What was the most successful fascist nation?

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.

Sort of fell apart in the last 10 years

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

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

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.

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.

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

Franco's Spain
Not overthrown and left a booming country

Unironically, the United States. ~1890-Present

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?

No.

>premodern Fascism

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

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.

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

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.

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

Very good points sir. Thank you for your contribution.

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

Sweden from the 1930s to the 1970s.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkhemmet

Nobody even realized what they were doing was fascism.

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

are former dictators liked in their countries?

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

>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

>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.

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

>franco
>salazar

>fascist

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

>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
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