Beginner 101

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:11 pm

In another topic it was said that these are the key principles of most fascist movements. It would be most helpful in my progression as a beginning fascist if anyone would explain these principles in further detail.

Quote:

Nationalism, over internationalism.

Corporatism, over socialism, Marxism, and capitalism.

Militarism, over pacifism.

Totalitarianism and centralization, over regionalism, separatism, and democracy.

Tradition, over progressivism.

Black Brigade Colonel Joined: 12 Jun 2008 Posts: 485

Quote:

Nationalism, over internationalism.

Love your nation, not U.N. social elites.

Quote:

Corporatism, over socialism, Marxism, and capitalism.

A system made up of a responsible market with State intervention is better than materialism- capitalism, socialism and communism.

Quote:

Militarism, over pacifism.

The key to a strong nation is a strong military, not a false sense of security.

Quote:

Totalitarianism and centralization, over regionalism, separatism, and democracy.

What gets done under democracy? Self-justifying political parties with separate ideals pulling a nation in separate directions. Nothing gets odone when we're divided into parties, races or regions.

Quote:

Tradition, over progressivism.

Well, there's a right kind of progressivism and a wrong kind. The kind we see in the 21st Century Western World is mostly the wrong kind. There is a big difference between the socialist progressivists and people like the futurists (the latter ended up fused into the Fascist movement). We need to combine essential progressive policies with our own unique national, cultural traditions. For example, our Duce sought to make Italy into futuristic but uniquely Roman utopia.

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:02 am

What exactly is Corporatism?

Black Brigade Colonel Joined: 12 Jun 2008 Posts: 485

Netrose wrote:

What exactly is Corporatism?

Corporatism is the essential economic part of Fascism. It's one of the things that keeps us apart from the National Socialists.

Basically, all companies of a specific trade get together to make descisions- much like a guild. The State serves as a mediator. If one company gets out of control, the State may intervene. This way, business can better serve the nation and make sure that the needs of the State and nation are put before the wants of businessmen. Corporatism is a prime example of the Third Position- alternatives to the materialistic systems of capitalism and socialism.

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:19 pm

So, let me see if I understand. If I gather correctly all the companies of a certain industry meet ever-so-often to debate upon all isssues facing them. Both the managment and the labourers are represented by selected (or elected?) officials. The state is also represented, and acts as moderator and guider of the talks.

And in the end the best possible outcome for the state is chosen.

Black Brigade Colonel Joined: 12 Jun 2008 Posts: 485

That's pretty much the gist of it.

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:31 pm

Netrose wrote:

So, let me see if I understand. If I gather correctly all the companies of a certain industry meet ever-so-often to debate upon all isssues facing them. Both the managment and the labourers are represented by selected (or elected?) officials. The state is also represented, and acts as moderator and guider of the talks.

And in the end the best possible outcome for the state is chosen.

If that is the desired outcome, there should be no need for these "get togethers" nor any point in them. The State should just issue orders. The State's best interests can hardly be reconciled with those of fatcats or workers. Both want to maximize personal gain, but the State--i.e. if it is a REAL fascist/wholist State, will want to keep down consumption, to ensure that it's agenda is paramount.

Newbie Fascist Joined: 16 Apr 2009 Posts: 6

Netrose wrote:

Totalitarianism and centralization, over regionalism, separatism, and democracy.

In my personal opinion, "Totalitarianism" should be substituted with "Authoritarianism". Authoritarianism is when the State maintains control of the political spectrum of its Citizens. Totalitarianism is when the State controls all or most aspects of the lives of its Citizens.

Mussolini, for instance, was a Authoritarian and maintained popular support. An example would be the Fascist youth groups his regime put in place. The youths of Italy were not forced into these Youth Groups, yet by being a part of the Youth group, they were eligible for more scholarships and incentives like that. It was still possible for one to attend higher education and receive scholarships if they were not a member of the Youth groups, yet being a member put a very nice mark on your resume.

In Castro's totalitarian regime, he forces young citizens into Youth Groups and instead of being taught morals, ideals, principles, and manhood/womanhood (such as the case in the Fascist Italy's youth groups), they are systematically brainwashed.

In Authoritarianism, of course, the government still makes sure there is no bad press to reduce national morale, and still puts down rebel groups, but Citizens have some personal freedoms that do not posses a threat to the State. Therefor, the masses live comfortably (I believe it is the obligation of the State to make sure there is enough food for decent meals for every Citizen) and will not rise against the State.

Black Brigade Colonel Joined: 12 Jun 2008 Posts: 485

Cuban Pride wrote:

Netrose wrote:

Totalitarianism and centralization, over regionalism, separatism, and democracy.

In my personal opinion, "Totalitarianism" should be substituted with "Authoritarianism". Authoritarianism is when the State maintains control of the political spectrum of its Citizens. Totalitarianism is when the State controls all or most aspects of the lives of its Citizens.

Mussolini, for instance, was a Authoritarian and maintained popular support. An example would be the Fascist youth groups his regime put in place. The youths of Italy were not forced into these Youth Groups, yet by being a part of the Youth group, they were eligible for more scholarships and incentives like that. It was still possible for one to attend higher education and receive scholarships if they were not a member of the Youth groups, yet being a member put a very nice mark on your resume.

In Castro's totalitarian regime, he forces young citizens into Youth Groups and instead of being taught morals, ideals, principles, and manhood/womanhood (such as the case in the Fascist Italy's youth groups), they are systematically brainwashed.

In Authoritarianism, of course, the government still makes sure there is no bad press to reduce national morale, and still puts down rebel groups, but Citizens have some personal freedoms that do not posses a threat to the State. Therefor, the masses live comfortably (I believe it is the obligation of the State to make sure there is enough food for decent meals for every Citizen) and will not rise against the State.

Interesting point. I think I will have to rethink my liberal use of the term "totalitarian".

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 12:22 pm

Cuban Pride wrote:

Mussolini, for instance, was a Authoritarian and maintained popular support. An example would be the Fascist youth groups his regime put in place. The youths of Italy were not forced into these Youth Groups......In Castro's totalitarian regime, he forces young citizens into Youth Groups and instead of being taught morals, ideals, principles, and manhood/womanhood (such as the case in the Fascist Italy's youth groups), they are systematically brainwashed.

That's quite a perjorative term for indoctrination in the State ideology. You obviously favor authoritarianism but a serious State, confident of its ideological basis, will ensure that it is universal in society. It's entirely possible that the great failures of fascist Italy on the battlefield owed much to insufficient indoctrination. Many Italians appear not to have internalized the fascist spirit much. Great numbers may not have been indoctrinated much. This may also have contributed to the collapse of the fascist regime in '43, whereas the totalitarian regimes of Hitler and Stalin were much tougher. So I'd question the authoritarian paradigm here.

Newbie Fascist Joined: 16 Apr 2009 Posts: 6

Trajanus wrote:

That's quite a perjorative term for indoctrination in the State ideology. You obviously favor authoritarianism but a serious State, confident of its ideological basis, will ensure that it is universal in society. It's entirely possible that the great failures of fascist Italy on the battlefield owed much to insufficient indoctrination. Many Italians appear not to have internalized the fascist spirit much. Great numbers may not have been indoctrinated much. This may also have contributed to the collapse of the fascist regime in '43, whereas the totalitarian regimes of Hitler and Stalin were much tougher. So I'd question the authoritarian paradigm here.

I believe that many of Fascist Italy's military failures can be attributed to Mussolini's lack of patience and the idea that he must improve Italy's international prestige as fast as possible. This can be seen when he invaded Albania (and possibly Libya), where he only gave his generals one week notice before invading. The result was that the Italian army was extremely unorganized and despite winning, they suffered a lot more losses than they should have. I believe this also happened in Greece, which can be considered as Mussolini wanting to make himself seem like his own competent threat to world politics since Hitler told Mussolini to specifically stay out of the Balkans.

Most of the Italian people were against the war, seeing no need for it. It was when Mussolini brought them into war and soldiers started dieing by the thousands that popular support began to greatly decrease. If Mussolini would have just remained neutral, or even allied with the West against the lunatic Hitler, I strongly believe that Fascism would have been considered successful in the 20th century and perhaps pressed it forward into the future.

It wasn't Mussolini's lack of totalitarianism that brought on his downfall, it was his own personal goals that did. Fascism is the betterment of the State and its people, Mussolini was looking for the betterment of his own reputation.

Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:26 pm

Cuban Pride wrote:

I believe that many of Fascist Italy's military failures can be attributed to Mussolini's lack of patience and the idea that he must improve Italy's international prestige as fast as possible. This can be seen when he invaded Albania (and possibly Libya), where he only gave his generals one week notice before invading. The result was that the Italian army was extremely unorganized and despite winning, they suffered a lot more losses than they should have.

There was much more to Italian failings than that. They had adequate time to prepare to invade France and Egypt in 1940 but their performance was miserable. The problem was largely lack of motivation, which suggests lack of sufficient indoctrination.

Quote:

Most of the Italian people were against the war, seeing no need for it.

Do you think the German people wanted it? After their losses in WWI, they didn't want war either but the nazi State was still highly successsful at first.

Quote:

It was when Mussolini brought them into war and soldiers started dieing by the thousands

The vast bulk of them surrendered, usually with little or any fighting. The fundamental problem, again, was lack of identification with a cause, which points to a very serious failing of the regime.

Quote:

If Mussolini would have just remained neutral, or even allied with the West against the lunatic Hitler, I strongly believe that Fascism would have been considered successful in the 20th century and perhaps pressed it forward into the future.

It wasn't Mussolini's lack of totalitarianism that brought on his downfall, it was his own personal goals that did. Fascism is the betterment of the State and its people, Mussolini was looking for the betterment of his own reputation.

The raison d'etre of fascism is to strengthen the State, especially in relation to others, and the supreme test of this is wartime performance i.e. the ability to overcome and dominate other nations. Fascism in Italy was inspired by Roman Caesarism and Rome was hegemonistic. A true fascist state can't be content to just sit there like a wimp. Hegemonization wasn't just a personal goal, but a attribute of geniune fascism. The problem was that Italian fascism, evidently, just couldn't or wouldn't do enough to revive Roman values of individual self sacrifice for the glory of the State.