Why did the only version of fascism that probably would have been successful fail to become realized?

>>break up parliament into a second chamber where industries (science, media, manufacturing, arts, etc) are represented, not geographic regions such as in the house of lords
The House of lords serves an important purpose, the representation of people at the top of their fields is valuable information for the supremely powerful commons, the lords isn't based on geographical representation, there's no serious requirements that a lord represents their constituency.
>> Export internally to various regions of the biritish empire, ensuring that all wages are controlled and pushed up
Could've worked, problem is that British exports weren't particularly good, the reason the Empire existed was to fuel mercantilism, a better policy would've been an effort to unify the empire, instead of the outdated quasi federal system that the empire ended up using, the only reason internal import was even a problem was because of the way the empire's internal structure was.
>>tax luxury items, reduce taxes on essentials such as food so all citizens can afford basic healthcare and living expenses
The NHS dealth with healthcare far more effectively, health is one area in which the free market doesn't adequetly deliver for it's citizens.
>>incentivize military service, but no mandatory conscription unless in times of dire need. The nation needs its best to fight for her, which means volunteers.
A volunteer army would simply not have the men required to defend the isles, even with conscription our armed forces were smaller in comparison to that of other world powers at the time.
>>Maintain all traditional symbols of government such as royal family, do not impose a new ideology over people's historical memory etc
Not overthrowing century old institutions is hardly something to be proud of.
>> Respect freedom of speech, but grant the government the right to sue for defamation just as an individual
Total backdoor into the opression of opposition, the British government is already 1/2

incredibly powerful, neuturing the opposition is practically begging for gross oversteps in power, the government is not a person, and ruthless scrutiny must exist within our parliamentary system, or else awful governments can act unimpeded.
>>Manage each economic sector through the use of high level Corporations, which every worker and manager in the field has equal access to under the law
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.

Mosley was just a socialist keynesian with a dose of nationalism. Calling him a fascist is a bit much.

Wow, so you're basically saying that the British are too traditional even for an ultra-traditionalist political ideology such as fascism. Just wow.

>ultra-traditionalist political ideology such as fascism.
lol
Fascism is as modernist as it gets.

Haha, no. Fascism is generally described as a return to heavy traditionalism and nationalism combined with extreme corporatism and authoritarian government. Its why Mosley wasn't a proper fascist.

>The House of lords serves an important purpose,

I admit that I don't know that much about the intricacies of British government, but I know that Mosley did, he actually was part of it.

>Could've worked, problem is that British exports weren't particularly good,

This is something Mosley wanted to change. And he also counted the colonies as equally part of the same order as the islands themselves, so that colonial subjects would receive the same benefits as islanders.

>The NHS dealth with healthcare far more effectively,

Mosley was a national socialist (without the connotations afforded that term via its association with nazism). He would have embraced the NHS wholeheartedly, and probably would have dedicated more resources to it.

>A volunteer army would simply not have the men required to defend the isles,

That also depends on how much incentives are placed on military service and national spirit the country is showing. If half of young men see the military as a glowing career opportunity and a chance to start life on the right foot, they will consider joining.

>Not overthrowing century old institutions is hardly something to be proud of.

And yet the Nazis ran roughshod over Germany's culture without a care in the world. Not everyone was so principled.

>>Manage each economic sector through the use of high level Corporations, which every worker and manager in the field has equal access to under the law
>
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.

I don't know enough about it, just started reading up on this guy the other day. But it is essentially a system for undoing the international capitalism of globalism and combining the coordination potential of planned economies with the productivity of free markets.

What heavy traditionalism? Hitler literally put monarchists in labor camps along with socialists. Mussolini turned Italian king into his own little playtoy. Fascism is a parody of tradition. Nationalism itself is a modernist concept ffs.

Fascism is a populist movement, it panders to masses, to their lowest primal urges. It is an amalgamation of socialism and fringe reactionary ideas from the late XIX century. Both Fascism and Communism dreamed of the utopian creation of "New Man" for the bright, new future, both admired technology and technological progress (Fascism even more so with Futurism), both wanted to destroy the old and create a new world to their own liking.

Read your Evola then come back.

Read the wages of destruction. Every attempt to escape the "Global Trade creates wealth but makes some people uncomfortable" paradigm in the early 20th century was a dismal failure. Hitler's germany was fueled with MEFO bills and a comically overheating economy, Stalinism with corpses, and Italy/Spain stagnated under corrupt (but order maintaining) regimes.

You seem under qualified to sell the merits of thoroughly debunked third position economics on this board.

But Evola wasn't a Fascist, as far as I know.

Much better to read would be Mosley, Codreanu, Cioran, & Gentile.

Why read the fascists who accomplished the least, had the least lasting intellectual impact, and had just as weak an economic and governmental framework in mind as any of the Fascists who did end up wielding true power?

This whole point of view mistakes correlation for causation.

Just because so many factions fucked it up, doesn't mean the ideas are necessarily debunked. Most attempts to get a rocket to mars probably fail, but only one needs to work for the whole endeavor to be a success.

I'm also saying British fascism wouldn't have been like the half-baked Italian or German sort. Leave it to Brits to take such an anal organizational philosophy and perfect it.

You forget also that Britain at the time had private internal access to some of the biggest growth markets in the world, including the British Raj.

Did steve jobs dress himself by looking at oswald mosley pictures?

Stalinism, Fascism (Italy), Nazism (Germany), and Japanese autistic autarky represented three attempts which literally used every idea the third positivists ever came up with to try to find an effective alternative to "trade with the world, make money, fuck protectionism".

Nothing in Mosely's writings heralds the sort of revolutionary economic thought that would've been needed to make a third position economy viable, let alone successful. At best he would've mildly added some technocratic pomp on top of the successful british parliamentary structure, at which point it would start to decay into corruption and inefficiency, like every third position structure.

The Raj had little to no reason to stay with britain in a federal union, as the British presence in India was almost purely parasitic, and the rest of the empire would have been better off economically integrated into the global economy, as in real life.

>The British variant of fascism was far more reasonable, less violent, and less intimidating and racist than the German or Italian ones.
Uhm, except for the fact that Mosley as a socialist or as a 'fascist' didn't get nowhere near power, how was 'British Fascism' less violent than Italian? The Fascists had the Ethiopian adventure and atrocities were indeed done during it, but nothing worse than Britons or French did in their colonies.

Mosley was idiot like Eden, that didn't understand the benefit of choosing lesser evil, but actually licking the arse of genociding Jerry. Like always, Churchill had the most wisdom on the matter, but alas, in vain.

I'm not going to argue with these points, but I think you underestimate the potential of economic autarky.

During America's post WW2 economic boom, what carried it was mostly a nationally focused manufacturing industry, to such a degree that Americans were hardly dependent on imports to sustain the living standard and production levels.

It is only when globalist international capitalism began draining capital from the USA and bad trade deals started to disadvantage the labor power of American workers relative to foreign workers all for the benefit of nationally disloyal financiers and banks, did problems begin to arise.

tbqh the british fascists i do see postin Moseley stuff are usually very pro-violence and possess little to no sophistication in their writings. Just more low lives.

Only Hitler's fascism had heavy traditionalism.

Original fascists loved futurism.

America was dependent on Belgian Uranium, Rubber from SA and Africa, and was overheating during the war. The countries it traded with encompassed most of the world (Soviets, Great Britain), and said overheated autarky was only sustainable when Europe was a burning ruin that couldn't economically compete.

US hegemony was inevitably going to wane as the rest of the world rebuilt their economies, maybe a little slower with policy A as compared to policy B, but even nations that have strongly resisted international capital and globalization (see France), have seen the same trends happen.

Capitalists naturally have no loyalty unless you bribe them (Nazi germany) or you put a gun to their head (Soviet Union), or the nation is at war (WW2 US).

You're completing the basic journey:

>(Live in the US or Europe) Globalism isn't alright! whats the solution?
> Nazis/Soviets had cool aesthetics, maybe they had the solution
>No, they didn't, but maybe obscure fascists/thirdpositionists/radical socialists had the solution
>Well shit, I guess economics is hard

Welcome to stage 4

>I admit that I don't know that much about the intricacies of British government, but I know that Mosley did, he actually was part of it.
He was also a total floor crosser, pinballing across the political spectrum, the man didn't have exactly iron clad views.
>This is something Mosley wanted to change. And he also counted the colonies as equally part of the same order as the islands themselves, so that colonial subjects would receive the same benefits as islanders.
The mainland is not abundant with natural resources, it's advantage is that it's an island, nessecitating the growth of the navy, which could be used for piracy, and protecting shipping, giving a boon to the UK economy.
.Mosley was a national socialist (without the connotations afforded that term via its association with nazism). He would have embraced the NHS wholeheartedly, and probably would have dedicated more resources to it.
Supporting both an expanded NHS, as well as the other Atlee reforms, in addition to trying to hold a quarter of the planet, after the sheer economic damage of the second world war on the mainland is simply unrealistic.
>
That also depends on how much incentives are placed on military service and national spirit the country is showing. If half of young men see the military as a glowing career opportunity and a chance to start life on the right foot, they will consider joining.
Britain has never been a warrior culture, and considering the traumatizing effect the first world war had on Britain, men would not be so quick to throw their lives away, when Neville Chamberlain declared "peace in our time", he did so to thunderous applause, the British (in modernity at least) would not be prone to join the army, except in the case of defense, as seen by the massive ammount of men willing to sign up for the armed services post blitz.

>And yet the Nazis ran roughshod over Germany's culture without a care in the world. Not everyone was so principled.
If the standardforBritish1/2

Fascism is to be "better than a war mongering idiot" then it's not an ideology wortyh fighting for.
>
I don't know enough about it, just started reading up on this guy the other day. But it is essentially a system for undoing the international capitalism of globalism and combining the coordination potential of planned economies with the productivity of free markets
Then why the fuck did you bring it up as a positive?
2/2

Also, just as a note, knowing that a second chamber exists in parliament (as it does in the fucking vast majority of parliamentary democracies) is not some super deep knowledge, if you don't know about parliamentary democracy then your attempts to change it are going to flawed at fucking best.