[Fasces]

It is a typical Marxist viewpoint that the attitudes the holders of an ideology have themselves is inconsequential. This is, frankly, a stupid view. Let's make the assumption that most fascists are not stupid, are perhaps well read, and most importantly, understand their own motivations and have their own visions for society. This is the attitude held by true fascist scholars, such as Roger Griffen or Zeev Sternhell, and it is this attitude which has revealed a greater degree of truth behind the ideology.

Let us also say that fascism does not end with Mussolini and Hitler.

You are right that fascism is an ideology against peace. What you misunderstand is that peace, here, can be best understood as inaction, laziness, and stagnation. The fascist society is always militarized, always marching. It is always, in essence, action - but this does not mean violence. One considers Mussolini's "Battle for Grain", a massive nation-wide agricultural reclamation campaign, or the "Battle for the Lira", a massive campaign against inflation, as a perfect example of the metaphor.

As to whether or not other regimes were fascist - no, they were not Fascist, in that they were not identical to the Mussolini regime. However, they are very clearly a part of a greater ideological trend, reflected in anti-Marxist, anti-Enlightenment, and anti-liberal attitudes which are constant across the board. They are 'fascist' just as North Korea might not be 'Bolshevik' but still be 'socialist'. When one acknowledges this, your claims about racial theories fall flat on their face - and never mind that Mussolini himself had nothing to do with them officially until after 1938, and the utter collapse of Italian sovereignty against the Nazis.

[Fitzcarraldo]

hen one acknowledges this, your claims about racial theories fall flat on their face - and never mind that Mussolini himself had nothing to do with them officially until after 1938, and the utter collapse of Italian sovereignty against the Nazis.

This is not strictly true. Laws and Royal decrees were made as to prohibt interbreeding between Italians and Ethiopian natives, as well as other segregational policies in the Italian East African Empire from 1937 onwards. Quite clearly, the Italians were going to model their colonies on the North American model (white supremacism) rather than the South American and Caribbean models (interbreeding as to create mulatto lackey administrators etc). This is 'racist', explicitly so. Blaming Italian racism solely on their relationship with Germany is wrong.

[Fasces]

The colonial government of Italian Abyssia was largely independent from the central government in Rome. It was the policy of the Roman government to accept Ethiopian immigrants as equals to the native population, in the same way France once did with the Algerians. Those laws were solely for the governance and use in Ethiopia proper, and did not exist in mainland Italy - to my knowledge.

[Orestes]

Aside from the Nazis, racial theory wasn't central to any other fascist state, nor is it exclusive; racial theory was important in many democracies, and to several communist states

Can you provide examples of those Communist states ? I have trouble seeing how they could possibly ideologically reconcile racialism (especially after WWII) with the basic Communist tenet - the total malleability of social reality, the former would just massively undermine the latter. In the Lysenko era even the concept of genetic heredity as such was considered "reactionary".

[Andropov]

Can you provide examples of those Communist states ? I have trouble seeing how they could possibly ideologically reconcile racialism (especially after WWII) with the basic Communist tenet - the total malleability of social reality, the former would just massively undermine the latter. In the Lysenko era even the concept of genetic heredity as such was considered "reactionary".

The Khmer Rouge.

[Preston Cole]

The Khmer Rouge is just part of the large collection of nationalist communist movements throughout history, not that dissimilar to Stalin's nationalism. Communists used ethnic nationalism within a patriotic cloak and never spoke about race, strictly. The only regimes I know of that based their worldview completely or partially upon race are, of course, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Other states, like Horthyist Hungary and Revolutionary Croatia, were just satellites.

[Far-Right Sage]

Let's not forget that Russian chauvinism was endemic in Stalinism, and promoted by Joseph Stalin himself, despite the fact that he was an ethnic Georgian.

This just reveals the inherent contradictions found in all forms of Communist ideology however. By 1934, 28% of Russian Orthodox churches were closed by along with 36% of mosques, and 52% of synagogues. Not long after Operation Barbarossa, Stalin reopened many Orthodox churches throughout the Soviet Union, and by the time the Wehrmacht had steamrolled through Ukraine and European Russia and was at the gates of Moscow, Stalinist propaganda was so desperate it essentially branded the Red Army's struggle as a "holy war" to defend the motherland from Germanic aggressors, playing on themes of Russian nationalism and Christian belief that echoed the days of Tsarist Russia.

What does this prove? Communism as an ideology opposed to the true nature of humanity and civilization, and espousing nothing more than materialistic platitudes, can never truly inspire the bulk of humanity to act contrary to their very being and defend the abomination.

[Andropov]

the true nature of humanity and civilization

Being what exactly?

[Tribbles]

I prefer to call my self a corporatvist, using the corporative system of decision-making as the foundation. (See my suggestion for a evolved form of corporativism below my signature-image)

I realize that the political solutions such a system cooks up most probably will be center-oriented, but if everyone wants something else - it can drift to the left or the right, depending on the mood-swings of the corporations and the "new parliament" - which is basically the same as Mussolini`s grand council, just with more formal rules applied.

As a comparison to other systems - one cant put political systems such as "monarchy" or "parliamentarism" into a right-left box, because the system itself says little about the political program that the monarch or the parliament lands on.

But there are perhaps, some trends - I think that a pure monarchy will lean rightwards in economic questions, while a parliament will end up in center-oriented compromises.

The people as a whole, however, will become frustrated and confused by parliamentarism, due to the nature of the system - competing parties, free media, and other destructive elements.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Albania's Communist regime heavily promoted the direct blood line Illyrian origin theory of the Albanian people. I think it would be fair to say this is pretty racist, certainly to neo-Marxist 1968er types.

[starman2003]

double post.

[starman2003]

This just reveals the inherent contradictions found in all forms of Communist ideology however. By 1934, 28% of Russian Orthodox churches were closed by along with 36% of mosques, and 52% of synagogues. Not long after Operation Barbarossa, Stalin reopened many Orthodox churches throughout the Soviet Union, and by the time the Wehrmacht had steamrolled through Ukraine and European Russia and was at the gates of Moscow, Stalinist propaganda was so desperate it essentially branded the Red Army's struggle as a "holy war" to defend the motherland from Germanic aggressors, playing on themes of Russian nationalism and Christian belief that echoed the days of Tsarist Russia.

What do you expect of the masses? They don't have the gray matter to understand a secular worldview like communism, which can't offer them "eternal life" either. So, it's not surprising that, in extremis the soviet regime lowered itself to motivate all of its people as much as it could.
Actually the Germans were impressed by the great motivation of soviet troops from the very start i.e. before the regime really lowered itself....

What does this prove? Communism as an ideology opposed to the true nature of humanity and civilization, and espousing nothing more than materialistic platitudes, can never truly inspire the bulk of humanity to act contrary to their very being and defend the abomination.

..and communism was a factor in this (see e.g. Through Hell for Hitler). Russian forces generally fought harder and were more motivated under the soviets than under the tsar.
Since the time of Augustus a number of authoritarian regimes have been contradictory. The nazis kept the reichstag even though, like the Roman Senate, it became an irrelevancy. The idea was to disguise, at least partly, the reality of dictatorship. Basically, authoritarian regimes must be contradictory because they must, on the one hand, get a lot of support yet on the other, pursue unpopular policies. The nazis payed much lip service to prole aspirations while keeping them down.

[Preston Cole]

They don't have the gray matter to understand a secular worldview like communism

Stateless communism (the one Stalin was opposed to), much like any internationalist wankery, is total idiocy. I don't see what kind of gray matter would be necessary to understand something that goes against nature. If an ideal requires "much brain matter," it's not a sustainable ideal, as the people themselves, nor a small "elite" can feel it. To properly sustain a regime, regardless of its ideology, the state needs to connect itself with the Nation intensely. Nations that don't pay nationalism any importance are doomed.

[starman2003]

I don't see what kind of gray matter would be necessary to understand something that goes against nature.

I was alluding to concepts like dialectical materialism. If ever there was something that goes against nature, it's christianity.

[Far-Right Sage]

Being what exactly?

A great question!

Human thirst for competition and advancement, which weeds the weaker elements of society out and empowers the superior elements of civilization. Marxism seeks to invert this truth, glorifying the weak, the lowest common denominator, and promoting societal stagnation. This is the gravest crime against the natural order. When I hungered for a fight with the Reds and joined up, the ideological realities were ever-present in my mind and dare I say, featured more prominently than the geopolitical ramifications.

What do you expect of the masses? They don't have the gray matter to understand a secular worldview like communism, which can't offer them "eternal life" either. So, it's not surprising that, in extremis the soviet regime lowered itself to motivate all of its people as much as it could.
Actually the Germans were impressed by the great motivation of soviet troops from the very start i.e. before the regime really lowered itself...

Yes and Soviet tactics are understandable, but I truly believe it's telling on various levels that when the chips were really down, the Wehrmacht was conquering, and there was discussion of moving important Soviet government personnel from Moscow to a position east of the Urals, the Stalinist regime fell back on what they believed to be the inate nature of man. Whether one is a Christian fundamentalist or a militant atheist, a Fascist or a Communist is entirely beside the point. The nature of man is the nature of man; ideology has to cultivate and work alongside it.

..and communism was a factor in this (see e.g. Through Hell for Hitler). Russian forces generally fought harder and were more motivated under the soviets than under the tsar.

Russian forces fought harder in WWII than in WWI because the war was in their towns and cities, and much of the population was aware of the German attitudes toward/plans for Russian resettlement to eastern areas of the SU. Many during WWI saw the Tsar's goal as revenge for the Serbs and imperial expansion i.e. a war that was not theirs; a war not for the peasant-soldier to fight.

If you're referring to Russian determination in other conflicts in the time of the Tsars, this could be disputed greatly. The Russians fought well in the Russo-Japanese War; the Japanese simply had strategic military superiority. The Russians fought with great determination throughout the Crimean War, as well as battles against the French, such as Borodino. And what of great Russian imperial victories, such as against the Swedes at Poltava? Much more was accomplished under the Tsarist administration than has been given credit in modern Western textbooks which emphasize Ivan the Terrible, corruption in Nicholas II's rule, and "mad" Rasputin. There was much more to the Russian Empire's long history than a collection of stereotypes and charicatures.

Since the time of Augustus a number of authoritarian regimes have been contradictory. The nazis kept the reichstag even though, like the Roman Senate, it became an irrelevancy. The idea was to disguise, at least partly, the reality of dictatorship. Basically, authoritarian regimes must be contradictory because they must, on the one hand, get a lot of support yet on the other, pursue unpopular policies. The nazis payed much lip service to prole aspirations while keeping them down.

There is some element of truth in this, but it simply emphasizes the realistic need of any government of any political persuasion to enjoy some level of loyalty and popular support, while the public might not agree (and in my view, and the view of many other Fascists, shouldn't be consulted) on every individual issue they don't understand the economic, historic, and geopolitical implications of. Like Octavian becoming Augustus after Actium and casting off years of disunity and dishonor in the Roman Republic's dying days, Germany moved itself toward a better system of governance. But the war is wrapped in such mythology and reflexive thinking that a blinded public can hardly see that now.

[starman2003]

Human thirst for competition and advancement, which weeds the weaker elements of society out and empowers the superior elements of civilization. Marxism seeks to invert this truth, glorifying the weak, the lowest common denominator, and promoting societal stagnation.

Maybe in theory but in practice they did much to advance nations and establish meritocratic systems. The proles were put in their place while the elite rose to the top.

the Stalinist regime fell back on what they believed to be the inate nature of man. Whether one is a Christian fundamentalist or a militant atheist, a Fascist or a Communist is entirely beside the point. The nature of man is the nature of man; ideology has to cultivate and work alongside it.

If by innate nature of man you mean self-seeking, e.g. favoring religion because it brings "eternal life" something communism didn't even pretend to do, it may be true that the latter is against human nature. But heck, any really serious authoritarian system, working to further a great common cause, must go against human nature. The whole point or raisen d'etre of authoritarianism is its ability to coerce to get things done; you can't expect the masses to sacrifice liberties and amenities voluntarily. Many may be willing, while the elite itself may not sacrifice. But coercion must be an option for a system which basically makes people do--often for very good reasons--what they wouldn't, if they really had their way.

Russian forces fought harder in WWII than in WWI because the war was in their towns and cities, and much of the population was aware of the German attitudes toward/plans for Russian resettlement to eastern areas of the SU.

In fact, German intentions in WWI weren't much different; look at brest-litovsk. It envisaged quite major German territorial expansion, but the Russians considered the old order or whites the worst enemy.

If you're referring to Russian determination in other conflicts in the time of the Tsars, this could be disputed greatly.

No, I meant only the last one, nicholas. By then, the whole notion of monarchy was losing support--it had among some since the time of the decembrists--but by the 20th century, opposition was increasingly widespread.

[Kacen]

To a Fascist, economics is merely a means to the end, not the ends itself.

As such, we tend to be Centrist, Center-Right, or Center-Left economically. Myself? Center-Left. This usually manifests in a Syndicalist sense or something like Syndicalism, such as the Corporatist system of Fascist Italy.

Even Franco was at least protectionist, albeit he was technically a Carlist and not a Falangist.