Can be a mix between fascism and monarchism? i know that fascism

File: kingandmussolini[1].png (200KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 400x400px

>>1775280
>Can be a mix between fascism and monarchism?
you know Italy was a kingdom for the entire time Mussolini was in power, right

File: image.jpg (182KB, 800x1299px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 800x1299px

Does Mussoini look Roman to you? Like does his face resemble that of a Roman bust enough that he could pass as Roman.

>>1775291
But Mussolini wasn't the king, i mean that the fascist leader of the nation is also the king

>>1775307
Romania pre-Antonescu. They were slightly different kind of fascist though.

Yes.

You could theoretically synthesize any ideologies together. But by doing this, there's usually some ideals of either ideology that must be eliminated, thus making the end product not loyal to either ideology.

>>1775331
But the guy Antonesceu deposed wasn't the king, and King Carol II was an avowed antifa.

>>1775280
>can I mix one form of childish ideology with another form of childish ideology

>>1775280
Read this, anon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner#Anarchism

>>1775307
Depending on how wide your definition of "fascist" is, Yugoslavia 1929-1941, Bulgaria 1935-1944, Romania 1938-1940 might fit your bill. But those regimes weren't really fascist. There have literally only been two regimes that most would categorize as fascist: Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany, and some even dispute the latter. So there really isn't much of a sample size

>>1775280
stop smoking crack before you post please

>>1775502
>implying there's anything wrong with fascism or monarchy
Tbh a capitalist monarchy would be the most successful government ever.

>>1775542
>king plays favourites with corporations
No thanks

>>1775542
I bet you think that fascism is capitalist.

>>1775280
>but is a totalitarian regime like a monarchy

Monarchies aren't generally totalitarian. Totalitarianism is about the state being intimately involved in every small detail of it's subject's life. The Feudal Monarchies of the middle ages were usually incredibly decentralized.

Totalitarianism is based on the democratic impulse to form a demos, a homogeneous group of equals that serves as the legitimization of the system. Where older forms of democracy believed that such a demos naturally appeared, Totalitarians realize that for there to be a demos you must forge it with an iron fist.

Aristocratic Monarchism on the other hand is about maintaining social difference in society, balancing out the interests of the classes so to keep things running smoothly, and regulating society such that there is an immutable center that is powerful enough that it does'nt need to engage in much social engineering, and thus can leave most affairs alone.

Fascism is a subset of democracy, and you can have a mixture of democracy and monarchism, so no reason why you can't mix Fascism with Monarchism. But it will be messy when you combine opposing forces together - like how we combine the opposed principles of liberalism and democracy together.

>>1775542
Contrarian fever Christ, please read more books and think about bigger pictures in life please.

File: 1474338724040.gif (935KB, 450x253px) Image search: [Google]

935KB, 450x253px

A fascist monarchy...

I'm thinking a king holds an election.

BOOM

Check out greater romania during WW2 it was basically a mix between fascism and monarchism

>>1775280
No. Fascism requires a charismatic leader. Royal inbreeds are usually retarded.

>>1777709
Also the King/Queen gets his power from the divine right of God. Fascist states are mostly against religion.

File: images.jpg (8KB, 299x169px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 299x169px

>>1775542
>Tbh a capitalist monarchy would be the most successful government ever.
They exist and they aren't really that successful. I don't know where the "monarchies are more efficient" meme comes from. It's not supported by evidence

>>1777716
>Fascist states are mostly against religion
Nigga wut

>>1775280
"Fascism" (in the functional rather than ideological sense) is how monarchs come to power.

If you have a properly "fascist" leader in the same country as a monarchy, your "monarch" is not THE monarch.
In Italy's case the original "monarch" wasn't much of a monarch to begin with though, so no loss there.

>>1777733
Nice digits.

>>1775720
>read a book

There are plenty of books out there that make the case for monarchy. Most are not of the post-"enlightenment" era, but one that's popular (particularly from a "capitalist" POV) is "Democracy: The God that Failed". It's a logical explanation of how monarchies have less inconsistencies and "race to the bottom" incentives structurally than democracies.
Personally,my view is that "capitalism" can't survive as an ideology parallel to monarchism, since free markets lead to oligarchies, and more cohesively "traditional" societies can't have the economic turmoil capitalism presupposes.

Go read some books yourself anon. And grow out of the "democratic" fantasy.

>>1777734
A fairly justified conception since capital-F "Fascism" was the invention of a "former" socialist, and the Nazi regime was all about controlling, excluding or shutting down Christian churches that got in the way of their semi-atheistic quasi-mystical race religion.
In the more "modern" tradition, a lot of "Fascist" theory/theoreticians treat religion a bit like religion in the Civ games: interchangeable rubber-stamp cultural cyphers that get bonuses or maluses built into them by the state. Generally the line would be "agnostic", not against formal "religion", but against religion that's more than just a vessel for the "will of the people".