Literally invented fascism as coherent ideology

Can someone tell me about a man named Italo Balbo. I hear that he was a influential Fascist and part of the hierarchy like Goering for example and Germany. I hear that he was a more "moderate" Fascist who was opposed to allying with Germany.

Starting another war in Ethiopia was probably the single most retarded thing he could've done. It completely neutered the Italian army and destroyed their international reputation.

How would it have neutered the Italian army? For all intensive purposes it was a success for Italy.

This.

>Austrians ally with the Krauts
>Krauts force them to send ultimatum to Serbia that would almost certainly trigger a big war because Willy II felt "the time is right" to start one
>Austrians get buttfucked, midway into the war they begin separate peace negotiations with the Entente
>Krauts find out about it and literally threaten to put Austria under a military occupation if they don't tag along till the end
>Austria-Hungary gets absolutely raped after the war by St. Germain and Trianon treaties, Germany gets off comparatively easy with Versailles treaty that isn't even properly enforced
>OY VEY VERSAILLES WAS THE WORST INJUSTICE ANY COUNTRY HAS EVER WENT THROUGH, BETTER START A NEW WORLD WAR BECAUSE OF IT!

Allying with Germany is JUST FUCK MY SHIT UP: the diplomacy. Literal death sentence.

Well Germany was a fairly homogeneous state as opposed to Austria-Hungary. If Austria wasn't so multicultural then it wouldn't have been divided the way that it was. Same goes for the ottomans more or less.

They wouldn't be divided at all if they weren't pressed into joining a war where they were clearly disadvantaged is my point. The same applies to Mussolini.

It was multi-cultural but all ethnic groups under it declared loyalty to Kaiser and even nationalists under it wanted independence within the realm not outside of it. They had plans to federalise the state and would have probably survived to this day if not for WW1.

Was famous for being a good airplane pilot, seemingly liked as governor of Libya, died too soon for a retarded reason

Italy had a weak army and was an incompetently run mess since the Risorgimento. Mussolini only somewhat improved the situation during the less than 20 years he was in power before the war

The problem with every fascist leader was starting/joining WWII

Had they not destroyed their countries with war they would've been praised as heroes today. Kinda weird to think Hitler could've been considered a respected leader.

Franco didn't join WWII and is hardly seen as a hero by anyone except fringe right in Spain.

i was gonna add with the exception of Franco, he pretty much turned his country into shit.

He was a run off the mill fascist. He turned his country to shit because unlike Italy or Germany fascists didn't acquire the state for free. There was a Republican reaction and war ensued. After he got the reigned he basically applied run of the mill fascist state uniformity process which didn't bring prosperity to the country because no war economy.

If a country with huge resources like the USA became fascist, and could sustain a state of constant warfare and a military industrial complex, would fascism succeeded?

I doubt USA could become fascist. Americans would probably think national syndicalism is a form of communism if they think national health care is socialism.

I don't mean the actual USA, just a hypothetical state with lots of raw materials and strong industry. Because it sounds like the fundamental flaw with fascism is it can't take over the world.

Fundamental problem with fascism is it aims to make a closely knit national syndicalism with interventionist policies while trying to assure an uniform national state but also depends on expansion and war time economics as pseudo-investment for state growth.

Fascism in the traditional Italian sense doesn't work. National socialism also likely wouldn't work on the long term with a boom Germany experienced because it would have a long period of stagnation due debt cycling economy.

Of course these are all speculations but we have a fascist state which adhered very closely to traditional policies of fascism but without war. That being said Spain might not be the perfect example due recovering from a civil war.

Personally I think fascism is the worst alternative. It has neither the freedom of a democratic, neo-liberal society nor the promised equality of a communist society. It's the worst of both worlds simultaneously and only really serves people who want a homogeneous state syndicalist society.

youtube.com/watch?v=Fko5fYIBJFU

Freedom is a buzzword, the only thing communism achieves is getting everyone equally poor. You're retarded.

>individual liberties and minimal state intervention in personal or business life is a buzzword
>communism doesn't work but fascism does even though fascists states all failed

Whats with /pol/tards making the argument communism doesn't work because USSR failed but failing to apply same "logic" to all European fascist states that failed completely and utterly?

They failed because of treachery of the Jews, not because so called flaws of fascism.

...

Communism also failed because it was controlled by Jews. Capitalism is controlled by Jews.

>it's not a buzzword because I give it my own definition, even though that's exactly what a buzzword is
>lmao they lost a war this means it doesn't work
I like that you bring up that communism doesn't work in practice when what I mean is that it doesn't work even in theory, all the while using the effect of losing the biggest war in history as a supposed argument while the USSR just failed spontaneously all of a sudden

>Italy itself wasn't even 100 years old and was at the zenith of it's power before the war.

People had a concept of "italy" before it was unified, you know.

Them losing wars is proof that it doesn't work due national struggle and war economy being essential to ideology and mechanics of fascism. An interventionist and syndicalist state is stagnant without investment, the expected development and funds from a military industry complex as well as acquiring of resources directly as a means to feed the economy both depend on war.

Communism works in theory in post-scarcity society which wasn't reached, I do not advocate for communism, I support neo-liberal economic policies with state regulation for quality control. National or anarcho-syndicalism, interventionism and communism are all anti-thesis of this. Communism is however more plausible since it aims to be self-sufficient while fascism is instinctively tied to political interaction.

>Do you mean like the Roman empire? Italy itself wasn't even 100 years old and was at the zenith of it's power before the war.
Kingdom of Italy existed in the early middle ages and later Kingdom of Italy existed as a cultural sphere within the Holy Roman Empire and throughout all that Italy existed as a concept.

Why not Ricardian socialism?

Portugal had a fascist government that avoided war until later on. While its government managed to stabilize the economy initially, by the end it was pretty shit compared to the rest of Europe, stuff like low educational standards and non-competitive industry.

I couldn't manage to make a longer string of utter nonsense if I tried, everything you wrote in that first line is made up drivel
Of course, they didn't lose ww2 for being poorer and weaker nations than their enemies, it's because their ideology makes you lose war because it needs war for war reasons!

>Communism works in theory in post-scarcity society which wasn't reached
Holy kek, it's literally about making everyone equal when guess what, every single one of us is different.
Fascism's aim is literally making your fucking country self-sufficient, you don't even know what you're discussing

Hitler had a bit more sense for military matters, also German military traditions were far superior to Italian ones. Hitler had a legion of excellent officers from a culture that encouraged teamwork and excellence.

All he had to do was what Franco did. Instead he choose military aggression for no reason other than "muh empire".

Explain to me how an interventionist and national syndicalist society can have an improving economy without a way to extract investment? War is tied to fascist politics entirely and the self-sufficiency of fascism is an extent of this also tied to a war industry. It aims to be free from foreign influence exactly because it wants dominate other states.

Of course I assume like most of /pol/tards you are an American and you think fascism is America without degeneracy when americans would consider key tenets of fascism, interventionism and syndicalism as some sort of socialist bullshit.

It doesn't matter why they lost, it matters they lost and got dismantled. Fascist countries that were not involved in war got economically stagnant and collapsed on its own. It should make you think that communists could take a backwater country like Russia and make it an industrial powerhouse during a war while fascist Spain which adhered perfectly to fascism and national homogeneity got completely stagnant with no actual development while it had relatively little competition or influence in its own politics.

I think what user is trying to say is that Fascism sucks because it has to start wars it then can't win.

>> Literally invented fascism as coherent ideology
But he didn't

It's interventionist when it comes to achieving self-sufficiency, once it is achieved and war is not necessary to ensure your nation's future it naturally becomes isolationist, it doesn't want the failure of other states, it merely wants the success of its own. This is true freedom, not being self-sufficient is being a subject to the nations you're dependent on. Americans have an enormous industry and endless land, that's what makes them free, countries with insufficient land and shit industry will always be dependent on others and it's their right to ensure a better future for themselves. Having said that it is obviously against a nation's interest starting a war it can't win, and that's not what was happened in 1939.

Those post-war fascist countries were unable to act in the world-stage in a by then communism and capitalism dominated world, in an age where all-out wars meant self-destruction and nobody would trade with you, it's a dead end. Since ww2 enacting fascism is idiotic, it only made sense when wars were sustainable and nations could dream of independence from the world stage.
Nice russia was a shithole meme, in ww1 it held its ground against the central powers, communism merely kept the ball rolling. They did do an amazing job at making the masses shut the fuck up while not making it any better for them.
Spain already was a stagnating nation even before the civil war, fascism just delayed the process.

As if starting wars you're bound to lose looks beneficial to fascism.

Franco was not a fascist, he was a counter-enlightement reactionary monarchist. He did ally with fascists (Falange, Germany, Italy) but he wasn't one himself.

>Cucked king of the Italy himself out of his power
other way around you mean

>reactionary monarchist
I'm not even sure I would call him a monarchist.

>As if starting wars you're bound to lose looks beneficial to fascism.
I dunno, all of them apart from maybe Franco did get involved in a war against both France, the UK; the USA and the USSR all at the same time.

>the USA

>It's interventionist when it comes to achieving self-sufficiency, once it is achieved and war is not necessary to ensure your nation's future it naturally becomes isolationist, it doesn't want the failure of other states, it merely wants the success of its own.

Fascist ideology doesn't want failure of other states for the sake of their failure but the ideology means if failure of another state is beneficial to the state then it must if it will.

>This is true freedom, not being self-sufficient is being a subject to the nations you're dependent on.

Doesn't require fascism and also proof fascism is best at achieving this goal of complete self-sufficient isolation?

>Having said that it is obviously against a nation's interest starting a war it can't win, and that's not what was happened in 1939.

Germany couldn't sustain its economy without invasion not to mention their other retarded ideologies that's now baggage to all of fascism.

>Those post-war fascist countries were unable to act in the world-stage in a by then communism and capitalism dominated world

That's failure on part of fascism exactly because fascism believes state comes first and should do in international politics what it requires to achieve this. It's like saying fascism works if the state using it already dominates world politics and fascism is relevant. How is this any different than Utopian requirements of communism to take place according to Marx? If a state is already dominant in world politics why does it need to be fascist in the first place?

>Nice russia was a shithole meme, in ww1 it held its ground against the central powers

Russia had a decent army but infrastructure and industry wise it was way, way behind other European powers, even behind Austria.

>They did do an amazing job at making the masses shut the fuck up while not making it any better for them.

As if fascism does not do the same.

> it's literally about making everyone equal
Is it what they teach in american schools, kek

Modern supporters of fascism does not understand economy and it devolved into a muh degeneracy and muh feminism circlejerk in some boards

What do people mean when they say fascism wanted to be self sufficient? It seems pretty easy to achieve depending on your aims without invading anybody. If self sufficient includes everybody to have cars and radios you may run into some problems.

Self-sufficient involves not only agriculture and accommodation but also an economy and war industry.

/thread

>Doesn't require fascism
It's merely a statement, it does require acquiring land and money though, the desire to do it simply uses fascism as a means to overrule the other voices in parliament that make it near impossible
>Germany couldn't sustain its economy without invasion
That's the german nation's problem, which sounds silly anyway

>It's like saying fascism works if the state using it already dominates world politics and fascism is relevant
No, it's just saying that without the means to obtain self-sufficiency what even is the point of trying? Before ww2 wars were still manageable and the economy was still able to function in a relatively isolationist nation.
>If a state is already dominant in world politics why does it need to be fascist in the first place?
It doesn't, which is why america avoided it. But today it's going against its own self-interests under the establishment that follows its own, there a modernized fascism could lend a hand to weed them out.

So you are saying you agree that fascism is implausible and unnecessary but currently could be needed in America in effort to cleanse the political and economical elite?

America buy tons of shit from china, to be self-sufficient it should be able to produce that same kind of shit on its own. That or just stop buying it and be able to make without

1920s fascism is implausible and unnecessary in the 21st century.
The aims of following your nation's interest overruling people who wish otherwise are needed

Americans only think social programs are communist when lefties do them.

Is an ideology from the 1790s plausible in the 21st century?

Is an ideology from the 1840s plausible in the 21st century?

If ideologies created in a late-mercantilist and early-industrial context are plausible today, why can't fascism also be feasible?

nice quads. I guess he was a despot first and foremost, but he did restore the Bourbons upon his death; Juan Carlos simply chose to restore (a rocky) transition to democracy.

Anyway, to contribute to the threat at large, I think spaniards typically explain Franco's reign in two eras: el primer franquismo (first "Franco-ism"), which was the period of intense autarky up until the early 50s, if I'm not mistaken; later came el segundo franquismo (second "Franco-ism"), which witnessed an entrance into the broader diplomatic community (most notably the US, in my opinion) and the hasty post-war buildup of the tourism sector.

My interpretation is that the first franquismo comes closest to "fascism," but does kind of shit the bed in that Franco skirted WWII and therefore opted for entropy as his model of government versus radicalization chosen by Germany and Italy. I cited Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism just yesterday in a different thread, but I'll cite it again for the idea of "entropy versus radicalization," which is a really clever observation in my opinion

Because fascism is weird and no one agrees with its definition.
The idea of self-interest is very plausible today, but fascism has a baggage that nobody can even identify.
The corporastism is of course the other side of the coin but I think it is merely an attempt to create a democracy that can only work in favour of the state and is just a follow-up to the first principle.

If someone looks at italian fascism and considers invading african countries to take their soil part of it, it's of course not feasible in this day and age with the outrage it would create.
If you just see it as the right to have a power struggle, it can be applied in all ways and it shouldn't be judged by its consequences since the environment that calls for it already has negative consequences even in the case it isn't done

The High command of Italy learned all the wrong lessons out of the Spanish civil war. They though bi-planes were still the way to go for the near future, they made more tankette then true tanks, the true tank they made pre-war was only 11 tons, they only started making Self-propelled guns after the war started...

Their army was so deep in the interwar period come WWII that they were dead last in modernization among the major players.

The foreign policy of a country has more to do with its context in location and time rather than on ideology.

When Mussolini launched the invasion of Ethiopia, it wasn't Italy's first try. In 1894, during the liberal presidency of Francesco Crispi, Italy tried to invade Ethiopia and failed.

So you might as well say:
>If someone looks at italian liberalism and considers invading african countries to take their soil part of it, it's of course not feasible in this day and age with the outrage it would create.
But how come, let's say, Argentinian liberals didn't try to invade an African country? How come modern liberals aren't trying to invade African countries?

Should've pulled a Franco and a Salazar and just told Hitler he'd help eventually, then never do anything.

>Intensive purposes
I will fucking murder you

The first war against ethiopia was just a jab at it, expecting it to be a walk in the park, simply to reinforce the presence in africa. The number of troops invested in it was low and the purpose wasn't to obtain vital space, but just to get richer from it, as it was the only area in africa that wasn't already owned.
It very obviously was not caused by liberalism, but simply by the nation's needs. The fascist war on ethiopia on the other hand was weirder, the time to enlarge a colonial empire was long gone and there wasn't much of an economical gain (which is why everyone avoided it for 200 years). It only makes sense when thinking of obtaining food for a potential cut off of trade. Given that another ideology wouldn't have even considered such a move you could connect it to fascism.

All fascist countries have in common the desire for more land to be more independent, it doesn't mean that fascist countries must act on it though.

I use my Hitler card which protects me from all murder attempts and lynch mobs but at the cost of my own life.

Memes aside, the best answer to that lies in Mosley's 100 questions asked and answered. His feeling was that unlike Germany and Italy, who were fighting for regional and global hegemony, Britain (and your theoretical USA type country) was already the preeminent world power. As such, the national drive should not be a military one to gain power, but domestic, to better maintain the power you already have

>allying himself to the eternal anglo
He should have stayed neutral like Franco

>Cucked king of the Italy himself out of his power

That same king would wind up dismissing him. Who exactly was the cuck?

First off, your question is silly because fascist Portugal did succeed for decades, until a military coup killed it.
Secondly, fascism does not require a "state of constant warfare".

The Portuguese economy was even worse before Salazar, as was literacy and most other things.

Literally nobody has said that fascism has never been tried.
Furthermore, fascists don't object to "innocent" communists being slaughtered.
Finally, neither Franco nor Tojo were fascists. You have no understanding of what fascism is, or how its followers think. Typical leftist pseudo-intellectual.

>like who even cares about the spiritual health of the nation, we need to maximize gdp growth

> spiritual health of the nation
What does that even mean

It means what it means. How healthy the nation's spirit is. Whether or not it's corrupted by greed and hedonism.

Britain and France were actively enlarging their empires in the 20s. The British were waging colonial expansion up until the turn of the century and after. Learn so history retard

Lightning bolt is gay every time I see it

what did they expand on nigger, mars?

>seizing German Africa
>German pacific
>dismantling the ottomans into the heir own little territories
>the boer wars and the subjugation of the interior of South Africa

idk nigger maybe read a book or something you stupid faggot

Holy shit I swear the fucking retards who write "read a book" are the ones who know less of all.
>ww1 peace deal
>revolt
(both before the 20s)
woah they sure wanted those patches of land
You're probably the same castrated mongoloid who went around saying that the german army had blacks fighting in the western front

>Tojo
>fascism

Why are communists so fucking retarded and ignorant?

...

Wow so expanding your territories isn't expanding now? Fucking nigger go burn a weave shop faggot

I can't figure out how I'm supposed to read this chart.

>waging colonial expansion
They didn't wage shit. You were implying they actively seeked out colonial territory when it was just a by-product of winning wars.

he only did so at the last minute when Germany overran France and it looked like they could win.

So if they didn't want to expand and even fought to contain and destroy Germany as an global power as britain did. Why not let them go? Why didn't they establish new countries in those areas? Why expand?

Of course they kept them idiot, that's not the point

a nation without prosperity quickly falls into degeneracy and infighting.

> Literally invented fascism as coherent ideology
Uh, no, that would be Giovanni Gentile and, to lessor extent, Gabriele D'Annunzio. Mussolini didn't invent fascism anymore than Trump invented paleoconservatism

>nobody mentions the greatest Fascist to ever walk the Earth
Tell me one thing Ioannis Metaxas did wrong other than dying

Should have covered the center instead of over committing to drive the Italians into Albania.

He was dead when the Germs arrived it was the ineptitude of the next leadership that allowed the troops to stay there and not protect the Metaxas line

He would've protected it had he not been killed because he knew the importance of a defensive line in the Greco-Bulgarian border

>> Cucked king of the Italy himself out of his power

If you mean "obediently resigned when ordered to do so by the King" then yes.

Gotta love how accurate this is. I even saw lefties call Pinochet a fascist on this board.

> Should've allied himself with the Anglos and French or at least stayed neutral.

Indeed, and Mussolini would today be remembered as Italy’s greatest leader, who made the country a true player on the global stage.

Unfortunately, he came to believe his own propaganda and ended up fucking the Italians.