28 days ago4 points(+0/-0/+4Score on mirror)1 child
I have come to realize that one of the few things they got wrong was not being aggressive enough. The only particularly ideologically aggressive nation was italy with the proletarian nation theory (look it up. Interesting concept).
If a state such as this ever arises again, it should aggressively expand its interests. Applying the marxist theory of permanent revolution to fascism, if you will. Aggressively expand your ideological base by supporting people favorable to you and overthrowing ones that aren't. Imagine how the outcome of everything could have been different if Germany had been openly antagonistic and funneled weapons and money to all of the fascist movements around Europe (besides Spain, which was supported for more by the italians anyways), like mosley in England, or the French popular party.
Germany had the funds and weapons to do this, but actively chose not to because they believed that western Europe deserved to chart their own course. How naively optimistic of them. The italians did not have the funds or weapons to do this, but tried to pursue it as much as they could. What a disadvantage we had.
It's a solid doctrine. Aggressive ideological expansionism is the reason that neoliberalism is the dominant theory in the world today. The abandonment of "permanent revolution" is also one of the reasons that the ussr ended up losing (one of the very few things trotsky was *ever* correct about, although he was still incorrect in his disregard for national affairs. A middle ground between permanent revolution and nationalism is ideal). The ussr after ww2 was actually not very aggressive at all. They didn't prop up many agitators and just kind of sat around waiting for other countries to turn socialist. The US was much more aggrssively defensive over their hegemony. China had a much more aggressive foreign policy than the ussr did, actually. China has always been ruthless, even though the military intervention came to a halt after Mao and Deng.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
Yes. The Nazis and a lot of traditional right wing at the time completely underestimated their opponents. They acted weak and honorable when they should have absolutely destroyed them with no mercy. Optics have always been a problem for the right. The left accuses the right of exactly what the right ought to be and then the right gets scared of being what the left said they were. The left is clever in this way. Hitler should have pulverized Britain to a pulp.
It's one thing that I think the italians had over the germans in doctrine. Mussolini actively wanted to export his movement, he was "globalist" without subscribing to "globalism", in a sense. While hitler just wanted to be left alone and fight the ussr to be able to be left alone, mussolini viewed the world (correctly) as inherently hostile to his ideology and wanted to build an alliance with friendly states and spread fascism to all "plutocracies", as he would put it, to ensure the survival of italy specifically and fascism as a doctrine generally. There were some people in the NSDAP who also followed that belief though. One of the strassers (I don't remember which one) also followed that idea, but hitler considered it to be political nonsense when he was broached about the subject. Hitler was wrong about this.
This was one of the major underpinnings behind italys territorial expansion. It wasnt just a desire to recreate the roman empire, it was an active attempt to export the revolution in the same manner that the USSR did by invading its periphery until ww2 ended. Mussolini held to the doctrine that ww2 was in fact a great big fascist revolution, more or less.
This is also the reason that italy invaded Greece. Nobody understand why italy invaded Greece, even though Greece was to italy what finland was to the ussr. People use the lackluster performance in greece as evidence of there being no justification for the war. This is wrong. Italy viewed Greece as a British puppet because it was(the UK installed the king of Greece a few years before the Italian invasion) and Greece was making backdoor deals in violation of its treaty with italy. And, of course, it was an attempt to spread fascism. Metaxis was not a fascist.
>This gigantic struggle is nothing other than a phase in the logical development of our revolution; it is the struggle of peoples that are poor but rich in workers against the exploiters
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
If a state such as this ever arises again, it should aggressively expand its interests. Applying the marxist theory of permanent revolution to fascism, if you will. Aggressively expand your ideological base by supporting people favorable to you and overthrowing ones that aren't. Imagine how the outcome of everything could have been different if Germany had been openly antagonistic and funneled weapons and money to all of the fascist movements around Europe (besides Spain, which was supported for more by the italians anyways), like mosley in England, or the French popular party.
Germany had the funds and weapons to do this, but actively chose not to because they believed that western Europe deserved to chart their own course. How naively optimistic of them. The italians did not have the funds or weapons to do this, but tried to pursue it as much as they could. What a disadvantage we had.
It's a solid doctrine. Aggressive ideological expansionism is the reason that neoliberalism is the dominant theory in the world today. The abandonment of "permanent revolution" is also one of the reasons that the ussr ended up losing (one of the very few things trotsky was *ever* correct about, although he was still incorrect in his disregard for national affairs. A middle ground between permanent revolution and nationalism is ideal). The ussr after ww2 was actually not very aggressive at all. They didn't prop up many agitators and just kind of sat around waiting for other countries to turn socialist. The US was much more aggrssively defensive over their hegemony. China had a much more aggressive foreign policy than the ussr did, actually. China has always been ruthless, even though the military intervention came to a halt after Mao and Deng.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
This was one of the major underpinnings behind italys territorial expansion. It wasnt just a desire to recreate the roman empire, it was an active attempt to export the revolution in the same manner that the USSR did by invading its periphery until ww2 ended. Mussolini held to the doctrine that ww2 was in fact a great big fascist revolution, more or less.
This is also the reason that italy invaded Greece. Nobody understand why italy invaded Greece, even though Greece was to italy what finland was to the ussr. People use the lackluster performance in greece as evidence of there being no justification for the war. This is wrong. Italy viewed Greece as a British puppet because it was(the UK installed the king of Greece a few years before the Italian invasion) and Greece was making backdoor deals in violation of its treaty with italy. And, of course, it was an attempt to spread fascism. Metaxis was not a fascist.
>This gigantic struggle is nothing other than a phase in the logical development of our revolution; it is the struggle of peoples that are poor but rich in workers against the exploiters
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed