[Sceptic]

Could someone please explain this to me in somewhat moderate detail, for I simply will not understand any element that is too theoretical or abstract. Could I also please persuade the respondants to my thread to be objective as possible in defining your ideology, as I am well aware of the tendency of posters to use semantics and, to an extent, rhetoric, that is almost too biased towards there own particular subset of beliefs. This is unfortunate. Perhaps, you will want to tell me that I am simply trying to put things into boxes when the boundaries are naturally blurred, so maybe this is the case and I apologise in advance.

As I understand it, I would generally categorise economic policy into

Macro - fiscal policy, monetary policy
Micro - regulation (consumer protection, labour rights, fair trade)

However, we cannot simply speak of economic theory, for fascism is a political ideologies and policy making often has economic consequences.

I would argue that there is an economic 'right-wing' of fascism that is more prone to neoliberalism, if one could call the 'fascism' of Franco or Pinochet, fascism - then I would argue that there is an economic left-wing which adheres more closely to the social democratic model. I realise that most fascists here are probably frothing at the mouth right now because social democracy and neoliberalism both have 'pluralist' agendas. So I have yet to distinguish between pluralism and corporatism - which I will try to, at the best of my knowledge.

PLURALISM, CORPORATISM AND MARXIST SOCIALISM

So, onto the distinction between pluralism and corporatism. Econlib here describes fascism as 'capitalism with a socialist veneer'. I realise that this is a Libertarian source but it was the only source I could find the exact distinctions I was looking for. The article distinguishes it first with (Marxist) socialism on grounds of outright nationalisation held by the revolutionary left and directive economic participation (dirigisme) held by those on the revolutionary right.

Dirigisme:

* '[F]ascism ... [requires] owners to use their property in the “national interest”'.
* '[F]ascism [controls] the monetary system and [sets] all prices and wages politically'
* Fascism 'leaves the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities'

In contradiction with pluralism ('interventionism', 'mixed economy'),

* Fascists seeks to abolish the market process, not to merely guide it.
* Cartels 'control all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture'
* 'Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms.'
* 'Licensing [is] ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission'
* Protectionism: 'imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically'

And here is how the article defines corporatism:

* '[C]artelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards' as dictated by the economic plans of the State officials.
* '[F]orced harmony', 'intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes'
* Most confusingly, as I will address below, is that the article states that the corporatist economic theory of fascism is what '[reveals] its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left'.

Other elements of fascism:

* '[P]ublic-works projects' which were 'domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums' but also '[militaristic], with huge armies and arms production'. (Hint; I mentioned earlier the impact of political theory upon economic theory, this is of relevance here).

GUILD SOCIALISM AND FASCISM

One of my other questions was about the relationship between syndicalism/guild socialism and fascism, as most fascists are adamant that their ideology is based on this theory. However, there are a number of concerns, in particular taking into account the hierarchical mode of production - not to mention social stratification - that is characteristic of fascist economic beliefs. Syndicalism and guild socialism firmly place themselves in the Libertarian Socialist subframe of political ideology, in the sense that as tactical forms of labour organisation, these are most consistent with those set principles - anti-hierarchy, class consciousness, liberty and equality.

NATIONALISM

I am also interested in what exactly the implications are of the nationalist sentiments held by fascists on the economy, asides from the more obvious impact of immigration on socioeconomic factors such as *integration, *consumerism, *labour market. Their views are often shared by many on the far-right within the liberal paradigm.

CONCLUSION

My confusion is based around the fact that one would normally see some form of middle of the road 'mixed economy' between the extremes of Marxist socialism and the free market, generally neoliberalism as held by centre-right, or social democracy, by those on the centre-left. So, for this reason, were one to introduce a second 'middle ground', that is really and truly a syncretic political paradigm, one would naturally wonder what clear differences were between these two alternative 'compromises'.

I hate to say it but I find most books and articles I've read rather vague, not just distinguishing relevant fascist components with its counterpart authoritarian pluralistic ideologies (social democracy and conservatism) - which fascists ultimately denounce as 'liberal', despite finding similarities - but with political distinctions between ideologies in general. For example, I can point towards the scepticism of delegative democracy held by both conservatives, and in particular, social democrats, firm supporters of representative democracy. Then there is the anti-immigration sentiment held by conservatives and even social democrats, when the interests of unions and national labour are under perceived threat. And the emphasis upon social hierarchy, national identity, authority and tradition held by conservatives are most certainly maintained by fascists.

The fascist, it seems, dismisses these beliefs by holding that they ultimately maintain the liberal democratic order by diminishing its 'unpleasant effects' to maintain the interests of the current propertied elite. But there are a number of things that seem wrong with this view although I can't quite put my finger on it. And liberalism itself is defined by fascists and marxists alike, not as a political ideology, but a set of tactics to maintain a rigid and oppressive class hierarchy rather than an individualist philosophy of rights and liberties.

It is not surprising that you find simplifications such as the political compass, or worse, the one dimensional view, typically held by the Libertarian-right that the right and left are defined by the degree of State intervention (conflating personal and economic freedom). I am sorry to appear sceptical of alternative theories to the standard political compass thinking, that I have ingrained within my skull and hope this thread does not merely serve to demonstrate my ignorance.

[Daktoria]

Fascist economics are simple:

War economy.

In fascism, conflict is the height of life, so the idea is to drive a war machine with maximized industrialization committed to combat. Furthermore, sacrifices are expected to be made so the labor-intense creme of the crop is perpetually equipped for engagement.

The spoils of victory fuel the economy onwards into the future, and when the empire grows too large to be governed by a single entity, it will naturally disintegrate among rivals who will reinvigorate the economy with civil war into the future.

Everything is about fighting and broken window fallacies. That's it. If you're a laborer, your sacrifice is for the national interest, and your labor board will compensate you accordingly to remain optimally productive in comparison to fighting strength. Corporations are tolerated in so far as they're motivated to coordinate economic activity, but any excess profits are committed to the war machine and maintaining labor productivity.

All of this said, it's possible that fascist economies will experience prolonged interbellums when they're warming up the war machine, and just refining their elites to get ready for the next engagement.

[Sceptic]

Very Orwellian.

Before I address your points, please let me know if this is the correct translation:

In fascism, conflict is the height of life, so the idea is to drive a war machine with maximized industrialization committed to combat.

Economy drived towards militarism and therefore war realism.

Furthermore, sacrifices are expected to be made so the labor-intense creme of the crop is perpetually equipped for engagement.

Mass brainwashing of labour to feed the military-industrial machine.

The spoils of victory fuel the economy onwards into the future

Economic growth from war looting.

and when the empire grows too large to be governed by a single entity, it will naturally disintegrate among rivals who will reinvigorate the economy with civil war into the future.

Internationalism is incompatible with fascism because of above - fascist economies benefit at exploitation of other countries - so an international fascist empire automatically divides into nationalist entities.

If you're a laborer, your sacrifice is for the national interest, and your labor board will compensate you accordingly to remain optimally productive in comparison to fighting strength. Corporations are tolerated in so far as they're motivated to coordinate economic activity, but any excess profits are committed to the war machine and maintaining labor productivity.

Productivity of labour and capital measured by militarism.

All of this said, it's possible that fascist economies will experience prolonged interbellums when they're warming up the war machine, and just refining their elites to get ready for the next engagement.

What economic theory do you believe the fascist regime will turn to in order to maintain the war machine during these periods? Laissez-faire?

[Daktoria]

Mass brainwashing of labour to feed the military-industrial machine.

We're talking about economics, so lets keep brainwashing aside.

Economic growth from war looting.

Pretty much. You saw this from both Germany and Japan who completely cannibalized and stripped the conquered.

Internationalism is incompatible with fascism because of above - fascist economies benefit at exploitation of other countries - so an international fascist empire automatically divides into nationalist entities.

Right, I never suggested internationalism. You would just see expatriates split up out of contention for supremacy.

Fighting is all they know, so fighting is all they'd do. They'd accept it and that anyone who doesn't fight deserves submission anyway.

What economic theory do you believe the fascist regime will turn to in order to maintain the war machine during these periods? Laissez-faire?

If it became hands off, I doubt it would be very long unless there are massive frontiers to be inhabited. The regime wants to keep society as under control as possible, but it will loosen up to encourage growth where it needs to be excited.

The regime will also want to dissociate from heinous economic expansions. That way, it can't be blamed when things go wrong.

[Sceptic]

We're talking about economics, so lets keep brainwashing aside.

Actually, we're talking about political economics. Ultra-nationalist and militarist tendencies are going to have a strong impact on the way the economy is ran, as you said, labour only exists to feed the industrial war machine.

My problem with your argument is that it avoids the logical problems I highlighted, with respect to distinguishing between pluralism and corporatism and the question of syndicalism.

However, it does address some of my questions about the impact of nationalism on the economy, so thanks for that.

The reason I asked about laissez-faire was because I wanted to see how much your definition would conform to your particular ideology.

Right, I never suggested internationalism. You would just see expatriates split up out of contention for supremacy.

Fighting is all they know, so fighting is all they'd do. They'd accept it and that anyone who doesn't fight deserves submission anyway.

I don't understand this part.

Perhaps internationalism was the wrong word. Think imperial state.

If it became hands off, I doubt it would be very long unless there are massive frontiers to be inhabited. The regime wants to keep society as under control as possible, but it will loosen up to encourage growth where it needs to be excited.

Yes, this is precisely what I meant - you are tying laissez-faire with economic growth, and economic growth by your theory is only wanted to power the military-industrial complex through which the elite can maintain social stratification. As you point out, if the approach becomes too 'hands off', there is the potential that labour and the middle classes will become to satisfied with their lot and freedom brings the opportunity to rebel.

I should not have used the term 'laissez-faire', what I had meant was, would the elite relax indirect capital control in favour of market procedures.

But this means that, well you are making the assumption that laissez-faire is directly correlated to growth, so this is a very subtle critique of fascism, not an objective definition.

I'm on to you

[Daktoria]

Actually, we're talking about political economics. Ultra-nationalist and militarist tendencies are going to have a strong impact on the way the economy is ran, as you said, labour only exists to feed the industrial war machine.

My problem with your argument is that it avoids the logical problems I highlighted, with respect to distinguishing between pluralism and corporatism and the question of syndicalism.

However, it does address some of my questions about the impact of nationalism on the economy, so thanks for that.

The reason I asked about laissez-faire was because I wanted to see how much your definition would conform to your particular ideology.

Syndicalism is basically pacifist corporatism. You'd see it employed the most during interbellum periods.

Anyway, I didn't want to talk about brainwashing because that's more psychology than economy, but yes, I agree that militarism imbues national spirit.

I don't understand this part.

Perhaps internationalism was the wrong word. Think imperial state.

You think there's a difference between imperialism and fascism?

Yes, this is precisely what I meant - you are tying laissez-faire with economic growth, and economic growth by your theory is only wanted to power the military-industrial complex through which the elite can maintain social stratification. As you point out, if the approach becomes too 'hands off', there is the potential that labour and the middle classes will become to satisfied with their lot and freedom brings the opportunity to rebel.

I should not have used the term 'laissez-faire', what I had meant was, would the elite relax indirect capital control in favour of market procedures.

But this means that, well you are making the assumption that laissez-faire is directly correlated to growth, so this is a very subtle critique of fascism, not an objective definition.

I'm on to you

No, no, no.

Look. When you have an empty frontier, controlling how everything is done is not going to motivate your people to spread out and thrive. You want people to be motivated, so their identities have to be committed to the project.

Compare that to the optimal planned economy where you have a bunch of yes-man bureaucrats, and you're still not going to have people imagining how to get things done. You're just going to have people following orders which means they're not improvising to inhabit the frontier. Planned economies don't experiment. They just institutionalize and forecast from history, but you can't forecast into the unknown.

Again, I doubt a hands off interbellum would last very long. The instant frontiersmen become successful is the instant the regime wants its slice of the pie again.

Even the discovery of a frontier could be held top secret because a paranoid regime doesn't want to lose control. I'd suspect progressivism at best. A progressive regime would appear merciful, but not out of control.

Besides, fascist citizens would have become afraid of pioneering. They'd want the regime's comfort.

[Sceptic]

I'd also like to hear what the fascists have to say.

Syndicalism is basically pacifist corporatism. You'd see it employed the most during interbellum periods.

Anyway, I didn't want to talk about brainwashing because that's more psychology than economy, but yes, I agree that militarism imbues national spirit.

Well, we don't have to talk about the psychology of brainwashing, so much as brainwashing as a political tool but I see your point. We can talk more generally about political instruments of oppression to further the ideology of nationalism in this case then. But any talk about elite status preservation reeks of bias.

I'm asking about the social stratification and division of labour characteristic of fascist corporatism in sharp contrast to the delegation of workplace management and participation of the community in direct democracy that you see in syndicalism. How can the two be similar economically? Syndicalism is essentially opposed to hierarchy.

You think there's a difference between imperialism and fascism?

No but using your logic the imperial empire breaks up when it outgrows itself. I s'pose this was the fall of Rome.

Again, I doubt a hands off interbellum would last very long.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with this but when you make statements like

The instant frontiersmen become successful is the instant the regime wants its slice of the pie again.

Compare that to the optimal planned economy where you have a bunch of yes-man bureaucrats, and you're still not going to have people imagining how to get things done.

This leads me to the conclusion that you are coming at this from a laissez-faire perspective.

[Daktoria]

Well, we don't have to talk about the psychology of brainwashing, so much as brainwashing as a political tool but I see your point.

I'm asking about the social stratification and division of labour characteristic of fascist corporatism in sharp contrast to the delegation of workplace management and participation of the community in direct democracy that you see in syndicalism. How can the two be similar economically? Syndicalism is essentially opposed to hierarchy.

Yes, the lack of hierarchy is why syndicalism is pacifist. Hierarchy implies competition for social status for authority. In syndicalism, this doesn't happen (though as one would expect, syndicalism doesn't last very long because of indecisiveness).

Regardless, both systems expropriate management and replace them with a planning board. The only difference is how corporatism compartmentalizes per industry whereas syndicalism compartmentalizes per plant.

This leads me to the conclusion that you are coming at this from a laissez-faire perspective.

My perspective is that a fascist regime wants to retain control. When you get on top of society and don't have anymore rivals to conquer (as is the implication of empty frontiers), you become paranoid of defection.

That means you can't let up too much slack because you'll create independents. If you don't let up enough slack though, then people won't do anything. They'll become bored, and civil dissent will rise.

A fascist regime doesn't have to grow as fast as possible. It just has to grow fast enough to balance satiated citizens with national defense.

[Sceptic]

Yes, the lack of hierarchy is why syndicalism is pacifist.

Hierarchy isn't the only form of violence. Didn't you use to be a market anarchist? Hierarchy can be voluntary.

Regardless, both systems expropriate management and replace them with a planning board. The only difference is how corporatism compartmentalizes per industry whereas syndicalism compartmentalizes per plant.

This brings me to question the differences then between forms of centralisation in general by your theory. I have highlighted them in the OP: socialism, corporatism and pluralism. What is the difference between industry and plants? When you talk about compartmentalising, are you referring to labour-capital negotiations (corporatism) and internal labour negotiations (syndicalism)?

My perspective is that a fascist regime wants to retain control. When you get on top of society and don't have anymore rivals to conquer (as is the implication of empty frontiers), you become paranoid of defection.

That means you can't let up too much slack because you'll create independents. If you don't let up enough slack though, then people won't do anything. They'll become bored, and civil dissent will rise.

A fascist regime doesn't have to grow as fast as possible. It just has to grow fast enough to balance satiated citizens with national defense.

And this perspective is often used by Libertarians: the purpose of hegemonic stratification is to attain wealth and power but without economic freedom, people do not produce, so there is no wealth to attain and without authoritarianism, the State loses it's power base, so it can no longer expropriate wealth. Therefore it has to resort to subtle means to maintain both productivity and maintain it's power base.

But both the Marxist and Fascist perspectives are very different to this. Who is to say that economic freedom leads to increaseed productivity?

Basically, my objection is defining these political boundaries must be exempt from ideological bias. I don't deny that the fascist wants control.

[Daktoria]

Hierarchy isn't the only form of violence. Didn't you use to be a market anarchist? Hierarchy can be voluntary.

I agree, but on a macroscopic level, syndicalism doesn't coordinate to build a war machine. The only violence which takes place is within the plant itself.

This brings me to question the differences then between forms of centralisation in general by your theory. I have highlighted them in the OP: socialism, corporatism and pluralism. What is the difference between industry and plants? When you talk about compartmentalising, are you referring to labour-capital negotiations (corporatism) and internal labour negotiations (syndicalism)?

You're stating the obvious. Yes, labor-capital negotiations happen among industries. Internal labor negotiation happens among plants.

Are you asking me what the difference is between all plants and each plant? You can get a dictionary for that.

And this perspective is often used by Libertarians: the purpose of hegemonic stratification is to attain wealth and power but without economic freedom, people do not produce, so there is no wealth to attain and without authoritarianism, the State loses it's power base, so it can no longer expropriate wealth. Therefore it has to resort to subtle means to maintain both productivity and maintain it's power base.

But both the Marxist and Fascist perspectives are very different to this. Who is to say that economic freedom leads to increaseed productivity?

Basically, my objection is defining these political boundaries must be exempt from ideological bias. I don't deny that the fascist wants control.

How do you see libertarianism? My point wasn't economic freedom. It's excitement. Fascists view conflict as the height of life.

You let up slack so people can discover conflict on their own. If you oppress their discovery, they'll fight you instead.

[KlassWar]

I agree, but on a macroscopic level, syndicalism doesn't coordinate to build a war machine. The only violence which takes place is within the plant itself.

Syndicalism can combine to build a war machine. Even an anarcho-syndicalism could build a war machine!

Anarcho-Syndicalism needs a workers' militia to protect itself from capitalist aggression. This militia has to be manned and supplied: How much effort is put in recruitment, training and materiel production would basically depend on the community's degree of threat perception or outright jingoism (e.g. early Soviet let's roll the tanks into Warsaw and Spread The Revolution! style).

A syndicalist society (anarcho or not) that has few geopolitical ambitions and not a significant level of threat perception is likely to keep a small rapid response force and a large but demobilized militia just in case. A syndicalist society that feels threatened or has ambitions is likely to operate on an every worker a militiaman basis and divert significant resources to materiel production.

[Daktoria]

No... I don't buy militiamen being a stable model. When people are willing to expropriate management, there's nothing holding them back from expropriating the less impressive among each other. This is especially after capitalism has been defeated and there's no opposition to resist.

That said, the jingoist model makes sense because workers get bored. When people have weapons lying around and no principled culture behind them, they get giddy and want to shoot stuff just for fun.

It's with no surprise that the Soviet Union imploded from the Cold War not going hot. It had all these guns around, and nothing to use them for. Overhead got too expensive, so armories and military tradition had to be liquidated.

[Sceptic]

I agree, but on a macroscopic level, syndicalism doesn't coordinate to build a war machine. The only violence which takes place is within the plant itself.

Ok but it doesn't make sense to call it pacifist if it requires violence on some level, also as KlassWar pointed out, militias need to co-ordinate to realise their goals on a national scale.

Yes, labor-capital negotiations happen among industries. Internal labor negotiation happens among plants.

Are you asking me what the difference is between all plants and each plant? You can get a dictionary for that.

No, I meant what was the difference between a plant and an industry. If I had my economics dictionary, I would

Anyway, I'm confused what you mean by compartmentalise.

My perspective is that a fascist regime wants to retain control. When you get on top of society and don't have anymore rivals to conquer (as is the implication of empty frontiers), you become paranoid of defection.

That means you can't let up too much slack because you'll create independents. If you don't let up enough slack though, then people won't do anything. They'll become bored, and civil dissent will rise.

A fascist regime doesn't have to grow as fast as possible. It just has to grow fast enough to balance satiated citizens with national defense.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding but the way you phrase things is very odd.

So what about the motives at play - if ideologically, fascists promote violence, why would that be in the interests of the leaders who want to maintain control and why would it be in the interests of people who want stability as well as conflict?

Also, do you think your definition is one fascists could agree to? It doesn't seem very favourable for them.

[Preston Cole]

Also, do you think your definition is one fascists could agree to? It doesn't seem very favourable for them.

Daktoria's mostly ranting his preconceived ideas. The economy of Fascist Italy never relied on war or the promise of war alone in order to control its population. Militarism was a means to national greatness, not an end.

Anyway, I'm just going to wait for a fascist more versed in economics to smash Daktoria's 1984-esque bullshit.

[Sceptic]

1984

Yes, I was thinking that

I realise you are waiting for someone else to chip in but I would welcome you to offer a definition yourself, if you have any ideas.

[Daktoria]

PC's lying straight to your face. Mussolini very explicitly emphasized war as the pinnacle of life.

viewtopic.php?p=13819054#p13819054

If you think anything else, you're a fool. If war is not available, then people will become restless.

You should also make it a habit to not take anything a fascist ever says at face value. Commitment to militarism means there's nothing wrong with total psychopathy just to get what you want.

Anyone who doesn't embrace psychopathy is treated as naive and deserving of being exploited.

Ok but it doesn't make sense to call it pacifist if it requires violence on some level, also as KlassWar pointed out, militias need to co-ordinate to realise their goals on a national scale.

Just because a syndicate can be militant doesn't mean it must.

There's also no guarantee that syndicates have national interests. They can be content operating their own plants.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding but the way you phrase things is very odd.

So what about the motives at play - if ideologically, fascists promote violence, why would that be in the interests of the leaders who want to maintain control and why would it be in the interests of people who want stability as well as conflict?

Also, do you think your definition is one fascists could agree to? It doesn't seem very favourable for them.

Just because you want conflict doesn't mean you want conflict everywhere. You need stable foundations in order to conflict at the top.

You can refer to my previous thread about Mussolini that admits to violence being the end all to be all.

[Sceptic]

PC's lying straight to your face. Mussolini very explicitly emphasized war as the pinnacle of life.

viewtopic.php?p=13819054#p13819054

I think that Fasces raised some valid points in the post after your's.

There must be a distinction between the national identity ingrained within the military unit itself and the actual act of violence - which is not present in the absence of imperialism or the need for national defence. Or the spirit of violence and the act itself.

Just because a syndicate can be militant doesn't mean it must.

There's also no guarantee that syndicates have national interests. They can be content operating their own plants.

That simply isn't possible, a syndicalist revolution on a small level will die out very quickly, in fact it will be severely penalised if they take out illegal action, like lock-outs, cat strikes, etc. without it being the norm. It bred civil war in 1936, with the Spainish labour movement pitted against Franco's forces, so they would not have lasted long without it existing on some form of national scale.

Just because you want conflict doesn't mean you want conflict everywhere. You need stable foundations in order to conflict at the top.

At the top - meaning imperialism against other nations, or strife held between competing generals? Also, why is this in the interests of the people? Excitement from national pride?

[Daktoria]

I think that Fasces raised some valid points in the post after your's.

There must be a distinction between the national identity ingrained within the military unit itself and the actual act of violence - which is not present in the absence of imperialism or the need for national defence. Or the spirit of violence and the act itself.

I'm not sure why you believe fascism believes in such a difference.

That simply isn't possible, a syndicalist revolution on a small level will die out very quickly, in fact it will be severely penalised if they take out illegal action, like lock-outs, cat strikes, etc. without it being the norm.

Not necessarily. A union, for example, could give management bad publicity such that reactive penalty isn't desired. The plant could be left alone in peace for its establishment. Large institutions could even support the syndicate as an example of encouraging social responsibility such that entrepreneurial entrance into the institutional level becomes harder to achieve.

It bred civil war in 1936, with the Spainish labour movement pitted against Franco's forces, so they would not have lasted long without it existing on some form of national scale.

Actually, this is one of the complaints against anarchists. By refusing to integrate into the greater Republican movement, they incapacitated coordination.

[Sceptic]

I'm not sure why you believe fascism believes in such a difference.

Because I find it hard to believe that an ideology that believes in nothing but war mongering and destruction can be called an ideology. It is like the Marxist definition of Liberalism as an instrument of class oppression. It is like saying, 'I don't like my opponent's ideology, so I will denounce it as a tactic aimed towards elite preservation'. I can play this game with most every ideology.

Political philosophy as I define it is the synthesis of liberty, justice, law and economics, understood through the correct methodology (metaphysical, epistemological or axiomatic), examining, for example the relationship of the individual and the collective and to what degree individual autonomy can be rightfully extended. It has a very strong moral component in my view which cannot be undermined by descriptive relativism.

Not necessarily. A union, for example, could give management bad publicity such that reactive penalty isn't desired. The plant could be left alone in peace for its establishment. Large institutions could even support the syndicate as an example of encouraging social responsibility such that entrepreneurial entrance into the institutional level becomes harder to achieve.

The problem is that these strategies of social ostracisation are all compatible with right-Libertarian beliefs, so by default, it is not truly syndicalism as a whole that is pacifist, just certain strategic elements.

Actually, this is one of the complaints against anarchists. By refusing to integrate into the greater Republican movement, they incapacitated coordination.

Well, yes they were anarchists.

Anyway, the point is, it isn't a pacifistic ideology and the Spainish revolution highlights this.

[Preston Cole]

PC's lying straight to your face. Mussolini very explicitly emphasized war as the pinnacle of life.

viewtopic.php?p=13819054#p13819054

If you think anything else, you're a fool. If war is not available, then people will become restless.

What exactly does "if war is not available, then people will become restless" mean, and how is it relevant to fascism and not other forms of totalitarianism? I can easily see a Gorbachev offering an invasion of Finland (for example) as a distraction from the deepening socioeconomic ills of the USSR in the late 80s.

Mussolini emphasized war as a base of life the same way he encouraged perpetual struggle because that is what life actually is. He'd seen the decadence of Italy, the fall of the Roman ideal and the horrendous corruption and poverty marked by socialist agitation in his country before 1922. The medicine for that decadence as well as today's is militarism, vitality and service for the nation. That automatically extends into war (e.g. the Ethiopian War and the invasion of Albania and Greece in search of spazio vitale, or whatever the Italians called it) if the nation is capable of it industrially and the political scene allows (would the invasion of Greece have happened if Mussolini wasn't tied to Hitler's war machine?). War depends on geopolitics, not some weird psychopathic drive to kill as you seem to be implying (playing Killzone is no way to criticize Fascist doctrine). In all other cases, militarism transpires into civilian life in the form of the "Battle for Grain," as Fasces said in that other post, and indoctrination into heroic values.

It's also worth mentioning that you liberals/libertarians or whatever the fuck you call yourselves nowadays actually create more conflict inside the nation than fascists do. Fascists seek to pacify the nation internally by removing communist and capitalist influences, the source of societal decadence.

You should also make it a habit to not take anything a fascist ever says at face value. Commitment to militarism means there's nothing wrong with total psychopathy just to get what you want.

By that logic, all militaries should be disbanded because they leave room for "psychopathy." Commitment to militarism means there's nothing wrong with dying for your country and killing those who oppose it, accepting soldier virtues into your life and be willing to ship off to Ethiopia. Psychopathy is a preexisting risk in any system.

Anyone who doesn't embrace psychopathy is treated as naive and deserving of being exploited.

Yadda, yadda, evil fascists will kill babies in their crib.