AsiaCel
shalom goyim
★★★★★
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2017
- Posts
- 30,202
- Online time
- 23h 18m
In my opinion, the traits that Italian fascism promoted, such as:
-Military training
-Warrior ethos
-Struggle rhetoric
-Unity
-Highly efficient and interconnected organizations for gathering people (youth clubs etc)
Are dual edged swords that can easily be turned against the state overnight.
Believe, obey, fight!
Can easily morph into
Believe in resistance, obey the will, fight the fascists
A state's grip on power relies on its military willing to pull the trigger, workers willing to make ammo, and farmers willing to plant food.
Therefore, a fascist regime is essentially riding the tiger, the second that they lose a war or popular support, the very same tools that they forged, can easily be turned into tools of resistance movements, as seen in Italy.
In addition, aggressive state rhetoric create a situation that the state cannot easily walk back on.
For example in Italy, Mussolini attacked Slavs and Ethiopians; but what if the state now needs the former enemies to become geopolitically aligned (remember that in politics, there are no forever friends and enemies).
It would mean that if the state needed to compromise, it would risk looking weak and if the state needed to train the former enemies, the former enemies would be socially unwelcomed and possibly be subject to beating by crowds — a diplomatic disaster!
-Military training
-Warrior ethos
-Struggle rhetoric
-Unity
-Highly efficient and interconnected organizations for gathering people (youth clubs etc)
Are dual edged swords that can easily be turned against the state overnight.
Believe, obey, fight!
Can easily morph into
Believe in resistance, obey the will, fight the fascists
A state's grip on power relies on its military willing to pull the trigger, workers willing to make ammo, and farmers willing to plant food.
Therefore, a fascist regime is essentially riding the tiger, the second that they lose a war or popular support, the very same tools that they forged, can easily be turned into tools of resistance movements, as seen in Italy.
In addition, aggressive state rhetoric create a situation that the state cannot easily walk back on.
For example in Italy, Mussolini attacked Slavs and Ethiopians; but what if the state now needs the former enemies to become geopolitically aligned (remember that in politics, there are no forever friends and enemies).
It would mean that if the state needed to compromise, it would risk looking weak and if the state needed to train the former enemies, the former enemies would be socially unwelcomed and possibly be subject to beating by crowds — a diplomatic disaster!
Last edited:





