Capto Iugulum Background Thread

[Jehoshua]

Spain is a fertile ground for fascist like ideology.
Think about it

One nation once a great empire but now a shadow of it´s former self.
A savior rises, he offers to the worker a ,,Third way,,.
A way that is not greedy capitalism or godless proletarianism.
A way that will lead spain to greatness.

Thats a pretty simplistic analysis though which could apply to basically any "Great leader" with a message to sell, and its one which ignores the whole socio-political context of Spains history, and the world as it is broadly developing, which would inform the ideological direction the nation takes. Ergo as I mentioned before back on the main thread, if you look at it, a lot of what led to fascism OTL is absent in Capto Iugulum.

As to what I would say could happen, I see a few paths. One possibility is we will see a new turn towards conservatism in Spain, rooted in a renewed sense of national identity developed in the aftermath of the loss of Empire, this being as a consequence of the fact that it was modern ideology, and arguably a betrayal of the principles that informed Spain in its height, that anticipated spains decline. A second possibility I can see is a radical liberal/social proletarist shift as a product of a rejection of the authoritarianism of the past, (with that being given the blame for the Empires weakness). Another however would be a new authoritarian turn via radical ideology (be it traditional proletarist, or revived phoenixism) with liberalism being blamed for weakening the spanish state and thus causing the convulsions that resulted in the separatist states of Catalonia, Galicia and Euskara and the loss of Spains magnificence.

EDIT: As to what I think of Spains fall and trajectory, I think Spain initiated its fall by failing to firmly uphold a single unifying narrative and ontological criterion. Holy Spain was firmly rooted in the Catholic Faith, yet they ditched that for political convenience in a certain historical event and that left the nation without anything really to give it purpose and meaning. This resulted in a slow decline, aided by multiple wars, and allowed for radical revisionism to raise its head which compromised the integrity of Spains imperial project and eventually led to its current state. As to its trajectory, Spain really is in the process of finding an identity for itself and working out where it is going amidst a cacophany of competing visions of what Spain actually is, with the state itself remaining paralysed until one vision triumphs.

 

[Luckymoose]

You people fail to realize that Moralism is the most fascist system being developed in the NES.

 

[Jehoshua]

Moralism is not fascist, I have and am styudying fascism, so I would like to think I know fascism when I see it.

That said I suppose some of what you would call "fascist" is the product of your malevolant/benevolent (depends on ones point of view) influence influencing moralist states for your own purposes. Brazil certainly has its own interests.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Well, actually, there is one similarity between fascism and moralism that makes it so appealing to me, and why I'm loving moralism quite a bit. Moralism is strict enough to be a coherent ideology, but at the same time, it's capable of being adapted to a variety of nations and styles of governance.

 

[Jehoshua]

Well, actually, there is one similarity between fascism and moralism that makes it so appealing to me, and why I'm loving moralism quite a bit. Moralism is strict enough to be a coherent ideology, but at the same time, it's capable of being adapted to a variety of nations and styles of governance.

Thats pretty much a characteristic of every ideology though EQ and is hardly unique to fascism. Proletarism for example comes in many flavours, as does liberalism (irl) with neoliberalism, classical liberalism, social liberalism and libertarianism (an offshoot of liberalism) all being popular in different quarters. Conservatism intrinsically different in flavour in each separate country (and likewise for moralism since it adopts the same principles of organicism that are implicit or explicit in conservate political theory in general). Even communism (irl) has its stalinism and old style bolshevism compared to "communism with chinese characteristics".

 

[Luckymoose]

The issue here is, Papal Moralism and Brazilian Moralism are not very similar. The Papal branch is rather tame. There is also nothing to say Moralism is a strictly Catholic ideology, as will be shown with the new Moralist organizations popping up in Africa.

 

[Jehoshua]

The issue here is, Papal Moralism and Brazilian Moralism are not very similar. The Papal branch is rather tame. There is also nothing to say Moralism is a strictly Catholic ideology, as will be shown with the new Moralist organizations popping up in Africa.

Brazilian Moralism I think is a bit of an imprecise and innacurate term, not to mention I havent seen a clear ideological representation (apart from general trends within the brazilian moralist party) to mark a clear separation of "Imperial Moralism" lets call it, from Catholic Moralism as defined by the Pope in an effort to ensure the movement remained faithful to Catholic social teaching. Indeed all I can really say about "Imperial Moralism" is that its basically moralism co-opted to serve pre-existing imperial political objectives and to prop up imperial power and legitimacy. Although that does not necessarily make Il Papa opposed to it, so long as it does not depart from Catholic doctrine Il Papa accepts legitimate diversity.

That said, I shall have my eyes on Brazil, and be looking towards Africa with interest (and with missionaries, )

 

[Luckymoose]

Brazilian Moralism I think is a bit of an imprecise and innacurate term, not to mention I havent seen a clear ideological representation (apart from general trends within the brazilian moralist party) to mark a clear separation of "Imperial Moralism" lets call it, from Catholic Moralism as defined by the Pope in an effort to ensure the movement remained faithful to Catholic social teaching. Indeed all I can really say about "Imperial Moralism" is that its basically moralism co-opted to serve pre-existing imperial political objectives and to prop up imperial power and legitimacy. Although that does not necessarily make Il Papa opposed to it, so long as it does not depart from Catholic doctrine Il Papa accepts legitimate diversity.

That said, I shall have my eyes on Brazil, and be looking towards Africa with interest (and with missionaries, )

There is quite the difference represented between the two. Just view your own writings as compared to the tenets laid down in the Moralist Conferences, for example. It isn't just a tool to prop up Imperial power at all, though the power of the Emperor and Church are very important to the movement. Papal Moralism is far more hands-off when it comes to the state, while "Imperial" or "National" Moralism is far more concerned with using the state as a means to create a Moralist society. South American Moralism as a whole is a mixed basket of views, sharing similar tenets as agreed upon in 1925. Brazilian and Uruguayan Moralist parties are far more democratic than some other branches are.

 

[Jehoshua]

There is quite the difference represented between the two. Just view your own writings as compared to the tenets laid down in the Moralist Conferences, for example. It isn't just a tool to prop up Imperial power at all, though the power of the Emperor and Church are very important to the movement. Papal Moralism is far more hands-off when it comes to the state, while "Imperial" or "National" Moralism is far more concerned with using the state as a means to create a Moralist society. South American Moralism as a whole is a mixed basket of views, sharing similar tenets as agreed upon in 1925. Brazilian and Uruguayan Moralist parties are far more democratic than some other branches are.

"Papal Moralism", is only hands off with regards to the state when it comes to the internal management of the nation. It likes to see a flourishing of society "running itself" in a sense, rather than being run by the state through a centralised apparatus which feels the need for excessive social welfare (to the point that it replaces the personal duty of charity). It has no disagreement at all with "Brazilian moralism" however when it come to the states duty to promote virtue and the faith, and assist in the creation of a moralist or rather christian society. Indeed even the Church/State authority/relationship structure is also held in common between our supposed "two moralisms".

This all leads me to suspect that if there is no substantial difference between the two. Except perhaps that "national moralism" is possibly inclined to centralise administrative management, as compared to the Catholic social teaching of subsidiarity which would have a more decentralised administrative system. If that is not the case, then really there would be no fundamental difference at all beyond normative "customisation" for each nation based on its own traditions and culture. (such as the brazilian moralists like of democracy, whereas the Holy See more generally is wary of it as a historical vehicle for relativist thought, liberalism and social proletarism even though it acknowledges it as a legitimate system for managing political life)

 

[Luckymoose]

"Papal Moralism", is only hands off with regards to the state when it comes to the internal management of the nation. It likes to see a flourishing of society "running itself" in a sense, rather than being run by the state through a centralised apparatus which feels the need for excessive social welfare (to the point that it replaces the personal duty of charity). It has no disagreement at all with "Brazilian moralism" however when it come to the states duty to promote virtue and the faith, and assist in the creation of a moralist or rather christian society. Indeed even the Church/State authority/relationship structure is also held in common between our supposed "two moralisms".

This all leads me to suspect that if there is no substantial difference between the two. Except perhaps that "national moralism" is possibly inclined to centralise administrative management, as compared to the Catholic social teaching of subsidiarity which would have a more decentralised administrative system. If that is not the case, then really there would be no fundamental difference at all beyond normative "customisation" for each nation based on its own traditions and culture. (such as the brazilian moralists like of democracy, whereas the Holy See more generally is wary of it as a historical vehicle for relativist thought, liberalism and social proletarism even though it acknowledges it as a legitimate system for managing political life)

The Brazilian Moralists support state funded charity and socialized programs such as that. The difference being, in a democratic society, the people willingly commit this funding for the greater good. Thus, Brazilian Moralists push for healthcare in more than one way, both through socialized medicine and temperance movements, with a strong emphasis on fitness. But that is just one area where they differ.

The whole Liberation Theology aspect is far more important that the welfare bits, though, and it applies to the entire world, not just Catholics.

 

[karikon]

Brazilian Moralists sounds like social proletarist wearing a catholic costume.

 

[Luckymoose]

Brazilian Moralists sounds like social proletarist wearing a catholic costume.

You're absolutely wrong. Moralism does not share the same economic model or revolutionary tendencies of proletarism.

 

[Crezth]

To bring the discussion here as per EQ's insinuation. I would reply to this by firstly (with regards to your statement regarding the utility of your definition) state that utility is not the definition of whether something is good. It could well allow for easy location of fascistic ideologies, but it is not so good in defining what fascism itself, at its core, really is.

It describes who the fascists were and what they believed. I think that's pretty good. When you go outside of that basic level is when you start to experience other, alternatingly esoteric quasi-fascist movements like Nazism.

Nazism on the other hand I would argue is clearly fascist (if we use fascism as a general term for the family of ideological movements we are describing) at its root core as a movement, although it of course as a uniqe phenomenon was rather discombobulated as an ideology with many contradictions (such as being agrarianist, but promoting industrialisation and militarisation as the route to obtaining the nice agrarian eastern european lands for the health of the volk that this agrarian dogma required) and hypocrisies (which you've mentioned) which one can partly attribute to the rivalries within the nazi party, hitlers own personal thought processes, and indeed even pure pragmatism (nazism came to power in coalition with old prussian conservatives/militarists and required their support for quite a while, not to mention they had common cause against the bolsheviks whom the nazi's saw as "the great adversary" which made marginalising the capitalist class politically suboptimal for their purposes)

I can't quite parse what you're saying here but I think I see what you're trying to get at. Nazism was not fascism (asserting here that fascism is not really appropriately used as a blanket term for all ideological early 20th century autocratic reactionary movements): it was Volkisch nationalism, first and foremost, and it is a tragedy of history that it succeeded in convincing Mussolini and the world that it was fascism too.

If you really want an excellent treatment of this subject I advise you go pester the user called Dachs, as his grasp of the specifics is much firmer than my own.

 

[karikon]

I said Social Proletarist not Traditional Proletarist. Social Proletarist are unlike Traditional Proletarist not revolutionary. In Vinland the polices you are promoting would be called Social Proletarist polices but in Brazila it is called Brazilian Moralists police.

The fact you are promoting rebellions to liberate the oppressed people of the world is just added bones.

 

[Luckymoose]

I said Social Proletarist not Traditional Proletarist. Social Proletarist are unlike Traditional Proletarist not revolutionary. In Vinland the polices you are promoting would be called Social Proletarist polices but in Brazila it is called Brazilian Moralists police.

The fact you are promoting rebellions to liberate the oppressed people of the world is just added bones.

You aren't following what I'm saying at all, are you?

 

[karikon]

who knows, half of the time I don´t even follow what I am saying.

 

[J.K. Stockholme]

Thats pretty much a characteristic of every ideology though EQ and is hardly unique to fascism. Proletarism for example comes in many flavours, as does liberalism (irl) with neoliberalism, classical liberalism, social liberalism and libertarianism (an offshoot of liberalism) all being popular in different quarters. Conservatism intrinsically different in flavour in each separate country (and likewise for moralism since it adopts the same principles of organicism that are implicit or explicit in conservate political theory in general). Even communism (irl) has its stalinism and old style bolshevism compared to "communism with chinese characteristics".

Liberalism is pretty massively incoherent as a single ideology based on the subdivisions you provided. Economic (classical) liberalism and social liberalism are irreconcilably different. Your correct that any ideology can manifest into regional variations, but for it to also have universally accepted precepts among those variations (which most of your examples lacked) is what EQ is suggesting Moralism has in CI. I wouldn't know if it were true, but I believe that's what EQ meant.

I think it should also be noted that much of the appeal of fascist ideologies in Europe (I'll shove Nazism in there too, despite Czerth's protests, as it maintains this characteristic) was a sense of strong, pragmatic leaders, who would not be bothered with intellectualism, and the liberal or regular conservative traditions, which were seen as a hindrance to expressions of nationalism, or in the case of Germany, seen as the outright reason for national decay, with their Weimer Republic.

What interests me is whether we will experience the economic hardship of the Great Depression, or some surrogate, which could easily catalyze the numerous autocratic-leaning beliefs which are within many of the ideologies floating around in CI.

 

[Lord of Elves]

While it is true that "classical" economic liberalism and social liberalism are very, very different (for example, the contemporary Republican Party is very, very economically liberal in the traditional sense but hardly socially liberal), that doesn't mean we can't discuss liberalism in a highly general sense as a political movement in favor of the loosening of governmental, social or economic rules.

And again, Scandinavian proletarism =/= Stalinism inasmuch as Stalinism ever was a movement (it wasn't), Scandinavian proletarism only superficially adheres to its characteristics. We barely have a cult of personality, and the authority and power of the Revolutionary States doesn't emanate from Mannerheim but from the consensus of the military and political elite/pro-Revolution general public.

Arguably Scandinavian proletarism is the closest thing CI has to fascism

 

[TheLizardKing]

Mannerheim = Stalin Ataturk.

 

[Jehoshua]

The whole Liberation Theology aspect is far more important that the welfare bits, though, and it applies to the entire world, not just Catholics.

I should hope not considering liberation theology contains much that is erroneous and is itself a heresy. The welfare bit of "National Moralism" would not be enough to make Il Papa irritated, afterall its not a matter of dogma even if it is opposed to the Church's social teachings. But if liberation theology (closet proletarism) began to be insinuated in the movement ...

-

Now just to make it clear with regards to liberation theology, some aspects of the thing are praiseworthy such its ideal of justice, its rejection of violence, and its stress on the responsibility of christians in charity towards the poor and oppressed. But its framing of religion in political terms, its idea that ones economic status grants one priveleged access to grace, and its particular ecclessiology of the Church are all problematic.

The first two result in a kind of justification for proletarism, by establishing a tacit association of "the poor" with the proletariat in the context of class struggle. With this being in opposition to the Catholic teaching of a single "society of christians" united within the Church and working together in the interests of the common good of all. (the idea that ones economic position determines whether one has priveleged access to grace is also theologically problematic in that it makes the "church of the poor" the ecclessial setting of Christology, not the apostolic faith)

As to the third problem, its heretical ecclessiology. In liberation theology the spiritual concept of the Church as "People of God" is transformed into a "Marxist myth" (or we could say proletarist myth in CI) type construct. The people, as such, become the antithesis of the hierarchy, which becomes an oppressive power. Ultimately in liberation theology anyone who participates in the class struggle of "the poor" against everyone else is a member of the "people", with the "Church of the people" becoming an antagonist of the hierarchical Church in opposition to the magisterium and legitimate authority. This is contrary to Divine and Catholic faith.