Conservative populism or just crypto-fascism?

Amanda Allen4 said:Exactly. In a political sense, Italian fascism was ultra-left, much like Nazism, which was born in Germany following its example. Even the word "Nazism" is a compound of "national" and "socialism." It differs from communism only in its foundation. Fascism uses the nation as its base, whereas communism relies on class. A nation is a specific, culturally and territorially bounded segment of society, while a class is viewed as something global and universal.

When we examine economic models and how they evolve, it is blatantly obvious that the most successful ones are those that allow for maximum market freedom—which inevitably leads to market globalization. It is quite paradoxical: every leftist supporter embraces "globalization" when it serves a spiritual or civilizational trend, yet the moment it becomes a material, economic model, they suddenly turn around and condemn it!

If you need proof, look at communist China. They embraced a capitalist economic model specifically to avoid the inevitable collapse that hit their communist rival, the USSR, which stubbornly clung to its ideological dogmas regarding a "classless" society even as its economy crumbled.

The second they went hard against communists, those movements were essentially acting as a firewall against international revolution. They were designed to pacify the working class and farmers, giving them a strong national state in exchange—which then serves as the perfect foundation for expansion and maintaining imperialism... religion backed this whole thing up too, and honestly, you still see that happening here today.
That’s why fascism stays relevant—it taps into a very specific right-wing mindset.

But Nazism? That’s a different beast entirely. Way more diabolical.

cosmicgull52 said:@InterMezzo

I just saw the post. I will provide a more detailed response once I have a moment.

You make several valid points. However, regardless of the question, Trump and other crypto-fascist populists are not leaders anyone should celebrate.

Theoretically, it might be beneficial that his selection brought mainstream attention to something that would have been considered extreme left-wing by American standards just a decade ago. Still, I fear the cost will be far too high.

EDIT: Also, I attended Pride in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., and I witnessed no such chaos. I am not saying it doesn't happen in SF or Miami, but that is a matter of poor organization and police response. Ultimately, it is a local community issue. It certainly isn't a symbol of some orchestrated plan to destroy families or threaten "normal" people.

Just Google it if you're so curious 😁 and honestly, it's not just limited to San Francisco and Miami; it happens elsewhere too. You might want to turn on your safe search filter because the images are basically just gay porn and exhibitionism.

(hopefully the manchild won't read this post) 🙂

The whole argument that fascism is some kind of leftist idea just doesn't hold water. Seriously, go Google Ramiro Ledesma Ramos and look at what happened to him during the era of Franc. He got dealt a hand pretty similar to how the National Socialists were treated during the Night of the Long Knives. What’s the actual deal here? The working class is looking for payback, liberals start making deals with the workers to keep communism from taking over, and then—boom—fascism emerges as the "we're all one nation" solution. Why does the working class even lean toward fascism in the first place? It's because an American worker looks like a capitalist to a proletarian from Africa, right? So, in a unified proletarian state, the American worker loses everything. I was actually digging through some stuff by Friedrich Hayek recently about the supposed socialist roots of Nazism, and he basically argues that Hitler picked off those specific Nazis because they were way too left-leaning, while Hitler himself struck a deal with the big money players. All he really had to do was wipe out the leftist faction and keep the liberal capital flowing through crony capitalism. What you're seeing is this clash between internationalism—both the capitalist and socialist versions—and nationalism, which acts as the shield for those ideas. You can check out the chapter "Fascism and Bolshevism" in the horror of error where it explains how fascism rose up because liberal ideas were too weak to stand against communism. Fascism is more of a reaction to a communist revolution that recruits the struggling middle class, whereas communism goes after the people who have absolutely nothing to their name. Fascism is essentially a revolt by the American working class to scrap liberalism and force the capitalists back into the national collective.

Steven Murphy2 said:The whole argument that fascism is some kind of leftist idea just doesn't hold water. Seriously, go Google Ramiro Ledesma Ramos and look at what happened to him during the era of Franc. He got dealt a hand pretty similar to how the National Socialists were treated during the Night of the Long Knives. What’s the actual deal here? The working class is looking for payback, liberals start making deals with the workers to keep communism from taking over, and then—boom—fascism emerges as the "we're all one nation" solution. Why does the working class even lean toward fascism in the first place? It's because an American worker looks like a capitalist to a proletarian from Africa, right? So, in a unified proletarian state, the American worker loses everything. I was actually digging through some stuff by Friedrich Hayek recently about the supposed socialist roots of Nazism, and he basically argues that Hitler picked off those specific Nazis because they were way too left-leaning, while Hitler himself struck a deal with the big money players. All he really had to do was wipe out the leftist faction and keep the liberal capital flowing through crony capitalism. What you're seeing is this clash between internationalism—both the capitalist and socialist versions—and nationalism, which acts as the shield for those ideas. You can check out the chapter "Fascism and Bolshevism" in the horror of error where it explains how fascism rose up because liberal ideas were too weak to stand against communism. Fascism is more of a reaction to a communist revolution that recruits the struggling middle class, whereas communism goes after the people who have absolutely nothing to their name. Fascism is essentially a revolt by the American working class to scrap liberalism and force the capitalists back into the national collective.

But what about when we look at unified imperialist colonial empires? Does that change things?

Take the British worker back in the day—considering the United Kingdom held colonies all over Africa and Asia—were they in a better, equal, or worse position compared to the workers living in those colonies?

Did the laborer in a colonial United Kingdom actually have more, or perhaps less, than they would have if the United Kingdom hadn't been a colonial power in the first place?

Oh, obviously—the stronger the nation, the higher the paycheck for its workers compared to someone else's. Look, if you’re a worker in a country that acts as a colonial power, you’re naturally going to be in a better spot than a worker in a colonized territory. I mean, think about it—why does an American worker find it way more profitable to take the exact same job in Germany rather than staying home in the States? It’s because they aren't playing on a level playing field. An American worker is part of that top half of the global population when it comes to wealth, so trying to redistribute capital on a global scale just drags them down into poverty. If you look at the math behind the Global Rich indicator, it’s clear that labor and capital aren't actually at war—capital is literally the product of labor. For instance, I know this guy—total underdog, broke—who went to work on an oil rig for a massive payday, far more than he ever could have made back home. Now? He’s snapping up real estate and getting ready to launch his own companies. So why should an American worker feel guilty for being labeled a "capitalist" or a "bourgeoisie" by the working class in non-Western nations? And why should Americans who actually made it and became capitalists feel any guilt toward the local workers they employ? At the end of the day, capital is born from labor, and those successful workers eventually become capitalists—which, if I'm being a bit ironic here, means they basically founded their own capitalist labor organization, like a private firm. Here’s a perfect example: look at the dynamic between a worker who owns property—meaning they have capital—and hires a handyman to fix things, versus a worker who has zero capital and gets exploited by the guy with the assets. Or look at the guy taking out a loan from a bank to pay for home repairs versus the person collecting interest on their savings because they hold the capital. What was the position of the saver before they had the capital to start saving, compared to the consumers whose spending allowed that saver to build their nest egg in the first place? The market is pure, cutthroat competition; there are no "shared interests" here. Honestly, if everyone involved—both the workers and the capitalists—practiced something akin to eugenics—meaning making sure capital grows faster than the population—we wouldn't even have issues with market saturation. You can only really get an order like that in a conservative state where selective breeding (basically having the wealthy redirect the money they take from the poor via interest toward having more kids) drives economic growth and innovation. Sure, some jobs would disappear, but we wouldn't be stuck with a nation of sweaty blue-collar losers or facing revolutions against the machines that replace them.

Steven Murphy2 said:The whole argument that fascism is some kind of leftist idea just doesn't hold water. Seriously, go Google Ramiro Ledesma Ramos and look at what happened to him during the era of Franc. He got dealt a hand pretty similar to how the National Socialists were treated during the Night of the Long Knives. What’s the actual deal here? The working class is looking for payback, liberals start making deals with the workers to keep communism from taking over, and then—boom—fascism emerges as the "we're all one nation" solution. Why does the working class even lean toward fascism in the first place? It's because an American worker looks like a capitalist to a proletarian from Africa, right? So, in a unified proletarian state, the American worker loses everything. I was actually digging through some stuff by Friedrich Hayek recently about the supposed socialist roots of Nazism, and he basically argues that Hitler picked off those specific Nazis because they were way too left-leaning, while Hitler himself struck a deal with the big money players. All he really had to do was wipe out the leftist faction and keep the liberal capital flowing through crony capitalism. What you're seeing is this clash between internationalism—both the capitalist and socialist versions—and nationalism, which acts as the shield for those ideas. You can check out the chapter "Fascism and Bolshevism" in the horror of error where it explains how fascism rose up because liberal ideas were too weak to stand against communism. Fascism is more of a reaction to a communist revolution that recruits the struggling middle class, whereas communism goes after the people who have absolutely nothing to their name. Fascism is essentially a revolt by the American working class to scrap liberalism and force the capitalists back into the national collective.

I don't want this to come across as me criticizing without cause, but that applies to you and Ramos... Honestly, no matter which philosopher or political scientist you dig up from that era, you'll get a completely different perspective on Fascism. It's like asking why we shouldn't consult one of the greatest historical authorities on the Holocaust and the broader WWII movement—John Lukacs, a man who barely survived the camps—who argues that there is no such thing as a "generic Fascism." To demonize the movement by forcing a comparison to Nazism is absurd. The reality is that Fascists didn't operate under a single, rigid program; they were a movement driven by waves, forming their politics as they went along. Their ideology was usually distilled later through various quotes from different Duces, which shifted depending on the period. That's why there isn't one unified image of the movement. Officially, they rejected all ideologies and denied the core tenets of Nazism; in fact, until the very end, they remained convinced they were more leftist than Karl Marx.

Steven Murphy2 said:Oh, obviously—the stronger the nation, the higher the paycheck for its workers compared to someone else's. Look, if you’re a worker in a country that acts as a colonial power, you’re naturally going to be in a better spot than a worker in a colonized territory. I mean, think about it—why does an American worker find it way more profitable to take the exact same job in Germany rather than staying home in the States? It’s because they aren't playing on a level playing field. An American worker is part of that top half of the global population when it comes to wealth, so trying to redistribute capital on a global scale just drags them down into poverty. If you look at the math behind the Global Rich indicator, it’s clear that labor and capital aren't actually at war—capital is literally the product of labor. For instance, I know this guy—total underdog, broke—who went to work on an oil rig for a massive payday, far more than he ever could have made back home. Now? He’s snapping up real estate and getting ready to launch his own companies. So why should an American worker feel guilty for being labeled a "capitalist" or a "bourgeoisie" by the working class in non-Western nations? And why should Americans who actually made it and became capitalists feel any guilt toward the local workers they employ? At the end of the day, capital is born from labor, and those successful workers eventually become capitalists—which, if I'm being a bit ironic here, means they basically founded their own capitalist labor organization, like a private firm. Here’s a perfect example: look at the dynamic between a worker who owns property—meaning they have capital—and hires a handyman to fix things, versus a worker who has zero capital and gets exploited by the guy with the assets. Or look at the guy taking out a loan from a bank to pay for home repairs versus the person collecting interest on their savings because they hold the capital. What was the position of the saver before they had the capital to start saving, compared to the consumers whose spending allowed that saver to build their nest egg in the first place? The market is pure, cutthroat competition; there are no "shared interests" here. Honestly, if everyone involved—both the workers and the capitalists—practiced something akin to eugenics—meaning making sure capital grows faster than the population—we wouldn't even have issues with market saturation. You can only really get an order like that in a conservative state where selective breeding (basically having the wealthy redirect the money they take from the poor via interest toward having more kids) drives economic growth and innovation. Sure, some jobs would disappear, but we wouldn't be stuck with a nation of sweaty blue-collar losers or facing revolutions against the machines that replace them.

My point was that a worker within a unified colonial power doesn't actually lose out; they gain. Similarly, globalization isn't a net loss for the laborer—it's a benefit.

An average worker in the UK or the US can't be classified as a capitalist. A worker is a worker, and a capitalist is a capitalist.

That said, workers in wealthy, capital-driven nations certainly possess a lot of wealth. But having assets doesn't make you a capitalist.

A true capitalist is defined by owning the means used to generate profit.

A worker who owns a home, a vacation house, or a nice car... they might be wealthy, but they aren't capitalists because they aren't using those assets to generate income. They are simply using and consuming them.

@vmro

Honestly, I’m not even surprised Hayek couldn't stomach Hitler's version of capitalism. The guy was clearly looking for a brand of capitalism that plays nice with communism—kind of like how they teamed up during WWII—because that specific flavor of capitalism serves his own tribe, the very group Hitler was trying to wipe out. It's pretty obvious when you look at it: liberals are actually more left-wing than the National Socialists ever were. I mean, weren't the NS types actually allied with the USSR to take down those liberal capitalist states? Exactly. Hayek’s whole critique of Hitler’s "leftist" tendencies is just a smokescreen because he knows that certain families—you know the ones, like the Rothschilds, Oppenheimers, Warburgs, and Schiffs—who sometimes bankroll Bolshevik revolutions to destabilize the established American capitalist elite, wouldn't even exist without that setup. At the end of the day, Marx is basically just a weapon used by those wealthy elites, which makes all those Marxists nothing more than tools. This whole EU thing within a liberal capitalist framework is really just the Kalergi plan in action—an attempt to establish a class of Hayek-style bourgeois elites. But don't worry, the American right will step in and stop it.

Wait—is anyone else actually paying attention to this? Because I certainly am! It feels like we’re just drifting aimlessly through these discussions without any sense of direction or purpose. Does anyone even care about the details anymore? It seems like every single topic gets watered down until there's nothing left but fluff! Honestly, it's exhausting. kaže:
What I am attempting to convey—if anyone is actually listening—is that an American worker in a unified colonial state doesn't lose out; they gain. It’s quite simple! Furthermore, a worker doesn't suffer because of globalization—they benefit from it. Why is this concept so difficult for people to grasp?

An American worker can never—under any circumstances—be considered a capitalist. Let’s be clear about this: a worker is a worker, and a capitalist is a capitalist. It is a fundamental distinction that people seem determined to ignore!

Let’s be clear about one thing—workers in wealthy capitalist nations might actually have quite a bit to their name. But don't let that fool you! Just because those employees are sitting on a decent pile of cash doesn't suddenly turn them into capitalists. Is it really that difficult to grasp? Having money in your pocket doesn't change your fundamental position in the economic machine.

A capitalist is simply someone who possesses the actual means to generate profit—it’s that basic!

Let’s get one thing straight—just because an employee owns a house, a vacation home, and a nice car, it doesn't make them a capitalist. Seriously? Does anyone actually believe that? He has plenty of assets, sure, but he isn't generating profit from them! He’s simply using them and spending his money to maintain them. To call someone a capitalist just because they have some property to their name is fundamentally flawed logic—it's absurd!

Sure, an American worker earns significantly more than someone working in a poor nation like Bangladesh. That’s just basic math. Which is exactly why the globalization of markets—and that constant, borderless flow of capital—is actually a net positive; it serves to bridge the massive social gap between the wealthy and the impoverished. Isn't that the whole point?

Personally, I’d much rather see American capital flowing into developing nations—where an "exploitative" job actually means someone finally has food on the table—than seeing that money funneled back to some wealthy American worker just so they can afford another car they don't even need! Is that really how we want to prioritize our resources? It seems absurd!

@Amanda Allen4...or just how things work in America...

Morgan Cook10 said:@Amanda Allen4...or just how things work in America...

The same logic applies in America—if the conditions make it profitable for capital to move, they will. We can't ignore the fact that the US ranking on the Index of Economic Freedom isn't exactly where it ought to be either.

https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

As for capital and its supposed "national identity"—as I have already stated—it doesn't have one! Capital is apolitical; the only issue is that, unfortunately, politicians love to manipulate it.

As one of many Americans who holds shares in AT&T, I am a part of that system—and anyone can be if they choose to be. I hold the exact same rights as any other shareholder, regardless of nationality, race, or religious affiliation. It operates on the principle of one share, one vote, and frankly, that is more than enough for me.

Amanda Allen4 said:The same logic applies in America—if the conditions make it profitable for capital to move, they will. We can't ignore the fact that the US ranking on the Index of Economic Freedom isn't exactly where it ought to be either.

https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

As for capital and its supposed "national identity"—as I have already stated—it doesn't have one! Capital is apolitical; the only issue is that, unfortunately, politicians love to manipulate it.

As one of many Americans who holds shares in AT&T, I am a part of that system—and anyone can be if they choose to be. I hold the exact same rights as any other shareholder, regardless of nationality, race, or religious affiliation. It operates on the principle of one share, one vote, and frankly, that is more than enough for me.

I’m talking about a high-earning American worker and companies moving production to somewhere cheaper like Bangladesh.

You can see it playing out in real-time with how the American textile industry basically withered away.

Morgan Cook10 said:I’m talking about a high-earning American worker and companies moving production to somewhere cheaper like Bangladesh.

You can see it playing out in real-time with how the American textile industry basically withered away.

It isn’t just the textile industry—it’s almost every manufacturing sector facing extinction. What we witnessed happening to the American Rust Belt one generation ago is now hitting home here, and if we don't wake up, it's going to sweep through developing nations within a single generation—those places that are currently seeing a "dangerous" surge of wealth from sudden capital inflows, only to watch it vanish just as quickly.

When we look at the state of the textile industry today, the hardest hit has to be Italy—which, until very recently, was the absolute epicenter of high-end luxury design. Now? That entire manufacturing powerhouse is being outsourced elsewhere.

Morgan Cook10 said:I’m talking about a high-earning American worker and companies moving production to somewhere cheaper like Bangladesh.

You can see it playing out in real-time with how the American textile industry basically withered away.

In the long run, this leveling out will lead to an unwanted outcome. Neither Europeans nor Bangladeshis will end up as "wealthy" workers; instead, everything will just sink into massive poverty for the working class of almost every nation. (Basically—calling it "reducing social gaps between rich and poor"—is technically accurate, just not in the way he thinks). In this theater of the absurd, people will feel like they have plenty of cash, but their actual purchasing power will be crashing due to hyperinflation in food and basic necessities, all while the debt bubble grows even heavier. That top 0.1% are running the show and they know exactly what they're doing, with the quasi-liberal elite right there alongside the quasi-conservative elite.

We don't even need to look at coffee shop gossip or card games to see it; that future is already happening.

What kind of world are we leaving for our kids?

Chris Myers said:In the long run, this leveling out will lead to an unwanted outcome. Neither Europeans nor Bangladeshis will end up as "wealthy" workers; instead, everything will just sink into massive poverty for the working class of almost every nation. (Basically—calling it "reducing social gaps between rich and poor"—is technically accurate, just not in the way he thinks). In this theater of the absurd, people will feel like they have plenty of cash, but their actual purchasing power will be crashing due to hyperinflation in food and basic necessities, all while the debt bubble grows even heavier. That top 0.1% are running the show and they know exactly what they're doing, with the quasi-liberal elite right there alongside the quasi-conservative elite.

We don't even need to look at coffee shop gossip or card games to see it; that future is already happening.

What kind of world are we leaving for our kids?

None at all. Our kids are headed for extinction, much like the offspring of the ultra-wealthy. This blessed era of consumer capitalism—where everyone is obsessed with owning everything in sight—is going to suffocate our children under a mountain of trash, plastic bags, and cheap textiles.

Or, to be more precise, we’re the ones choking our own children and grandchildren with garbage. We do it by mindlessly buying things we don't actually need. We’re sacrificing their future just so we can say we own it.

Sam Martinez9 said:None at all. Our kids are headed for extinction, much like the offspring of the ultra-wealthy. This blessed era of consumer capitalism—where everyone is obsessed with owning everything in sight—is going to suffocate our children under a mountain of trash, plastic bags, and cheap textiles.

Or, to be more precise, we’re the ones choking our own children and grandchildren with garbage. We do it by mindlessly buying things we don't actually need. We’re sacrificing their future just so we can say we own it.

Debt will kill them. Every generation just gets more and more indebted. It's basically slavery!

And man, the amount of marketing involved here. For the last few months, you've seen these "straw" campaigns—removing straws because they supposedly kill turtles. What a joke of a selective approach, yet they still push it hard! They ditch straws for the sake of turtles, while all other plastic stays in use (forks, knives, bags, cases, etc.) and kills everything else. So now turtles matter more than fish, frogs, or any other creatures...?

People are either sheep or ducks; you rarely see a leader.

Chris Myers said:Debt will kill them. Every generation just gets more and more indebted. It's basically slavery!

And man, the amount of marketing involved here. For the last few months, you've seen these "straw" campaigns—removing straws because they supposedly kill turtles. What a joke of a selective approach, yet they still push it hard! They ditch straws for the sake of turtles, while all other plastic stays in use (forks, knives, bags, cases, etc.) and kills everything else. So now turtles matter more than fish, frogs, or any other creatures...?

People are either sheep or ducks; you rarely see a leader.

A smart person can actually stand a chance against debt if they play their cards right. Not to sound like I'm bragging here, but I’ve managed to stay completely clear of any debt myself—I don't even carry a balance on my checking account.

That being said, I feel pretty powerless when it comes to tackling the issue of global pollution.

If you want a real look at our pollution problem, skip the scientific studies for a moment. Just grab a coffee, sit in the parking lot of a local Target for an hour, and count how many plastic bags walk out that door. It’s a depressing sight. Almost all of them end up tossed straight into the trash, destined to clutter up our landfills and leak into the environment, because let's face it—even in a country like ours, we aren't even hitting a 20 percent recycling rate for plastic.

Honestly, people can be such a mess sometimes. They have absolutely no sense of priority. It’s like they genuinely believe their entire worth as human beings is tied to whether they’re driving a luxury BMW or rocking the latest pair of Nikes. It’s exhausting to watch.

Sam Martinez9 said:A smart person can actually stand a chance against debt if they play their cards right. Not to sound like I'm bragging here, but I’ve managed to stay completely clear of any debt myself—I don't even carry a balance on my checking account.

That being said, I feel pretty powerless when it comes to tackling the issue of global pollution.

If you want a real look at our pollution problem, skip the scientific studies for a moment. Just grab a coffee, sit in the parking lot of a local Target for an hour, and count how many plastic bags walk out that door. It’s a depressing sight. Almost all of them end up tossed straight into the trash, destined to clutter up our landfills and leak into the environment, because let's face it—even in a country like ours, we aren't even hitting a 20 percent recycling rate for plastic.

Honestly, people can be such a mess sometimes. They have absolutely no sense of priority. It’s like they genuinely believe their entire worth as human beings is tied to whether they’re driving a luxury BMW or rocking the latest pair of Nikes. It’s exhausting to watch.

I don't even have any debt myself... that isn't really the point. But the debt just keeps growing and it's only going to get worse.

Some things we currently take for granted are going to become mere commodities. I guess health, water, food, even having a roof over your head... it’s already heading that way. Pensions will probably turn into science fiction, bottled water will be everywhere, and homeownership will dwindle while more people just rent. In the long run, the average American will become nothing more than a slave—and maybe they won't even realize it.

They’re setting us up, I guess. It's all being orchestrated behind the scenes. Just look at those ridiculous infomercials from years ago—selling bottled air like people couldn't survive without it. A sign of things to come, maybe!

Before everything becomes just another cheap commodity... can we please "stop the train" and get off?

10 Good Reasons Why WE Should All Live in Intentional Communities

This isn't some cheesy apology—look, people aren't necessarily cattle, they're more like bats stuck at the bottom of a well, only seeing whatever gets tossed down from "above." At least, that's how the trend looks right now.
We aren't bees or ants by nature—you know, lacking that hive-mind awareness for a community of billions—even if we are social creatures.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Before everything becomes just another cheap commodity... can we please "stop the train" and get off?

10 Good Reasons Why WE Should All Live in Intentional Communities

This isn't some cheesy apology—look, people aren't necessarily cattle, they're more like bats stuck at the bottom of a well, only seeing whatever gets tossed down from "above." At least, that's how the trend looks right now.
We aren't bees or ants by nature—you know, lacking that hive-mind awareness for a community of billions—even if we are social creatures.

Isn't it essentially the same thing? Whether you label people as cattle, or as bats in a well, or whatever other metaphor you prefer, the core idea remains unchanged:

People aren't rational actors who use education, critical analysis, and deep thought to grasp the reality of the world; instead, they are irrational beings being manipulated by whoever happens to be positioned above them.

Perhaps we should be more explicit about the fact that *the one above* is just as irrational—just another bat stuck at the bottom of a different well.