Comments on: Anarcho-Fascism?

By: Lumpy

Lumpy — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:17:10 +0000

It’s usually ‘transnational socialism’, not ‘transnational progressivism’ as progressivism retains some positive connotations for a lot of people, while socialism has been more or less completely discredited.

As for the ‘fictional’ character of the movement, that’s a laugh. Tranzis may not have club meetings, but the philosoophy is so pervasive that to pretend it doesn’t exist is just foolish. The corrupt bureaucracies of the EU and the UN are the breeding ground of the corrupt Tranzi elite who would like to run the world and run your lives if given any opportunity.

As for Anarcho-Fascism, I’m not familiar with it unless it’s what Ron Paul’s Bircher supporters are promoting - and it might be.

What the last commenter clearly subscribes to is the anarcho-socialism which has dominated the Libertarian Party for an awfully long time, but seems now to be on the decline,

For me it’s all a lot simpler. You either believe in liberty or you don’t, regardless of what label you choose to stick on yourself.

By: Harlequin Davidson

Harlequin Davidson — Tue, 27 May 2008 13:07:09 +0000

I must be one of those who are ignorant and scared of(f?) by semantics, or brainwashed libtard leftist, because I’m an anarchist who thinks national anarchism is an oxymoron. Anarchism is about us spontaneously relating to others, not building walls around ourselves based on some spurious notion of race, gender, sexual identity, etc. I believe in affinity groups, but individual to individual. It doesn’t matter what ethnic background a person is, how you relate to them as an individual is what matters, and individuality is not circumscribed by these stupid notions of identity.It requires an openness, not a defensiveness in the face of ‘the Other’. Forgetting oneself is the only way one can properly live.

By: Berserker

Berserker — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 01:36:46 +0000

Anarcho-fascism does exist but it is generally called National-Anarchism, or Anarcho-Primitivism. It is, infact, a very good idea, perhaps the best to come along in a long time. Those who oppose it generally do so because they are ignorant and scared of by semantics, are weak, or brain-washed libtard leftists.

By: Spike Mayhem

Spike Mayhem — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:22:33 +0000

OOPS, I missed the word Facsim in the first line, right after “challenged…” sorry!
~Mayhem

By: Spike Mayhem

Spike Mayhem — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:19:33 +0000

I hate to resort to name calling, but your mentally challenged… always was, and IS STILL about politics, because every human interaction is “Political”. A way of life is it? right… Anarchy isn’t a way of life either… Personally, I look to the Ideal of Anarcho-Communism (yes, I’m a commie) I’m also a RASH (or Redand Anarchist SkinHeads) skinhead. A free-base communism in an Anarchist state would be very nice. A totalitarian Facsist state… living hell for anyone who thinks

oh well, I’m done.

~Mayhem

By: piecraft

piecraft — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 15:57:52 +0000

You’re all wrong. Fascism was not right wing nor was it any wing. Fascism and Anarchism are both from the same mind, they seek the same things: evolution and progress within preservation, only they seek them within different mediums, one via the State and the other within the State of Nature. Fascims was never truly political, it was more of a way of life, just as Anarchy is.

By: Comet

Comet — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 00:49:21 +0000

Fascism originated from Marxists and syndicalists? What kind of revised history are you reading? Fascism is dinstinctly right wing and was born from private capitalists who desired greater control over the economy and society as well. Fascism was decidedly anti-socialist, anti-communist and anti-labor. It was created out of desperation to keep the interests of the ruling capitalist elites in place admist the growing working class discontent and labor movements.

Even American capitalists such as Henry Ford applauded Fascism and even gave it private funding. A Repubican sentaor called it “the wave of the future” and supported encouraging it. It had many of the structures of modern day Neoliberal capitalism with strict moral conservatism and ultranationalism.

But anyway, to the OP, I think “anarco”-fascism is an oxymoron just like “anarcho”-capitalism. A system is not anarchy when it seeks to maintain structural hierarchy and inequality. Fascism relies on totaltarian private owners which cannot be maintained with the existence of a state.

By: NatRev

NatRev — Sun, 17 Oct 2004 11:22:07 +0000

Anarcho-fascism?

Mmmm, fascism was born from an amalgamation of disgruntled marxists, syndicalists and overt patriots angry and dissapointed with their nations outcome in the Great War.

Syndicalism is the ideal that connects fascism with anarchism, two of the warring factions in the Spanish Civil War were both Syndicalist yet fought against each other, (Anarcho-Syndicalists and National Syndicalists)…

National Anarchism is interesting tho…

By: Tim Hall

Tim Hall — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 13:31:48 +0000

Thank you for succinctly proving my point.

Have a nice day, twit…

By: ArthurSock

ArthurSock — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 13:14:44 +0000

Tim Hall had better go and find out what a “straw man” argument is before he flaps his gums in public about what libertarianism is and isn’t.

Until then, I suggest he shuts the fuck up.