[Kirby]

Don’t Fascist states seek an Autarky (economic self-sufficiency) for their Volk?

Does the goal of economic self-sufficency lead to conflict with other nation states in order to achieve this state?

When a nation-state does not trade with other nation-states would this not result in conflict over scarce resources and territory?

Doesn’t the extreme nationalism of such states also lead to a situation where international conflict is more likely?

From this can we infer that the liberal-capitalist order, for all the mounting problems it brings upon the populations of the world, is a system that is still more secure than proposed fascist/third-way systems of societal organization?

[Rei Murasame]

The cause and the outcome are not always so clear. In fact, it is probably more likely that the potential for conflict arises in a crises because people fight more viciously when the rate of expansion of the global wealth pie is less, than when it is more.

The real purpose of striving for a regional growth and prosperity pact, or any form of 'autarky', or what is really called 'state security', is that by making sure that the nation has the ability to access and control the resources it needs to a significant extent, allows it and its allies to maintain a higher degree of foreign policy independence if conflict breaks out.

[Kirby]

The cause and the outcome are not always so clear. In fact, it is probably more likely that the potential for conflict arises in a crises because people fight more viciously when the rate of expansion of the global wealth pie is less, than when it is more.

The real purpose of striving for a regional growth and prosperity pact, or any form of 'autarky', or what is really called 'state security', is that by making sure that the nation has the ability to access and control the resources it needs to a significant extent, allows it and its allies to maintain a higher degree of foreign policy independence if conflict breaks out.

I agree actually.

Also when nationalist movements come to power in smaller states they will attempt to free themselves from the crushing weight of international finance capital. This will cause international finance to call in their global police force (NATO) to sort out the situation in their interest.

So I agree conflict is not more likely in fascist nations.

In any event I'd rather fight as a proud member of a strong nation than live my life as a servant to our globalist corporate overlords.

[SpaciousBox]

What is best for your nation, will never be best for it's neighbouring nations. Alliances and trade agreements only lead to a mutual middle-benefit, but a share of the benefit, and not all of it. This only changes if we take the value of human life into account (eg; are military deaths worse than not having full control of resources / land), but as noted previously on this forum, fascists believe there is no special value to human life. Their ideology accepts the need for the strong to survive, and the weak to fail - this means constant conflict as the terms "strong" and "weak" are forever relative. It is also very hard to promote the idea of glory and empire without lands to take / rule, so the sort of nationalism that fascists support will tend to fall apart without military achievement.

[Preston Cole]

What is best for your nation, will never be best for it's neighbouring nations.

It is also very hard to promote the idea of glory and empire without lands to take / rule, so the sort of nationalism that fascists support will tend to fall apart without military achievement.

Fascist nationalism usually targets territories that a fascist nation claims as its own and attacks accordingly, so I don't see the problem in a justified invasion of your neighbors. Fascist Italy, apart from the usual colonial ventures in Africa, invaded Albania and Greece on irredentist grounds. They claimed that Albanians were related to Italians, and that northwestern Greece had previously been a part of the Venetian State.

[starman2003]

Fascist Italy, apart from the usual colonial ventures in Africa, invaded Albania and Greece on irredentist grounds. They claimed that Albanians were related to Italians, and that northwestern Greece had previously been a part of the Venetian State.

That was just an excuse. Mussolini wanted an empire like that of Rome, even if Italian weakness limited his choice of targets.

[Eran]

In fact, it is probably more likely that the potential for conflict arises in a crises because people fight more viciously when the rate of expansion of the global wealth pie is less, than when it is more.

So you just identified another mechanism whereby autarky promotes conflict - restricting trade tends to restrict global wealth creation.

[Rei Murasame]

Yes, but in some cases that might actually be necessary and desirable for a group to do. Since completely opening our market and rolling over to whoever comes along is indeed the most peaceful path imaginable, just someone else's peace may also cut against our social objectives.

[Eran]

You are suggesting that societal objectives or interests are not the same as the aggregate interests of society's members, right?

It seems like our differences boil down to my belief in, and your rejection of methodological individualism.

Would you agree?

[Rei Murasame]

I think that's what it is, yes.

[Eran]

I'd be interested in discussing the issue separately. I don't think we had a good discussion of methodology, clear of other issues.

[Rei Murasame]

It could be interesting, but I'm not sure how such a thread would be titled or what forum it would go in. It'd almost be a sort of "Give a Reason" for life thread. Which is the title of a song in fact, so maybe that will be catchy enough to get people in it.

[EastCoastAmerican]

Fascists realize that conflict will always be a part of human nature. So in order to achieve widespread national unity, they directed this conflict towards an outside source, be it other nations or ideologies or ethnic groups. Usually all three. The idea is that national unity can only exist as long as something threatens the whole, otherwise the nation will fall to infighting. A Fascist regime will eventually find conflict with its neighbors at some point so that they can preserve this nationalism.

Benito Mussolini:

(4) Struggle is at the origin of all things, for life is full of contrasts: there is love and hatred, white and black, day and night, good and evil; and until these contrasts achieve balance, struggle fatefully remains at the root of human nature. However, it is good for it to be so. Today we can indulge in wars, economic battles, conflicts of ideas, but if a day came to pass when struggle ceased to exist, that day would be tinged with melancholy; it would be a day of ruin, the day of ending. But that day will not come, because history ever discloses new horizons. By attempting to restore calm, peace, tranquility, or. A would be fighting the tendencies of the present period of dynamism. Ore must be prepared for other struggles and for other surprises. Peace will only come when people surrender to a Christian dream of universal brotherhood, when they can hold out hands across the ocean and over the mountains. Personally I do not believe very much in these idealisms, but I do not exclude them for I exclude nothing. (At the Politeama Rossetti, Trieste , September 20, 1920 ; in Discorsi Politici, Milano, Stab. Tipografico del « Popolo d' Italia » , 1921, p. 107).

[Social_Critic]

Classical "marxist" regimes such as the People's Republic of China and Cuba turn full circle and become fascist entities. They do not necessarily abandon trade and try to become self sufficient. That's an old paradigm for fascists. Today, they will trade, but trade has to be "managed" using all sorts of controls, including currency controls and of course maintaining the working class as slaves who work for a pittance for either state entities or the new capitalist entities allied with the state which emerge as they abandon communism and become savage capitalists. The only place where we don't find workers' rights or free unions is former communist countries turned fascists.

[EastCoastAmerican]

Classical "marxist" regimes such as the People's Republic of China and Cuba turn full circle and become fascist entities. They do not necessarily abandon trade and try to become self sufficient. That's an old paradigm for fascists. Today, they will trade, but trade has to be "managed" using all sorts of controls, including currency controls and of course maintaining the working class as slaves who work for a pittance for either state entities or the new capitalist entities allied with the state which emerge as they abandon communism and become savage capitalists. The only place where we don't find workers' rights or free unions is former communist countries turned fascists.

Fascism is a form of totalitarianism, but that doesn't mean that totalitarian governments are fascist in and of themselves. It's important to make a distinction between tyrannical regimes with non-fascist ideologies and genuinely fascist governments; fascism has become such a vague political epithet that it commonly means "any form of government I don't like" in many circles.

Despite their tyrannical regimes, China and Cuba put Communism, or the Working Man, as its ideological standard-bearer instead of the Nation-State for propaganda purposes. Communists actually believed that a worldwide utopia could be achieved, and sought to convert as many nations as possible to their way of thinking during the Cold War. Fascists do not believe that multiple nations cultures can peacefully coexist with each other, free of conflict.

Additionally, fascists were not fond of capitalism or the free market; in fascism, a business owner's first loyalty should be to the Nation-State instead of profit.

[Social_Critic]

East Coast, your analysis is superficial and outdated. If you analyse their legal regimes, and the social and commercial structures being advocated and enforced by the "communist" regimes in nations such as China and Cuba, you will see they are fascists. This means we must support the struggle of the working class against them bums, and help them reach social consciousness so they can build the new capitalist man while at the same time being free to toss their fascist rulers into their graves.

[Rei Murasame]

I'm pretty sure that Cuba and China are not fascist, I'm not sure why you keep claiming that they are.

• Cuba is a degenerated workers state.
  
• China is a bureaucratic collectivist state.

Both of those are stalled or collapsed states run by communist parties. Communists themselves will admit to that.

So why not try blaming communists for communist failures, rather than blaming those of us who have nothing whatsoever to do with it?

I think we have a hard time already being blamed for things we actually caused, and we don't need to be handed the blame for red regimes that we had nothing to do with.

[Preston Cole]

East Coast, your analysis is superficial and outdated. If you analyse their legal regimes, and the social and commercial structures being advocated and enforced by the "communist" regimes in nations such as China and Cuba, you will see they are fascists. This means we must support the struggle of the working class against them bums, and help them reach social consciousness so they can build the new capitalist man while at the same time being free to toss their fascist rulers into their graves.

Dude, at least half the people here more than once explained to you that communist states do not resemble fascist ones. You're constantly using the epithet version of the word.

Get the fuck out of here. We've had enough of your deliberate ignorance.

[Far-Right Sage]

So why not try blaming communists for communist failures, rather than blaming those of us who have nothing whatsoever to do with it?

Rei, I was under the impression you were a Marxist?

[Rei Murasame]

Only in the same sense that Mussolini borrowed from him, and Alain de Benoist does. By Social_Critic's bizarre logic this makes Fascists and Communists 'the same' because of this association.