Iron March Forum

[Egalitarian]

http://ironmarch.org/index.php?/topic/512-revolutionair-fascisme/

Throughout that thread, those dingoes argue over where fascism rests on the political spectrum.

Are you kidding me? You speak like a typical Stormfronter right-winger that goes around calling any Fascists with "left-wing" views "marxists/communists" and what not. Fascism is NOT Right-wing and but it is not Left-wing either! Get that drilled into your head. But of course they're different factions of Fascists movements which have tilted their heads to a "wing" whether it would be Fiscal or Social. Italian Fascism was Moderate/Third-Positionist. Mussolini was Left-winger and always had been, he actully made bigger campaigns against the right-wing/Bourgeoisie then the Left-wing.

Lol, what does that even mean "Third-Positionist"? Something above the political spectrum? And what exactly is anti-bourgeoisie about the Palazzo Chigi Pact and Palazzo Vidoni
Agreement which made business relations easier to conduct and promoted the fascist as the sole representative of labour?


I find especially precious is UltraNationalist's definition of fascism. He's an atheist which goes against fascist reactionary theism (Christianity in Germany, Italy, and Spain) and is against a free market economy that those fascist countries implemented under their era.


Who would have expected these guys know what socialism and being a revolutionary is all about? Something should be done to condemn such mockery of the radical Left... I was considering registering an account over there to do exactly that, what do y'all think?

[RedSun]

I posted there in the past under the username 'LightningSun', though I don't anymore (except for in one thread) for pretty much those reasons. I wish you the best of luck, but if you browse through my thread "Why not syndicalism?" (it's under Fascism and the Left and the only topic I post in anymore) you'll find how pigheaded some of them can be. Especially FascistCapitalist. Especially FascistCapitalist.
There are, however, some conservative socialists over there, like Vladimir. I've toyed with the idea of linking them to here, but I don't know if it would go over well.

[UltraNat]

I have always defined myself as Strasserist in the past. Which is a major reason why I have mainly Left-wing Tendencies. As you already know, I'm strongly disgusted with the Reactionary Right-wing. But according to this Forum I am a Reactionary in a sense that I support Authoritarianism and Militarism. Yet we do not forget that several 'Left-wing Socialist' states also incorporated the same methods of Authoritarian Government, aswell as Militarism. The USSR was strongly authoritarian and it was Militaristic as it build up its armed forces as a massive rate during the cold war. What of North Korea(What I've heard, is that they've placed the 'Workers party of korea on the "right-wing" spectrum. I'm Revolutionary, in terms that I desire progress and Social change, put an end to degenerate Free-market capitalism and instead replace it with Radical Corporatism. However, I'm a Reactionary in a sense that I will remain loyal to any system aslong as it is legitimate as I have stated before. I do not go around spouting the subversiven notion of "Viva la Revolution!" or Fist pumping meanwhile wraping a Red cloth over my left shoulder. As I was reading through the forum, I can agree that Mussolini made a mistake of making an alliance with the Monarchy, Bourgeoisie and the clerical Right-wing. When in reality he had the opportunity to seize power by force but that wasn't the objective. His goal was to unite Italy as one, which explains why he had to kiss ass to Victor Emmannuel III and the aristocrats. Fascism has always left his members free to have different points of view and a free dibate between the many tendencies inside, until they weren't against the interests of State and Party. He was the one who was keeping together all the Party's factions. Between the two opposite wings of revolutionary socialists and the conservative reactionaries this second one was the major,unfortunately, also because it was supported by Monarchy,Church and the rich bourgeoisie, and of course this sneaky faction always attempted to stop Mussolini in his more radical social reforms. In his heart Mussolini always supported the Left faction of PNF but he never managed to break with the monarchical reactionary faction. When he was betrayed by the King and his acolytes he realized his mistakes and he tried the last and glorous attempt to build an Italian socialistic Republic (R.S.I.) in northern Italy, along with the true socialists, like the ex-communist leader Nicola Bombacci, and purged by the reactionaries, and to realize in the end what that should have been the true Fascist State, progressive and socialist. It is well known that Mussolini in his youth was an atheist and a radical anticlerical left winger. And the first cells of his Fascist Party was composed by an overwhelming majority of socialists gone out of the Socialist Party, nationalists, veterans of the WW1, ex-anarchists, and anticlerical republicans. So he and his original party had nothing to do with any kind of reactionaries and clericals and Stormfont's right winger garbage can say only bulls*its about it. Then, forced by the king,in 1929 he signed a pact with the Vatican, which in my opinion was a big mistake, though he did it also for the good reason to keep united Italy and to not create any sort of religious division inside of Italian civil society. Class Collabation is the best way to combat Class warfare, to some it all down I quote "The idea that inequality is natural and that social progress must be resisted is a distinctly reactionary and more conservative view, while more radical fascists such as the Falangists, early Italian fascists, and some National Socialist's (such as Strasserites) called for a social-revolution to overcome the old injustices holding back their respective nations from becoming truly great. That in itself is a great divide between the radical fascists and the conservative autocratic ones."

[UltraNationalist]

To make things easier for myself, I just repeated some of the things I mentioned in the IronMarch Forum. With due Respect.

[Rev Scare]

You are a reactionary due to the fact that you are a fascist, not due to your espousal of authoritarian political structures in itself.

[Egalitarian]

I have always defined myself as Strasserist in the past. Which is a major reason why I have mainly Left-wing Tendencies.

You've already asseverated yourself as a "Third Positionist" on your profile, and now you state your immersion of "Left-wing Tendencies" as if you are somehow trying to escape your internal reactionary gist. Strasserites are essentially fascists with a diminutive sense of class consciousness against the capitalist system (that of course does not dismiss them of the reactionary far-Right).

As you already know, I'm strongly disgusted with the Reactionary Right-wing. But according to this Forum I am a Reactionary in a sense that I support Authoritarianism and Militarism. Yet we do not forget that several 'Left-wing Socialist' states also incorporated the same methods of Authoritarian Government, aswell as Militarism. The USSR was strongly authoritarian and it was Militaristic as it build up its armed forces as a massive rate during the cold war.

Capitalist encirclement had the Soviet Union in a struggle against global enemies throughout its existence. Firstly, you have Hitler's movement which nearly eradicated it and secondly, you have the Allied faction who tried to destroy it from a non-direct violent approach known as the Cold War. Military and authoritarian buildup is a necessary course to take up against global capitalists who tried to abolish the one system that threatens their capital.

What of North Korea(What I've heard, is that they've placed the 'Workers party of korea on the "right-wing" spectrum.

The Workers' Party of Korea isn't a genuine revolutionary socialist party and has deteriorated over time into a neo-monarchy, false utopia as many people I figure here disapprove of.

I'm Revolutionary, in terms that I desire progress and Social change,

So-called 'progress and social change' from the fascist perspective is nothing contrary to radical social-political regression – devoid of any legitimately revolutionary and progressive elements.

put an end to degenerate Free-market capitalism and instead replace it with Radical Corporatism.

Corporatism ruthlessly protects the capitalist mode of production and petite-bourgeois from any workers' threat may that may be opposed to it.

However, I'm a Reactionary in a sense that I will remain loyal to any system aslong as it is legitimate as I have stated before. I do not go around spouting the subversiven notion of "Viva la Revolution!" or Fist pumping meanwhile wraping a Red cloth over my left shoulder.

Precisely my point I have been composing throughout this post and thread.

As I was reading through the forum, I can agree that Mussolini made a mistake of making an alliance with the Monarchy, Bourgeoisie and the clerical Right-wing.

Now you're learning, but it was no mistake on Mussolini's part – all fascists eventually sell themselves out to the monarchies, bourgeoisie and other reactionary elements for profit.

When in reality he had the opportunity to seize power by force but that wasn't the objective. His goal was to unite Italy as one, which explains why he had to kiss ass to Victor Emmannuel III and the aristocrats.

As already stated, Mussolini was not a revolutionary in the slightest. His movement can be fairly described as a "noisy protest". His objective was to secure the future of the monarchist traditional system and the strength of corporations over their workers. Your example of Emmanuel III is a proof of the fascist fraudulent program of imperialist-colonialist dogma.

Fascism has always left his members free to have different points of view and a free dibate between the many tendencies inside, until they weren't against the interests of State and Party. He was the one who was keeping together all the Party's factions.

Fascism has allowed their members different points of view as long as it served the goals of fascist takeover (a prime example of this would be Hitler and the Strasser brothers, who he used to gain popularity and later destroyed them due to a difference in policy and power as a result). Fascism destroys ALL opposition once it gains power over the state.

Between the two opposite wings of revolutionary socialists and the conservative reactionaries this second one was the major,unfortunately, also because it was supported by Monarchy,Church and the rich bourgeoisie, and of course this sneaky faction always attempted to stop Mussolini in his more radical social reforms.

Any 'revolutionary socialists' within Mussolini's ranks would have abandoned their views if they were truly passionate about his movement. You being the reactionary you are, I don't understand why you would criticize the support of the monarchy, church, and bourgeoisie that brought Mussolini to power and supported him until the end.

In his heart Mussolini always supported the Left faction of PNF but he never managed to break with the monarchical reactionary faction.

A lie. Mussolini was never a supporter of the "Left faction of the PNF". He was a reactionary to the inner core of his philosophy which is exactly why he had never put in an immense amount of effort to break free of the reactionaries he supposedly despised.

When he was betrayed by the King and his acolytes he realized his mistakes and he tried the last and glorous attempt to build an Italian socialistic Republic (R.S.I.) in northern Italy, along with the true socialists, like the ex-communist leader Nicola Bombacci, and purged by the reactionaries, and to realize in the end what that should have been the true Fascist State, progressive and socialist.

The di Salò was named the Italian Social Republic, a puppet state of Nazi Germany during the war. Allied forces had already occupied most of Italy and by that period of time, capitalist profit was not any more important than losing the state. What had been left of the National Fascist Party was unorganized and whomever of which participated in the creation of the Republican Fascist Party were not seen as a threat.

It is well known that Mussolini in his youth was an atheist and a radical anticlerical left winger.

Mussolini also used to be a rabid pacifist.

And the first cells of his Fascist Party was composed by an overwhelming majority of socialists gone out of the Socialist Party, nationalists, veterans of the WW1, ex-anarchists, and anticlerical republicans.

Those groups of people were the only prominent source of support for any movement in Italy and Germany at the time. They did nothing to alter the inevitable Fascist state's reactionary policies.

So he and his original party had nothing to do with any kind of reactionaries and clericals and Stormfont's right winger garbage can say only bulls*its about it.

You stated earlier how you were wrong about Mussolini not selling out to the monarchy, church, bourgeoisie; all reactionary groups.

Then, forced by the king,in 1929 he signed a pact with the Vatican, which in my opinion was a big mistake, though he did it also for the good reason to keep united Italy and to not create any sort of religious division inside of Italian civil society.

Christianity had already been Italy's state religion for two years by that time and anyone who did not decide to follow it or had decided to take up rebellion against it were exiled.

Class Collabation is the best way to combat Class warfare,

The best way to settle class warfare and capitalist exploitation of the workers is to end the reality of monetary classes. "Class collaboration" is an idealist view of how society functions efficiently and how such may be achieved.

to some it all down I quote "The idea that inequality is natural and that social progress must be resisted is a distinctly reactionary and more conservative view, while more radical fascists such as the Falangists, early Italian fascists, and some National Socialist's (such as Strasserites) called for a social-revolution to overcome the old injustices holding back their respective nations from becoming truly great. That in itself is a great divide between the radical fascists and the conservative autocratic ones."

All in the same. "The idea that inequality is natural and that social progress must be resisted is a distinctly reactionary and more conservative view" is the type of mentality fascists had since the beginning of their organization if you read through their works; "while more radical fascists such as the Falangists, early Italian fascists, and some National Socialist's (such as Strasserites) called for a social-revolution to overcome the old injustices holding back their respective nations from becoming truly great." That was the type of mentality possessed by Strasserite-like members of those groups who were overruled by the majority of the openly reactionary fascists later on.

[Pantheon Rising]

Strasserites are essentially fascists with a diminutive sense of class consciousness against the capitalist system (that of course does not dismiss them of the reactionary far-Right).

Lol may I ask how at all Strassierism is reactionary, far right, or fascism? Or are you just spouting off terms with no idea what you're on about?

[TheocWulf]

You've already asseverated yourself as a "Third Positionist" on your profile, and now you state your immersion of "Left-wing Tendencies" as if you are somehow trying to escape your internal reactionary gist. Strasserites are essentially fascists with a diminutive sense of class consciousness against the capitalist system (that of course does not dismiss them of the reactionary far-Right).

Yea thanks for the Strasserism bashing there.Wasnt your last user name Racial communist

[Egalitarian]

Lol may I ask how at all Strassierism is reactionary, far right, or fascism? Or are you just spouting off terms with no idea what you're on about?

Moderators here concluded Strasserism is as it is in these threads.

Yea thanks for the Strasserism bashing there.Wasnt your last user name Racial communist

No bashing of Strasserism here. My name used to be RC, although what's particularly funny about that?


Don't bother replying to me because I don't want the direction of this thread to be derailed. This thread is about the Iron March forum, not offended Strasserites who would rather bash a comrade over a hazardous fascist that threatens their way of life.

[Front19]

"bash a comrade over a hazardous fascist that threatens their way of life."
The Strasserist is not your comrade, he has more in common with the Fascist then yourself. I'm not a Fascist, but Fascism is not Reactionary but according to you quasi-socialists, and any ideology that aims are preserving tradition and private propert is Reactionary. You over use the word to a point, were it's simply deragratory and has no significant meaning to it. What made me laugh, is that UltraNationalist's account is not restricted but for what purpose? simply by being a Fascist? Now I wonder why the IronMarch Forum doesn't restrict those with opposing views? Oh perhaps because it consists of all kinds of ideological members, nationalists from both the Left & Right, but this forum can't even tolerate a single Fascist.

"hazardous Fascist that threatens their way of life". Fear mongering much? What shall we do Comrade Egalitarian? Perhaps purge the evil-Fascists to prevent them from threatening our way of life! Considering their in power right now

[Altair]

"bash a comrade over a hazardous fascist that threatens their way of life."
The Strasserist is not your comrade, he has more in common with the Fascist then yourself. I'm not a Fascist, but Fascism is not Reactionary but according to you quasi-socialists, and any ideology that aims are preserving tradition and private propert is Reactionary. You over use the word to a point, were it's simply deragratory and has no significant meaning to it. What made me laugh, is that UltraNationalist's account is not restricted but for what purpose? simply by being a Fascist? Now I wonder why the IronMarch Forum doesn't restrict those with opposing views? Oh perhaps because it consists of all kinds of ideological members, nationalists from both the Left & Right, but this forum can't even tolerate a single Fascist.

"hazardous Fascist that threatens their way of life". Fear mongering much? What shall we do Comrade Egalitarian? Perhaps purge the evil-Fascists to prevent them from threatening our way of life! Considering their in power right now

There has never been a fascist purge here, and it is unlikely that there will ever be one. We allow those with opposing ideologies to post on this forum, though they are usually moved to the Opposing Views section so that those who are not regular members understand that we do not agree with their positions. When we allow those with drastically different opinions to freely post about topics such as these on the main forum, it breeds misunderstanding. The overall purpose of the system used is to improve clarity, not stifle all opposition. We welcome those with differing viewpoints to post here, and we will counter their posts accordingly.

[Egalitarian]

The Strasserist is not your comrade, he has more in common with the Fascist then yourself.

Considering Strasserism was conceived by individuals who worked alongside with Hitler, I wouldn't be surprised and knowing that only raised my suspicions.

I'm not a Fascist, but Fascism is not Reactionary

How isn't fascism wholly reactionary? Give me an example of fascists implementing non-Rightist measures within their societies or having a revolution of their own....ever.

but according to you quasi-socialists, and any ideology that aims are preserving tradition and private propert is Reactionary.

Ideologies that incorporate such policies never end it at those ones. "Preserving tradition" is literally responsible for the Holocaust and fascist imperialism. Private property helped escalate capitalist satisfaction.

You over use the word to a point, were it's simply deragratory and has no significant meaning to it.

I disagree. Constantly reminding the reader of the thesis does not deteriorate the meaning of a word.

What made me laugh, is that UltraNationalist's account is not restricted but for what purpose? simply by being a Fascist?

UltraNationalist is a (fascist) reactionary and to ensure he doesn't spread his ideals throughout the rest of the board, he is limited to the opposing views section where all reactionaries and cosmopolitans will remain.

Now I wonder why the IronMarch Forum doesn't restrict those with opposing views?

Their own way of dealing with non-fascists is business of their own.

Oh perhaps because it consists of all kinds of ideological members, nationalists from both the Left & Right,

Every single member on their forum is a reactionary, despite certain conflicting opinions on various issues. Our nationalists are of the Left, theirs are from the Right. Do you see the difference?

but this forum can't even tolerate a single Fascist.

We tolerate all fascists when they are placed in their playpen.

"hazardous Fascist that threatens their way of life". Fear mongering much? What shall we do Comrade Egalitarian? Perhaps purge the evil-Fascists to prevent them from threatening our way of life! Considering their in power right now

A socialist revolution is a progressive way to end all fascist tyranny now and in the future.

[Rev Scare]

"bash a comrade over a hazardous fascist that threatens their way of life."
The Strasserist is not your comrade, he has more in common with the Fascist then yourself. I'm not a Fascist, but Fascism is not Reactionary but according to you quasi-socialists, and any ideology that aims are preserving tradition and private propert is Reactionary. You over use the word to a point, were it's simply deragratory and has no significant meaning to it. What made me laugh, is that UltraNationalist's account is not restricted but for what purpose? simply by being a Fascist? Now I wonder why the IronMarch Forum doesn't restrict those with opposing views? Oh perhaps because it consists of all kinds of ideological members, nationalists from both the Left & Right, but this forum can't even tolerate a single Fascist.

"hazardous Fascist that threatens their way of life". Fear mongering much? What shall we do Comrade Egalitarian? Perhaps purge the evil-Fascists to prevent them from threatening our way of life! Considering their in power right now

What is "fascism" in your view? How do you describe fascism's defining characteristics? Thus far you have referenced an arbitrary need to preserve "tradition and private property." Which tradition? How will you ensure this? Why? How do you understand private property?

[Pantheon Rising]

Moderators here concluded Strasserism is as it is in these threads.

Oh yes because some moderators on a forum decided it was reactionary means it is. I would have to agree that you seem to use the word reactionary where it doesn't belong and merely as an insult. If you know anything about history you will understand that reactionary and "right wing" mean to preserve the status quo. But you haven't actually read any of Otto Strasser's writings and you merely take a random moderator's word for something so how can you know what is reactionary? Then again it is a very common trait among communists to not think for themselves.

To members of "Iron March". Strasserism does indeed share things in common with fascism such as the drive to preserve civilization, nationalism, and traditionalism. However; what you should realize is that capitalism (private property; market competition) is ideologically linked with everything liberal. Capitalism and capitalistic features had no place in European society prior to the French Revolution. With the new revolutions that will sweep our nations there should be no remnants of the capitalist system left in tact. We will need a complete triumph over liberalism.

[Pantheon Rising]

And about threatening my way of life; I don't live a degenerated American way of life where my only goal is to gather material goods. So fascism obviously doesn't threaten my way of life and even though I will admit that I do not like the fascist ideas of a totalitarian state and corporatism; fascism does not threaten my way of life. That is fear mongering.

[RedSun]

what you should realize is that capitalism (private property; market competition) is ideologically linked with everything liberal. Capitalism and capitalistic features had no place in European society prior to the French Revolution. With the new revolutions that will sweep our nations there should be no remnants of the capitalist system left in tact. We will need a complete triumph over liberalism.

Despite speaking as more of a centrist than a conservative: Amen, brother.

[Celtiberian]

Throughout that thread, those dingoes argue over where fascism rests on the political spectrum.

Its atypical origins, historic implementation, and the heterogeneous philosophies and interpretations thereof associated with the ideology has led to a great deal of confusion among political scientists and historians regarding where to place fascism on the political spectrum. Historians generally classify fascism as a phenomenon of the Far Right, but there is also a sizable portion of them who consider it a syncretic ideology, and even a minority who consider it leftist. If we utilize the standard two axes of economics and style of governance to determine where it stands on the political spectrum, I would classify fascism as highly authoritarian socially and centrist economically. 'Progressive' and 'reactionary' are relative terms, thereby rendering fascism reactionary in comparison to socialism and communism, but (economically) progressive relative to libertarianism or neoliberal capitalism.

Fascist philosophy is highly paternalistic, which is why some emphasis was placed on "social justice." The solution to the social question formulated by fascist theoreticians was a combination of corporativism (which is a form of capitalism, discussed at length here) and a few social welfare provisions. In practice, corporativism, to the negligible degree it was implemented, was a failure. The Italian capitalists enjoyed a docile workforce (forbidden by the state to strike), profitable investment opportunities via the state's imperial ventures, compliance from corrupt state officials, and state insurance against failure (e.g., the Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale purchased worthless shares of numerous corporations in order to prevent them from going out of business, but refrained from nationalizing any of them). It's quite clear that the bourgeoisie benefited far more during the fascist experiment than the proletariat. Even if corporativism had been fully implemented and the state genuinely behaved as an impartial arbiter between labor and capital—a tall order indeed—the system would have deteriorated over time. The process of capital accumulation is already obstructed by so many barriers that it cannot abide the cumbersome bureaucratic procedures corporativism requires. Economic growth would inevitably slow down and the bourgeoisie would take measures to overthrow the regime.

Lol, what does that even mean "Third-Positionist"? Something above the political spectrum?

By "Third Position" it is generally meant some syncretic ideology. In the case of National Socialist Germany, for example, the state practiced dirigisme and implemented social welfare programs (considered "leftist" by bourgeois standards), but also embraced reactionary nationalism (associated with the political Right).

And what exactly is anti-bourgeoisie about the Palazzo Chigi Pact and Palazzo Vidoni

Absolutely nothing.

I find especially precious is UltraNationalist's definition of fascism. He's an atheist which goes against fascist reactionary theism (Christianity in Germany, Italy, and Spain)

The relationship between fascism and religion varied by country. In Spain and certain Eastern European fascist states, religion played a very prominent role; the Vatican also enjoyed a close relationship with the Italian Fascist regime; but Hitler's Germany was relatively secular.

Something should be done to condemn such mockery of the radical Left... I was considering registering an account over there to do exactly that, what do y'all think?

I wouldn't recommend it. I doubt that you'll be able to persuade many of them that they're incorrect in associating their ideology with the Left, as I don't believe they value reasoned and logical arguments. Such is to be expected by those who base their worldview on the "might is right" philosophy.

[Celtiberian]

I have always defined myself as Strasserist in the past. Which is a major reason why I have mainly Left-wing Tendencies. As you already know, I'm strongly disgusted with the Reactionary Right-wing. But according to this Forum I am a Reactionary in a sense that I support Authoritarianism and Militarism.

I realize that Strasserism is a rather heterogeneous ideology—largely due to the ideological differences between Gregor and Otto Strasser, and the latter's fickle philosophical views—but it may interest you to know that Otto Strasser loathed militarism and political authoritarianism. The reason I, and presumably many other members of the forum, consider authoritarianism and militarism reactionary is because we contend that they will both be rendered obsolete with the ascent of international socialism. With respect to authoritarianism in particular, it would be ethically inconsistent for a socialist or communist to support authoritarianism on anything other than a conditional basis. By upholding militarism and authoritarianism as inherently desirable practices, as opposed to regrettable means to an end, you're espousing a fundamentally reactionary worldview.

Yet we do not forget that several 'Left-wing Socialist' states also incorporated the same methods of Authoritarian Government, aswell as Militarism. The USSR was strongly authoritarian and it was Militaristic as it build up its armed forces as a massive rate during the cold war. What of North Korea(What I've heard, is that they've placed the 'Workers party of korea on the "right-wing" spectrum.

As Egalitarian explained, the Soviet Union was forced to endure a hostile geopolitical climate for the duration of its existence. Consequently, valuable resources were routinely diverted to military weapons development in order to keep pace with the mounting threat from the West. Authoritarian governance can also be attributed to that geopolitical climate, but I would also include issues pertaining to the National Question and centralized economic planning among the factors which gave rise to it. Nevertheless, what distinguished the state socialist regimes from fascism is authoritarianism and militarism were never defended as inherently legitimate by Marxist-Leninist doctrine, whereas the converse is true of fascism. In other words, you may draw justifiable parallels between the governance structures in state socialist and fascist regimes, but the doctrinal justifications for those structures are entirely different.

I'm Revolutionary, in terms that I desire progress and Social change, put an end to degenerate Free-market capitalism and instead replace it with Radical Corporatism.

Being a revolutionary implies that you feel radical social change is incapable of being achieved incrementally. Socialist revolutionaries go further by insisting that only a revolutionary overthrow of the existing order will enable the construction of a socialist mode of production. (As a Marxist, I happen to believe that the abolition of capitalism is virtually inevitable due to the system's internal contradictions.)

As for ending "free market" capitalism, laissez-faire has never actually existed outside of the minds of Austrian school economists and their devotees. The reason it hasn't is because capitalism requires a heavily interventionist state in order to remain functional. So, transitioning from one form of regulated capitalism to another, e.g., "Radical Corporatism," hardly represents revolutionary change. Moreover, for reasons outlined in my previous post, corporativism cannot maintain itself for very long—nor would it be a beneficial system for the proletariat even if it was somehow able to.

However, I'm a Reactionary in a sense that I will remain loyal to any system aslong as it is legitimate as I have stated before.

And what criteria have to be meant in order for you to consider a system "legitimate"?

As I was reading through the forum, I can agree that Mussolini made a mistake of making an alliance with the Monarchy, Bourgeoisie and the clerical Right-wing. When in reality he had the opportunity to seize power by force but that wasn't the objective. His goal was to unite Italy as one, which explains why he had to kiss ass to Victor Emmannuel III and the aristocrats.

Mussolini's objective was clearly self-aggrandizement. By World War I, he abandoned socialism because he viewed the sudden surge in reactionary nationalist sentiments in Italy as a more promising avenue by which to advance his political career. Whether or not he was ever sincere in his socialist convictions is impossible to conclusively state. (Personally, I tend to think he probably had been initially.) Thus his increasingly rightward shift politically, and subsequent capitulation to the Vatican, monarchy, and bourgeoisie were perfectly sensible decisions considering his aforementioned objective. "Uniting Italy" was merely a means to an end for him.

Fascism has always left his members free to have different points of view and a free dibate between the many tendencies inside, until they weren't against the interests of State and Party.

Emphasis on within its own ranks. Whenever dissent becomes too burdensome, however, purging is always the preferred route (e.g., the Night of the Long Knives.)

He was the one who was keeping together all the Party's factions. Between the two opposite wings of revolutionary socialists and the conservative reactionaries this second one was the major,unfortunately, also because it was supported by Monarchy,Church and the rich bourgeoisie, and of course this sneaky faction always attempted to stop Mussolini in his more radical social reforms.

Being that Mussolini had been a Marxist, I'm sure he was well aware of the manner by which powerful class interests would obstruct meaningful social change. I really don't think he was that concerned with implementing radical reforms at the height of his reign.

In his heart Mussolini always supported the Left faction of PNF but he never managed to break with the monarchical reactionary faction. When he was betrayed by the King and his acolytes he realized his mistakes and he tried the last and glorous attempt to build an Italian socialistic Republic (R.S.I.) in northern Italy, along with the true socialists, like the ex-communist leader Nicola Bombacci, and purged by the reactionaries, and to realize in the end what that should have been the true Fascist State, progressive and socialist.

It's illogical to claim a fascist state could become socialist, as fascist theory endorses its own economic system. (And no form of corporativism can correctly be labeled as 'socialist.') To the extent Bombacci's economic prescriptions in the Charter of Verona featured policies consistent with those advocated by socialists, they represented a move away from fascism.

It is well known that Mussolini in his youth was an atheist and a radical anticlerical left winger. And the first cells of his Fascist Party was composed by an overwhelming majority of socialists gone out of the Socialist Party, nationalists, veterans of the WW1, ex-anarchists, and anticlerical republicans.

That's all irrelevant. Mussolini made the conscious decision to philosophically part ways with Marxism—instead adopting a Hegelian form of national idealism, formulated by Giovanni Gentile—and even abandoned ethical socialism in favor of corporativism. He chose to embrace reaction and was instrumental in setting back revolutionary socialism in Italy for decades. Why you, or anyone else, choose to glorify this man is beyond me.

Class Collabation is the best way to combat Class warfare

As I repeatedly stress when conversing with reactionaries on this forum, class struggle is the inevitable consequence of an economic system fundamentally based upon two social classes with diametrically opposed interests. Even if the proletariat could subjectively overcome feeling exploited by the system (which is idealist twaddle), it wouldn't change the objective reality that the working class is, in fact, exploited.

more radical fascists such as the Falangists, early Italian fascists, and some National Socialist's (such as Strasserites) called for a social-revolution to overcome the old injustices holding back their respective nations from becoming truly great. That in itself is a great divide between the radical fascists and the conservative autocratic ones."

The so-called "radical" Falangists called for nothing more than the socialization of credit; the early Italian Fascists merely advocated for standard social democratic reforms; and Strasser favored a rigid, hierarchical form of socialism which differed very little from capitalism.

[RedSun]

Strasser favored a rigid, hierarchical form of socialism which differed very little from capitalism.

Could you expand upon this?

[Celtiberian]

Could you expand upon this?

Certainly. In Germany Tomorrow Otto Strasser explains the manner in which his "German socialism" would function. He disliked centralized economic planning à la the Soviet Union and instead promoted a form of market socialism. State planning agencies would, however, allocate investment funds (as in most models of market socialism). Unfortunately, the organizational structure of individual firms under his system would be similar to hierarchical capitalist enterprises. For example, each business would be headed by its former capitalist owner, but the capitalist would no longer technically own his means of production and would instead be rendered a senior manager. This managerial elite—or "functional aristocracy," as Strasser termed it (p. 164)—as a result their heading the firm, would be entitled to 49% of all profits generated therein, with the remaining sum being apportioned to the state and the workers on a 31% and 10% basis, respectively [Reed, Douglas. Nemesis? The Story of Otto Strasser and the Black Front (Boston: Houghton Mifflin (1940), p. 48]. It is this large, automatic share in the firm's surplus value that is reminiscent of capitalism, in my opinion. Aside from a few allusions to the possibility of workers co-managing in the drafting of shopfloor policy, Strasser was quite vague regarding the manner by which enterprises would decide how to reinvest in production itself. Perhaps representatives from the state would handle those decisions unilaterally; I really don't know.

[Pantheon Rising]

Certainly. In Germany Tomorrow Otto Strasser explains the manner in which his "German socialism" would function. He disliked centralized economic planning à la the Soviet Union and instead promoted a form of market socialism. State planning agencies would, however, allocate investment funds (as in most models of market socialism). Unfortunately, the organizational structure of individual firms under his system would be similar to hierarchical capitalist enterprises. For example, each business would be headed by its former capitalist owner, but the capitalist would no longer technically own his means of production and would instead be rendered a senior manager. This managerial elite—or "functional aristocracy," as Strasser termed it (p. 164)—as a result their heading the firm, would be entitled to 49% of all profits generated therein, with the remaining sum being apportioned to the state and the workers on a 31% and 10% basis, respectively [Reed, Douglas. Nemesis? The Story of Otto Strasser and the Black Front (Boston: Houghton Mifflin (1940), p. 48]. It is this large, automatic share in the firm's surplus value that is reminiscent of capitalism, in my opinion. Aside from a few allusions to the possibility of workers co-managing in the drafting of shopfloor policy, Strasser was quite vague regarding the manner by which enterprises would decide how to reinvest in production itself. Perhaps representatives from the state would handle those decisions unilaterally; I really don't know..

That is how I imagine how it would function and I think it is a good economic plan. There is nothing wrong with hierarchy. Redistribution of property implies that the working people will indeed have some share and and say in the management and production instead of having a passive role. Hierarchy arises anywhere humans organize themselves for production or otherwise. The hierarchy however, of the managers, is completely accountable to the rest of the workers in the "factory fellowship" (as Strasser called it). Instead of the Hitlerian labor courts where by collective action by working individuals is negated there would be a different version of labor courts where by the workers could vote and literally "fire their boss" and implant a new one by fellowship elections. Strasser himself you will find meant to give workers a share in ownership and management hence the quote:

We have no shadow of doubt that under National Socialism this privilege
of ownership will be annulled, and that the liberation of the
German worker will go so far as to include a share in profit, a
share in ownership, and a share in management.
- Germany Tomorrow, page 245

[Rev Scare]

That is how I imagine how it would function and I think it is a good economic plan. There is nothing wrong with hierarchy. Redistribution of property implies that the working people will indeed have some share and and say in the management and production instead of having a passive role. Hierarchy arises anywhere humans organize themselves for production or otherwise. The hierarchy however, of the managers, is completely accountable to the rest of the workers in the "factory fellowship" (as Strasser called it). Instead of the Hitlerian labor courts where by collective action by working individuals is negated there would be a different version of labor courts where by the workers could vote and literally "fire their boss" and implant a new one by fellowship elections. Strasser himself you will find meant to give workers a share in ownership and management hence the quote:

It seems to me that such a system continues to retain class division. Indeed, it presents itself as highly reminiscent of the state capitalist practices in the modern world, particularly China. Instead of supporting a socially powerful yet technically independent bourgeoisie, the capitalist class (in whole or in greater part) is transplanted onto the state. These "senior managers" of the state would receive favoritism by the party elite, of which said state capitalists would undoubtedly constitute a segment. The final result is more intensive, not less, exploitation of the working class.

[Pantheon Rising]

It seems to me that such a system continues to retain class division. Indeed, it presents itself as highly reminiscent of the state capitalist practices in the modern world, particularly China. Instead of supporting a socially powerful yet technically independent bourgeoisie, the capitalist class (in whole or in greater part) is transplanted onto the entire state. These "senior managers" of the state would receive favoritism by the party elite, of which said state capitalists would undoubtedly constitute a segment. The final result is more intensive, not less, exploitation of the working class.

The managers are by no means part of the state. The state simply steps in to settle disputes such as the labor courts I mentioned. Furthermore, Strasser and Strasserism in general is opposed to the monopoly rule of one party and a party system at all; one prime feature setting it apart from Hitlerism. In accordance with this plan in the modern world I would like to see big time bourgeois corporations decentralized and managers elected back on the local level; the owner taking no managerial function unless agreed upon by the workers of said enterprise. So, no it is not state capitalism, and in fact Strasser makes it quite clear in his economic plan that National Socialism repudiates state socialism.

The repudiation of State capitalism and State socialism is one of the most marked characteristics of German socialism - Otto Strasser, Germany Tomorrow Page 148.

[Celtiberian]

There is nothing wrong with hierarchy.

So long as the hierarchy is democratically accountable and voluntarily submitted to.

Specialized knowledge necessarily leads to hierarchy in the workplace. As a check against the possibility of specialization leading to class distinctions, a system of job rotation can be implemented. Strasser, however, proposed no solution the problem of non-capitalist class divisions, and, in fact, seemed quite content in allowing a managerial caste to not only monopolize skills, but also receive the vast majority of the firm's surplus. Such a policy violates the principles of remunerative justice which I, and many other socialists, adhere to.

Redistribution of property implies that the working people will indeed have some share and and say in the management and production instead of having a passive role.

To what extent? Strasser, I think you'll admit, was quite vague with respect to the issue. He never used the expression 'workers' self-management' to describe the manner in which firms would be managed under his desired system, despite the term being widely known by socialists throughout the 20th century.

Strasser himself you will find meant to give workers a share in ownership and management hence the quote:

We have no shadow of doubt that under National Socialism this privilege of ownership will be annulled, and that the liberation of the German worker will go so far as to include a share in profit, a share in ownership, and a share in management. - Germany Tomorrow, page 245

Yes, but Strasser doesn't state whether or not firm decisions would be made on a democratic basis of one worker/one vote. If, for example, ones impact in managerial decisions corresponds to the share in the firm's profit each group receives, non-managerial workers would be perpetually disadvantaged, since they would only control 10% of the shares in Strasser's system.

[Pantheon Rising]

So long as the hierarchy is democratically accountable and voluntarily submitted to.

In which I stated it would be through labor courts.

Specialized knowledge necessarily leads to hierarchy in the workplace. As a check against the possibility of specialization leading to class distinctions, a system of job rotation can be implemented. Strasser, however, proposed no solution the problem of non-capitalist class divisions, and, in fact, seemed quite content in allowing a managerial caste to not only monopolize skills, but also receive the vast majority of the firm's surplus. Such a policy violates the principles of remunerative justice which I, and many other socialists, adhere to.

What led you to believe that? In a socialist society training would be available to those who want it. Not everyone wants to do certain jobs though. The only monopoly on skills is however much a member of the folk is willing to learn and put time into training for. For example an electrical construction firm that does both fiber optic cabling and residential house wiring. One takes little training the other takes years of practice and training if someone doesn't want to go through all the practice, that is fine and dandy more power to them, but why in the world should there be some sort of rotation then?

To what extent? Strasser, I think you'll admit, was quite vague with respect to the issue. He never used the expression 'workers' self-management' to describe the manner in which firms would be managed under his desired system, despite the term being widely known by socialists throughout the 20th century.

He says workers get a say in management; however the fellowship manages itself through a collective democratic basis. "Worker's self management" is hardly the only socialist economic model.

Yes, but Strasser doesn't state whether or not firm decisions would be made on a democratic basis of one worker/one vote. If, for example, ones impact in managerial decisions corresponds to the share in the firm's profit each group receives, non-managerial workers would be perpetually disadvantaged, since they would only control 10% of the shares in Strasser's system.

You are right in that he was quite vague; however it is our job to develop any theory in accordance with logic, material conditions, and the present state of affairs. I like the idea of one worker - one vote. Not only does this theory sound the best to me but can easily correspond to Strasser's ideas (not as if I am actually trying to put into practice every word the man has uttered). It can easily correspond to Strasser's ideas when looking at the quote:

I have castigated and repudiated the liberal illusion of human equality, I nevertheless ardently champion the doctrine that equality of opportunity is essential.

[Sponsored content]