>I am posting this here since /pol/ is a satirical board in denial
For what I have read fascism does not sound like what media tells me it is. So I want to ask
>What is fascism?
>What are their types?
>Pros and Cons
What one should remember is that Mussolini was a die hard socialist before he became a fascist. Fascism, if summarized for the idiot, could be said to be;
Socialism for the benefit of the nation;
Justified imperialism and supremacy of the citizen over others;
Ascendancy of discipline and efficiency over that of democracy and humanitarianism.
The approach to the socialistic aspects of Fascism are double edged in all instances where it has been applied however. Both in germany and italy, worker rights were heavily curtailed and strikes banned as they were deemed to be detriment to the welfare of the nation. At the same time, both regimes founded institutions that were meant to spread higher culture and entertainment to the masses - trying to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor in several fields.
In germany, this was called Strength through Joy. I forgot what the Italian one was called, but it's goal was similar. What Strength through Joy did was to spend money to buy expensive theater, opera or cinema tickets and then offer these very cheaply to it's members (which were pretty much everyone). The same applied to trips, leisure cruises in the Baltic sea could be taken for extremely cheap prices.
There was a downside, of course, seeing as both of these institutions were highly ideologically motivated. But that's to be expected of any state funded institution.
>Socialism for the benefit of the nation;
>Justified imperialism and supremacy of the citizen over others;
>Ascendancy of discipline and efficiency over that of democracy and humanitarianism.
I read an article about awhile back about the supporters of Roberto D'Aubuisson in El Salvador back during their civil war, some of whom pretty much came out and said they were straight up fascist. and they pretty much believed in all that plus a strong militarized state.
Fascism is pretty much authoritarian Keynesianism.
Your questions are entirely theoretical, since we didnt see fascism at work long enough, and not at peace in a developed state, only in between wars to repair a crumbling one and during a losing war.
>World War I proved that total mobilization and the whole nation working together is required in modern war.
>And since war is the best way to improve a nation's well being through imperialism and expansion, we should be at total mobilization at all times, in all things - public works, economy, culture.
Fascism was an ideology in name only, the key tent of fascism was a rejection of internationalism, if was an ideology to be developed independently; in the nation, for the nation, by the nation. However there are a few overarching beliefs
-A rejection of both liberalism and conservatism; rather than sticking to either which Fascists saw as irrational instead looking to the future alone; supporting personal liberty and freedom in life as long as it coincided with the goals of the nation with those coming first before anything else
-Nationalism: Present and key in all the majority movements taking pride in the past and looking to it for inspiration though in many cases the degree varied; the Italian National Fascist Party were Cultural Nationalists, race was not in the equation and minorities suffered no ill treatment other than the universal discrimination of the time, a minority could remain in the country if a naturalised citizen and deemed to be contributing. While German National Socialism and similar movements like the minor British Imperial Fascist League advocated the notion of racial purity and a masterrace pushing for the removal of all minority elements ny force if necessary
-In the economy again Fascism was divided into two camps the Italian model of state nationalisation of large industries, and the German model of high state regulation but lesser, with the banks in fact actually being privatised once more while the Italians advocated a form of Corporatism with some industries nationalised, but everything organised under a corporate system
Facism is both an ideology impossible to define, and one which is dead, it was a movement from the war generation to xresyens government of action as opposed to the old governments of the old generation which still remained after the war, failing to create a 'land fit for heroes' as promised, but in the end govemrents of action were born after the war in the west, with increased state intervention...
...as a result of the second world war, making fascism a largely moot ideology, leaving only goals that were born on national levels (German and Italian irredentism) rather than the principle of the overarching ideology.
While fascism varied wildly poltically by nation, in Italy it was a movement of the centre neither commiting to the left or right taking both its socialist inheritance and the views of others from the right who became involved with the movement, National Socialism as created in Germany was more a movement of the right, with nationalisation existing only in public works programmes undertaken to try and repair the economy, and to asssit in military buildup, with most oefsmationse remaining privatised though with the state being more influential than ever before. While the proposed British model is probably the closest to the left, arguing that the workers of any organisation reaching a certain size should be given a 50% stake in it to balance the demands of the workers and the owners, while small private enterprise was to be protected too, in general this is rather accurate:
British fascism was more radical authoritarian Keynesianism than anything else, their leader a former Socialist govemrnet minister was an early supporter of Keynes - who actually corresponded with their leader before the birth of the fascist movement - who resigned from govemrnet over their failure to take action, the British Union of Fascists still argued for a democratic state, but a corporate one, representatives are elected based on profession rather than geography, to end the old party system and to create a 'government of action', though the earlier fascist movements in; the British Fascists, the National Fascisti, and the Imperial Fascist league all functioned along lines closer to the famous Italian and German models of fssicsm
Not that chap but you want to look up:
Sir John Monash
The White Army (Cathcart, _Defending the National Tuckshop_).
Post-war australian fascists have been a joke.
Socialism is a pacifistic ideology, fascism is an aggressive one.
Socialism seeks to achieve happiness for the people through a simple, basic, guaranteed good life, while fascism insists for everyone to have a very culturally and politically rich life.
They are very different ideologies.
>What is revolutionary Socialism?
The idea that we need to bring forth pacifism, by any means necessary. Yes, that includes a massive fucking war to establish pacifism worldwide.
It is, read about it before subscribing to pop culture.
inb4 hurr durr commie
I am not, I just happen to actually know about things.
>The idea that we need to bring forth pacifism, by any means necessary. Yes, that includes a massive fucking war to establish pacifism worldwide.
Then it is not pacifism you idiot. Pacifism means the objection to violence in all forms, even if your aim is to establish peace itself.
The total abstraction and identification of a person towards its nation. Since fascism borrows from 19th century social sciences breakthroughs, it argues that an individual is literally unthinkable outside its nationhood or bond or whatever.
The ideology is about pacifism. Some people are prepared to be non-pacifists to establish that ideology.
Look at what happened in Russia. The liberals got in a coalition with the socialist, and promised peace. Then they saw they can actually win the war, and kept fighting. Queue revolution, socialists come into power, and instant peace is declared. Yes, Russia could've won the war, could've regained its land, won more land, but the socialists instantly signed the bad peace deal.
And just a reminder, we had a Cold War because USSR didnt want open war, not because the USA didnt want it. Backwards states were converting to communism because of propaganda and optimism, but they were converted back with assassinations and artificially induced riots.
Socialism and communism have many flaws, mostly in the economy department and the purpose-of-life department, but they arent warlike ideologies. Fascism is. Fascism outright states that going to war and winning that war is something the nation needs.
The Soviets and other Communist regimes were just as willing to use violence as the US was.
You mean the hungarian revolution? You are aware that this is basically treason and terrorism?
From their point of view, and from official international politics point of view, it was justified and required to act with violence there, against the violence of the rioters.
Dont engage in politics with your feelings.
Actually people regarded it as a hostile takeover both in Hungary and around the world.
But to the point. You cannot claim it is pacifistic when it is using violence. Look, you can even argue that it was justified which you are doing, fine. It is still not pacifistic. You cannot make that claim.
Is raising your arm to defend yourself too violent for the implications of the word pacifist then? Maybe I am misunderstanding it.
I consider acts of aggression to be against pacifism, but defense to not be.
1) The Soviets were often aggressive. eg. When Stalin gave the go ahead for Kim Sung-Il to invade the South.
2) Pacifists would not even defend themselves. They are opposed to violence completely. Using self-defence is not pacifistic.
3) The invasion of Hungary was not self-defence. The Soviets had not been attacked by Hungary.
>not fund/support a military coup and apply economic pressure
>not fund/support a military coup and apply economic pressure
Depending on whom you asked, the Hungarian Revolution can be described as exactly that - the vile imperialist capitalists supporting a fascist uprising against the ineffective socialist government there.
Off-topic, but Hungarian revolution was aided by Western powers. It was not based on authentic movement. They had NATO guns, IIRC. Hungarian politicians really can't be trusted. Even today they try to play the 'we wuz eastern asian and shietz' in order to distance themselves from the EU.
Czechoslovakia, on the other hand...
Well I am Hungarian so I may be biased, but even Socialists here did not like being told what to do by the Soviet Union.
It was authentic and mass movement Nobody liked Stalin, nobody liked being told what to do by the Soviets. To be a slave of a foreign power.
What is funny is that you would agree with me if I was talking about Vietnam and the Americans intervening there. But when it is the Soviets doing it you are fine with it.
I never said I agree with the Soviet attack, but compare it to Czechoslovakia. So the Hungarians were socialists, but wanted to reform. This reform includes NATO intervention. Nice reform there. Why didn't other Warsaw pact or socialist states supported Hungary back then?
>This reform includes NATO intervention.
No, it didn't. NATO isn't contained in the demands of the revolutionary organs.
>Why didn't other Warsaw pact or socialist states supported Hungary back then?
It took the Soviet Union two weeks to convince Tito, Mao, and its own Politbureau to intervene. Neutralisation (exiting Warsaw Pact) not joining NATO, was the trigger for the Politbureau. Haven't heard why the Chinese shifted. Tito shifted for money.
I am not a Socialist. I am also the Hungarian who was talking about the Soviet invasion. However it is true that not all of the Socialists supported the invasion by the Soviet Union. To say otherwise would be lying.
The few ways I have come to describe it is either:
"For the health and well being of the nation" or a merger of the state and corperate operations in which the state triumphs and the interests and needs of the people are met.
E.g. making it profitable to do business in your country, and not by means internationally. Using your labor force as a currency is an interesting idea as well.
Lol idiot commie. I love how you all throw the word fascism around. I'm from a communist country and it's laughable how not wanting to follow orders from the USSR somehow equals fascism.
Facism is an ideology of strength. It promotes a strong, unified state were the citizens love their country. It promotes strength and beauty of body. It promotes strength of will, mind and spirit.
What are the pros: despising weakness in all its forms
What are it cons: the weak will misrepresent it and currently there are too many that are weak.
Ernst Junger, who invented the term "total mobilization" posited that liberal democratic countries were capable of moblizing their populaces to a much higher degree than authoritarian ones, cf. the Entente and the Central Powers. While he sorta proposed (his works were more descriptive than postulative) an authoritarian state of total mobilization, WWII proved once again that liberal countries win in that regard.
The Italian Fascists were nationalistic in only the broadest sense, as they claimed that the state precedes the nation historically. It could be also argued that they made the nation serve the interests of the state, rather than the opposite which is usual with nationalists of any sort.
>Off-topic, but Hungarian revolution was aided by Western powers.
I'm about as anti-American as you can get, but that is bullshit.
Also, only reason North Korea isnt doing well was because it was meant to operate in a different system, where the USSR would support them.
Look what happened to Libya when Libyn cucks started taking US orders (dick)
>m about as anti-American as you can get, but that is bullshit.
Its actually true. CIA would smuggle weapons into different socialist states like Hungary, just like KGB had stashes of weapons in every major European city i case of war.
Also despite starting out as a branch of Fascism, National Socialism (referring to the German branch) developed into its own ideology, with followers rejecting the non-internationalist principles of the original fascist movements and instead were willing to blindly take the German policies and apply them to their own organisations (most modern-Neo Nazi organisations) or declare their support for them as they were without adopting them to their own nation (organisations like the British Imperial Fascist League, or the Silver Legion of America),
National Socialism developed into a rigid ideology focused on support for the German model of 'fascism' and admiration of Adolf Hitler, while Hitler's movement may be deemed Fascist due to be the progenitor of the strain, movements abroad, and later successor movements in Germany could not be deemed fascist, lacking the fluidity of ideology which made Fascism what it was, instead only being National Socialist
Communist run country? You mean china?
If you know one thing about South Korea is that it is essentially sustained by a few large companies (kia, samsung) and gets the rest of its money to keep the system running from US and other allies. South Korea would collapse if it had no outside support. Sure it looks good as long as everything works, but its unstable. Better to be soviet run and be able to have stability even isolated.
I have. It isn't contained in any of the post-1989 hungarian writings, or primary sources. It isn't contained in any of the pre-1989 writings, or primary sources. It isn't contained in Lomax's sourcebooks, or Lomax, or Anderson, or the ultras. It isn't contained in any of the left or right wing memoirs. It isn't contained in the RA/RFE archives. It doesn't feature as an accusation in the white books on Imre Nagy and his criminal conspiracy.
SO FUCK OFF MATE.
Not really, considering the North Korean regime was born after the Second World War, while fascism was a reaction to the failure of the post-WWI governments, despite the mass mobilisation of resources and society during the Great War things returned to exactly how they were before the war, governments were happy to return to their laissez-faire approach of government, leaving many of the war generation feeling abandoned and betrayed that despite so many of their fellow countrymen making the ultimate sacrifice during the Great War, those who returned home would never receive the 'Land fit for heroes' they were promised during the war (it's relevant to note that out of the four main fascist theorists in Europe; three of them were WWI veterans; Mussolini, Hitler, and Mosley, the only exception being Rivera).
So the men set out to create governments of action, governments no longer led by the old order of men stuck in the past, but a new young generation looking to the future, though both Mussolini and Mosley were socialists (Mussolini once a Marxist), they rejected internationalism and the total upheaval of society, rather than destroying the old order through a destructive class war, fascism sought to take what existed and molud it into something greater (The British Union of Fascists' first manifesto even being called; 'The Greater Britain)
I don't personally know much about internal North Korean policies and government, but it could be possible to argue that North Korea is a National Socialist or Nazi state, as I pointed out here:
National Socialism went on to become an ideology of its own, the original Nazi party was fascist owing to its origins, but all modern movements seeking to create governments along Nazi lines are National Socialist alone and not fascist, due to the fascist movement no longer existing, and following a defined central international ideology going against the very concept of fascism.
>WWII proved once again that liberal countries win in that regard.
The sides were hardly balanced to begin with (Germany + a couple European shitholes + Japan vs fucking Russia, UK + Colonies + USA etc. wew lad) and yet the war was hardly a decisive one in the beginning, it very well could have gone either way. So saying the war "proves" the superiority of a certain ideology is pure bullshit.
>Socialism for the benefit of the nation
Obviously you know what you are talking about, but I wouldn't say this sentence ever about fascism
Socialism is about breaking down all hierarchies while fascism is all about hierarchy between people and nations.
>while fascism is all about hierarchy between people and nations.
The term "Herrenvolk" implies that the "Volk", i.e., the working class, are placed on a level of equality or are identified with the "Herren", i.e., the middle classes, the bourgeoisie; a society in which Volk = Herren.
Pacifism conceived as total and unconditional rejection of all forms of violence didn't really take shape until the 20th century. It is not inappropriate to apply the term to other anti-war philosophies elsewhere or earlier.
But socialism always implies social hierarchies, it's just the bourgeois becomes the state, Hitler often spoke of breaking down class systems as they were a tool of the evil capitalist etc etc, sophist attacks against capitalism to inspire the people to give him more power and trust. Don't forget he was a National Socialist, to simply say socialism has nothing to do with fascism is just ignorant.
Capitalism on steroids.
If you look at the difference between the ideological writings, state propaganda of fascism, and the actual policies implemented by fascists you will see fascism is just the marriage of big capital and the state pretending to be ''socialistic'' to quell any social uprising.
While ultra-nationalism and xenophobia are usually accociated as the core of fascism, these really belong to capitalism (or proto-fascism), because the ruling elite need to have an ideological justification for imperialism towards the workersm/soldiers to plunder the natural resources of other countries in the interest of the ruling elite.
While the ruling elite of fascist states help each other to stop any workers uprising, when the elite of one fascist state threatens or tries dominate the wealth of the elite of other fascist states they will go to war with each other and put the burden(like always) on the workers and soldiers.
The USA, Israel, Western European countries and Saudi Arabia are all textbook examples of fascism.
The are some minor variations between these states because of historical backgrounds, but the fundementals are there:
Rulership of a small elite
Rule of one race over another.
The oppressed race is usually tolerated to a certein degree to not create uprisings and to use them as cheap labor.
Fascism is created in capitalist states where the workers have failed to overthrow the elite class.
While there are many capitalist countries now a days, there can be only a few dominant fascist countries, because most other countries have basically already been plundered and fail to have the resources to create a strong army to project any real power.
Even tough the capitalists can amass a good amount of wealth there power would be inferior compared to the fascist states. The only thing the capitalists can do then is increase the oppression of their domestic workers.
Like Singapore, India, Brazil etc.
Fascism is the final and inevitable goal of all imperialist nations, because stolen culture and wealth always needs to be legitimized trough "superiority" of that nation
over others. Fascism in itself is always a reaction out of a perceived (irrational) xenophobic fear from the threat of other races.
As such fascism can only rise in specific socio-economic conditions like those we have right now in 2014-2016 Europe, Japan and partially the USA.
Fascism is inherently parasitic, feeding off the socio-economic problems created by neoliberalism and imperialism to establish its racist ideology.
As such fascism can only, or atleast has an extreme tendency to rise in neoliberal and imperialist economies.
The only way to stop fascism and Nazism before its too late is to firstly in the short term stopping nationalist right-wing parties from spreading
Propaganda and secondly in the long term removing extreme poverty, the destruction of USA imperialism and the abolishment of the IMF and The World Bank
"Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank."
Steps to fascism*:
1. Neo-liberals freeing and opening up private markets
2. Privatization of media and cultural power to create propaganda for business
3. Private markets start lobbying trough the state to silently take over government power
4. Increased corruption by government officials
5. Lowering wages and outsourcing work to cheap low-skilled immigrants
6. Increased industrialization from national resources
7. Larger divide between rich and poor classes
8. Start of workers and labour unions by the poor classes
9. Creating a common enemy that "threatens freedom"
10. Expanding the military of the nation trough taxes of the middle and low wage workers classes
11. Destroying and plundering other countries trough imperialism and colonialism
12. Increased industrialization from foreign resources
13. Larger divide between rich and poor countries
14. Attracting and 'stealing' intellectuals from other countries
15. Concentrating both intellectual and military power in one nation
16. Refugees fleeing war torn countries to the imperialist nations since all the worlds wealth has been reallocated to the imperialists
17. Increased resistance from immigrants, poor countries, and poor classes
18. Designate this resistance as terrorism and barbaric behaviour
19. Wealth and culture gained trough imperialism confirms the 'superiority of the nation' and designates other countries as "invaders" and "destroyers of culture and civilisation"
20. Creating fear among the population trough false flag operations by intelligence agencies
21. Increased security and police brutality
22. Workers and labour unions marginalized or taken over by business owners, corrupt politicians, or lobbyists
23. More violent resistance from poor classes to survive
24. Creating anti-immigrant populist policies and nationalist myths
25. Larger divide between races
26. Starting of a xenophobia vanguard party legitimized trough "protectors of civilisation from barbarians(other races)"
27. Vanguard party starts to use liberal rights offered by the state to use peaceful protests against other races
28. Vanguard party attracts original poor classes of the 'superior' race
29. Vanguard party uses racist welfare to help only the original poor classes from poverty
30. Vanguard party gains popularity, because the poor classes feel betrayed by the neo-liberal system
31. Racist para-military groups start to grow to suppress the increased resistance from the 'inferior races'
32. Vanguard party gains power trough partially the liberal democratic system and para-military groups
33. Other parties are banned or marginalized since they "betrayed the original race and are traitors"
34. Eroding or destruction of democracy
35. Start of apartheid
36. Re-privatisation of business that where nationalised after financial crisis under neo-liberalism
37. Nationalisation of business and property owned by 'inferior races'
38. Privatisations of previous mentioned business and property given to 'superior races'
39. Censoring of media and extreme increases in propaganda
40. Anti fascist para-military starts to form by the 'inferior races' and banned parties
41. Possible civil war
42. Start of labour camps for political prisoners and prisoners of war
43. Start of re-education camps
44. Political labour camps are transformed into concentration camps for genocide
45. Possible world war
*While these steps are the general trend to the rise of fascism, nations do not always follow all steps and also not always in the same order.
Italian Industrialists from Liberalism to Fascism: The Political Development of the Industrial Bourgeoisie, 1906-34 - ISBN-13: 978-0521522779
The Lion's Share: A Short History of British Imperialism 1850-1995 - ASIN: B002DHDTCO
The Anatomy of Fascism - ISBN-13: 978-1400033911
A History of Fascism, 1914–1945 - ISBN-13: 978-0299148744
The Civic Foundations of Fascism in Europe: Italy, Spain, and Romania, 1870-1945 - ASIN: B003NCWV5Y
Fascism in Spain, 1923-1977 - ISBN-13: 978-0299165642
Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in
From public to private: Privatization in 1920's fascist Italy
The First Privatization: Selling SOEs and Privatizing public monopolies in fascist Italy(1922-1925)
Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860-1945: Nature as Model and Nature as Threat - ISBN-13: 978-0521574341
Eradicating Differences: The Treatment of Minorities in Nazi-Dominated Europe - ISBN-13: 978-1443823685
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - ISBN-13: 978-1451651683
Hegemony and Counter-Hegemony: Marxism, Capitalism, and Their Relation to Sexism, Racism, Nationalism, and Authoritarianism - ISBN-13: 978-0979181375
Imperialism and the War (1914)
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916)
On the Administration of the Congo Free State
Privatization is at core of facsism
Barack Obama is driving americans away from Liberalism
US is an Oligarchy not a Democracy, says scientific study
Public goes private
Selections from the Prison Notebooks - ISBN 0-7178-0397-X.
Chairman Mao’s Theory of the Differentiation of the Three Worlds is a Major Contribution to Marxism-Leninism
Also note that working class fascists and nazis have zero knowledge of the true workings of fascism since they are guided by right wing populism and racism. (like Trump supporters). They can't see the broader picture of the opposite class interests between the workers of the world and the elite.
>FASCISM IS (AUTHORITARIAN) SOCIALISM (MUH CAPITALISM)
>FASCISM IS KEYNESIANISM (MUH LIBERTARIANISM
>FASCISM ISN'T RACIST ONLY NAZIS (MUH DUCE)
>FASCISM IS CAPITALISM (MUH MARXISM)
>Colonized by ideologists
Zizek's theory of ideology is ideology as a prison, with each cell being an ideology that is constructed by the prisoners narative. You can leave your cell and move to other cells, but you cant leave the prison itself. (leaving the prison would basically mean suicide).
The best we can do is to look at our ideology and criticise it, but you cant completely remove it.
Zizek himself stated that those who think they are without ideology, are the deepest in ideology.
So pick whatever side sounds most fun to you, or fuck off.
And yes capitalism is fascism.
t. A Marxist
See you on the battlefied in WWIII
NORWAY IS MASTERRACE
fucking dyel italian jealoush cunt
>And yes capitalism is fascism
Fascism has no exact economical theory, it changes depending on the country and the time.
>implying zizek understands his own theory
>implying rejecting zizek's formulation means rejecting "no ideology = ideology"
>implying calling out ideological colonization is a call to rise above ideologies
>implying Marxism isn't shit tier Hegelianism
>>implying "capitalism = fascism" isn't a manifestation of this
See you in the gulags useful idiot.
Not a nazi, you're just garbage.
This thread is no worse than a bunch of tumblrites discussing what's communism.
Here's the deal, OP. I've been a fascist since I was like 16. If you want an accurate description of what fascism is in a nutshell, read the two first paragraphs on the Wikipedia page, they're very accurate. And also read some history books on nazi, fascist Italian and imperial Japanese policies. They are pretty much the role model for fascism.
If you want me to use my own words, I'd define fascism as a set of political and economic directions that a nation must follow, based on:
1. heavy internal economic development
1.1 a lot of industry employing a lot of people in the cities
1.2 agriculture and mineral extraction in rural areas generating wealth
1.3 development of service sectors in cities as a natural result of industrialization
1.4 protectionist measures
1.5 emphasis on infrastructure (rails, roads, waterways, ports, etc.)
1.6 goal of creating a economy as self sufficient as possible, that produces everything it consumes, and yet the production is so high it still exports whatever excedents.
1.7 state investments and state owned companies in several sectors, notably, industry, working allied and together with the private sector (privatizations/statizations are common and happen from time to time depending on the strategic interest of the state.
1.8 welfare and gibs me dat typically do not exist
1.9 taxes are ideally set as low as the state can collect enough money to keep investing in the economy
2: emphasis on the nation
2.1 encouragement of patriotism, nationalism
2.2 development of a national identity, with culture, arts, music, cuisine, territorry, sometimes even race and ethnicity, all being sponsored by the country
2.3 certain restrictions to individual liberty, freedom of press, demonstration, etc, in the name of the nation
2.4 unless a minority is considered part of the culture, (ie, in america there are black americans, in chile there are natives etc), it is killed
3. positivistic nature
3.1 acceptange of science
3.2 ruthless logic: killing beggars just because they're not productive, euthanizing the disabled, scientific racism, etc.
3.3 investments in science and technology
3.4 objective of always being a step foward of others in terms of history. if a fascist nation existed today, it would likely be espiring to establish man's first colonies in space, researching ways to time travel, etc.
i think that's it, really.
I nearly forgot.
A strong military, with doctrine often based on the mainline of motorized infantry supported by several combined arms, are extremely necessary because fascism promotes the development of a power and that implies on the current powers raising their eyebrows.
I hope I helped the discussion
You're a national socialist, not a fascist, if you held these beliefs in the interwar period period and during the war you would be a fascist if you identified as such. Though I will stress that is from my opinion that fascism died as s movement following the war, and only the lingering ghost of national socialism remains, with most modern Fascists either mistakenly apply the label as a national socialist, of are in fact Corporatists or National Syndicalists. Though I'd still argue that those policies or directions do not define fascism:
Fascism is only a self identification adopted during the interwar period for those who were inspired by Mussolini and the NFP in Italy, the key tenet of fascism is that it had to set in stones ideology, it only had goals, to create govemrents of action and to revitalise the nation, the actual policies were irrelevant to the international concept of fascism ironically because of its rejection of internationalism, however the three countries where fascism became a dominant force did have much in common (though with their differences) leading the eventual isolation of the ideology with the policies of the there Axis powers.
Everything you list could be fascist policy, but it need not have to be, for example some of directions you listed contradict with the original views of Italian fascism before its doomed alliance with National Socialist Fascism, Franco's Falange, while there are serious differences in the policies of the Strasser brothers, the British Union of Fascists, and the Falange under Rivera. Two major differences being the Strasser brothers on beggars and those unproductive, and the British Union of Fascists on militarism. These policies accurately represent the three main Axis powers to a certain degree, but do not represent the entire movement and linking fascism to any concrete policies goes against the idea and origins of the movement.
Also I want to punch Karen in that fucking smug face
you not only made a scary wall of text but also are threatening to hurt my favorite loli!
My bad, perhaps I slightly misphrased myself, Franco's situation was unique, as the leader of a fascist party without being s fascist himself, hence the dilution of the Falange's policies under his leadership, but the majority of the movement were still Fascists, Fesncoso leadership never led to a mass defection from the Falange or the birth of splinter organisations, while the fascist membership of the party generally went along with Franco's policies without kicking up a manor fuss. Though I accept that perhaps Franco was a poor example to use in this example due to the complicated state of affairs in the Spanish State, the eventual domination of the Falange by the rest of the Nationalist wing, largely monarchists and Carlists.
The point still stands with the other examples listed though, those only being the major ones that rose to power, or archieved some relevance in their nation.
That's like less than a page in a book.
End yourself, my man.
This is like what would have been decreed by the first Emperor of the Goldenbaum Dynasty in LoGH. I find it quite unbelievable that you put so much faith towards millions of people, so that they would act so harmoniously like a perfect machine. Either it needs a lot of propaganda, mind control, and coercion, or it will simply ceases to function and becomes a failed state.
Not that guy, but it's generally held that the rise of a fascist government is predicated in the first place upon a significant nativist sentiment and that in the pursuance of that sentiment the populace will adopt fascist values to some degree and therefore perpetuate a system of government that relies heavily on mutualism.
And generally that's been the case; just look at German society from 1933 to 1943-ish.
>What do you mean by this?
I think there's a pretty good Hitler quote for that.
>We don't say to the rich 'Give to the poor', we say 'German people, help each other'. Rich or poor, each one must help thinking, there's someone even poorer than I am, and I want to help them as a fellow countryman.
>perpetuate a system of government that relies heavily on mutualism.
> Queue revolution, socialists come into power, and instant peace is declared.
Mate the RSFSR signed peace because the entire fucking Russian army gad defected and abandoned their lines, not because fucking LENIN was a pacifist (top kek).
Why do you think the "pacifist" Soviets spent the next four decades reconquering all of the territory they lost in WW1?
To be fair, it can't be classified as fascism, mostly extremely reactionary, but not fascist. They had no revolutionary ethos nor rhetoric. The fact that, except the revolutionary thing, they functioned exactly as a fascist dictatorship says a lot more about fascism than it says about Imperial Japan.
>Yeah they are fascist but that doesn't mean they're fascist, you know what I'm saying?
The Japanese were reactionaries and statists, just because a few of their policies aligned with Fascist Italy and Germany does not mean they themselves were fascists, their support for the status quo socially and politically, as well as no upheaval of the old economic system are the major issues other than increasing regulation of it, and most importantly the lack of the revolutionary fervor that was tied to fascism. The only reason the Statism in Japan has come to be known as Fascism is through their alliance with the only two Independent fascist states, and that they shared their desire for international expansion, and support for increased militarism in the state.
Even if you don't subscribe to the view that Fascism was a self-definition with no strict ideology, Japanese 'Fascism' simply does not fall in line with the Fascism of Germany and Italy, the Japanese reigme more resembling Salazar's corporatist regime in Portugal, but ended up labelled as fascist due to its association with fascist reigmes.
>and most importantly the lack of the revolutionary fervor that was tied to fascism
You're kidding, right? In the ~70 years before WWII Japan's civic and social structure was flopping around like a fish out of water.
I was referring specifically from the end of the Tashio democracy to the end of the War and early Showa era, in the 'fascist' era of Japan there was very little social upheaveal most of that occurring in the aftermath of the Meiji restoration, the only major change was politically with the govemrent becoming increasingly military dominated, less transparent, and more active in regulating the economy.
I don't know why you'd even go as far back as the Meiji restoration, considering Fasicsm itself was an ideology born of the early 20th century, not the mid-19th century, putting it way out of field of study here, with only changes following thr end of Tashio democracy relevant.