What was the most successful fascist nation?

>>2060107

enoch powell.

>>2060107
Fasism is decision for extremal conditions. It is not about success, but about survival.

>>2060107
The ones that didn't call themselves Fascist - ones that were Fascist before the idea of "Fascism" was a thing. The problem with 20th century Fascism is that it was inherently reactionary to a much stronger substructure, while premodern Fascism (Flavian Rome, Han and Tang China, the early Ottoman Empire as defined by the characteristic of government through mobilisation and very centralised bureaucracy) worked because the substructure was the "spiritual" side of Fascism itself

>>2060140
Can you explain that you choose those as examples of Pre Mordern Fascism?

real fascism hasn't been tried

>>2060238
But there's no such thing as pure fascism

File: animdict.jpg (67KB, 474x664px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 474x664px

>>2060238
Please don't do this. Historians tend to have this super specific definition of fascism, where fascism can only apply to one nation, if any nation at all, and it is the absolute Satan of ideologies. The problem with that definition is that it is useless for actually understanding fascist governments, and it doesn't help us understand the appeal of fascism that leads people to want it. Basically, I define fascism as having 3 parts, authoritarianism (government), nationalism (culture), and corporatism (economy). The specifics can vary, and racial and religious elements might be added, but the base system is always there.

>>2060107
Franco's was undoubtedly the most stable and longest lasting.

>>2060107
AmeriKKKa

>>2061250
Portugal's Estado Novo lasted longer. Salazar didn't rule the whole stretch but he never suffered a coup himself, so I say that counts.

>In 1968, Salazar suffered a cerebral hemorrhage. Most sources maintain that it occurred when he fell from a chair in his summer house. In February 2009 though, there were anonymous witnesses who admitted, after some investigation into Salazar's best-kept secrets, that he had fallen in a bath instead of from a chair.[83] As he was expected to die shortly after his fall, President Américo Tomás replaced him with Marcelo Caetano. Despite the injury, Salazar lived for a further two years. When he unexpectedly recovered lucidity, his intimates did not tell him he had been removed from power, instead allowing him to "rule" in privacy until his death in July 1970.

>>2061483

Sort of fell apart in the last 10 years

Franco's Spain was stable until Franco's successor was assassinated in 1973.

>>2060107
>>2061483

Salazar wasn't fascist. He never claimed to be and his wasn't a "revolutionary" movement.

>>2060107

I would agree that the Portuguese Estado Novo was the most successful and long lasting. Not only did it end in a mostly non-violent coup, but it survived from the 1930s into the early 1970s.

It terms of actually producing social benefits I would say that it was also broadly successful. There was a good quora answer about life under the Estado Novo (will find later) that summed it up as simple and patriotic -- people were generally happy if poor, and life rotated around the state, the church, and the family.

I would say the big failure of the Estado Novo was not abolishing the colonial system. Salazar had this great ideology of a single Portuguese people. but in the 1970s, Portuguese rule in Angola and Mozambique was still characterized by racism and apartheid. It would have been great if he could have made African Portuguese as equal as European Portuguese.

>>2061598

True, he did fight the term because he did not like the comparison to Mussolini, because he considered Italian fascism as destroying the role of the Church and degrading morality through 'Caesarism'.

As 2060599 points out, though, he would fall under the broader category of 'fascists'. The Estado Novo was certainly characterized by authoritarianism, corporatism, and nationalism.

>>2061618
Here is Quora link mentioned before (https://www.quora.com/What-was-it-like-to-live-under-Estado-Novo)

>>2060107
Franco's Spain
Not overthrown and left a booming country

>>2060107
Unironically, the United States. ~1890-Present

File: bigeye.jpg (165KB, 850x1201px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 850x1201px

>>2061652
He left a booming country? I know Salazar had financial stability, and the Portuguese actually like him, but don't the Spanish hate Franco for stagnating the economy?

>>2061685
No.

File: ___.gif (2MB, 200x133px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x133px

>>2060140
>premodern Fascism

>>2062046
>but don't the Spanish hate Franco for stagnating the economy?
The stagnation only began near the end of his life if i recall

>>2060107
The Estado Novo, considering it lasted the longest and outlasted its founder, Salazar.
That doesn't necessarily make it the best though; all the other fascist states were destroyed through war.
BTW Franco wasn't even a fascist, just an authoritarian conservative. He even banned the fascist party and let the King succeed him.

>>2060107
Falangism
>>2060238
Technically is true though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Verona_(1943)
Mussolini never tried total real fascism

File: Strasserism.jpg (67KB, 581x434px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 581x434px

>>2060599
Oh, no, you're not getting away that easily.
Fascism was the ideology that Benito Mussolini tried to apply for the first time in Italy. Many in the 1920s-30s tried to copy this to certain extent an they can be called "fascist" , but fascism is essentially the creation of Mussolini and his closest allies.

And, yes, some apologist might say that True Fascism wasn't applied to its full extent because of factors like the monarchy, the mafia and the Catholic Church, and only the Italian Social Republic (1943-1945) was close to a True Fascist State, but even that can be downplayed because of the war and the German occupation.

>>2062113
Italian Fascism was just one form of the worldview that sprung up around Europe in reaction to communism and capitalism.

>>2062055
Very good points sir. Thank you for your contribution.

>>2061626

If Fascism is just "right wing dictatorship", then sure. But there's more to it than that

Sweden from the 1930s to the 1970s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkhemmet

Nobody even realized what they were doing was fascism.

File: ryah.jpg (751KB, 850x2535px) Image search: [Google]

751KB, 850x2535px

>>2062206
Wasn't that also when they experience the greatest period of growth?

File: Salazar vote.png (134KB, 450x360px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 450x360px

>>2060107
are former dictators liked in their countries?

the Portuguese voted Salazar the greatest portuguese of all time, so he must still have admirers

>>2062226
>huge iron depos
>not touched by war
>literally 1 family that owns +50% swedish bnp
>said family created sweden
>sold iron/weapons to both sides
Sweden, like USA was not touched by the war, foregin investment made Sweden rich. But Sweden hasnt had a large company emerge since those times besides IT giants that moves cuz
>100099%tax
Sweden could be much richer, because swedes create aloot of value.

t. Swede

>>2062113
>the Italian Social Republic (1943-1945) was close to a True Fascist State
Not really. It was a German puppet and had to adopt German laws and policies.

>>2062352
>but even that can be downplayed because of the war and the German occupation.

>>2060107
>franco
>salazar

>fascist

No, in fact Salazar put fascists in jail (where they belong). They were conservative and traditionalist but not fascists.

File: werm.jpg (294KB, 850x971px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 850x971px

>>2064151
He had an authoritarian, nationalist, corporatist state. He just didn't like Hitler's model of fascism so he banned the fascists who wanted that, but he still was more or less a fascist himself.

>>2062063
>>2062046
Right after the civil war there was the posguerra, which was a big famine plus some repression by franco. Also lots of butthurt rebels in the losing side didnt let the war end, they continued for a long time as guerrillas. As far as i understand the economy and industry was pretty stagnated through all of francos rule compared to the rest of europe, which bloomed right after ww2. Aprox 20 years after democracy arrived spain was the 8th mundial power or something like that

Turkey at its first decades maybe?

>>2062228
The voting for that show was iffy, but yeah, if you got a crowd of portuguese people then you have some people who really like him. Even in the opposition (even communists) you find people that admire him begrudgingly.

>>2060599
I object to the use of the word authoritarianism. These terms libertarian, authoritarian and totalitarian, as traditionally defined, are meaningless labels that describe how much power a government [i]claims[/i] to have, not how it actually functions.

By definition a sovereign government has absolute power over its territory, every government is therefore totalitarian. An absolute monarch might claim to weild unlimited power, but only use the barest fraction of it that has a practical application, while USG claims it had limits on its power but pushes those limits whenever it is convenient to do so.

I'll argue there is only one kind of government, ones that are sovereign. A sovereign government does whatever its owners allow it to do. Fascist regimes are populist, they go to great lengths to manipulate popular opinion because their legitimacy is predicated on being more popular than anyone else. This is true of all populist governments, the soviets, the Chinese, and all western democracies.

If the words libertarian, authoritarian and totalitarian are going to be useful descriptions of a government they need new definitions. If I may suggest:
Authoritarian governments control what people do
Totalitarian governed control what people think
Libertarian governments are unstable and quickly decay into totalitarianism

Pakistan.

Still going strong, albeit poor as fuck, but they got nukes and a ginormous army.

>>2060140
>premodern Fascism (Flavian Rome, Han and Tang China, the early Ottoman Empire as defined by the characteristic of government through mobilisation and very centralised bureaucracy)
>premodern Fascism

Is this a real concept?
All I get is
https://books.google.ro/books/about/Fascism_And_Paganism.html?id=E_pmLJ8zVtwC&redir_esc=y

>any authoritarian nationalist is fascism

This is like saying everything that has "big" government is Socialism