/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 9431
1,9 MB, 492 × 360, 0:31
What is your opinion on Lee Kuan Yew?

I find it interesting how he managed to turn Singapore, a backwards fishing village, into a thriving modern city-state in a single generation through fascism.
No. 9438 Kontra
He wasn't Fascist. He was quite authoritarian at times but his reasoning is closer to that of Liberal Utilitarianism than Fascism because the former unlike the latter sees despotism as justified until such a time that the state and people are developed enough that it can stand on its own two feet. Beyond that, self-rule by the people is justifiable while despotism is not. Fascism has authoritarianism at the heart of its ideology and Lee Kuan Yew was always moving towards a democratic state based on East Asian foundations. When he was opposition leader in the 50s he was vocally opposed to Fascists and later expanded on his ideas of democracy as being that Singaporean democracy would always be different to a Western one because of different cultural backgrounds.

Also, it wasn't a 'fishing village'. It was the heart of British East Asia. Here's a map of it in 1941. It's hardly a village by any stretch of the term.
No. 9439 Kontra
16,5 MB, 8016 × 6993
forgot pic
No. 9440
>being that Singaporean democracy would always be different to a Western one because of different cultural backgrounds.
This is probably the main reason why democratic regimes fail in so many countries, Russia being one such example. Simply copying the western liberal democratic system is a bad idea since what works in Paris will not do so in Moscow.
No. 9441
Indeed, his exact point was something along the lines of 'what Westerners value in democracy, personal civil liberties, regular voting etc. is less important to me as an Asian man. In my culture, we value a functional and efficient government'. I think the idea of democracy in there was that much like a mandate of heaven, if the government proved to be non-functional or inefficient, it could and would be replaced, thus any government existed by the will of the people in spite of lacking traditional terms of government like a western democracy does. It's pretty interesting stuff, but it's not anything to point at and go 'see, this is why we need fayshizm'. I wonder what a Russian-style democracy would even look like? I see it actually being a lot like the Early US with very powerful states and a less powerful federal government because nobody is going to want to compromise on 'my ethnorepublic/oblast/whatever #1, all others can go to hui', so just let them all do their thing and contain their regional corruption and let cooler hedas manage international talks.
No. 9443
96 kB, 1000 × 582
>I see it actually being a lot like the Early US with very powerful states and a less powerful federal governments

Pretty much, but that would take founding fathers-tyre fanatics who would be weilling to sacrifice their own hold over the country in order to pursue this objective by starting a decentralization programme. There were some attempts in the 1990s by various heads of regions to get more autonomy for themselves. Needless to say, that never got anywhere.

However, such actions would have to fight another part of the Russian mentality - the desire to let the government do whatever it wants and put all power and responsibility in the hands of the ruler. At least 2-3 generations would have to be taught that they are the ones who hold power in their town/city/region and by taking part in the political sphere of life they could decide the future of the place they live in.

I attached a painting called "members of the Zemstvo are having lunch" because the idea of self-governing regions is one Russian rulers have been toying with for centuries but nothing really came from that. I feel like today, with all the technology we could finally have success in this regard, but maybe its just my wishful thinking.
No. 9447
Good man. Reality comes before democracy.
No. 9463
>later expanded on his ideas of democracy as being that Singaporean democracy would always be different to a Western one because of different cultural backgrounds.

I always found his claims a little dubious in this area. Caning bottoms is a thoroughly British institution that was latched onto by a man indoctrinated at the motherlands top institutions in the study of law and applied multiculturally. His defence is more that of a someone who won't let anyone else play on his train-set and held up because of natural economic growth.

Transposing Parliamentary democracy to a small cosmopolitan city that's a key spoke in a time of roaring international trade wasn't an impossible task. Frankly his petty resorts to libel for anyone who criticised him just speaks again of his English legal training and could easily have bitten the country in the arse (it still might regarding the precedent).

Oh I dunno. The rule of law is a pretty universal requirement and the lack of it has hobbled any chance of Russian liberalism taking hold imo.
No. 9475
21 kB, 800 × 533
59 kB, 1200 × 1200
>He wasn't Fascist

No? I mean there are striking resemblances between his early policies and that of Oswald Mosley while even the BUF and PAP logos are the same thing.
No. 9478
No. 9479
That's very fair. He is certainly not above criticism, and I'm also inclined to agree that Singapore being a major port in on the Straits of Johore (already a major shipping route) and smack bang in the middle of a developing economic zone in East Asia following the war meant that it was going to succeed economically either way so long as they didn't do anything incredibly stupid. They didn't necessarily need him, they just needed someone with half a brain which he happened to fit. I don't know if I'm entirely as cynical about his belief in some form of democracy as you make it sound, but I I can also see your point where there is a long period where Singapore is on its feet and he still won't let anybody else 'play on his train-set'.

In his early political years, as in the 50s, he made the statement to the effect that fascism was the enemy of Singapore's republic. He also continually pushed for multicultural acceptance and mutual respect for all people and faiths in the country, even the much newer ones like the Christians who he just wanted to stop preaching as hard because it was causing problems, and they did and the problems largely stopped. There was no 'Singaporeans first' policy in the sense of SE Asians getting better treatment than Europeans. He was also very much a proponent of Singapore having a place in a community of nations, not just having some manifest destiny for greatness like Fascist parties tend to proclaim, nor did he prop himself up with a personality cult in the same way. He was relatively popular but there wasn't the same cult that you see cultivated under a Fascist regime. And a lightning bolt isn't an uncommon symbol, go figure. The BUF were also very isolationist in their policy while Lee was all about opening Singapore to the world, their goals were at odds if he was wanting to emulate them.
No. 9480
It never ceases to amaze me the sheer depths of stupidity and ignorance of these dumb children with their new fascism meme. I still think the dumbest think I ever heard though was people bitching about how SJWs turned Star Wars anti-Nazi. As if it wasn't always like that.

Fascism is shit regardless OP, and you clearly know nothing of what you're talking about. "Small fishing village" for instance. It'd be like trying to defend everything shit and incompetent about Communism except that at least really did industrialize a bunch of agrarian nations--which also doesn't mean they needed Communism to do that. Plus I'd personally rather not live in a fascist country. You know what's a great fascist country? Saudi Arabia. You'd love it there. State and business concerns are merged under a monarchy, total separation of genders, general ethnic homogeneity, "SJWs" are executed etc.

My suggestion to all these dumb pricks is to try moving to their dream paradise of North Korea or Saudi Arabia.
No. 9484
108 kB, 620 × 372
442 kB, 980 × 730
The PAP was initially very left-wing, until the left wing faction, led by Lim Chin Siong were purged from the party in 1961. They formed the Barisan Sosialis, which were crippled in 1963 by Operation Coldstore.

Also what kind of nonsense is it to consider LKY and the PAP fascist? If it suited Singapore, the PAP would adopt policies regardless of ideology. For instance, the HDB public housing scheme that now houses 90% of the population, or the Certificate of Entitlement scheme which artificially reduces car ownership rates. The economic sector is generally very free-market liberal. The reason why the PAP has been in power for so long is incompetent opposition and subtle but effective control of media and speech.
No. 9497 Kontra
>uou know what's a great fascist country? Saudi Arabia
stop misusing that word.
No. 9562 Kontra
I'll stop when people like OP stop. Besides which Saudi Arabia is much closer to both true fascism and whatever the hell reactionary bullshit people like OP dream about. It is the perfect antithesis to everything they hate about Western liberal democracies. All they have to do is be a Muslim. And better also be an Arab. Perfect monarchist largely ethnostate more free of degeneracy than virtually anywhere else in the world.
No. 23296
You're ideologically brainblocked.
No. 23324
ITT: Bernd the kind of nigga who too dumb to distinguish between "fascist" and "fascitoid".
No. 23360
You don't know what a Fascist country is. Both DPRK and Saudi Arabia are deeply authoritarian, but neither are Fascist. Saudi Arabia is a theocratic absolute monarchy and DPRK is a totalitarian hermit kingdom.

If you ask me, Fascism can only be studied by the regimes that championed its ideals. Keep in mind Fascist movements and Fascist regimes differed greatly in both professed beliefs and public policies once they assumed leadership. Ergo, we should exclude Fascist movements that never reached power such as Mosley's British Union of Fascists or Codreanu's Iron Guard. Likewise, reactionary or monarchistic regimes like Francoist Spain or Imperial Japan do not count as Fascist regimes because Fascism is inherently modernist and thus opposed to monarchs (hello, Primo de Rivera). Furthermore, neither regime adopted the term nor the sufficient criteria of public policies that would define them as Fascists.

This leaves us with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Both regimes had these points in common that distinguished them from other Nationalist movements:
  • Demoskepticism or opposition to democracy: Both saw democracy as corrupt, weak and morally degenerate. Unlike other dictatorships that pay lip service to democracy, Fascists openly oppose it on principle. Hitler and Mussolini planned to severely curtail, if not outright abolish, democracy once they assumed power. Of course, Fascist parties see the utility in democratic elections while holding contempt for the institution, but that's neither here nor there.
Spiritually rooted theories on racial purity couched in atavistic myths: Both regimes saw their ancestors as the Aryan and Roman supermen of a mythological past. They believed actively purifying their respective bloodlines would lead to their naturally dominant roles, establishing global hegemony.
  • Violence as virtue: Both regimes believed war shaped and built a man's character. Fascists believed that men (and only men) could be shaped by war. Without continuous struggle, man eventually stagnates and falls into a state of degeneracy. Violence was not merely a means to an end; it was an end in and of itself. Fascists believe, much like India's Thuggee cult, that violence and killing strengthens the soul on a spiritual level. Perpetual state of war strengthens and purifies man's soul and the body politic. The book "In Stahlgewittern" (translated: "Storm of Steel") by Ernst Jünger has many of these themes. Ironically, he was privately opposed to Hitler and was peripherally connected to some men who planned on assassinating Der Führer.
  • Collectivist Statism: The "Socialism" in National Socialism rejects the conventional notions of wealth redistribution and instead has much more in common with Oswald Spengler's idea of Prussian socialism. Keep in mind Spengler harshly criticized Hitler, but that's another story. NS dictates that the state and its people are one single entity. All people, not just the armed forces, but workers, women, children, are all part of the dominant and pure machine of the people-state. Individual identity is supplanted with the State identity. Everyone is the state, the state is everyone, the people move with one purpose.
  • Economic subservience to the military. Both regimes' respective economies were in constant states of flux. By and large, the existing large engineering companies that existed in those countries became arms of the state. When those arrangements failed to produce enough armaments, they used slave labor to the point the German economy was almost dependent on it towards the end of the war. Both Mussolini and Hitler dropped their much-trumpeted welfare programs when they started diverting too much money from the military.
  • Imperialism and Expansionism. Whilst it's contested if Hitler had globalist intentions, he certainly wanted "Lebensraum" for the German people. It doesn't take a genius to surmise that Hitler would've greatly expanded Germany had he been successful. Meanwhile, Mussolini's Pre-WWII military adventures in Ethiopia and Libya were motivated less by an economic need than by a belief that Italy should have an empire because they were a superior race. Underscoring this is the simple fact that Ethiopia possessed no economic resources for Italy to exploit. Whilst many other regimes, Left and Right, have been imperialist and expansionist, this is worth noting because many contemporary Nationalist and far-right movements are very isolationist in wanting to expel foreigners but not expand their borders. Of course, this could change if they're in power and at at the mercy of global politics, but again, that remains to be seen.

DPRK may share superficial similarities with Fascist regimes, but the country paying lip service to democracy and non-imperialism are the reasons the country do not qualify as a Fascist state. Apart from unifying Korea and perhaps destroying the United States, very little suggests they have expansionist aims. They strongly stress self-reliance and independence from the rest of the world. Whether or not this translates into public policy is another question. Also, they are not a Western state. We are discussing a people with an entirely different history and set of cultural assumptions.
No. 23362
64 kB, 9 pages
I always found this piece valuable for understanding and categorizing fascism.
No. 23364
This is idiotic. If you really wanted to split hairs the NSDAP could be called "not fascist" too by that absurd criteria because Franco wasn't even a monarch. He ruled as just another dictator. And this is doubly fucking stupid as hell because Mussolini himself had supported the monarchists
You're just wrong dude. If we went by your logic then the people who were defined by name as fascists can't be called fascists because of Mussominis monarchist bent.
No. 23369
You also need to determine whether you're talking about Fascism as a theory or Fascism as a practice. While neither is exactly idyllic, there are aspects of practical Fascism which aren't really a part of the political theory. For example, the Futurist aspects of Italian Fascism emphasise speed, technological advancement and the violent outburst of youthful energy and emotion, focusing it towards building a strong nation-state, but in practice shacked up with the old regime and took existing power structures for their own. The youthful outbursts were used to maintain a decaying monarchy and not to pursue the dynamic of the new era of modernity.

There is also not that much in Italian Fascist theory that implies racial purity, and in some ways Mussolini's anti-semitism was somewhat strange for his chosen political system which emphasised nation over even immediate family, let alone something as broad as race.

I did a semester on the history of Fascism when I was a student, and most of that semester was actually trying to define Fascism which remains a conundrum to this day. It's got a lot of points that are agreed upon but it's a pretty broad definition that's more art than science when being applied academically.
No. 23370
No form of fascist or reactionary thought is
No. 23372
The interesting thing here is that reactionary art is often idyllic, kitsch so to speak. Just look at Nazi art, it's the worst replica of ancient art I've seen to date. Otherwise the landscape paintings from that era are at clash with the technological force of Nazi Germany.
No. 23374
Neither is a lot of radical art. We shouldn't forget that a lot of the roots of Fascism originate within the avant-garde. In many ways it is not unlike the trajectory of early 20th century socialism. It starts idealistic and full of the fury of youth, explodes in revolution and seizes power, only to reform into the thing it railed against. Communism became Stalinism, a regime almost as despotic as that of the Tsars, and the Fascists focused the energy of the youth and the age into the monarchy, and not the progress envisioned by the Futurists who informed so much of the theory.

One needs to be very careful when dealing with the topic since it is natural to revile the system from historical precedent when one should be trying to assess it professionally and with an even hand.
No. 23375
Could we say the accelerationistic outbursts of the avant-garde were fulfilled in technology but not in politics? Tho one could argue both Russian Cosmism and Italian Futurism are inhumane from the angle of classical humanism and so are their politics.
No. 23377
1,3 MB, 686 × 1920
>Franco wasn't even a monarch

Franco still preserved the institution of monarchy and refused to be expansionist. A reactionary dictator, but not a Fascist.

And, as I had previously said as did the Brit, theory and practice are two entirely separate matters. We can't judge Fascist movements that never attained power because they put nothing into practice on even a small town, much less an entire nation. Likewise, Statesmanship is less of a science and more of an art. Ergo, deviation from professed goals can be expected.

The Brit had an interesting point that I've previously mentioned whenever the subject comes up regarding Fascism and art. When you study Fascist discourse from whichever regime you prefer or even if you trouble yourself with essays written by various men from Fascist movements, you will discover that culture takes precedence over almost every other facet of life. It is from these points that I believe that Fascism is a cultural revolution, and everything else flows from that.

What's interesting is that Mussolini immediately went back on his views on race once his allegiance to Hitler solidified.

Is it a function of Fascist culture that all art it produces are poor imitations or is it simply a product of men who failed to live up to their professed principles? Arno Breker may not have been the best sculptor, but he had a great point when he said that good art stands above politics.
No. 23378
And yet Mussolini even out of all people defended the monarchy, yet he basically defined political fascism, as in, his power bloc was literally called the Italian fascists.

How is it "accelerationistic"? Which by the way is the dumbest political ploy ever. "We'll just lose so hard that we win!" Its a great way to justify either your own side losing or simply breaking shit out of impotent rage however.

Also the Stalinists and to a degree Soviet empire itself retained massive overtones of the same romanticism that plagued reactionaries to such a degree that the CIA outright funded modern and abstract art movements as a bizarre counterbalance to the Soviet concept of realism and what basically amounted to the heroic-romantic. I think one of the only solid futurists was actually Adolph Hitler. Everyone else, fascists and Communists included, ended up being too wrapped up in trying to preserve and romanticize something about the old way of life. This was reflected in everything from his obsession with wunderwaffen to his plans for transforming Berlin.

It's a shame really. A lot of the ambition and futurism of the 20s got buried in the ashes of WWII and largely got discredited or buried under a mountain of healthy skepticism and cynicism, which the US and Russia tried to keep going but like I said, skepticism and cynicism.
No. 23379
>and refused to be expansionist.
I doubt he refused to recognize the legitimacy of Moroccan Spain.
He was a pragmatic and conservative general, lack of expansionism for him wasn't lack of ambition to do it given the opportunity, just the lack of opportunity to do so, IMO.
No. 23380
84 kB, 800 × 486
I would definitely agree. There is a lot of masterful engineering and design that took place under the Fascist regime. Some of which is even tied to Fascist thought. I have a real thing for the Lingotto factory. It is spectacular in how it harnesses movement in its design as production spirals upwards, culminating in its ultimate expression of speed. The testing track on the roof. Then you have the Italian arms industry. Known in part for its abortions, but also known for some of the finest pieces in Europe at the time. The Beretta 38, many of their fighter aircraft, their naval vessels. All were really quite advanced and happened in industries that were very much under the thumb of the authorities. I think that there is something of an influence there, though the demise of the intelligent fascist is pretty well documented. You can see it especially in art as time progresses. Italian Futurism that remains in touch with Fascism gets increasingly stagnant and retains an aesthetic without the soul, it's very prevalent if you follow the career of Marinetti before and after the Racial Laws of 1938 for example.

Mussolini was noted as a flip-flopper even by his contemporaries who likened him to a vulture swooping on targets of opportunity. He himself made the interesting but unconvincing argument that in changing times, the regime must change and not be bound by rigid ideology. It pays lip service to the theory of Fascism without actually addressing it.

For the record, I don't think that the Italian regime was inclusive. Fascism is not meant to be inclusive. It's harnessing violent energy, emphasis on violent. It needs a target, but the foundational theory doesn't make the target internal, but external and subordinates everything to the state which focuses the violence into progress. There is nothing to say that the external enemy or the internal ally is a genetic thing, but rather it is a matter of national spirit. It is high theory and not really seen in practice, but that is the nature of political theory in general anyway.

t. has more than a passing historical interest in said Italian regime I'm also the Aussie whose ball is fucked up for some reason
No. 23382
Accelerationism is meant here as focused on the future. You clearly went not very deep into accelerationist territory, Nick Land might be a key figure but todays accelerationism is an umbrella term under which many ideas gather and insofar that homogenity is lost. Speed is not acceleration, destruction vs. navigation, are just a few aspects to point out you are making it yourself too easy here. They all have in common that the future is very important tho. And lastly, it's way to young to give a clear vision of what it is supposed to be, the concept itself might be a process in constant vibration and change, open to contigency and not settled now (or never?). So basically accelerationism as a term is as unclear as postmodernism, might be even worse.

>I think one of the only solid futurists was actually Adolph Hitler. Everyone else, fascists and Communists included, ended up being too wrapped up in trying to preserve and romanticize something about the old way of life.
>preserve and romanticize something about the old way

They all were interested in technology, they all had prestigious building plans, even the 1930s US had the Hoover Dam. Look at the Art of Nazi Germany and it's kitschy cultural artefacts, the presentation of family and rural life.
Fascism as well as soviet communism where futurists in technology but romanticized a never existing the past.

Thinking of it, we have the same case today but the politics are different. Culture tends to look backwards whereas science marches forward regardless. The avant-garde wanted both.

Thanks for the info on Italy and the Futurists.
No. 23383 Kontra
Another point that needs to be made is that the pervasiveness of Fascist thought wasn't high. Education was poor, and in many places things didn't even remotely change except for when the Dvce showed up, at which point the local leader put on the uniform and made himself look like a Fascist. There was also a general identification with Italy rather than Fascist Italy among the citizens. In bad cases, they went as Catholic before even Italian. It wasn't a regime that held its population under its sway. It's hard for something to be coherent when it's trying to keep an incoherent thing stable. It's why so many Italians helped the Allies after they landed in Sicily. The best way to save Italy was to not get it blown away against a foe that they didn't think they could beat. Just something else to consider when looking at the strange history of Fascism in Italy.