It's a fun read and an interesting premise.

It's a bit light on rigor than I hoped when I saw the title. It describes 3 fascist or near-fascist states that lost in recent history: Germany, Italy, Franco's Spain. But I wanted to know if Rome under Julius Caesar would be considered fascist? Alexander of Macedon? And also non-western states as well.

IMO it is less about fascism but wars of conquests that are more likely to be doomed to fail. Maybe fascism is a requirement for desires of conquest so they are tightly related.

For conquest to succeed it must be quick and overwhelming. Otherwise it becomes a war of attrition against an enemy that has way better motivation than your army. But also, even if you have a decisive victory, it is almost impossible to stop at just one victory because the war machine will be thirsty for more and your entire economy will be dependent on it, so you have to keep going until total failure.

▲

guzfip 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> It describes 3 fascist or near-fascist states that lost in recent history: Germany, Italy, Franco's Spain

Where did Franco lose? He won the civil war and his administration survived until his own death.

▲

red-iron-pine 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Franco lost? he ruled until he died and only after his death did the rest of the government decide to open.

he was, arguably, the only successful "true" fascist

▲

kjellsbells 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

One difficulty is that fascism is a very modern phenomenon, in the sense that it stood out to 20C societies because they had known alternative forms of state power, whereas someone in 14C England, say, would not have known any other form of governance than the unchecked power of the State (strictly, the King) and in particular the use of force to compel behavior, which is of course the hallmark of fascism. It would be hard to recognize fascism unless you also knew what a democracy (say) or some other ruling mode was like.

▲

graemep 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> whereas someone in 14C England, say, would not have known any other form of governance than the unchecked power of the State (strictly, the King)

The king's powers were not unchecked. People had human rights by custom and law (Magna Carter, for example), parliament controlled taxation, aristocrats had a great deal of power, the Church had a lot of power.

Nowhere near democracy, but a very different system from an unchecked dictatorship.

Edit to add: this was the system from which modern democracy slowly evolved.

▲

arethuza 3 days ago | parent [-]

Robert the Bruce, King of Scots, held his position on the condition that "...if he should give up what he has begun, seeking to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own right and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King"

▲

graemep 2 days ago | parent [-]

That is a pretty narrow requirement and what he wanted to do anyway.

Maybe it was required because as an Anglo-Norman himself, and his former position in England and his families former position, he needed to guarantee where his loyalties lay?

▲

arethuza 2 days ago | parent [-]

Indeed, but it's interesting that it is included in the Declaration of Arbroath asking the Pope to recognise Scotland's independence - I think it might have been to emphasise that it wasn't just about his wants but all of the Scottish aristocracy?

▲

graemep 2 days ago | parent [-]

I have no idea, but it seems to be an interesting question. I am going to ask a historian about this.

I did a quick search and i had no idea that Robert the Bruce was excommunicated twice and had both excommunications lifted!

	▲	arethuza 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		One of my favourite Robert the Bruce stories is about all the adventures his heart had once he died and it was removed from his body: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Teba

▲

red-iron-pine 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

maybe to 16th century absolute rulers. there is a reason "absolutism" is a separate term from "king"

but before then a kings power was regularly checked, both by custom, law, and political realities -- e.g. your vassals account for most of your army.

▲

rexpop 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The use of force to compel behavior is a defining feature of any state, not just fascist ones. Political theorists from Max Weber onward have described the state as the human community that “successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” That applies equally to monarchies, democracies, empires, and totalitarian regimes.

The hallmarks of fascism include ultranationalism, mythic unity, supression of dissent, but go even further.

Instead of seeking stable control, fascism constructs an intense line of escape that it transforms into pure destruction and abolition, demonstrating a realized nihilism that goes beyond mere authoritarian management.

Fascist violence is driven by a psychological death drive—a desire not only to harm others but ultimately to destroy oneself. Under fascism, the government evolves into a suicidal state engages in a risky flirtation with its own self destruction.

Historically, this is evidenced by the Nazi rallying cry "long live death," the pivot of investments from production to pure destruction, and Hitler's 1945 order (Telegram 71) to destroy Germany's remaining infrastructure, effectively declaring that "if the war is lost, may the nation perish".

The suppression of dissent manifests as the accelerated destruction of state institutions, the severing of public assistance, and reducing the everyday presence of the federal government to masked armed agents in the streets, disappearing our neighbors and shooting civilians.

Above-and-beyons mere authoritarianksm, fascism exploits people's alienation, replacing valid grievances with a psychosis of total war and a nihilistic push toward self-destruction.