of the third estate, of the bourgeois order, was the abolition of all estates and all orders.
>The working class, in the course of its development, will substitute for the old civil society an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism, and there will be no more political power so-called, since political power is precisely the official expression of antagonism in civil society.
Both of those statements are categorically false. You trust in the common culture just by merely agreeing to participate within its parameters.
Jews aren't a special interest because they aren't a political block with a specific agenda. And you cannot prove that they are, even if you disagree.
Then why do we need to protect it???
>Fascism
>>social change is solely the fault of jewish people.
>jews established a Jewish state in the last century
>overwhelmingly dominate fields with lots of power
>over 100 year old book documenting their plan to do all of it