Fascism and it's False Historiography

[Lord Adolf Kalki-Wotanson]

This started as a reply under @Aral Khanym profile post saying they were interested in reading about fascism. the replies stunk. i got too big for pond and could not condense reply into shorter text. i copy and pasted all into here, so it is still addressed and written as a a reply, let this thread serve as meaningful beginning to discussion of Fascist thought, New Right Thought, etcetera.

Though I know it is futile to ask of this in the beginning of a thread about politics, please utilise this thread as a means of uncovering true historiography and philosophies (whether you agree with them or not) argue over whether something truly transpired, over the significance of events, even attack theories and claims, but PLEASE, do not use this thread to be a smelly partisan, the rest of the internet is clogged with this and many other threads have this problem, let people use their God-given minds to discern truthfulness, let the vitality within us to speak to what is correct. state facts, make arguments, counter arguments. no appeals to emotion.

ABIDE BY FORUM RULES. THREAD IS ON RIGHT WING THOUGHT AND PHILOSOPHY, THOUGH OFTEN INTERTWINED WITH RACE DISCUSSION, PLEASE AVOID. THANK YOU.


i think the replies stink. coming from a quasi-fascist. (i have disdain for labels, also it would be inaccurate to say i am a fascist, a new ideology, a new ruleset is required, society is totally different, fascism was built for society where entire towns all went to work in the same factory)
don't start with mein kampf. don't start with mussolini.
start with historical context. start with knowledge of pre french revolutionary politics. (then read mussolini and italians)
a couple of good reads (books and websites)
on resistance to evil by force by ivan alexandrovich ilyin

Private Site

decline of the west by oswald spengler

View: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA7E2840B724C6695
- an excellent playlist, one of the most excellent resources for understanding oswald spengler, ebert argued in a later interview that you would actually only have to skim spenglers book and watch his whole playlist to have an excellent understanding of the text, ebert is THE best spengler resource full stop

and to finish, because i'm afraid i don't want to fill this entire reply, (though do inquire if you want more) some quotes...

"Competition between groups is part of the stuff of life, and contemporary society is based on the formulation that that is not the case. And because it is the case, nature will trump all the liberal arguments. The problem is that if it doesn't take a political form, natures trumping of liberalism will be a very painful process to live through."
- Jonathan Bowden, Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics

"Right-wing ideas aren't just a bit of flag-waving and baiting a few Muslims. Right-wing ideas are spiritually about inequality. The left loves equality. It believes we're all the same. We must be treated the same. And they believe that as a morality."
- Jonathan Bowden, 'Credo: A Nietzschean Testament' -
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EAfHorg8QI


"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.[To Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of Sati religious funeral practice of burning widows alive on her husband's funeral pyre.]"
- Charles James Napier

"Man is and remains an animal. Here a beast of prey, there a housepet, but always an animal."
- Joseph Goebbels

"Life is at most basic, struggle for ownership of space."
- Bronze Age Pervert, Bronze Age Mindset

Ironically, a quote from the head pinko himself. The most important quote.

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.
[These words are also inscribed upon his grave]"
- Karl Marx


View: https://youtu.be/OGy28J3Ql1Y

 

[Lord Adolf Kalki-Wotanson]

Some opening shots. Let's refute some of Marx's theories and claims. Fascism, and New Right politics is undeniably, at least in part, a counterreaction to the phenomenon of Marxism, some ideas building from it, some ideas tearing it down. To understand Fascism and New Right Thinking, one must understand Marxism.

Theory - Labour Theory of Value
Summary
The claim of the theory is that the value of a commodity can be
objectively measured by the average number of labour hours required to
produce that commodity.
Example
A worker in a factory is given $30 worth of material, and after working 3 hours
producing a good, and using $10 worth of fuel to run a machine, he creates
a product which is sold for $100. According to Marx, the labour and only
the labour of the worker increased the value of the natural materials to
$100. The worker is thus justly entitled to a $60 payment, or $20 per
hour. If the worker is employed by a factory owner who pays him only
$15 per hour, according to Marx, the $5 per hour the factory owner
receives is simply a ripoff. The factory owner has done nothing to earn
the money and the $5 per hour he receives is "surplus value",
representing exploitation of the worker.
Counter Arguments (Links and summaries for some of the arguments contained within)
1.) https://mises.org/wire/three-arguments-debunking-marxs-labor-theory-value
a.) Value is Subjective
First, Wicksteed informs us that value is not measured by
something inherent in each commodity, but rather by the subjective
evaluations of the end user. "Now the 'common something' which
all exchangeable things contain, is neither more nor less than
abstract utility, i.e., power of satisfying human desires," he wrote.
"The exchanged articles differ from each other in the specific
desires which they satisfy, they resemble each other in the degree
of satisfaction which they confer." Commodities exchange for like
amounts not because they contain the same amount of labor, but
because the users value the ends they satisfy with similar
intensity. "If I am willing to give the same sum of money for a
family Bible and for a dozen of brandy, it is because I have
reduced the respective satisfactions their possession will afford
me to a common measure, and have found them equivalent,"
Wicksteed wrote.
b.) Marginal Utility
A key insight of Austrian economics is the use of marginal
analysis and the concept of diminishing marginal utility. In other
words, goods are evaluated by the needs-satisfaction of the next
unit of that good, not by the value of all existing units of the good.
In other words, the more of a good you already possess, the less
important the need that the next unit of that good will satisfy.
For instance, if you have one gallon of water, you will use it to
satisfy the most important use of water according to your priorities
— drinking, for instance. If you acquire a second gallon of water,
you will use that to satisfy your second highest priority for water
usage, such as bathing. The third gallon of water will satisfy yet a
less urgent use for water, and so on. Obviously, the price you are
willing to pay for a third gallon of water will be lower than the
price you are willing to pay for that first gallon of water. You
value it less not because of the amount of labor required to
produce it, but because it has a lower needs-satisfaction, or
utility, according to your priorities. As Wicksteed explained, "Now
in a community every member of which possessed two coats
already, a further increment of coats would (ceteris paribus) satisfy
a less urgent need, possess a less utility, and therefore have a
lower exchange value than would be the case in a community
each member of which possessed only one coat."
In sum, the value of coats will have fallen, not because it takes less
labor to produce them, but because the utility of the additional
units satisfies less urgent needs.
c.) Collectibles
Wicksteed closes his argument with an example of exchangeable
items whose amount of labor is "powerless to affect." These items
include "specimens of old china, pictures by deceased masters, and
to greater or less degrees the yield of all natural or artificial
monopolies. The value of these things changes because their
utility changes. And their utility changes ... because of a change
in the desires to which they minister," Wicksteed declares.
"I cannot see how any analysis of the act of exchange, which
reduces the 'common something' implied in that act to labour can
possibly be applied to this class of phenomena," he concludes.

2.) I don't intend to make a totally comprehensive list, but I do intend to list off some of the most important points, off the the top of my head, here are some other unsorted counter arguments to this Labour Theory of Value.
a.) Lack of empirical validity
The Labour Theory of Value lacks empirical support and cannot be consistently applied to explain real-world prices. Economic observations indicate that prices are determined by a complex interplay of supply, demand, market competition, and other factors, rather than labour alone. [I will perhaps give this some sources later, but as of now I have nothing to cite for this. Source for now: It is known.]
b.) Inability to account for non-market activities
The Labour Theory of Value does not adequately address the value of non-market activities, such as household work, volunteer labour, or informal economies. These activities can contribute significantly to the well-being of individuals and society but are not easily quantifiable or captured by the labour theory.

 

[Lord Adolf Kalki-Wotanson]

Thread Theme:
View: https://youtu.be/56QfUv48RLQ

 

[remember_summer_days]

Though I'm not an expert, anyone who wants to study the historical philosophy of fascism needs to read Mussolini's Intellectuals and Giovanni Gentile: Philosopher of Fascism. I think the most important thing to note in regards to the historiography of fascism is how much it has been tainted by Marxist historians trying to wiggle around a way to explain the rise of facism in a manner that doesn't contradict their dialectical version of history. Because Italian Fascism was a revolutionary and modernist movement, leftist intelligentsia had no other option but to interpret as a pathology of capitalism. Which is absurd, the birthplace of Fascism was an Italy still mostly pre-industrial, far from a free-market capitalistic society. Further essays like Ur-Fascism (Which lefties love to quote) fundamentally miss-represents fascism. Ecco was off the mark when he took Evola as the poster boy of fascism, he never was popular with the fascist intellectuals of his day, even if Mussolini took him for political means.

I could go check on my notes, but from what I remember Fascistic philosophy is based upon two main sources, Hegel and Giovanni Gentile. The latter took his ideas from progresive nationalism from the likes of Guiseppe Mazzini and the communalism of Enrico Corradini. It was argued that individual creatures reason through language and language is given by the community, thus your identity is determined by your community. (Since your ability to conceptualize yourself depends on a community given apparatus, language.)

Then, the community is sustained by the nation, who was argued had a sort of collective consciousness sustained through mimcry and instruction, thus what moves history forward is not material conditions as the marxists would have it, but ideas, moral and philosophical convictions. This really annoyed Marxists. Who since then have tried to pathologized fascism, but honestly it's as valid as any other modernist philosophy (and much more likely than marxism imo, even if I don't buy either), I think the reason they hate it so much, a bit of arm-chair psychoanalysis, it's because its another Hegelian idea in direct competition with theirs, it's a different beast competing for the same prey.

Anyways, Corradini started arguing in favor of syndicates as the best sort of community, with the best interest of the wider collective at hand and their role a revolutionary one (Another reason why arguing Fascism is capitalistic is improbable), though Carradini disagreed with most syndicalists of his day that the syndicate was the ultimate communal entity. No, it was the Nation State.

By the 1910s Sergio Panunzio coined the term national syndicalism, who was specially influenced by Hegel. Panunzio argued that human nature implied society, society implied law, and law implied authority. This authority would forward the collective will of the community. By 1914 he created the fascio interventionista. Fascio as a community of workers of voluntary association in industrial unions. And again, it was argued that the biggest union was the State, and since the state is a community (And community implies law and law implies authority) the State needed an authority.


By 1918 Mussolini identified himself with this doctrine of national syndicalism. And to quote James Gregor some more:

"Nationalism, national syndicalism, and neo-Hegelianism produced the ideology of Mussolini's fascism". But it's full maturation wouldn't come until the mid 20s.

I could keep going about Geovanni gentile, and how opposite fascism is to Nazism (TLDR: Nazism is materialistic af, while Fascism is completely idealistic, meaning identity is on the mind, not your race. You could become and belong to any nationality if you subjected yourself to the ideas of a given national community. It's sort of extremist in this regard and something the modern alt-right would call shit-lib, since it's a very radical notion of color-blindness, all that matters are the ideas. Mussolini himself went to say he thought jews could be integrated into Italian culture in a generation or two. Of course there was racism in Italy, but this racism was contingent as much as it was anywhere else. And James Gregor argues that Italy's alliance with Nazi Germany was as contingent as the Alliance of Western Europe/America with the Soviet Union. The alliance mostly rose, according to him, because of Western Europe's reluctance to accept Italy's Empire, which was a political and not a moral difference since, you know, every euro country at that time had an empire. And indeed the Fascist intelligentsia considered Nazis as degenerate, they argued race-obssesion was a symptom of a society with poor and soulless ideas. I very much agree with them in this regard.)

To finish James Gregor argues that we cannot talk about a broad fascism, he considers the movements in Spain/Chile/Portugal/etc too different to be called fascism, and says that no serious comparative study has been produced. TBH I'm skeptical of this point but his book is a library of footnotes so he's probably right about this too ngl lmao

All of this mostly comes from Mussolini's intellectuals, though it's a very well sourced book, idk if anyone has any sources which contradicts mine.

 

[remember_summer_days]

Some opening shots. Let's refute some of Marx's theories and claims. Fascism, and New Right politics is undeniably, at least in part, a counterreaction to the phenomenon of Marxism, some ideas building from it, some ideas tearing it down. To understand Fascism and New Right Thinking, one must understand Marxism.

Theory - Labour Theory of Value
Summary
The claim of the theory is that the value of a commodity can be
objectively measured by the average number of labour hours required to
produce that commodity.
Example
A worker in a factory is given $30 worth of material, and after working 3 hours
producing a good, and using $10 worth of fuel to run a machine, he creates
a product which is sold for $100. According to Marx, the labour and only
the labour of the worker increased the value of the natural materials to
$100. The worker is thus justly entitled to a $60 payment, or $20 per
hour. If the worker is employed by a factory owner who pays him only
$15 per hour, according to Marx, the $5 per hour the factory owner
receives is simply a ripoff. The factory owner has done nothing to earn
the money and the $5 per hour he receives is "surplus value",
representing exploitation of the worker.
Counter Arguments (Links and summaries for some of the arguments contained within)
1.) https://mises.org/wire/three-arguments-debunking-marxs-labor-theory-value
a.) Value is Subjective
First, Wicksteed informs us that value is not measured by
something inherent in each commodity, but rather by the subjective
evaluations of the end user. "Now the 'common something' which
all exchangeable things contain, is neither more nor less than
abstract utility, i.e., power of satisfying human desires," he wrote.
"The exchanged articles differ from each other in the specific
desires which they satisfy, they resemble each other in the degree
of satisfaction which they confer." Commodities exchange for like
amounts not because they contain the same amount of labor, but
because the users value the ends they satisfy with similar
intensity. "If I am willing to give the same sum of money for a
family Bible and for a dozen of brandy, it is because I have
reduced the respective satisfactions their possession will afford
me to a common measure, and have found them equivalent,"
Wicksteed wrote.
b.) Marginal Utility
A key insight of Austrian economics is the use of marginal
analysis and the concept of diminishing marginal utility. In other
words, goods are evaluated by the needs-satisfaction of the next
unit of that good, not by the value of all existing units of the good.
In other words, the more of a good you already possess, the less
important the need that the next unit of that good will satisfy.
For instance, if you have one gallon of water, you will use it to
satisfy the most important use of water according to your priorities
— drinking, for instance. If you acquire a second gallon of water,
you will use that to satisfy your second highest priority for water
usage, such as bathing. The third gallon of water will satisfy yet a
less urgent use for water, and so on. Obviously, the price you are
willing to pay for a third gallon of water will be lower than the
price you are willing to pay for that first gallon of water. You
value it less not because of the amount of labor required to
produce it, but because it has a lower needs-satisfaction, or
utility, according to your priorities. As Wicksteed explained, "Now
in a community every member of which possessed two coats
already, a further increment of coats would (ceteris paribus) satisfy
a less urgent need, possess a less utility, and therefore have a
lower exchange value than would be the case in a community
each member of which possessed only one coat."
In sum, the value of coats will have fallen, not because it takes less
labor to produce them, but because the utility of the additional
units satisfies less urgent needs.
c.) Collectibles
Wicksteed closes his argument with an example of exchangeable
items whose amount of labor is "powerless to affect." These items
include "specimens of old china, pictures by deceased masters, and
to greater or less degrees the yield of all natural or artificial
monopolies. The value of these things changes because their
utility changes. And their utility changes ... because of a change
in the desires to which they minister," Wicksteed declares.
"I cannot see how any analysis of the act of exchange, which
reduces the 'common something' implied in that act to labour can
possibly be applied to this class of phenomena," he concludes.

2.) I don't intend to make a totally comprehensive list, but I do intend to list off some of the most important points, off the the top of my head, here are some other unsorted counter arguments to this Labour Theory of Value.
a.) Lack of empirical validity
The Labour Theory of Value lacks empirical support and cannot be consistently applied to explain real-world prices. Economic observations indicate that prices are determined by a complex interplay of supply, demand, market competition, and other factors, rather than labour alone. [I will perhaps give this some sources later, but as of now I have nothing to cite for this. Source for now: It is known.]
b.) Inability to account for non-market activities
The Labour Theory of Value does not adequately address the value of non-market activities, such as household work, volunteer labour, or informal economies. These activities can contribute significantly to the well-being of individuals and society but are not easily quantifiable or captured by the labour theory.

You give us this wall of text to debunk labour theory of value, which is admirable but I can't say Labour theory isn't prima facie false lmao. And it's amazing how many pop-leftists just take it's validity for granted. It's very easy to get emotional about your boss getting more money than you, but when you realize that the value of something doesn't come from your labour, then it all starts to feel silly.

 

[Lord Adolf Kalki-Wotanson]

I can't say Labour theory isn't prima facie false

Perhaps I can't either... as with most refutations of Marx, it is really a refutation of his over simplifications... really I'm just getting some points on the damn thread so people can start talking... going to sleep now... hopefully will talk tomorrow...

 

[Lord Adolf Kalki-Wotanson]

Highly important information about the character of the genius scholar of Spengler, John David Ebert.

 

[Lord Adolf Kalki-Wotanson]

I think the most important thing to note in regards to the historiography of fascism is how much it has been tainted by Marxist historians trying to wiggle around a way to explain the rise of facism in a manner that doesn't contradict their dialectical version of history.

I was quite drunk writing this original thread to be honest, hence the second reply being a refutation of the labour theory of value. as far as i can recall my aim was to produce a work, which in my sober mind i realise would have taken a few days at least, which would have gone through a brief overview of marx, the refutations and then fascisms response to it all... above reply is more in line with what is actually realistic for this thread, I want to attack mainstream historiography of fascism, which is influenced heavily by marxist historians. i have anecdotal examples aplenty of being told that fascism came into existence just because people wanted to other different groups of people to feel better about themselves, i was told this by professors and teachers all my education.
here are some of the misconceptions that are probably worth tackling first
-fascism is 'just about demonising an outgroup'
-fascism is solely a product of the interwar period
-fascism is irrational and devoid of intellectual foundation
-fascism is a top down phenomenon
-fascism is only traditionalist
-fascism is 'late stage capitalism'
-fascism is aligned with capital/liberalism/conservatism
-bonus: i'll explain and make counter argument to this now, as a someone who likes spengler a lot, it's an annoyance to know that he called the national socialists 'emotionally driven' and therefore discards them, when that claim is hardly true at all for their actual philosophy, he is essentially only talking about the followers of the movement, and emotionally driven followers of a movement is hardly unique to national socialism...

I'm going to go for a walk now, will come back later and type up some arguments and examples people make FOR some of the above points, then counter arguments and examples.

 

[bnuungus]

I don't have anything to add to this thread but it's fun reading this stuff so please keep posting

 

[remember_summer_days]

I want my own tackle at these lol:

fascism is 'just about demonising an outgroup'

If you mean it's just about demonizing the outgroup, that's demonstrably false by the fact of the existence of all fascist philosophy. Even Evola who marxist like so much was way more than other-group bad. If it means fascims demonizes the outgroup, then that's trivial. Every political philosophy has that effect.

fascism is solely a product of the interwar period

The philosophy of fascism developed in the late 19th century and was already established by the 1910s. This one has some merit though, since Fascism came to power during the interwar period. But what is this claim trying to prove? It's a triviality to say Fascism is a product of x historical period because everything is.

fascism is irrational and devoid of intellectual foundation

Ok, the burden of proof is so big on this one. But to be charitable to the hypothetical person saying this, name 3 fascist philosophers (Evola doesn't count) explain their philosophy, and then explain why it's irrational.

fascism is a top down phenomenon

How is this an objection? Sure? How does it being top-down undermine it? Regardless, fascist would argue the State is doing the will of the people so it isn't top-down in that sense, similar to how communist argued the Soviet was doing the will of the proletariat, I think both are mental-gymnasticly though.

fascism is only traditionalist

Not really, Italian Fascism was a revolutionary and modernist movement.

fascism is 'late stage capitalism'

lol

fascism is aligned with capital/liberalism/conservatism

This one is interesting because Italian fascisms is often portrayed as being in love with the catholic church but it really wasn't the case, at least ideologically. Mussolini's alliance with the catholics was a diplomatic effort and Giovanni Gentile always maintained that Christianity and his philosophical idealism (which was the basis for fascism) were incompatible. As for capitalism/liberalism, those are two words so loaded I would first ask for your definition of it before talking about it further.

it's an annoyance to know that he called the national socialists 'emotionally driven' and therefore discards them,

Did he really say that? That's such a fallacious argument from such a respected thinker. Weird. Then again, everyone has biases and high IQ people are actually more prone to bias blindspot than your average population. And it's not surprising when you look at some artistic geniuses give completely room-temperature IQ takes on topics they're not well informed about.

 

[lain is here]

Just skip all these steps and go straight to Evola. Or if he's too mainstream now, then Savitri Devi and Miguel Serrano. You'll guaranteed become the cool kid on all the Fed honeypot discord servers

Highly important information about the character of the genius scholar of Spengler, John David Ebert.
View attachment 63528

I unironically love John David Ebert. The man's almost completely unhindged, but despite that he's actually damn good at summarizing certain texts. He definitely has an interesting balance of schizo and genuine renegade scholar

 

[vect0r]

Fascism seems incredible hard to define in general. I tend to think of it as a collectivist war ideology that is rarely peaceful. Fascism seems to be a popular choice with many a reactionary political fanatic.

 

[ZinRicky]

The alliance mostly rose, according to him, because of Western Europe's reluctance to accept Italy's Empire, which was a political and not a moral difference since, you know, every euro country at that time had an empire.

Other European countries (excluding Germany) couldn't ignore the fact that Italy used every weapon it could (even chemicals) to conquer a full member of Société des Nations.

By the way, I think I should play as devil's advocate (eh) by recommending Umberto Eco's Eternal Fascism.

 

[NeoTokyo Tempo]

Just skip all these steps and go straight to Evola. Or if he's too mainstream now, then Savitri Devi and Miguel Serrano. You'll guaranteed become the cool kid on all the Fed honeypot discord servers


I unironically love John David Ebert. The man's almost completely unhindged, but despite that he's actually damn good at summarizing certain texts. He definitely has an interesting balance of schizo and genuine renegade scholar

I think it would be a loose definition of mainstream. People don't really read Evola anyway. They just buy his books, and let them sit on the shelf. I'm of course guilty of this myself.

 

[WALFTEAM]

"head pinko himself" uh huh

see, here's the thing. you cannot really understand fascism without understanding that it's historically demonstrated function has been something like an animal or virus genetically engineered and bred to kill communism. they're always the main targets of any fascist group, number one on the kill list. it's why they wind up becoming the "devil" that even liberal anticommunists will make deals with in order to attack communists if they're desperate enough.

The shorthanded definitions of fascism I've encountered range from "capitalism on full-auto" to a "dictatorship of the petty bourgeoisie, as opposed to a dicatorship of the proletariat or dicatorship of the bourgeoisie." A sort of total fusion of capital and the nation-state. There is an internal logic to it but American curriculums don't like to cover it much.

And yes, the Italian version does look vaguely neoliberal. There's one big anthem they had during their time, I can't remember what it was called but the lyrics sounded WEF as all hell when I heard them translated.

 

[Lord Adolf Kalki-Wotanson]

Okay my wifi died + 100 different life things got in the way, luckily I still have a draft of my 1,300 words or so... unsure if I'll finish this off today since it's been pretty rough, but going to get an iced coffee now so we'll see.

 

[Outer Heaven]

Will contribute to this thread later when I get the time. It's a good start but it misses much of the nuances and schisms in the current dissident right. Here's a meme summarizing it for now

 

[赤い男]

Tbh if fascists would look like this, i wouldn't mind

 

[mydadiscar]

Tbh if fascists would look like this, i wouldn't mind

this is what happens if you read siege

 

[mydadiscar]

The only fascist book I've ever read is The Turner Diaries, where do I collect my coolest fed award?