Quora is just reddit but with even more fake scholarly authority.
Any question about social or political questions gets answers from “experts” who gaslight and lie about even obvious facts. No no, fascism isn’t conservative; it’s Hegelian therefore Marxist therefore leftist.
See also: Posting giant photos of Great Men who had Big Ideas because that’s where fascism comes from.
This guy has missed the forest for the trees, obsessing over the details of particular individuals and accidental historical circumstances, and not seeing their underlying connection (bourgeois class interest, commodity fetish)
it did not seek to outphase or depose the bourgeoisie, instead it proposed that the bourgeoisie had themselves valuable skills that had been lost due to Enlightenment ideals, and that when the bourgeoisie would abandon these ideals, they would undergo a class rejuvination. This would in turn create a society where proletariat and bourgeoisie would cooperate with each other.
So liberalism, but distilled such that only the worst parts of liberalism are retained.
The “Fascism is neither left-wing or right-wing; it’s ackchyually third position!” take is an overreaching misunderstanding of what the term “third position” was even intended to mean. “Third position” doesn’t mean “third position relative to both left-wing and right-wing politics” as much as it’s been used to mean “third position relative to both Marxism and free-market capitalism”. Just because an ideology is, at least in theory, neither Marxist or free-market capitalist, does not mean it is neither left-wing or right-wing. Terms like left-wing and right-wing are often used to describe your attitude on equality. If you support a more egalitarian mode of society, you are generally regarded as left-wing. If you support a more hierarchical mode of society, regardless of your stance on matters like favoring a planned economy or not, you are generally regarded as right-wing. Unless these people want to grasp at straws to even attempt to claim that Nazis and fascists are not extremely hierarchical, arguing that they’re anything but far-right is ludicrous and ultimately a game of semantics.
I just discovered that this “third positionist” concept is one used by neo-fascists according to Wikipedia, so I think it’s clear this teenager on Quora has been on some fash websites. Probably just 4chan tbh
And this isn’t to also make the mistake of many liberals, to believe that because fascists don’t like theoretical free-market capitalism, that they don’t like privatization, when fascists thrive in capitalism as it is practiced because it privatizes and then protects those privatized resources from the competition of the so-called ‘free’ market.
This is true. So many chuds, like Steven Crowder, point out the slightest indicator of Nazis not favoring a laissez-faire economy and use this to paint them as “socialists” (rofl). They still privatized a shit ton.
The author’s a Belgian kid born in 2007. 👁️👁️ Somebody needs to stop the Dutch before it’s too late.
Their profile says they expect to graduate high school in 2026. This post was added on 15 December 2022, so that means people are taking advice about fascism and motherfucking Hegel from a 15-16 year old kid.
Historically speaking, Fascism has existed as middle ground between Monarchism and Socialism.
No better case study for this than the Spanish Civil War
I’m not well read on the Spanish Civil War. How was fascism used as a middle ground?
Absent a brief interlude during the First Spanish Republic, Spain was a monarchy until the 1930s. Even in the wake of King Alfonso XIII’s deposition, the country enjoyed a large body of royalist supporters (the Spanish Carlists) who advocated a return to the Bourbon Dynasty.
Opposite the Carlists, Spain enjoyed a large and flourishing anarchist movement along with a nascent but growing communist movement. These two groups were in an on-again-off-again relationship, relative to the politics of the period and who was currently in charge of the national government.
A third branch of political activists, composed primarily of the military and religious orders (which was substantial in the early 20th century), was neither wedded to a return of the monarchy nor in favor of the nationalization/communalization of the large Spanish agricultural estates. They were Nationalists - one might even go so far as to call them National Socialists - who advocated for formal military domination of the economic order of the state.
The military order granted some degree of social mobility that did not exist under the Bourbon Dynasty, as the Franco Dictatorship was largely a product of overseas colonial expeditions full of junior officers who had returned to the peninsula. However, they were not in any way aligned with the civilian proletariat, instead demanding service within the military/bureaucracy as a gateway to the labor aristocracy / petite bourgeoisie subclass that comprised the modern liberal establishment.
The rigid hierarchy with ranked social mobility was the middle ground between Dynastic Rule and Proletariat Dictatorship. It released the pressures built up within the proletariat class by presenting an outlet in the form of re-occupation of colonial territory. However, it only permitted a fraction of the overall population - particularly the young, male population most prone to restive revolutionary tendency - to participate and only within the strict confines of the military bureaucracy.
Turns out there was already a thread on r/enlightenedcentrism
I linked one good comment that links to a webpage that endorses copy-pasting pro-Israel talking points on Quora.
A Reddit link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same location on alternative frontends that protect your privacy.
