Marxism vs Fascism – A harsh Truth on a seemingly Binary Choice

Intro:

In this post I’ll offer a historically binary view – namely Marxism versus Fascism – with the ethical caveat that a new player, Individualism, is ultimately the right path. I’ll emphasize what both traditional European sides represent although, ultimately, show scorn for what Marxism (read: the new term ‘Democratic Socialism’) represents. Ultimately, for the noble and righteous people in the world – and make no mistake, there are resentful sub-humans whom we refer to in the modern era as ‘Democratic Socialialists’ who don’t fall into this category –are faced with two realistic choices: Fascism or Individualism. As an American, holding American ideals, I emphasize choosing Individualism.

Background – The Modern but age-old battle between Marxism and Fascism

Don’t be fooled by the ‘taming’ of history – the European conflict between Communist Russia and Fascist Germany had some degree of grounding in historical basis, which came to a head in World War II. Leftists like to scrub the said ideological battle from the history book for, in their subtle and devious terms, it’s not ‘convenient’. Thus, the Nazi’s were ‘Bad’ and the Soviets were ‘meh, let’s just ignore the atrocities repeatedly committed by the Commies’

However, students of history *who are paying attention* know differently. It’s not “Nazis bad, Soviets a little better” – regardless of body counts I’d argue the inverse, but regardless of said outcomes, the question comes down to ‘is there even a final alternative?’ I.e. if the Soviets sucked (yes) and the Nazis sucked (yes) – you have to ask, ‘Are we conveniently skipping over an alternative form of governance over any advanced civilization such as that of Europe or the United States?’

A potential answer to the Modern issue:

The answer to the above question is Yes – we often skip over an alternative form of governance, usually out of convenience. I don’t expect those who have given in to the appeal of a Higher Authority (read: Mommy Government, subsidized-education-employees and the bloated public sector generally) to understand this, but there might be an alternative to European Existentialism – i.e. the paradigm of Fascism versus Socialism (ultimately Communism and Totalitarianism). The answer lies in Individualism – the greatest intellectual construct of the West generally, and fostered most by the American belief system in bettering oneself through one’s own means.

What does Individualism mean, in real terms?

What individualism means is, first and foremost, not being subject the to the whims of an artificial higher power – in our case almost exclusively these days, this is referring to the ever-growing government. Think of the cries echoed by Bernie Sanders and like-minded scum:

- ‘Free College for all’
-‘Free health care for all’
- ‘Free…? (whatever comes next) for all’

The difficult part of individualism – which represents the supremacy of the individual over the collective (whether it be the Fascist nation-state or the ‘Moral’ Communist alternative) is that said belief system is subject to seemingly overwhelming challenges by the opponents. Rather than delving into the innate nature of such challenges, let’s use some difficult but common examples to illustrate the gravity of such a realization. Time for some harsh truths:

1. ‘But if Government doesn’t nationalize healthcare, people will die’
A: As a compassionate conservative, your initial response is, ‘who is dying in America from malnutrition etc. that you know of? We have the best system possible. Quit bitching.’

The harsh, brutal (?) answer: You’re absolutely right, compassionate conservative. No one in America is dying of malnutrition, quite the opposite – Diabetes and obesity-induced diseases are a far more pervasive problem in America. You can thank Capitalism for that .

2. ‘Government should represent a hybrid of socialism and capitalism as that’s the best ‘blend’ for general prosperity’
A: Thanks, Captain Obvious. But it doesn’t address the question of how much government is best in specific terms. I’d make the solid argument that government representing ~40% of GDP is excessive, and that we need to scale back. Not advocate for more Freebies like Free College (an inevitable disaster in the waiting, anyone who assesses the college dropout rate already is aware of this) and Free Other Stuff. Let’s get to the brunt of the issue – government is growing and it’s growing excessively, thanks.

3. ‘The current system of governance in the United States is ‘unfair’ and ‘unequal’
A: Well, you kind of missed the point of the Founding Fathers (who you should hailing as the founders of modern Western society rather than demonizing, btw) – people clearly aren’t equal. They just have equal rights. As an individual, it comes down to you to make the decisions which further or detract from your life interests – it is not the responsibility of anyone else. Since we like to focus on minorities so much these days – the Jim Crow era is long over, and you now have the burden of looking inwards to resolve your problems, rather than placing blame on externalities.

Conclusion: It’s very clear that the Fascist-Socialist-Individualist paradigm hasn’t played itself out yet – this will take time. I encourage the Individualist-inclined people to stick to their guns and refuse to give an inch to these dirty Leftists – recognize them for what they are and what they represent, and reject their ideology without reservations.

Last edited: 14 minutes ago

 

Individualism isn't possible to run society with.

Its right there next to anarchism but believes that people are inherently good so will work with each other.

Also, the three ideologies you list are only a very minor part of all the possibilities.

 

The term 'snowball' applies here - we're just in a particularly pleasant era where we don't acknowledge the snowball effect. Yes, modern Europe is and was defined by the Fascist-Marxist paradigm, and yes, it will be back in play at some point.

There's nothing wrong with 'boxing' ideologies so long as you box them in the correct aggregate manner.

 

Actually the Fascist-Marxist paradigm, while a major event, was actually a very short part of Europe's history.

Aristocracy has been the biggest player there over the centuries.

 

In fact the Fascist countries(that said, I want to note that Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany, are two ENTIRELY different countries, and thus it isn't fair to equate Fascism with National Socialism) wanted to revive the aristocracy. Hitler obviously with the German Empire, and Mussolini aspired for the new Roman Empire.

Japan, the third member of the AXIS was already a self-acknowledged Empire that simply sought to conquer the rest of Asia. Though Japan was a part of the AXIS, Japan might be competing with Italy for nation that failed Germany the most. The Germans wanted a Japanese attack on the Russians, the Japanese wouldn't budge. Nor were they of any help in the African front either.

The Allies were really, REALLY lucky that none of the AXIS nations could coordinate their manpower effectively. That more than the nukes was the difference in the war. The Allies could coordinate, the AXIS couldn't.

 

Having studied this war in depth I can say that there are many ways the allies, not would have lost, but how the Axis could have maintained their gains and stayed even.

Nobody could match the output of the US but we wouldn't have fought indefinitely, its Europe after all.

Britain was beat but Hitler screwed up, Russia was defeated but Hitler screwed up, Japan could have well consolidated but decided to drag us into the war.

The Axis simply got too greedy and made too many costly mistakes.

Of course we have hindsight now but still, some really stupid stuff was done by them.

 

The Battle of Dunkirk will always be an iconic turning point. One of the reasons Hitler lost the war, is he had a jerkyll-hyde view of it. On one end, there would be times where he'd view it from a general's perspective(and those would be the good days.), then he'd view it in the lens of his 'Aryan supremacy, brotherhood' mode of the world(his bad days.)

If you could take the theology out of Adolf Hitler, Germany would've been some beast alright. A general who would see the opportunity would have sunk the ships in Dunkirk and left Britain stranded and isolated.

And then after that, you can proceed to the war with Russia. And while Hitler noted the cold, there's another thing he should've noted: His fault in dividing the German troops. He wanted all of Russia, but really he should've focused on the head: Moscow. Take Moscow, and everything falls after that.

No seriously, even our military has super war defense plans for protecting Washington DC as the US Capitol. A country just doesn't function without the capital.

Then there's Italy. Mussolini knows he's not prepared for the war, but after seeing Germany have success, he's like 'Alright let's go' and they proceed to lose, very very badly. Italy was a better financial ally then it was a military ally, but try telling that to Mussolini at the time and he would've been furious lol.

Then there's Japan. Although I can understand them from the standpoint of 'Hey, it's not like you Europeans are helping us conquer China over here'. WW2 is actually kind of funny when you think about it. It was more of three separate wars in the Asia, African and European regions. It was only a world war from that standpoint.