Its no longer visible to the public, but the Something Awful forums had a Spanish Civil War game where a Futurist faction won.
The main problem I see with an American fascism is the American reverence for the various 18th century documents and 18th century men responsible for the creation of the US. Was there a period in history when Americans would be willing to accept the idea that going against the Constitution and the Founding Fathers didn't make you un-American?I think maybe if you have fascism develop originally in another country, probably in the Americas (with less history and could define religion as an ally of their colonial masters), or a modernised Asian country where religion is markedly different, it could set the tone that "we must shed liberal democracy and the old elites completely". If you were to do a tl it would probably need a lot of butterflies or an early POD, maybe 19th century to pull off.
Well, Catholicism was very much a part of Italian culture, as well. If Il Duce can get away with being anti-clerical, shouldn't other fascist leaders also be able to at least not make a big deal out of religion?Fascism 'catholicness' is also disputable, the Italian and Germans being hardly that. Same for Lithuania and Hungary. Fascism drew upon national sentiment and traditions, it wasn't inherently pro or contra religion - it used religion depending on the religions cultural importance. So it was strong in Spain and Slovakia for example, due to catholicism being an important part of Slovak and Spanish culture - but not because of the ideologies pressure on emphasising religion.
The Nazis were a very special kind of bird, and as said I am not counting them as fascists for the purposes of this thread. In any case, the Nazis and their science were horribly crippled by their bizarre race theories. I don't think Nazism can become pro-science (other than rhetorically, of course) without changing the very core of Nazism.While a lot of Nazi agrarians might oppose it, the entire 'Aryan man conquers nature through Science!' was actually quite popular, scienc being used to prove some Nazi ideas (smking is bad, industry destroys enviroment). So keeping fascism going would likely make some sciences stagnate, but others would thrive as they would be necessary to satisfy fascist megalomania.
I guess that's one of the primary problems with fascism. Liberal states tend to like liberal states, communist states tend to like communist states (well, in theory, anyway), but two ultra-nationalist states, especially if they share a border, are likely to hate each other in the absence of a bigger threat. It's hard to form transnational solidarity based on the idea that your own nation is the best.Awkwardly, the best way to end that 'autarky for every state' concept would be to introduce more racism to fascism, creatin a 'white nationalism sentiment', according to which 'autarky' was to be achieved not within a nation-state, but within a race, and countries of that race being the ones to trade freely with. Bad, but a way out.
Interesting idea, although the problem of keeping the, you know, empire of course remains. As for the United Europe thing, it's hard to miss the hilarity of an alternate Britain being the champion of any kind of European Union.I think a British Fascism would be the most obsessed with science, they had this obsession with air power they got from HG Wells authoritarian globalism. The British Empire, combined with Mosley's keenness on a United Europe, was also large enough to make autarky at least conceivable without a need for further wars of expansion.
Isn't the idea of fascism being right-wing largely based on the fact that it allied with reactionary forces and opposed left-wing ideologies? If it opposed both conservative groups and left-wing groups, offering a more "progressive" vision of the future, I don't think it would be seen as right-wing, except from socialists of course (conservatives would probably see them as left-wing, because all ideas you don't like always belong on the other end of the political spectrum). If we're going to talk about what they "really" were, we can simply conclude that no fascist party was ever elected to the 18th century French National Assembly.Fascism is far right, buddy. Statism=/=left.
When you make the whole equation, specially the social and all side, it's VERY to right.
Well, Catholicism was very much a part of Italian culture, as well. If Il Duce can get away with being anti-clerical, shouldn't other fascist leaders also be able to at least not make a big deal out of religion?
A question for those who are more knowledgeable in American history than I am: Which progressive politican would make the best science-Mussolini?