Why did fascists like this play so much? Or at least the protagonist? The guy was an anti-democracy militarist, sure...

Why did fascists like this play so much? Or at least the protagonist? The guy was an anti-democracy militarist, sure, but he absolutely loathed public recognition and populism (so much that he only sought power because his mother pressured him, he himself didn't want it because it would give him the spotlight), he was more of a reactionary than a fascist. He would have held fascism in utter contempt because of its stress on populism and the cult of personality.

Those are they
That most are willing. If any such be here--as it were sin to doubt--that love this painting
Wherein you see me smear'd; if any fear
Lesser his person than an ill report;
If any think brave death outweighs bad life
And that his country's dearer than himself;
Let him alone, or so many so minded,
Wave thus, to express his disposition,
And follow Marcius.

O, me alone? Make you a sword of me!

BASED

Fascists are not very good at critical thought or introspection. Give them a parade, a nice uniform, a pretty flag, tell them they're part of a master race, and before you know it they'll throwing their lives away.

Marcius was a patriot, and a bit reactionary, like you mentioned.

The tribunes were the fascists imo.

>The tribunes were the fascists imo.
Damn, spot on.

You are thinking of rights wing fascism, left wing fascism exists too.
A better image of a fascist is someone that idolizes a common figure, has a black and White iew of the world, antagonize internal and/or external enemies as the cause of all Evil, ignores and break rules meant to put limits on power and tries to chance those it can't break and exalts the good of the followers of the leader imposed doctrine

A few coincidences are also a fondness for reinterpreting history to fit their narrative and for catchy songs, frases, chants and polítical handsigns (nazi heil, italian Roman Salute, peronist fingers in v, etc)

Seems like you're immensely broadening what "fascist" means away from its core ideological theorists. Sort of like how the right-wing says communists is anyone who in favor of a larger state.

I can also add a one party system were the state and the polítical party become intermixed and a populista agenda that usually implies social incentives to the poor that quickly devolves into clientelismo

And no, i speak from experience, latín América has been in a decade long left winged neo-fascism. Fascism is pretty good At mutating from left to right sin It has no real ideology other than a streamlined system for monopolización of power, and all the Big ones have followed a pretty recognizable pattern

Where are you from? Sounds like South America. Just curious.

Fascists perceive progressivism (particularly economic progressivism) as resentment-based populism. They aren't really aware of the history of fascism and how intertwined it was with racial chauvinism and right wing resentment-based populism. They think fascism just means top down authority similar to an aristocratic system, and a hatred of the 'plebs'

What? Fascists might not be socialist, but they are still in favor of heavy state regulation of the economy.

Argentina, a crear example that left wing fascism is a thing that exists

The racial parte is superfluous and mostly linked to nazism, any kind of "foreign"entity can correlate
And fascism have been some of the mlst progressive governments, hitler's germany had socially progressive laws such as banning smoking in a lot of conditions, animal cruelty as a thing, etc. peronism improved the concept of social security, etc. In fact, historically, fascism is At odds with conservative elites and the fact that It was leaning right during the 30's and 40's had more to do with the rise of communism as a movement, nowadays they have no qualms leaning left when needed

dirigism is much more similar to corporatism than to socialism.

"Corporations" in corporatism are unions, not "corporations" in the contemporary sense.

Right wing is a less intrusive state, fascism monopolizates everything It can under the party-state, what the hell are you saying?

Right-wing is less intrusive, but not necessarily less authoritarian.

In fascist Italy the term was very much synonymous with what we in modern times call corporations. The distinguishing characteristic between a union and a modern corporation is how power is dissipated, and in fascist Italy corporations were characterized by their top down system.

What does that even mean? We are talking about governments that regulated every step of the economy, education, society, etc. Do you truly understand how fascist stages work? An example, here in Argentina during the height of the peronism, farmers had to sell their products through regulated channels that dictated the price they could sell their stuff At internally, externally, they couldn't even control to whom they sold It, the governments decides for them. That's pretty intrusive i'd say.
There are example for all the forms It has taken.

>left wing fascism exists too.
LMAO

jessica chastain is pretty

>In fascist Italy the term was very much synonymous with what we in modern times call corporations
No it wasn't. A corporation in fascist Italy mean the workers of a sector. The state of course had an officially approved of union for each sector, and banned all others, but still not the same as what we'd call a corporation today, especially since there are generally several in each sector.

What is chavism.

>What does that even mean?
It means things like whether you can criticize the government and whether you can be put to death without a trial. Monarchies, for instance, were extremely authoritarian, but not totalitarian (intrusive). Most of society was managed by the community, but the community had to be completely subordinate to the monarch.

In fact, i have been few murrikans that truly understand fascism and why it's so scary, how It preys on frustración and a need for a strong leader and a group to blame for all evils (and displace any guilt people may feel about themselves), they just think it's "what i don't like from conservatives".
I'd recommend reading Up on Roman history (from the gracus brothers to caesar) to see a better example of protofascism, It really is very similar to fascism and It could help you understand trump a lot better since you kind of suck At It.

Who held the the deciding vote in the Italian cartel system? How is that in any way similar to how unions today work, with its affections towards democratically dispersed power?

Yes, but It had nothing to do with the discussion, do you think fascism was just "let's kill those that think different"? It had a lot more to do with intrusive cult like control over a society. In fact, plenty didn't even had large numbers of murders, only cohersion

Unions haven't been entirely democratic, as least in the U.S., since the Taft–Hartley Act

Yes, but it was that way partially because it wanted to stamp out socialists. It's right-wing in the sense that it is drastically reacting against the left.

I used the 'affected' qualifier, but the power is still more dispersed than it was in the Italian system. My dad, who's in a union, still gets a vote in most of their major decisions.

But you're saying that once a union becomes socailized, it becomes ontologically the same as a privatized corporation?

And then why did it enter into conflict with aristocracies and the upper classes so commonly? And why where their bases always from the lower classes? And again, how can a right wing government promote an Extreme control over the Life of the citizens? In the case of peronism, It didn't even enter into conflict with the left untiñ after 30 years, the reactions were against the right.

Fascism is on a different axis from left-right you ignorant fool, it's about opposing freedom of thought/republicanism and instaurating an all powerfull party/state

I made the observation that the Italian cartel system, from the perspective of workers, more closely resembled a modern corporate system than a socialist union.

The same might be said of socialist states, using your logic.

No, not really. Democratic socialism still has mechanisms in place that make these groups at least somewhat contingent on the consent of their workers. That wasn't the case in Italy.

>democratic socialism
I mean all the actual socialist states, which, like fascism, were always controlled by the vanguard party (except in fascism, the vanguard aimed to sublate the entire nation, whereas in socialist states is always was exclusivist)