Leaders who would call themself facsist in a world where it is not discredited

It is common to say that one major effect of Nazis not rising to power is that the ideology of facsism would not be discredited. But I was thinking, that many OTL governments had similar views the the facsists, for example some of the Arab nationalists and Ba'athists, some of the South American millitary rulers, groups like the Burmese millitary government, and mane African dictators. These groups had ideas like centralising power in one man, removing democracy to combat dangerous ideologies like communism, empowering the nation, blaming problems on foreign enemies, restoring past glory, assimilating minorites etc. So many of theses leaders could identify themself as facsist in a world where it is not seen as the worst ideology invented.
Also I know that there would be different leaders in a no Hitler world but I am just asking which OTL leaders would call themself facsist without it being discredited not asking who would rise to power without Hitler..
 
It is common to say that one major effect of Nazis not rising to power is that the ideology of facsism would not be discredited. But I was thinking, that many OTL governments had similar views the the facsists, for example some of the Arab nationalists and Ba'athists, some of the South American millitary rulers, groups like the Burmese millitary government, and mane African dictators. These groups had ideas like centralising power in one man, removing democracy to combat dangerous ideologies like communism, empowering the nation, blaming problems on foreign enemies, restoring past glory, assimilating minorites etc. So many of theses leaders could identify themself as facsist in a world where it is not seen as the worst ideology invented.
Also I know that there would be different leaders in a no Hitler world but I am just asking which OTL leaders would call themself facsist without it being discredited not asking who would rise to power without Hitler..
It would depend on a lot. A problem is that they’re likely going to look for backing from the United States or the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is unlikely to back a fascist. The United States might, if only as an impediment to the spread of communism. I imagine that it would be most popular in Latin America and around the Mediterranean. Maybe the Middle East too.
 
Bit depends how fascism would evolve and how you are defining fascism.

But my picks:

Franco and Salazar are very obvious. Perhaps Perón too.

There is some other candidates but they are too revent or even current politics so I am not going with them.
 

iddt3

Donor
The Polish and Greek government before they were occupied by the Axis were pretty much Facist.
Ehhh, Authoritarian yes, but they weren't radical reactionaries like Fascism, with its cult of action, totalitarianism, and transformation of traditional relationships in Society. Franco also is a pretty classic conservative authoritarian.

That said, more Authoritarians might have experimented with Fascism, and I can see it being legit popular with the Arab revolutionaries as a way to marry traditionalism with a rejection of colonialism, liberalism, and communism.

I think people underrate just how much a break Fascism is with the ideology of the traditional right, for all that it coopted many of its constituencies. Like with Modern Trumpism (Which is also not Fascist), it grows out of prior traditionalism, while at the same time rejecting huge numbers of its tenets and coopting some of the tools and promises of the left, in a distinctly non-universalist way.
 
Thatcher, De Gaulle (in very different ways), Rob Muldoon in New Zealand, Joh Bjelke-Peterson in Queensland - the possibilities are endless.
 
Ehhh, Authoritarian yes, but they weren't radical reactionaries like Fascism, with its cult of action, totalitarianism, and transformation of traditional relationships in Society. Franco also is a pretty classic conservative authoritarian.

That said, more Authoritarians might have experimented with Fascism, and I can see it being legit popular with the Arab revolutionaries as a way to marry traditionalism with a rejection of colonialism, liberalism, and communism.

I think people underrate just how much a break Fascism is with the ideology of the traditional right, for all that it coopted many of its constituencies. Like with Modern Trumpism (Which is also not Fascist), it grows out of prior traditionalism, while at the same time rejecting huge numbers of its tenets and coopting some of the tools and promises of the left, in a distinctly non-universalist way.
And while Fascism was never a very coherent creed, it was a model of internal consistency compared to Trumpism, which is the product of an addled mind filtered through some of the worst gutters of the internet. To go back to OP's post, in a world where "fascist" never acquires the connotations it (rightly) has in our timeline, you get some people who are "fascist" in the vaguest way possible.
 
Ehhh, Authoritarian yes, but they weren't radical reactionaries like Fascism, with its cult of action, totalitarianism, and transformation of traditional relationships in Society. Franco also is a pretty classic conservative authoritarian.

That said, more Authoritarians might have experimented with Fascism, and I can see it being legit popular with the Arab revolutionaries as a way to marry traditionalism with a rejection of colonialism, liberalism, and communism.

I think people underrate just how much a break Fascism is with the ideology of the traditional right, for all that it coopted many of its constituencies. Like with Modern Trumpism (Which is also not Fascist), it grows out of prior traditionalism, while at the same time rejecting huge numbers of its tenets and coopting some of the tools and promises of the left, in a distinctly non-universalist way.
They both copied 'the Italian model' though

OZN or OZON had all the hall marks of a fascist government

The 4th August Regime (under Metaxas) was also a Totalitarian dictatorship that had suspended the democratic processes to fight the rise of communism

So both certainly are not Fascist like the Nazis etc but could be seen as very like them

In time they might have gotten closer to the true Fascist ideals - OZN had already adopted Anti Semitic policies to improve their popularity
 

tonycat77

Banned
Fascism can be very popular for leftists, Peron in Argentina and Vargas in Brazil were clearly and openly inspired by Mussolini (our current labor laws are a almost exact copy from the Carta de Lavoro).
Vargas also killed thousands of communists and ruled with a iron fist from 1930 until 1945, but the current leftist program is to exalt him as the "father of the poor" and a direct predecessor to Lula due to his Keynesian economics, labor reform and import substitution policies.

In comparison, the similar nationalistic, dictatorship (it wasn't a totalitarian one,like vargas, two parties were allowed to run, and governor's and mayor's and senators had free elections) that ruled from 1965-1985 with "only"* ~450 victims is decried here as worse than Nazi Germany.
*In comparison with Vargas's regime.
It's all about optics.
Vargas and Peron in the end, did declare war and join the allies, to avoid being couped, also by 1945, they began to emulate another moustached dude...
vargas.jpeg
 
Thatcher, De Gaulle (in very different ways), Rob Muldoon in New Zealand, Joh Bjelke-Peterson in Queensland - the possibilities are endless.

You should have really loose definition on fascism if you can count Thatcher and De Gaulle as cfascists. They weren't even close. Hardly these others too. Yes, Thatcher had really right-wing and conservative politics but he didn't throw opponents to prison. Hardly enyone else too. Their regimes weren't even remotely authotarian and not surely totalitarian. Amazing that you didn't list Reagan too. Are yu just listing politicians whom you don't like?
 
Ehhh, Authoritarian yes, but they weren't radical reactionaries like Fascism, with its cult of action, totalitarianism, and transformation of traditional relationships in Society. Franco also is a pretty classic conservative authoritarian.

That said, more Authoritarians might have experimented with Fascism, and I can see it being legit popular with the Arab revolutionaries as a way to marry traditionalism with a rejection of colonialism, liberalism, and communism.

I think people underrate just how much a break Fascism is with the ideology of the traditional right, for all that it coopted many of its constituencies. Like with Modern Trumpism (Which is also not Fascist), it grows out of prior traditionalism, while at the same time rejecting huge numbers of its tenets and coopting some of the tools and promises of the left, in a distinctly non-universalist way.
I don't think it was. People exaggerate the break IMO. I'm not saying conservatives are fascists of course. But the roots, aren't as different as people make out. At it's core, fascism is a return to a number of things. There were three big "isms" that came out of the enlightenment; nationalism, liberalism and socialism. People talk about the right and the left, but I like to look at politics as a triangle of values. Conservatives value things like tradition. Left liberals value things like equality. Libertarians value liberty.

dbqt7la-39a3aee0-ed03-4ae9-b2af-f1910f3c1661.png
 
Last edited:
It's hard to say. You're going to need a radical revolutionary movement that, at the same time, can reconcile reactionary nationalists, corporate leaders, but at the same time be able to discredit socialists, civic libertarians, and traditional nationalists. You're not going to see it take hold in the Eastern Bloc or western Europe (and the United States), for instance.

As it stands, I think the best chances are in Latin America. You have obvious parallels such as Peron and Vargas but depending on how one adopts the label of "fascist" you can also include Pinochet in Chile. Moving from the Americas you could also see Mobutu in Zaire adopting "Fascism with Zairian characteristics" and perhaps the apartheid regimes in South Africa and Rhodesia. I doubt any pan-Arabist or Ba'athist movements in the Middle East would adopt the label. I could see it being used by Saddam, but albeit I'm not an expert in the field. Depending how countries like Iran promote the Myth and possibly structure different styles of governance it's entirely possible to see them adopt a label of "softer fascism" but I highly doubt that.
 
Guys I am talking about who would call themself facsist in an alternate world not who can be defined as facsist...
Salazar are very obvious. Perhaps Perón too.
I believe he did not call himself facsist and said he was against it (he said this before facsism was discredited.
Thatcher, De Gaulle (in very different ways), Rob Muldoon in New Zealand, Joh Bjelke-Peterson in Queensland - the possibilities are endless.
Facsism = anti democratic.
It's hard to say. You're going to need a radical revolutionary movement that, at the same time, can reconcile reactionary nationalists, corporate leaders, but at the same time be able to discredit socialists, civic libertarians, and traditional nationalists. You're not going to see it take hold in the Eastern Bloc or western Europe (and the United States), for instance.
Agreed it will mainly be in middle east, africa and south america
 
You should have really loose definition on fascism if you can count Thatcher and De Gaulle as cfascists. They weren't even close. Hardly these others too. Yes, Thatcher had really right-wing and conservative politics but he didn't throw opponents to prison. Hardly enyone else too. Their regimes weren't even remotely authotarian and not surely totalitarian. Amazing that you didn't list Reagan too. Are yu just listing politicians whom you don't like?
To be fair, these days, the most common definition of fascist is: rightwing politician I don't like.
 
To be fair, these days, the most common definition of fascist is: rightwing politician I don't like.

True that fascism is currently just insult word and it is pretty much inflated and targetted every right-wing poltiician by people wh odn't like their politics.

But OP asked who leaders would call themselves as fascists if fascism is not discredited not who could are called as fascists by their opponents.
 
Top