Fascism vs National Socialism

Same leftists. Different gang colors

None were really strict enough.
A bit too lefty for me to be honest.

Attached: Evola.jpg (220x293, 6K)

do you have this same image but in a higher resolution? making out the titles is hard

Attached: 1538027468111.png (1000x652, 120K)

National Socialism is just what hitler called it to get into power that is the real answer

Fascism has leaders. National socialism has social tiers.

Fascism is a broad term that can apply to multiple different groups, National Socialism is a specific type of fascism that applied to Germanics.
The thing they have in common is the conception of society as an organic being rather than something either divinely ordained, simply existing in a vacuum, or being legislated. The National Socialists were more overtly racialist than others, but all fascists understand the need for common blood ties.

He did this to get the vote of the commies that were a growing party

See, always this faggots that give you the bullshit they are the same. These people are brainlets.

This

It's the boomers who claim that Democrats are literal nazis.

Civil nationalism will never get rid of Jews and niggers and you may not care but thinking natsoc is leftist is simply retarded though. Are you retarded user? Please don't be retarded, I care as long as you are white. If not, into the oven you go. You can't escape either, not in America, not anywhere. when we are done here we are going world wide.

I kind of didn't want to step in until someone gave me a proper answer but I think you might end up derailing the thread, can you not reply to the Jow Forumssters that equate all statism to some totalitarian shit-hole? they're even bigger brainlets that I am, thanks

I answered your question. Complain to the boomers for misleading you, not I my southern friend

They are subcategories of third positionism.
Natsoc was for germans, fascism for italians, falangism for spain etc
They are different in the sense that every country has different things like the culture. Maybe the nost similar thing you can see between third positionism is that always the work is from what the economy is based upon.

Also the one that controls the currency is the govermnent and not some private entity like the federal reseve

Basically this

I hate to make this question but is there any formalized work on third positionism as you call it then? I feel it would be very broad because something I found (through quora) is that Benito held his Fascism to have the state as king, while Hitler had people as king.

Look into George Rockwell if you want info on American Nazi party.

This hahahaha

Fascism in the general sense seeks to adapt itself to its nation and grow from there.
Unlike socialism and communism there isnt a large set of specific ideals put into place in hopes of mass adoption and globalization.
In its rawest for Fascism does not call for racial purification and it does not call for a combination of state and the church.
Both Mussolini and Mosley understood that fascism was something that everyone would learn to accept differently.
National Socialism was a branch off of the italian and english fascism.
They based the nation around the race and excluded any and all nonwhites.
In this sense they made the mistake of executing this too fast.
None can blame the Germans for hating the jews and the Gypsies.
They were truly the source of their greatest pains.
But why go head to head with the beast when you can tire it out and run it into the ground?
Hitler's only mistake was trying to eradicate the problem over night.
Mussolini's only problem was refusing to turn his back on an ally and rushing into a war he was not ready for.
Mosley's only mistake was refusing to the fall to the level of his enemies.
Franco's only mistake was watching his friends die off one by one while having the inability of stepping in to stop it.
Codreanu's only mistake was not taking power for himself, and focusing on the enemy.

These were our heroes and we let them die.

Attached: Et tu, god.jpg (1600x880, 124K)

Just like i said it depends on what the country. Maybe mussolini saw that the correct thing was to have a king while hitler saw monarchism as obsolete.
Both saw the people as the most important thing a country has

theepochtimes.com/nazism-fascism-and-socialism-are-all-rooted-in-communism_2549205.html

You're welcome.

well shit I figure I'll have to read every book then if I want to get at the core of it

Attached: 1516025388245.jpg (5000x3333, 2.1M)

I'm into Flashism
Bazinga

Attached: Flash-Logo-16.jpg (712x420, 31K)

>Muh horseshoe

Fascism acts as a sterilisation of the state, fixing its problems, destroying its internal enemies, before returning power, natsoc on the other hand seeks to create an entirely new kind of system one beyond communism, and capitalism, an ideology that combines the most logical, and inevitably ideas of every system into a worldview that touch’s on every part of life.

Stop, bro.
You're just embarassing your great nation.

What is this? A reading list for chinks?

>civnat vs natsoc
fixed it for you pedro

nah, mussolini thought just about anybody could be italian.

The differences are:
Fascism is a political ideology.
National Socialism is a German worker's party from 80 years ago

There's three main "models" of fascism and as many types as there are nations.
>State Fascism
Fascist Italy, nation is the geographical area under the rule of the state.
>Ethnic Fascism
NatSoc Germany, nation is ethnicity.
>Cultural Fascism
Integralist Brazil, nation is all the people sharing a particular culture.

To answer your question - NatSoc is slightly more left and has a much bigger focus on racialism. The general idea was "we do not serve the state, the state serves us", as Hitler said in one of his speeches - in spirit of Prussianism, which was a Social Monarchy (idk how it's called in English, Despotismo Ilustrado), while Italy was more of a "everything for the state".
Fascistwas a dyarchy, because the king retained some power. Even when Italy wanted to develop some kind of a racial doctrine they wanted to do it with help of Evola, who believed in a "spiritual" factor in race, and considered the biological and psychological ones less important.

Fascism is about state worship. NazBol, what NatSoc was supposed to be, is some cross over between Socialism and Nationalism. NatSoc is Hitler worship.

Neither are very well defined and both have similar elements.

Fascism is generally more mild in its attitude to private business though, even thought it still seeks to control it somewhat to the public benefit.

Fascism is also more compatible with a multi ethnic state.

So the anons saying state fascism is civ nationalism are right?

There are several strands of Fascism, as are with most ideologies, some strands have more of Socialism or Democracy, others less.
The NSDAP had giant revanchism against the French and to a lesser part the British and Americans, they were Pan-German nationalists and valued blood over other strands. Their economic principles are harder to analyze than, for example the Spanish Falangists who managed to stay in power for many decades, because the economic policy of the 3rd Reich was very much focused on army-building, Autarky, infrastructure and later sustaining the War effort. They also were not only pan german nationalists, meaning wanting to unite all Germans under one state, they were expansionist and worked toward high German birthrates to colonize the provinces of Eastern Europe they wanted to conquer "Lebensraum im Osten", Living space in the east as they called it.
The Italian fascists were more imperialist than that, more about getting countries under their control that were under some sort of Italian influence before, while not being blood italian. Albania, Yugoslavia, and Greece. They also had an expansianist focus on Africa, Annexing Ethiopia and being the Axis power that primarily fought France and Britain in Africa.
Some basic things that united the different Fascist were: Militarism and building of militas, A strong dictatorial state with leader worship and one party rule, strong anti soviet and anti communist sentiment, and critique and hatred of modern art and often academia that they saw as being heavily leftist and supporting communism all over the west.

nah fascim is more of a moral and philosophical belief system, that also has a coherent political ideology attached to it
political aspects are a declinaison of the moral ones
>competant and uncorrupted leadership is what is best for the success of a people
>becomes push for statism and state corporatism

natsoc is an offshoot inspired in large part by fascim, that aims to solve all the issue germany was facing at the time

if you were to do it again you would need a different dogma because the problems have changed

>The NSDAP had giant revanchism against the French
last time I checked we declared war on them but sure

Yeah sure, because who declared war first matters. Alsace Lorraine, the demilitarization of the Rhine, beefs hundreds of years old don't matter, eh? They were so neutral towards you that they let you surrender in the same train wagon they themselves did in WW1. Totally not emotially charged. Hitlers personal disdain for France and preferance for Britain was also very public.
You can argue who was right in WW2 all you want, that doesn't change that German revanchism agains France was high.

Fascism is statism. Nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. It does not inherently follow racialism, as some fascists do not believe in race; example is Primo de Rivera and the Falangists. Above all it is a philosophy, not an ideology.
National Socialism imo is not Fascism. It does not follow tenants of statism, as Hitler said, to him the state is just a means to an end that serves the Race. Both dont have a set economic policy, they pick the mode of poduction, in fascism; what serves the state best, and in NS is what serves the race best.
Good enough?

>German revanchism agains France was high.
True, Hitler says it several times in Mein Kampf. He despises the french for being juden-lovers but he admires them on a sense.

Not really. A racial doctrine is possible to implement in State Fascism.
Hitler's ethnic fascism was kind of messy, because he never really defined what it means to be "nordic" well enough. For him, his nation was not the Aryan people, but the "Nordic-German" complex. NatSocs considered Poles, Ukrainians and Croats to be Aryan, but not part of their nation, as evidenced by old letters and posters describing them as "Arier".
What I'm trying to say is, while ethnic Fascism isn't about "Germany" or "Ukraine" but "Germanics" or "Slavs", it doesn't mean that a State Fascist country couldn't have a racial doctrine. It would just be a part of the law, not the entire idea behind the concept of a nation.

this was actually quite enlightening

NatSoc is a branch of fascism with a greater emphasis on race. Fascism originally was more of a nationalistic economic movement.

You should look into the Falange and Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, he was for pan hispanism and national syndicalism. You can find Selected Works of Primo de Rivera on the web in pdf form, it is a great book. Also reminder to hate Franco, he betrayed every single thing Rivera was for.

Based Croat
José Antonio was the shit.
It fucking infuriates me when people call Franco "fascist", he was just an authoritarian capitalist.
t. Spaniard

The index looks quite good, I might purchase a physical copy instead

Attached: jose-antonio-primo-de-rivera-antologia-D_NQ_NP_558615-MLM25269331950_012017-F.jpg (675x1200, 145K)

well lets compare italy and germany
italy was heavely socialist and pretty much all of industry was government owned while germany was very capitalist and they privatisised much of the industry

Fascism is more based on culture and National Socialism is more based on race and ethnicity.

Attached: 170329853.jpg (995x768, 249K)

They are pretty much the same but NatSoc is more xenophobic and more totalitarian than fascism. Its more on the extreme.
Also fascism works with corporations (all business and social areas organized into mega conglomerates) where they follow the general party guidelines but retain some autonomy still while on NatSoc everything belongs to the party somehow.

>corporations
Not corporations, but corporate groups (in the collectivist sense).

except it was exact the other way...italy made so many corps under government control while germany gave away many state oqned corps to the public the only things they really controlled was that they made sure they would work for the interests of germany or else they got put down but still is was very free market oriented

Why is fascism told from you're perspective as a generic sterilization and nat soc is spoken of as jesus/muhhamed/buddah/*insert desired religion figure or entity here* driving an ice cream truck giving away free ICE CREAM. What I understand is fascism has never been to a pinnacle point showing everything that is great about fascism. Nat soc has been to the crest cementing the ideology for what it is.

The generals built a coalition that included Fascists (Falangists to be precise), but also various conservative and traditionalist groups. Calling Franco Fascist is a gross simplification.

Attached: 1523504608907.jpg (620x465, 54K)

one is capitalist, one is socialist

man this is gay, getting a copy of this book in mexico is 23 euros while in Spain it would cost 8 euros
that's what one gets when one is living in the new world ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

i've heard Jow Forumsacks assert that the socialism in national socialism was just pure PR to win the people who were sympathetic towards communism when the NDSAP was trying to earn votes. How true is this? what do natsocs define as socialism?

culturedthug’s jewtube channel is pretty good
inb4 irony of jewtube as a place to learn about fascism and natsoc

And he loved Paris.

I gave a simplified reason for my dislike of fascism, and my reason for why I preferred natsoc, I’ll be more in-depth, the reason I dislike fascism is because it’s no different from say a military junta or some authoritarian state, it isn’t lasting, and it fails to understand the most important thing about a country, which is not its culture or it’s religion, it’s the people, nations rise, and fall all the time, but if the people of a land are intact then surely they will rebuild, when you lose the people or mix them then the identity is lost, natsoc understand this, and work, and fight not for the state or the party but the existence of its people, as for why natsoc seems almost religious is because natsoc is a worldview just as Christianity touch’s on all parts of life so to does natsoc, it’s not just about politics, it’s about you, and how you live your life.

If you love your country you are a nationalist, if you love your people then you are a socialist, if you love both you are a national socialist.

It doesn't matter, they both got wiped out and thats a good thing

>Fascism is a control tool
Says who the American politics dictionary? Fascism is an ideology that encapsulates philosophies spanning from economics to pedagogy.

Fuck off kike

Natsoc is Fascism with Germanic characteristics

>Brainlet here
you said it you fucking kike
only kikes nazi post
onlye kikes natsoc post
only kikes hitler post
same kike
for a few days these kikes were posting less
was there a jew holiday in the last week?
fucking kikes

>strong anti soviet and anti communist sentiment,
very fucking arguable
mussolini was an ex commie who woke up one day thinking "fuck this gay shit" and started his own thing, and the basic economic idea of natsoc is something that adresse the issues of capitalism without going full retard like the commies and instead focussing on something realist that works
the ussr and germany were generally bff in the way the spoke of each other

>they were Pan-German nationalists and valued blood over other strands.
sad thing they were so germany focussed
they were still tolerent of and liked other euros but they didnt identify with them to a more realistic extent

That sits better with me. I appreciate the response.

>that doesn't change that German revanchism agains France was high.
honestly I think they went pretty easy on us, the occupation was much much softer than the one in poland, we had given them enough reasons to be mad

>They were so neutral towards you that they let you surrender in the same train wagon they themselves did in WW1.
and people say germans dont have a sense of humour

Other way around.

germany and SU had a cold war going on in europe... we were never bff that's total nonsense

You’re not very bright, are you?

>all fascists understand the need for common blood ties

Wrong, they do it under the guise of national identity. It can range from ethnic nationalism to civic nationalism, just highly nationalist. Look at Brazilian integralism or even Mussolinis fascism. How muttified was Italy back then?

Even NatSoc espoused the honorary aryan meme so they were barely even ethnocentric

>in the way the spoke of each other
you missed that part kraut
of course they had radically different and opposing tactical needs, but their governments but up a big smile and pretended to like each other s idea
more the ussr than germany, germany still openely crittized them a lot, after all its germany who betrayed them

Same worldview applied to different countries. It's like asking to explain the differences between the iron guard and the perkonskrusts of latvia.
youtube.com/watch?v=hp04VmdRyoI

This. Fascism is not explicitly a political system, it's a lens to view the world through.

Except they weren't fascist in the first place, they were falangist. And Franco wasn't even a falangist, he was a christian conservative, a moderate voice in a party he took over.

Both don't work. Thats all you need to know.

Attached: 4166640.jpg (960x775, 57K)

Retard alert.

what did he mean by this?

Attached: nice.jpg (506x667, 42K)

You just made those up.

Fascism is an Italian ideology built around the belief that the family is core unit of a society, and that society should be run the same way a family is.
National socialism was a German poulist party aimed at improving the wellbeing of the average German citizen.
Both ideologies are hostile to foreign I fluent, and the Nazi ideology drew heavy influence from Italian fascism.
That is the end of their association

just nope.... the SU offered an alliance with western powers against germany and strike us first but western powers said no.
from 33 until war started we both tried to influence/take over as many countries as possible and when talks about an real alliance and not just a NAP happened they wanted that we give them full control of romanian oil which would make us 100% reliant on them and our team invasion of poland was only a thing too because we hoped that western powers would declare war on them too but sadly they did not
it is really wrong to say that at any point existed any friendship or trust

back to >>r/the_donald you go

Integralism wasn't fascist, it was for mutts by mutts. Italian fascism was distinctly Italian, and even before it came under the NatSoc sphere of influence they banned mixing between Italians and natives in Italy's colonies.
>Even NatSoc espoused the honorary aryan meme
This was only inconsistently applied to the Japanese who sperged at the idea interracial marriages between them and Germans might be rejected.

>it is really wrong to say that at any point existed any friendship or trust
i never said this, i only said their leaders rarely came out in opposition to the other s ideology in peace rime, and that their conflict was one of power, not ideology

Does anyone have an archive link with the pdfs?

>New awakening
Piss off with this bullshit.

>yes goy be a fascist! give up your rights to the state we will definitely work for you and the volk! big daddy government would never betray you
you are the jews you claim to hate

Attached: hale hortler.png (501x585, 19K)

are you ok? over a decade and thousands of speeches were directly aimed at destroying communism the point why the nsdap was founded was to counter the growing problems of communism and commie terror the ideology of natsoc is very anti commie in nature
stalin was talking against fascism too but it was not even close to the hate germanys leadership had openly against commies