Ideal for a New Leftist Movement

[LiberNovusAmericae]

That's not even close to being true. You've confused Fascism for National Socialism.

so,,, Mussolini didn't do those things? There isn't a practical or tangible difference between Nazism and Fascism

Not true. Race based extermination was not a tenet in Italian fascism until the Nazis forced it on them. Italian fascism is more nation/history based while Nazism is more race based. Both are terrible, but they're not one in the same.

[Ada Empire]

fascism is the purging of all races except one, it's the maintenance of patriarchal relations and purging of all the state deems "degenerates" (homosexuals, trans folks, disabled people, etc. ) Its marked by corporatism and anti-communism.

Socialism is workers ownership of the M.o.P. and workers democracy, big difference dude

Stalin was anti-Semitic and wanted to purge Jewish Doctors, so I would count that as trying to subjugate a race. Many policies of repression in the Soviet Union also resembled those conducted by the Nazis. Just because Nazism and Communism are antithetical on paper does not mean they are not similar in practice. Just because they weren't as racist doesn't change that.

literally first paragraph of the article: "A few weeks after the death of Stalin, the new Soviet leadership stated a lack of evidence and the case was dropped. Soon after, the case was declared to have been fabricated."

[Communal concils]

Communist governments end up somewhat resembling fascist ones anyway. This is just it without the veneer.

fascism is the purging of all races except one, it's the maintenance of patriarchal relations and purging of all the state deems "degenerates" (homosexuals, trans folks, disabled people, etc. ) Its marked by corporatism and anti-communism.

Socialism is workers ownership of the M.o.P. and workers democracy, big difference dude

I don't beleive in any of this .I'm not corporatist,I don't hate all communist, and I beleive in the destruction of patriarchy.Capitalist ,Reactionaries,Liberals are my enemies.How is this fascist.How can I be called fascist under this definition.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Stalin was anti-Semitic and wanted to purge Jewish Doctors, so I would count that as trying to subjugate a race. Many policies of repression in the Soviet Union also resembled those conducted by the Nazis. Just because Nazism and Communism are antithetical on paper does not mean they are not similar in practice. Just because they weren't as racist doesn't change that.

literally first paragraph of the article: "A few weeks after the death of Stalin, the new Soviet leadership stated a lack of evidence and the case was dropped. Soon after, the case was declared to have been fabricated."

Yes, because Stalin fabricated the case against them.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Doctors-Plot

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia]

so,,, Mussolini didn't do those things? There isn't a practical or tangible difference between Nazism and Fascism

Not all of them, and yes there is.

Nazism is Racialist; Fascism is Nationalist. There is a very important distinction between the two.

Both are super totalitarian and ultra-reactionary/traditionalist and holding corporatist views on the economy, so it's not like they aren't two sides of the same coin or that fascism is more "moderate" than nazism.

[Upper Secundus]

So... Strasserism without antisemitism.

I thought that said "Starscream without antisemitism"

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

fascism is the purging of all races except one, it's the maintenance of patriarchal relations and purging of all the state deems "degenerates" (homosexuals, trans folks, disabled people, etc. ) Its marked by corporatism and anti-communism.

Socialism is workers ownership of the M.o.P. and workers democracy, big difference dude

I don't beleive in any of this .I'm not corporatist,I don't hate all communist, and I beleive in the destruction of patriarchy.Capitalist ,Reactionaries,Liberals are my enemies.How is this fascist.How can I be called fascist under this definition.

Well for one thing he just described Nazism, not Fascism. But even still, you're neither. You're just a generic State Socialist.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

This sounds like it's approaching third positionist theory.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

This sounds like it's approaching third positionist theory.

Nah bro, it's full-blown NazBol.

[The New Teutonic Order]

1. I would agree that anarchism doesn't work, and that some kind of a state is needed for the protection of the people.

2. A single party in control of an oligarchy that "challenges the opposition" and consolidates power. I've never heard that one before...

3. So you're saying the state can be as ruthless as it wants to be, since its goal is a perfect society. Again, never heard that one before...

4. You say that sectarianism is good, but you also advocate for a single party that "challenges the opposition" and consolidates power.

5. I certainly don't agree with this, but I can see how some would see a state-controlled economy as good. Of course, a state-controlled economy with the rest of the principles wouldn't go over well.

6. I certainly don't agree with this, and neither would most leftists.

7. You are advocating nationalism. No leftist would ever advocate nationalism.

In conclusion, I would agree with people who say that this is fascist/Stalinist, because it is. While I don't agree with leftist thought at all, its stated goal is to give more freedom/happiness to the masses. This would do precisely the opposite.

[Torrocca]

What is this neo-Strasserist bullshittery I'm reading as a "new Socialism"?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

7. You are advocating nationalism. No leftist would ever advocate nationalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_nationalism

[Western Vale Confederacy]

What is this neo-Strasserist bullshittery I'm reading as a "new Socialism"?

Ironically enough, it's still more realistic than your own brand of socialism.

*distant oof sounds*

[Torrocca]

What is this neo-Strasserist bullshittery I'm reading as a "new Socialism"?

Ironically enough, it's still more realistic than your own brand of socialism.

*distant oof sounds*

Even more ironically, it's not even Socialist!

*distant dabbing*

[Upper Secundus]

What is this neo-Strasserist bullshittery I'm reading as a "new Socialism"?

Ironically enough, it's still more realistic than your own brand of socialism.

*distant oof sounds*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHKTZ-EwJjQ

[Atkemri]

Hey, slow down there Mussolini. Rome is that way -->

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Not all of them, and yes there is.

Nazism is Racialist; Fascism is Nationalist. There is a very important distinction between the two.

Both are super totalitarian and ultra-reactionary/traditionalist and holding corporatist views on the economy, so it's not like they aren't two sides of the same coin or that fascism is more "moderate" than nazism.

First off, they're both Futurist - not Reactionary, Conservative, or Traditionalist. They would be by our standards but at the time their views on gender roles, morality, etc. were in line with the rest of the Western World more or less. Some of them were actually quite progressive for them time, believe it or not. The ones that weren't were defending what they saw as their "culture".

Secondly, Fascism is grounded in a belief of "Spiritualism" which gives them a very unique worldview when compared to other mainstream ideologies. This is why they're often also highly religious; they view the world as being much more complex than it seems. The Nazism, however, grounded themselves more scientifically - believing in their own genetic superiority and trying to use science to prove it. There was some hints of Occultism at times, but this was mostly just in the SS. For the most part, the Nazis were grounded more in "Materialism" in contrast to the more "Spiritual" Fascists. You can see this in both Hitlerism and Strasserism and it affected the way both Fascists and Nazis view the world and the role of Nations and Races respectively. For the Fascist, it is the stage of development and richness of the culture that is superior/inferior; for the Nazi, it is simply genetics. Ironically, Fascism is the more realistic of the two seeing as Nazis pander toward pseudoscience instead of actual science.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

This sounds like it's approaching third positionist theory.

Nah bro, it's full-blown NazBol.

THIS POST IS APPROVED BY NAZBOL GANG. WE ARE THE SUPERIOR MEME IDEOLOGY. THE ANARCHISTS AINT GOT SHIT ON US.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

What is this neo-Strasserist bullshittery I'm reading as a "new Socialism"?

Ironically enough, it's still more realistic than your own brand of socialism.

*distant oof sounds*

*oofs in agreement*

[Upper Secundus]

Ironically enough, it's still more realistic than your own brand of socialism.

*distant oof sounds*

*oofs in agreement*

Join me my brothers and sisters, for we are the chosen of *oof*, we shall *oof* together for eternity.

[Torrocca]

Ironically enough, it's still more realistic than your own brand of socialism.

*distant oof sounds*

*oofs in agreement*

B-But the Zapatistas! Rojava! All those other Anarchist movements!

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

*oofs in agreement*

Join me my brothers and sisters, for we are the chosen of *oof*, we shall *oof* together for eternity.

Cursed video.

[Doing it Rightland]

1.The Socialist State is the only stage of Socialism required. There will be no transition to communism, and their will be no anarchist "society". Enemies would be every were, both foreign and domestic. Order and Stability is what all Socialist should be.

2.To defeat Capitalism and counter-Revolutionaries ,one must be populist. The Working class aren't educated enough to control the state. There needs to be a responsible Oligarchy. One that challenges it's opposition, but also cleans it's self. This Oligarchy must be lead by a single party, and this party must lead a republic of self restriction .It should also consolidate power.

3.Means justify the ends. It doesn't not matter how the party gains power, it must find a way of taking control. Elections, Military coup, and popular revolutions; these are only a few methods of gaining power.

4.Sectarianism is good,there is no "Left Unity".The Spanish civil war shows what Left unity is.

5.State control over the economy is a desire. welfare, Mass production, Protectionism, subsides and public services are good policies.

6.Complete rejection of consumerism and capitalist culture is important. Drugs,prositution and other hedonist desires should be banned.

7.People must be unified. Secularism and Nationalism can be used to unite the people. World revolution is a utopia, and focusing on your nation is truly progressive.

Alright, let's break it down.

1. Yeah, order and stability are nice and all until people start disappearing. A socialist society is inherently unsustainable. People won't work as much, and productivity slumps. Living conditions fall and everyone's left off worse than before.

2. An oligarchy with all the power does not clean itself. We've seen that throughout history, in countless governments. Provide some good examples of an all-powerful entity cleaning house, and you may have an argument.

3. I can't tell if you mean "the ends justify the means" as your description sounds more like that. And even then, what good does a coup/civil war do to promote stability and order. (because it doesn't).

4. The Leftists lost in Spain because they weren't united. Franco won because his forces were united, with a common idea. The Leftists ranged from democratic fighters to full blown communists.

5. State control over the economy presents a lot of problems. Yes, stuff like welfare and certain services being public makes sense, and of course companies ought to be regulated to promote growth and prevent collapse. But private companies are much more capable of quickly and efficiently providing goods or services than a government. For example, the computer you're reading this on is more than likely the result of a private company.

6. Consumerism and capitalist culture motivates people. Sure, morals are nice and all, but given enough time, the system falls apart. In the USSR, people could just not work and get the same treatment, so people stopped working. If you have capitalism, people are motivated to work.

7. See #1 "Enemies would be every were, both foreign and domestic". Sorta defeats your goal of unity if the requirement is having enemies. Also, do you want world revolution or a focus on your nation? Doing one diverts resources from the other.

All in all, your paradise is an infeasible autocracy that defies human nature. In the end, a socialist state is going to run dry, as economic progress goes elsewhere. Your oligarchy grows corrupt, and your workers suffer as a result. Innovation grinds to a halt, and everyone loses. I admire your goals to improve the world, but this is not the way.

Not everybody likes Big Brother, you know.

[Unithonia]

I'm getting a strong Adolf vibe

[Upper Secundus]

Join me my brothers and sisters, for we are the chosen of *oof*, we shall *oof* together for eternity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKWcIaJtS6Q

Truly the music of the Gods.