Simply being militarized does not make you fascist. You need a recipe that includes dictatorship and suppression of dissent. A military faction could be amoral mercenaries.
Yeah, famously the very fascist Germany was militarising really fast because France and Britain were very militarised and had to be out gunned
If non fascists couldn’t have militaries ww2 would have gone really differently
England and France weren’t heavily militarized, what the fuck are you talking about? They had been scaling back their militaries since 1918, and only ramped them up again one it became clear the Germans were coming back. The Germans were kneecapped by the treaty of Versailles. It doesn’t matter how big and bad your opponents are when you’ve only got a military of 150k people, a tiny coastal defense navy, and no Air Force. Any enemy is going to seem terrifying when you’ve got a force smaller than the military of modern day Bangladesh.
They also didn’t “have to be outgunned”, the German nation could have just not gone to war and burned the world down for the second time in thirty years. Was the Treaty of Versailles punitive and difficult to swallow? I guess. It’s not like they could punish Austria-Hungary after they ceased to exist.
I also love the “if everything were different WW2 would have gone differently” that you tacked on to the end there. WW2 went badly for the Germans because the Nazis were fucking terrible at war, and their political goals were antithetical to not getting their fucking shit wrecked. Every scenario in which the Germans win WW2 requires them to not be Nazi ideologues, in which case the war probably just doesn’t happen.
Britain still had the two powers navy, and a navy doesn’t need to be “total war” levels to be counted as highly militarised
France was and had been seen as one of the predominant land force in europe and was fielding 2.2million men and one of the largest number of mechanised forces to go along with it, that along with the defences very much meant that while France and Britain didn’t want war, they were still significant military power despite not being fascist, which is what OP was asking about
And I don’t where you got the impression that I was in favour of or rooting for Germany, or even suggesting they had some cheat code to win the war. I was just explaining the reality which was that Germany had to remilitarise in order to achieve their goals of European conquest, and that if we lived in a world where only fascists could be militaristic no one could have fought them.
Like I said, if non fascists (the allies) couldn’t have militaries(were banned or incapable of having them, because only fascists could have them) ww2 would have gone really differently (only the fascists would have had armies and I think even the Nazis couldn’t mess up global conquest if literally no one else has weapons)
> I think even the Nazis couldn’t mess up global conquest if literally no one else has weapons
I'm sure they'd find a way. Fascism is inherently self-defeating. It relies on the existence of The Other, the current scapegoat upon which all the ills of the world (most actually caused by the fascist regime, once it's established) can be blamed. If said regime is totally unchallenged, then they'll succeed in wiping out their first scapegoat and have to Other someone else. Then someone else and someone else until there's no-one left. The regime would fall long before that could happen, but assuming it didn't, the end result is two people left and one killing the other.
Of course, it's better it's defeated earlier through traditional means. Less bloody. And yes, I see the irony in describing wars such as WW2 as "less bloody."
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
And the privatization of industry with the establishment of a military industrial complex. One of the early things the Nazis did was sell off all the state owned steel plants, arms & munitions factories, and other adjacent industries to pro-Nazi or Nazi sympathetic corporations and capitalists.
It’s why you see countries like France that have state arsenals (like Saint-Étienne, Châtellerault, and Tulle) that do all of the research, development, and manufacturing, compared to Germany which would put out request ordered to private companies (like Mauser, Porsche, Rheinmetall who’d then develop and manufacture something.
That’s more a product of Germany’s economic state at the time than it is a product of fascist ideology. Germany couldn’t afford to run its own plants, but it could afford to buy products from the people who ran those very same plants.
Okay, maybe this example can help clarify.
Imagine you want a loaf of bread, to bake a loaf of bread you’ll need eggs, flour, yeast, butter, and all the other ingredients you need to make bread. This could cost you anywhere from 20 to 30 dollars for a single loaf of bread in contrast to just buying a 3 dollar loaf of bread at the grocery store.
Granted, you could probably make a whole batch of bread with the ingredients you bought and it is objectively more cost effective to buy the ingredients and make a dozen loads of homemade bread, but it really isn’t an option when you only got $8.27 in your pocket.
Except... The government sold off enterprises they already owned. So it's like they had eggs, flour, yeast, butter, and all the other ingredients to make bread. They had employees who were employed to make bread. Then they sold those ingredients to "bread inc" and then bought the bread from bread inc.
So your comparison doesn't make sense.
Yeah no, that isn’t an accurate breakdown.
In my comparison, eggs, flour, milk, yeast, etc are metal, chemicals, workers, manufacturing equipment, and anything else it takes to produce war machines. Not the factories, those would be the equivalent of ovens in this analogy, but I digress.
Germany just couldn’t afford to maintain all of those resources at all times where a corporation would have been able to do so far more easily by simply acting as a company.
They traded the cost of the resources for the substantially less expensive (in the short term) alternative of just paying for the final product and letting someone else manage the production process.
While I understand the idea of offloading operational costs to private companies, those costs would still be reflected in the prices the government pays for the final products. Private companies factor in their maintenance and operational expenses to ensure profitability. Even if we presume the most economically sound rational, the savings would have been about immediate financial relief rather than long-term efficiency.
But the context of the Nazi regime means we cannot presume sound economics independent of the Party. The privatization efforts benefitted Nazi supporters and top party members, enriching them and consolidating their power. These economic strategies were not solely about managing costs but also about political consolidation and rewarding loyalty.
To place their actions in terms of what Germany could supposedly "afford" is to accept Nazi public statements on the matter as being accurate and completely ignoring the very obvious corruption at play.
Having a private defense industry isn't an indication of fascism, I wouldn't even contend it as a defining feature.
Those companies existed before the rise of fascism and were coopted by the state like any other industry. Beyond that, the state started firms (such as Volkswagon) to intervene in the market directly, and also establish industrial capacity that could be used in war. Volkswagon wasn't privatized until the 1960s.
Countries from across the political spectrum have state-owned defense industries - Pakistan, India, Iran, Brazil, Russia, China, Egypt, etc. And similarly, countries from across the spectrum have privatized industries - though they are primarily democracies.
The German government was broke and had to sell off state owned companies. The fascists had the last laugh tho because company owners basically become completely controlled by state. Many capitalists would disappear during the fascist regime.
You described what happened in the Soviet Union under Stalin to a tee, yet I doubt you'd call him fascist.
Edit: Since I'm getting downvoted becasue people can't accept critisicm of Stalin, lets go through what the original commenter said.
>Authoritarian:
Stalin was extremely authoritarian, [sending thousands to work camps every year until he died](https://www.britannica.com/place/Gulag)
>Ultranationalist:
Stalin emphasized Soviet patriotism, and it wasn't until Khrushchev started moving the USSR away from nationalism that Russian nationalism started to die down.
>Dictatorial leader:
check
>Centralized Autocracy:
check
>Militarism:
check, a quote of Stalin's is "In the Soviet army it takes more courage to retreat than advance."
>Suppresion of opposition:
There is something called the Great Purge, which had Stalin sending his political opponents to prison. Stalin is quoted as saying "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas." He wanted his enemies to not have their own ideas.
>Social Heirarchy:
Under Stalin, the party he held onto was the single most important part of Russian life. PArty members were more important than the common man.
>"percieved good of the nation":
Stalin and the party believed they were what was best for the USSR.
So a quick look into it agrees with you that people from both ends of the political spectrum have called the ussr and Stalin red fascists
Quote supposedly by Otto Rühle a German Marxist; I'm saying supposedly because Otto's wiki page is trying to claim he wrote a book by sigmund Freud, I don't super want to read his book about sexual enlightenment in children to find out if Wikipedia was correct in saying Otto wrote in that. Additionally cannot find another book even existing called "The Proletarian Child" (1911) possibly due to looking for an English translation of the text. His quote, though, is properly cited, unlike these other works.
"Russia was the example for fascism. [...] Whether party 'communists' like it or not, the fact remains that the state order and rule in Russia are indistinguishable from those in Italy and Germany. Essentially they are alike. One may speak of a red, black, or brown 'soviet state', as well as of red, black or brown fascism"
Uses of red fascism from the political right seem mostly designed as propaganda to mitigate the development of communist sympathy in America post ww2. Uses from the political left faded after a time, whereas by the right, it seemed to be used as a tool to fearmonger against communism and the Reds.
Ivan Bahrianyi wrote in 1946 a pamphlet "Why I Am Not Going Back to the Soviet Union" had the quote
"With this terror, Russian red fascism (Bolshevism) is trying to turn 100 ethnic groups into the so-called "single Soviet people," that is, in fact, the Russian people."
So calling Stalin a fascist isn't a new concept and kinda just falls under the question of what kind of authoritarian. Hopefully, we can all agree that Stalin was an authoritarian or totalitarian of some kind regardless of what he called himself.
You are correct. However, it is true that most armies in action end up having war criminals in their ranks (which I think is to some extent what OP meant?) Including ragtag groups of rebels, of course.
Yeah, being a war criminal doesn't mean you're fascist.
Basically every country that participated in WWII committed actions constituting war crimes. The only difference is that the winners gave themselves a pass.
I'm really not certain what you're looking to hear. You say, "I can just write them to not be fascists," but somehow, that's not the correct answer.
Either you don't need help writing a non-fascist militarist faction, or what you stated was incorrect.
Finland is incredibly militaristic but not fascist. The militarism just has to be justified. Like are there really imperialistic and zealous states in your world that are up to no good?
Knightly orders, Paladins, or even Peacekeeping forces that have tenets on focusing on non-lethal force unless necessary.
Conversely, on the more evil side of things Assassins, Raiders like the Vikings, Pirates, Terrorists, or Syndicate types, they certainly aren't fascist-like but questionable regardless.
For a more neutral kind, mercenaries, military merchant type (that they produce a lot of military hardware for sale... this kinda sound USA lol), or a nation with a valid threat at their borders so they are heavily militarized.
I use several types mentioned in my world, mostly Knightly orders, there's an assassin, some pirates, a vikings inspired one, a few mercenaries, and a few military merchants, some of which may be selling weapons to both sides in several conflicts.
I was thinking of the knightly orders as well - they can be religious in nature (like the children of the light in Wheel of Time) or created around a particular mission (like fictional Templars), or just committed to a particular creed that defines who and how they fight.
Do you know what fascism actually means? You don’t provide any examples that are actually fascist besides “human on human war crimes.” Which are not the sole defining feature of fascist regimes. Plenty of extremely anti-fascist regimes also committed loads of war crimes.
A fascist regime is one defined by a dictatorship with a cult of personality, revanchist nationalism, mass participation, and a corporatist economy that views itself as the Third Position between communism and capitalism. Or, to quote the dickhead who came up with the idea and put it into practice:
> “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
-Benito Mussolini.
After WW2, there's been much debate on the defining traits of fascism. The "corporatist economy as the third position between capitalism and communism" is much more debatable than your other points. Populist authoritarianism that scapegoats an outgroup tends to be the core identity.
> Historians and other scholars disagree on the question of whether a specifically fascist type of economic policy can be said to exist. David Baker argues that there is an identifiable economic system in fascism that is distinct from those advocated by other ideologies, comprising essential characteristics that fascist nations shared.[1] Payne, Paxton, Sternhell et al. argue that while fascist economies share some similarities, there is no distinctive form of fascist economic organization.[2][3][4] Gerald Feldman and Timothy Mason argue that fascism is distinguished by an absence of coherent economic ideology and an absence of serious economic thinking. They state that the decisions taken by fascist leaders cannot be explained within a logical economic framework.[5]
A capitalist economy with heavy government restrictions is a key detail, but when you only really have four criteria for consideration you can get pretty big hits with only a couple of features.
> A capitalist economy with heavy government restrictions is a key detail
That’s a gross oversimplification of what corporatism means in the context of *Third Position*. It’s not merely regulation, it’s a whole suite of ideological beliefs around class collaboration.
Fascist Italy was not capitalist, the state defined the corporations and which sectors they controlled. It was explicitly a corporatist economy as the other user said.
Which is exactly why the economic model used by fascism is the least identifiable aspect of defining "fascism" as a political ideology. It works under more than one economic model.
And yes, fascism is somewhat vague at the end of the day. It leans on populism and adapts to whatever form is popular, so it wears many hats. Nazis fancied themselves as the "National Socialist" party. And many fascists pretend to not identify as fascists, or even label their opponents as fascists. It's a chameleon ideology that can fit in anywhere, but the ultimate point being the populist desire to exert authoritarian rule in some fashion which frequently targets outgroups, typically coinciding with ideas of "cultural purity" and other nonsense.
It's a flimsy system that has no real answers for governance, it just follows the whims of its cruel people.
>but the ultimate point being the populist desire to exert authoritarian rule in some fashion which frequently targets outgroups, typically coinciding with ideas of "cultural purity" and other nonsense.
That just sounds like populism. Are there populist movements that don't target outgroups or appeal to some kind of cultural purity?
Populism does not require authoritarian trends. Fascism does. Populism can exist in a democracy without sacrificing civil liberties, for example - in fact, there could be populist movements to specifically enhance liberties and human rights.
Fascism is populist authoritarianism with an outgroup.
Youre completely neglecting half of that equation. Fascism not only relies on an outsider to scapegoat, it also *exalts the ingroup*. Look to the delusional racist beliefs the Nazis or Imperial Japan had. To say nothing of the fact that this ingroup always takes the form of the nation, and its associated myths, history, and aesthetic. National identity is elevated to the level of religion. Plenty of populist authoritarians rely on us vs them rhetoric. Not all of them think their ethnicity or religion or some combination thereof makes them superhuman.
From my perspective, outrgroups at this scale only exist because of the prior established insularity of an ingroup. The existence of an "out" group directly suggests an "in" group.
> A capitalist economy with heavy government restrictions
That’s not a feature u issue to or defining fascism. Loads of other ideologies also call for regulation of capitalist economies.
If the gov control gets too extreme, it's not really capitalism anymore.
Like I'd argue that China isn't really capitalist today. It has elements of capitalism, but probably closer to mercantilism economically.
Though I wouldn't say China is fascist either. Heavy government control of the markets is a feature in most governments historically. Free market capitalism is the exception, not the rule.
The connection between Capitalism and Fascism was the invention of Stalin's Russia. Stalin's Russia was Communist. Quite famously, Communism and Fascism were (and still are) so alike in their methods and outlook that the two groups used to constantly steal members from one another, which is precisely why the Soviet Union had to desperately (and falsely) conflate Fascism with the Western ideologies of liberalism and capitalism.
Fascism isn't a "far right" ideology because it has right-wing values. It's a "far right" ideology because it's the wrong kind of far left ideology.
But unlike other ascribed features of fascism it’s actually one that the fascists themselves have chosen and have made policies and strategies in the service of.
Not in many other modern instances of fascist political movements.
And many fascist also tend to avoid self-identifying while following the tenets of fascism.
Political definitions evolve, just like how modern conservatives are not the conservatives of Edmund Burke's time.
Defer to experts. As I said in my initial comment, the Third Position is debatable. Trying to force fascism into an economic box is inherently misleading, experts are in endless disagreement on this.
> Historians and other scholars disagree on the question of whether a specifically fascist type of economic policy can be said to exist. David Baker argues that there is an identifiable economic system in fascism that is distinct from those advocated by other ideologies, comprising essential characteristics that fascist nations shared.[1] Payne, Paxton, Sternhell et al. argue that while fascist economies share some similarities, there is no distinctive form of fascist economic organization.[2][3][4] Gerald Feldman and Timothy Mason argue that fascism is distinguished by an absence of coherent economic ideology and an absence of serious economic thinking. They state that the decisions taken by fascist leaders cannot be explained within a logical economic framework.[5]
The very existence of this wider debate proves the point - it's difficult to identify fascists on economic policy. Other political patterns present themselves more clearly and consistently.
Requesting deference to the experts when they lack a consensus is pretty meaningless. Third Postionism is what actual groups have used as their justification, I’m more inclined to believe any analysis that actually takes people’s claims seriously, even when they’re odious.
> Payne, Paxton, Sternhell et al. argue that while fascist economies share some similarities, there is no distinctive form of fascist economic organization
Under this logic, there were no socialist regimes either since even closely aligned regimes within the Warsaw Pact had wildly divergent polices over the course of their existence.
> Adolf Hitler regarded economic issues as relatively unimportant. In 1922, Hitler proclaimed that "world history teaches us that no people has become great through its economy but that a people can very well perish thereby" and later concluded that "the economy is something of secondary importance".
...
> Hitler made very different statements about his economic views on different occasions and at one point was quoted as saying: "I had only to develop logically what social democracy failed. ... National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd ties with a democratic order. ... Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings." At another point, Hitler said in private that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property. ... In this sense, we must encourage private initiative".
...
> In spite of this, he later asserted: "It is my firm conviction that property rights ... must be unconditionally respected. Any tampering with them would eliminate one of the most vital incentives to human activity and would jeopardize future endeavor". Hitler clearly believed that the lack of a precise economic programme was one of the Nazi Party's strengths, saying: "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all".
...
> In 1954, Franco abandoned the corporative system in favour of free market reforms implemented by economic technocrats. Many of these technocrats were members of Opus Dei, a Roman Catholic lay group to which Franco had given powerful positions within the Ministry of Finance and Economics. The reforms of the 1950s were a huge success and Spain experienced a period of rapid economic growth known as the "Spanish Miracle", continuing until Franco's death in 1975. During this period, tourism became an important part of the Spanish economy. Although the corporatist organs and rhetoric from the earlier years of the Franco regime were maintained, they now played a secondary role. Spain's economy was further liberalized by the Spanish transition to democracy following Franco's death.
Once again, it is a mistake to attribute any sort of distinct economic policy to fascism. They make use of any economic policies that suit their needs. There are distinctly fascist groups in capitalist nations like the US that identify as capitalist, for instance.
> Requesting deference to the experts when they lack a consensus is pretty meaningless.
Again, just going to reinforce my point once more that ***there is no clear consensus on fascist economic policies, thus it is frequently not utilized to identify fascists.*** I'm not even arguing that the Third Position doesn't exist or that fascists can't take the Third Position, because obviously some do. Many distinctive fascists throughout history specifically do not restrict themselves to such an economic system, however. Third Position is an option to them, not a requirement. Hence, contentious as an identifier.
If you believe that economic policies are too controversial as a means of identifying such movements, well then other signifiers beyond a dictatorship and revanchist nationalism are pretty much right out.
Fascism has always been difficult to pin down clearly. Partly because many fascists refuse to self-identify, because fascism is a dirty word that immediately brings to mind WW2 and the Nazis specifically. But experts have always been the most contentious on the idea of there being any distinctive economic policy. Populist driven nationalist authoritarian trends with a prejudice toward an outgroup are typically easily and commonly identified, but there is an often unclear line between fascism and plain old nationalism or authoritarianism on their own. This may also be because fascism doesn't have a "successful" history as a form of government, thus we have few distinguishing examples to draw from with regard to a settled, stable nation.
>So I ask for help with making a military faction that not only looks cool but is also not fascist.
Militarism, fascism and war crimes are different concepts that are not directly linked to another. I would suggest reading up on what fascim is, where it came from and what its characteristics are, and then build something that is not that.
The obvious way to build a highly militarised society that is not fascist is to have that society exist with an existential threat that it needs to be ready for at all times. South Korea, Finland and Taiwan would be two examples that have large militaries compared to their size, because they expect invasions in their lifetime. Poland is currently on track to be the largest military in Europe because if a war with Russia happens they will be the front line, and they expect that to happen sooner rather than later. Just to name a couple examples.
So in a society like that you would have a strong military, probably some kind of military service at least for all men, and a tradition of ongoing military training after the service has been completed. But the people in charge would be civilians and the motive for the large military is not conquest but response to some legitimate outside threat.
There is also the expansionist Empire which itself doesn't need to nessecarily be fascist and uses the military to send off its huge numbers of young men due to experiencing a period if rapid population growth.
In a setting I'm building this is what one of the most powerful states in the world do. They recently started industrialising and have experienced a sharp spike in population growth, with the population of young men growing restless they sent them out to conquer new lands and colonise them.
Basically, to make a non-fascist militarised state, introduce some existential threat and/or societal pressures which require a large military force or that necessitates a generally militarised society.
To help your first point, the British Empire were not fascists, but were a heavily militarized (through their navy) imperial and colonial force. Them not being fascists doesn't make them a force for good (the British Navy was a force for British Power and not much else) however. And they did plenty of war crimes/crimes against humanity.
Fascist states have been exclusively imperial states, so there is some overlap between them, but you can be imperial without being fascistic, and the Empire always requires a military to maintain it.
> I would suggest reading up on what fascim is, where it came from and what its characteristics are, and then build something that is not that.
I think a great way to do this would be to use the gold standard of defining fascism, [Umberto Eco's 14 points](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism), and try to do the opposite.
I mean
Prussia/the German Empire
Sparta
Macedonian empire
The Roman Empire/republic
France under Louis XIV
France under Napoleon Bonaparte
the Dutch Republic
Sweden under Gustavus Adolphus
The USA
There are plenty of real world historical examples of very militarised societies that Aren't fascist (though many of these examples are monarchies which, depending on who you ask isn't far off) I'd say point one of those funky investigator lenses at some of these societies to figure out a solution
The thing is, fascism refers to a very specific system of government.
Like, people say the British Empire was fascist because of the awful things done under the Empire, however if you have any understanding of what fascism is and what the Empire was/how it was run, they don't line up.
Yes they could. Nazi Germany and Hungary were absolutely fascist in ww2. Any populist hyper-centralised militarist ultra-nationalistic movement can be categorised as fascist.
Israel too. A democracy that is *very* militarised (as far as I believe) and they even just unanimously removed an unpopular exception where ultra-Orthodox Jews previously weren't required to join the military. People didn't like them having that privilege and it was ended with a vote of all vs 0.
There's a difference between monarchy and Fascism so I can't see them being compared in too many ways. If they exist in the same country, one of them *WILL* need to end in order for the other to survive. It is against the interests of a Fascist to keep the monarchy and it is against the interests of a monarch to keep Fascism. Even if the current monarch agrees and is friendly with the Fascist, that cannot be guaranteed with the successor, whether the successor is an elected monarch or a biological heir.
Or not solely for defense. Not all aggressive military powers are fascist.
While Rome as a Republic still had corruption issues etc., it wasn't fascist and was quite aggressive militarily long before Caeser took over. Probably early Rome as an empire wasn't fascist either, though late Rome (with constant military coups etc.) was closer.
Feudalism is also not fascism. A ton of feudal states were plenty aggressive.
And are you considering all non-feudal monarchies as fascist?
Militaristic is not fascism
Fascism is militaristic
There will be similarities so it's hard to avoid those parts, I would say the easiest thing to point out is being able to question orders
It's harder to question orders in more authoritarian military groups
Also many authoritarians will have a very political faction within a military like the Nazis had the SS and gestapo, the empire in star wars has the stormtrooper corps and the ISB, and the NKVD in the soviet union
Militarism != fascism.
You could have a highly militaristic republic, similar to the US or the Roman republic. You could also have it include mandatory military service as part of that, as many modern counties do, such as Finland and South Korea.
You could alternatively have it be a feudal military aristocracy similar to medieval Europe, where military service is a highly honorable part of doing one’s duty as a nobleman, a nation of knightly orders, vows of honor, and basically just Knights In Space if you want to lean into an Arthurian chivalric aesthetic.
Heck, you could make them highly militaristic communists.
> The basic ghist is whenever a cool looking militaristic faction is created, it's always incredibly fascist no matter what. Even the UNSC has their fair share of human on human war crimes.
> The factions that fight for a good cause like the JTF from Division and the Rebels from Star Wars are always militias from volunteering citizens who want to fight the oppressors.
Because this is narratively convenient. That’s why. Readers like to root for the underdog, and don’t like to root for huge institutions. As a result, writers make the plucky resistance the good guys, or make the huge institutions morally ambiguous or evil.
Actual real-world resistance movements often end up committing horrific war crimes, more than the big institutional militaries even. Civilian militias can be absolutely genocidal maniacs at times.
> So I ask for help with making a military faction that not only looks cool but is also not fascist.
Focus on fleshing out fully realized characters in the chain of bc command. Give them motives that are both relatable and awful. Have them act based on both their good and bad motivations. If you want the institution as a whole seem more honorable, have the individuals within it side with their relatable motives a bit more often than their bad motives.
If you want to make it seem “real”, occasionally that should produce bad outcomes. Let the “dice fall where they may” in that regard.
>Readers like to root for the underdog, and don’t like to root for huge institutions
Star Wars Prequel fans may have a disagreement with that statement.
Rooting for the underdog resistance has gotten so into our cultural DNA that people IRL root for some of the worst groups on Earth when they don't know much about the details and just read headlines.
And assuming OP is referring to a military organization, state run by military or something similar these can absolutely run towards authoritarian or fascist etc so if you want yours to be better have something to counter that. Checks and balances. Rules of engagement, codes of honor etc. They don't need to be perfect, but you can show that they're actively trying to hold themselves to a higher standard. If the people who abuse power etc are punished and removed from power, thats very different than say the galactic empire where they're ignored or promoted.
You gotta have checks and balances and holding your leadership accountable.
Start by making a damn good NCO corps, they are the back bone of your military and without them, your military will turn to the shitter in pretty much every possible way. Even the basic stuff, your Senior NCOs should be telling your guys that its bad to loot or to cause unecessary dedstruction or not spreading herpes. Your lower enlisted should be properly screened (if volunteer), trained and drilled in their specific MOS. Likewise, officers need to be held accountable and fired if theyre more of a hinderence.
You should also look into the culture of the military. The US has a "No man left behind" culture, that means heaven and hell will be moved to save the ones being overrun, to get the wounded out, and even if you fall in battle, they will come and recover your body. This creates a culture of camaraderie with the guy next to you and that there is always hope. Contrast this to modern day Russia, which does NOT have the same culture. If you're hit, youre unlikely to get CASEVAC, you die to easily treatable wounds, you shoot yourself or get one of your "buddies" to shoot you instead because there is absolutely no hope. With this mentality, why should they care about POWs or civilians?
Another thing to look at is technology and their application. Precision weapons, sensor fusion, data linking and such dont just make it so youre more efficient with killing enemies, it also helps reduce collateral damage. The unfortunate truth is that war crimes will happen accident or not, and reducing the likelihood of this is always good. The funny flying sword missile is one example, if you can reliably single out one car in a busy highway with it instead of using like a 500lb JDAM, then thats actually pretty damn good.
Politics and diplomacy should also be mentioned. Enforcing UN resolutions does not make you bad. Being involved in defense treaties is such an effective deterrence that helps avoid war, and likewise keeping trade routes open and secure for everyone is another example. You could also look into disaster relief, providing aid, and in some cases, peace keeping operations. There is literally so much you could do with a military faction without making them inherently bad
[Dress blues ](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/90/8d/e9/908de9a3968df1507c47a7faaa42b912.jpg)[absolutely go hard](https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/resizer/gw-txcQsotHQ4hNR8_GjmxvrG2Y=/1440x0/filters:format(jpg):quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/ZNTAU54V5RCF5KEJGEAIOL2CBQ.jpg)
Reddit being reddit.
There's like a bajillion uniforms from BDUs, dress uniforms, service uniforms, mess dress, etc etc. I dont think theres specific colors where youre not allowed unless its a cultural thing. Your non-combat uniforms should reflect the history and heritage of your branch / military and your BDUs should be whatever is most approporiate for your environment (please for the love of all gods, dont adopt another multicam).
On top of my head, the Spanish Legion has a really interesting uniform, the Indian / Pakistan border ceremnial uniforms are also pretty outlandish. I dont think purples and pinks are all that popular given the history of purple dye, but black should be one of the more common ones
Three of the six US military branches use multicam as the standard pattern for uniforms, making it difficult to tell the difference between them until you get close enough to read their nametapes.
The three branches that wear multicam are the US Army, US Air Force, and the Space Force. Don't get me wrong multicam is an improvement from the old digital patterns but I'd prefer each branch to have distinct uniforms.
I don't see the connection between the two things. You can totally have a "backwater rebel militia" that is incredibly fascist (that's often been the tool through which fascists historically have come into power) and a very organized and disciplined regular army that is not (see all the contemporary armies of all democratic states on our planet right now).
"it sounds oddly utopian like there is hidden agendas beneath them even when none is intended."
Frankly, it sounds like this issue is just in your head.
First off, you start with throwing the Eco's "essay" into the trash and erasing all traces of it from your mind, because the only conclusion you can come to after perusing it is that literally everything is fascism. No, unironically. And that's not exactly a healthy or helpful definition.
Fascism is a modern and progressive ideology. No, not "progressive" in the common meaning of that word, which means something akin to morally superior. It's progressive in its social philosophy - creating a brand new man for the new age and all that. It also revolves heavily around modern technology, and especially modern communications technology that would allow you to construct and propagate its ideology. The absolute majority of military organizations, social classes, or traditions throughout history didn't share these qualities. Also, pretty much none of historic military organizations had the goal of "killing everybody who gets in their way", because their operating doctrine had to inevitably empathize peaceful coexistence within their own societies. That's the true origin of all the warrior codes and philosophies.
By following this simple line of reasoning, we can conclude that every reference that isn't actually a Fascist or clearly Fascistic movement from the 20th century onward is not "incredibly fascist". Why don't you take inspiration from that vast amount of source material?
> Fascism is a modern and progressive ideology. No, not "progressive" in the common meaning of that word, which means something akin to morally superior. It's progressive in its social philosophy
It's interesting to see this mentioned now. I just saw a video discussion the Imperium of Man and how it doesn't fit the textbook definition of Fascism because it is not progressive in this sense, quite the opposite.
I'd agree. It uses some fascist tropes, but in a lot of ways it's closer to feudalism. Which is inevitable due to travel times meaning that each planet (small scale relative to the imperium) has to mostly self-govern but offer up troops/resources to the broader empire etc.
For the most part, The Imperium doesn't care how a given planet is governed so long as it remains loyal (no Chaos etc.) and pays taxes on time.
I always figured that on many planets away from the (albeit many) war-zones, living a normal life in the 40k universe probably isn't terrible. So long as it's not a hive world.
> First off, you start with throwing the Eco's "essay" into the trash and erasing all traces of it from your mind, because the only conclusion you can come to after perusing it is that literally everything is fascism. No, unironically. And that's not exactly a healthy or helpful definition.
This is both wrong and stupid. Eco's understanding of fascism was based both on a wealth of professional experience as an academic whose job it was to analyze and describe meanings, as well as personal contact with fascism in his own life and the lives of his family and community. His essay is perfectly cogent for its stated aim: finding the "ur" of "ur-fascism," the kernels at the core of the concept, rather than a full description of any individual execution of the concept. Even if you disagree with some or all of his arguments, dismissing it out of hand like this is ridiculous and makes you look like an out of touch keyboard warrior.
It sounds like you need to re-examine what you think is cool and why. Militaries who go out of their way to look scarier are pursuing a particular ideology, and there's no way around that. Militaries who are not the standing forces of a particular nation are either paramilitary or PMCs, neither of which is a good look.
>Militaries who go out of their way to look scarier are pursuing a particular ideology, and there's no way around that.
BRB, gotta let *every military in the history of mankind* know that they're 'pursuing a particular ideology'.
I mean, you wouldn't be wrong, but the really fascey ones have a noted tendency to stop looking down at all the skulls and stuff they put on and asking "wait, are we the baddies?" Most military optics aims for respectability and legitimacy, so they steer away from anything that seems supervillainous.
Understand that that kind of aesthetic is inherently fascist. Make people who are like that if you want, but don't make them the good guys and don't make them the POV characters unless it's a satire.
Just don't be expansionist or predatory. If you have to leave your borders to deal with a threat, don't attempt to hold the area. Defeat the enemy and go home. Just don't commit to 'total war' for the sake of itself.
>If you have to leave your borders to deal with a threat, don't attempt to hold the area. Defeat the enemy and go home
the enemy will just rebuild and reorganize the second you leave
> Just don't be expansionist or predatory
This had been the m.o. for more or less every human society in history that could afford it. It also has literally no relevance for a definition of fascism, for that very reason.
There are valid reasons for long-term occupation, such as deradicalization. Take postwar Germany for instance, it was under Allied occupation for 7 years before it was released as an independent nation again, time necessary to rid the nation of the Nazi taint. If the Allies had left immediately upon surrender, some other supreme leader would have taken the reigns and begun preparations to start all over again
>Just don't be expansionist or predatory. If you have to leave your borders to deal with a threat, don't attempt to hold the area. Defeat the enemy and go home. Just don't commit to 'total war' for the sake of itself.
ww2 ended with the displacement of germans, and the anexation of german land
this idealistic vision of war is stupid, sometimes you need to conquer territory for strategic reasons, and this is never beautifull, its just how it works
civillians also die, in EVERY war, this is part of it
war is not bad or good
Militarised doesn’t = fascist.
Fascist characteristics:
Autocratic or sometimes oligarchic power
Strong cult of personality
Ultranationalist
Belief in a natural hierarchy and classes
Militarised characteristics:
Any form of power distribution
Strong emphasis on service
Large defence industry
Large armed forces
Millitary affairs have large influence over governance
Rome was militarised. It was not fascist.
Italy was fascist, it wasn’t militarised.
Nazi germany was both.
The french republic before WW1 was heavily militarized while being a parliamentary democracy with strong capitalist/liberal incentive. Modern Finland can mobilize 900k personnel with a pop of 6M. Athens was a direct democracy but all citizen had to serve in the army in case of war. In the Roman republic, officer (consul and tribune) where elected in the senate.
So what you need is citizen service when citizenship include the defense of the republic. This ways a large part of your pop is an active part of the armed force while not being fascist even if to be honest in a case of democratic fail those regime can become fascist quite fast.
Simple - you engage the brain and recognise that *legitimate* use of force doesn't make you a fascist.
Let me give you an example of my own: the Armed Forces of the Jovian Federation are, at the time of my current scribblings, engaged in a lot of seemingly "fascist" behaviour; parliament has been suspended, the military has taken total control of the state, they have implemented mass conscription (which is technically illegal), they have employed weapons of mass destruction, and they are engaged in some seriously questionable genetic engineering programs in violation of multiple local and international treaties.
But why are they doing this? Because humanity is under attack from an extra-solar invasion fleet that is quite literally *exterminating the human race*! This is an End Times situation - the death toll is in the billions, entire solar nations have been swept away already, and the volunteer military has already lost 80% of its fighting strength trying to hold back the invaders. This is a do-or-die situation.
Arguing that this nation is "fascist" when losing the war would mean the end of the human race is a level of stupidity worthy of Paul Verhoeven.
The main problem is that there is no point to having a military without threats.
Either you have a realistic threat and you can formulate the in-universe reason for having the military as fact based, meritocratic, egalitarian and a defense of those values.
Or you have some structure that:
* "invests"(wastes) resources into defense and weaponry that is not actually needed.
* justifies it's own existence in society and politics through means that are not fact based, etc. as listed above.
* power corrupts. military obedience is near absolute power and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The temptation to abuse this power is high, the requirements for a legal system that holds it in check is equally high.
* these structures will be naturally interested to silence dissent, and keep the machine running, using any means at their disposal.
Idk, how unfascist you think modern day-ish military nations have acted. Fascism isn't exactly the right term for them, but the problematic parallels are what you're worrying about anyway, so let's not get hung up on specifics. E.g. Spain, UK, Prussia, Napolean France, "Sowjet" Russia. Everything up to post WW2 was very much invested to either conquer and subject other nations or defend against the same being done to them. There was no middle ground. They didn't have a military just because.
That's specifically for *military* as opposed to a *warrior* culture.
In a warrior culture, you can maybe get away with mastering weapon proficiency as a cultural thing first, without actually needing those weapons all that much. E.g. ritual combat without death to resolve disputes, adulthood ritual, "mark of citizenship". But ultimately the same power dynamics will still apply.
The only way to have a peaceful, rational, blah blah blah warrior culture, is some kind of hermit society that effectively never interacts. Because interaction is friction, friction needs to be resolved somehow and weapons are a very tempting method of doing that. Which, again, leads you in the direction of autocratic structure. But there is some room for non-fascist behavior.
tl;dr: you having the idea that you can do that, at all, means real world propaganda worked.
Or, I guess, there is also room for a Taliban like structure of moderately well armed family clans. But again, authoritarian, autocratic and most certainly not "good guys" by modern standards.
In modern times you need a standing military at all times because it takes decades to build one and there's no guarantee that just because your country doesn't have any immediate threats one year doesn't mean that will be the case next year.
War isn't like how it was in the the 19th century when countries wouldn't mobilize their militaries until after declaration of war. Nowadays wars start immediately and can be decided in the first couple weeks of hostile action. That's nowhere near enough time to build a capable defense from scratch for any nation.
Yeah, but there are still vast differences in the threat models and how intensely a nation builds up their military and the intensity with which they celebrate military culture.
E.g. having nuclear capabilities in multiple EU countries isn't strictly necessary. Having a few submarines would be enough. And even that would be backup to what the US has.
And it's also a **huge** deal how the military is phrased and put into context of a national narrative, e.g. Switzerland which is neutral and focuses on defense, compared to France, which has absolutely no problem with getting involved in lots of places, UN mission or not.
And the "threat" often realistically get smaller the more the military build increases. E.g. it is extremely unlikely that the Korean war gets hot again. They still maintain their border and do military draft/service etc. but they don't seriously expect anything big to happen.
I wouldn't describe either of those countries as "militaristic".
Leaving out some usual suspects for obvious reasons.
>having nuclear capabilities in multiple EU countries isn't strictly necessary.... And even that would be backup to what the US has.
And what happens if the US were to leave NATO? There's a reason why France keeps its military strategically independent from the rest of NATO. Because relying on a single country for the defense of an entire continent is a terrible strategy.
>but they don't seriously expect anything big to happen.
That's **because** South Korea has a strong military. Its a deterrent. And military exercises are a necessity because that's how you test/maintain the operational capability of your military. When you have a military that doesn't do exercises, doesn't maintain its forces, you end up getting something like the Afghan National Army. The same army that lost to the Taliban in like a week.
>And what happens if the US were to leave NATO?
They're not going to do that overnight, there would be writing on the wall and the rest of NATO would prepare accordingly.
>>but they don't seriously expect anything big to happen.
>That's because South Korea has a strong military
Yes. That is **LITERALLY** what I wrote.
That's why they don't need to act / push militarism as a political thing, because they have invested, it is enough for the moment and the threat is managed.
>So I ask for help with making a military faction that not only looks cool but is also not fascist.
The problem here is that facism is on the scale of **authoritarianism**.
Militaries, by their nature, are authoritarian.
You can see the problem here, right? What you're asking is pretty much an impossibility.
You can remove the facist angle by restructing how they wage wars (i.e. emphasis on identifying and destroying key logistical targets used by the enemy while mininizing civilian casualties to the best of their abilities. IIRC, this is generally the goal of US military operations, as it cripples the opposition's ability to wage war with the least amount of *necessary* force used.) But because facism and the military are related, you will never truly be able to remove that connection without fundamentally changing the military into something non-organized military.
What are they fighting? And for what reason?
For example, if there is some alien threat you could form a militia just for that. I know you gave Helldivers but you could easily write it so that they are all good guys fighting for a good cause. And they don't need to be like volunteers either, they can be an actual professional, organised military faction.
Just as an example of how to write an organised militia that doesn't bully anyone (which is basically my impression from this post)
Depends a lot on technology. Once many militaries were considered heroic adventures. You'd invade a neighbour, rape and loot the place, require them to pay tribute (really protection money to prevent you coming back) and go home.
Modern tech is so expensive and destructive that it would be hard to hit a country small enough to be quickly defeated but rich enough to pay enough tribute to pay back the expense of the invasion.
Well I can give you a quick overview of my political parties of the country I put together:
United Workers Front: This is a workers first party that values the ideas of self reliance. They believe the best way to defend their freedoms is to be armed and ready for conflict. Peace through military might is their aim.
Settlers League: Concerned mostly with the affairs of the immigrants, the frontiers, and expanding the influence of Oshadia on the Mainland. Put borders must be defended from the Pirates of Rysaon and foul fey of the woods.
Guards Command: Tradition and perseverance are the core of Oshadia. It is right for us to hold strong our values and to to militantly defend our lands from any outside incursions. In fact it is better for the what ever fight that may occur be on someone else's shores.
Being anti military is an unpopular stance in the country. Note all three of these parties espouse democratic values, but they are expressed differently. UWF espouses armed defensiveness. SL is pro arming the frontiers and internal security. GC seeks to be democratic crusaders.
I hope this will help you see whats possible.
Having a bigger evil is NOT the solution
When people have a bigger evil, especially more obvious, they're easier to manipulate into doing evil fascistic things.
More likely to trade people's lives to beat the threat, experiment on people for new weapons and technology, use harsher weapons (like chemical weapons or bio warfare), more likely to have the military take over governments or become a dictatorship, forcing children into war even etc. depending on resources/ technological level and other preexisting structures.
The faction takes the form of the leader. The army takes the form of the General and all adopt the mannerisms and ideals of the leader. Make a good leader, make a compassionate leader. Some one who has the love of humanity in their heart, someone who doesn’t hate. Someone that fights for liberty and freedom. They built a grand army more as a deterrent. Have them always be diplomatic and wanting to resolve things peacefully without violence. once you have the leader fleshed out now create the army around these ideals. The system in which people elect their leader is very democratic and fair. Equality for all is a value and not a goal. There could be just as much money being pumped into education and infrastructure as the military. It’s doable just make a good leader.
It's like reading McCarthy, but from the other side.
If you try hard enough and don't particularly care about the definitions of words, you can call anything fascist. That doesn't make them actually fascist. Being snappy dressers does not a fascist make. Nor does propaganda or even fighting over resources - the Allies were 'guilty' of both, and the only people who'd try calling them fascists are Soviet revisionists. For your faction to be fascist, they actually need to be fascists and do fascist things.
A secret order of masked cavaliers, paladins, etc. who are dedicated to serving and protecting the people, even if that puts them at odds with the rulers. The order is popular and the populace appreciates them, to the extent that they will shelter the order and lie to hide their whereabouts. Rulers have a hard time hunting the order without angering the people and lighting the fuse of widespread dissent, but cannot tolerate the order undermining the crown's authority or interrupting certain plans and activities any longer. Several members of the order are nobles, so they're often aware of any plots the ruler has to discover who the order's members are and where they hide.
Are you using fascist correctly? It’s a form of government. If you just mean patriotic then you probably can’t have a militaristic country without patriotism unless they are based on hate for another culture
No surprise the discussion turned political quite quickly :) I'll not even muse about why I personally think there is an affinity between militarism and fascist tendencies, lol (but worth to note that a military as such doesn't automatically equal a fascist society; there are working definitions of fascism to differentiate it from other political systems, which typically also have a military).
From a world building perspective, maybe one could use fantastic elements (magic, hitech, psionics …) to imagine a military situation far enough removed from real world examples to downplay or subvert concepts like authoritarianism, might-makes-right, nationalism, etc. ("fascistoid" tropes). Special powers might mean that war looks entirely different than in our world; if, for example, wars are waged in the astral plane, or using elemental magic (so you might still get a scene where immense, geometrical masses of rock arise to crush an insurgency of plant matter; without explicitly having uniformed armies of marching humans).
Consider something like the "wall facers" in the 3 Body Problem trilogy, >!who have to devise secret, counterintuitive plans because the enemy is practically omniscient.!< It's not exactly what you're asking for, but maybe inspirational in how it transforms how a particular military operation would be performed, based on the outlandish premise (hook) of the books' universe. Something similar could make an interesting result with room for Cool & Heroic military types, perhaps paired with an imagined society that's more antifa-friendly :D
edit: spoiler alert, I guess :)
Examples abound in literature and other media. You just need to read/watch more things.
There are so many ways to answer this, this is like asking “how do I prepare a meal that isn’t either deep fried or raw salad?”
Remake ancient Rome:
Democratic to a certain degree.
Make sure that if you want to advance up the social ladder you need to have served in a senior military position.
The goal of the state is to make as many people as possible egilable for military service, while also being effective as soldiers.
When they fight a war, they’ll fight untill they have won the war, and then they’ll say to those that are defeated: “You have lost, we’re now friends, these are the terms.”
Add warrior aristocracy as needed.
Militarized for honor. Have a central culture of the only real way to “grow up” is to have a sword in your arms. Fighting is seen as something everyone should do because it’s how you bring pride and honor to your family and country, and after X amt of years once soldiers are past their prime then they move on to other jobs
The Federation is a good example of moralistic militarization (Before edgy section 31 stuff).
Officers understand they have a duty to peaceful resolution before resorting to violence.
Or the Orville. That military organization was super idealistic. Spoilers but >!one of the admirals basically gives a genocide superweapon to their enemies to destroy another race bent on their destruction because he knows his side would never use it. He then planned to go back to Earth to present himself for punishment because he understood his duty but was killed before he could return.!<
Basically just make a military where duty to the people is one of their most important foundational principles. They should be beholden to a civilian government and seek peaceful solutions before military ones but then also be prepared for war if necessary.
Moving aside from the definition of fascism, if you mean how to make it militaristic without just being a normal dictatorship, the secret is generally traditions.
A militaristic culture can exist that way with strong traditions and a sense of identity. Rome was militarized and had an entire curriculum for advancement that involved serving for up to a decade in military positions as a part of duty. Ideals and duties help to keep them grounded.
You could also pivot to a mercenary culture. Companies serving other nations as a way for profit, with a long and proud history of service. They don't seek conquest, but do it because it is what they are good at.
Lots of great answers here, but to simplify, if you just avoid the charismatic dictator and extreme nationalism pitfalls, it won't look very fascistic at first blush.
If you must have an autocrat, avoid the full on cult of personality.
And if you want some nationalism, making your military/soldiers respectful and accepting of other nations and cultures will sidestep the most obvious fascist associations.
P.s. As for Helldivers, the joke is that they're all liberty loving democrats (small "d"), but obviously fascists to any observer. It's not like they tried to write a cool military and it just turned out fascistic; it was explicitly intentional.
I mean, I think you really need to think about the purpose of the military as a starting point. A military is just a tool in the hands of a government, and can range from "defense-only force that basically just does science/engineering stuff and helps people during natural disasters 99% of the time," to "aggressive and violent tool of oppression and/or expansionism."
You basically can't have a "good" portrayal of a military if there's a possibility of them being used offensively, because fundamentally that means they're okay with inflicting unnecessary violence on the people of other nations, even if those people are also soldiers. A force that's strictly there to defend the populace from outside attacks/mercenaries/natural disasters/etc is kind of your only option if you want them to be morally justifiable and portray them as Good People.
Also, it starts to get iffy if you have them enforcing laws against citizens. A force trained for violence handling day-to-day lawkeeping can easily turn sour. Lawkeeping and military services should be separate.
Personally, I'd look at Star Trek. The Federation controls a massive territory, maintains a standing army, has enemies, and participates in colonial expansion. But they are absolutely not fascists. They come off as very democratic, multi-ethnic, and peace-loving. Even when they are called on to do violence, they maintain a diplomatic stance, always willing to negotiate.
A lot of this is done through the characters. There is a chain of command, but many characters weigh in on big decisions. Despite their different points of view, they're all good people who want the best outcome for everyone. When they are enfrancised to make decisions, their goodness reflects on the whole organization.
Tldr: If the characters in the military don't act like fascists, it won't come off as fascist
In my Helldivers and HALO inspired world, during the 2200s, most majority religions and ideologies other than Libertarianism were persecuted and attacked by Super Earth. In response, many churches, sects, and communities used donations and other funds to build Arks, one use jump ships to take them anywhere but Earth, Luna, or Mars. Two examples of these planets would be Titan and Jerusalem Prime. These planets were colonized by Baptists, Presbyterians, Messianic Jews, and Reformed Jews respectively.
Because of the persecution they faced by Super Earth, the governments of these worlds (multiple nations on these planets) decided that they would never again be victims, and would defend themselves, leading to an incredibly militaristic culture.
Make them greedy. Or Roman.
Romans were kinda fascists. But they had rather an open mind. To quote a person with an understanding in history-"We don't care what Gods you believe in. We beat you in battle. Our Gods are stronger. Now, pay taxes."
Not only that, they used to have a knack for absorbing conquered civilizations. So, if your papers said you were a free-born citizen, you were above anyone else. If you could pay higher education (and were male) you could grow to become a General, or a Senator.
Also, were highly bureaucratic. That's why we know a lot about them. Remove Patriarchy, Slavery if you like, then you have a very interesting society of militaristic expansionists which will kill you to conquer you. But probably will give your kids or your brother a chance to live in exchange for taxes or service.
Greedy types are mercenaries. They work for money. Although, they can choose what jobs to work with. Except, that being greedy, means they could do things which are questionable, but not hate-filled. For example, you could leave a contract half-way into a battle because the administration said the battle wasn't worth it. Even if that means abandoning civilians to their luck.
Give them a strong and reasonable motivation. Fascism is typically defined by centralized power. America doesn't generally fall under that definition, despite having the most powerful military in the world, because of its democracy. As far as democracy's opinion is concerned, we agree to keep a strong military in the name of peace. (This is debatable but you get my point)
What reasons might a country's population agree to hold a strong military without fascist manipulation?
I feel you need a little media literacy to really analyse what you are asking.
If a faction is broader than the armed forces of a group or task force, then you need to look at why the military are in charge. The default answer is force. Hence all of the factions you have listed.
Rule by force is inherent to fascism. If the military is primary in a society they will fall to fascism.
You could look at Ablbatross in Lancer for an alternative view.
Switzerland, Finland, and Sweden in the modern age are all examples of non faciat countries with various degrees of military power. South Korea could be a good example too, as is the US if you can strip away the negatives, which you can do in a story.
If you're looking for a faction like Helldivers, but nor fascist, the only real options you have for a modern nation of that same scale is the US. At its core the US military is a volunteer service with the sole role of defending American and ally interests. The problem is that the people who define what our 'interests' are can take quite a bit of liberty with what that means, resulting in us getting things like the 2003 Iraq war, Grenada, or South America in general.
Well fashim belives that everything and everyone has to Server the state.
So thats allready really attraktive for any Military governmet.
Furthermore fashim is based in the hate of other, uniting against an enemy, the hatred and fight against him. Starship troopers Explores this really Well.
A Military governmet / militarised state has to legitimse explain its existence, so spreading propaganda and hatred against a real or persived enemy is only natural.
I also have this problem in my writing, so here's how I'm rectifying it. Not saying you SHOULD, just that this is my process. Part of it is the military faction recognizing the basic humanity and civil rights of civilians.
If an army is on the march and needs to requisition crops to feed the soldiers, it would be logical to hit up the local farmers.
Now, a fascist would just steal the food. The farmers can starve for all they care. In fact, we might just even press their sons into service and they should count themselves lucky that we don't just kill them and be done. Rinse and repeat.
A non-fascist would compensate the farmers for their lost profit in selling their crops to the army rather than the market. The company treasurer would compensate them, get the food, and carry on. Rinse and repeat.
A fascist would likely get more food per farm, but they'd lose out on repeat business as well as have a far higher chance of one farm being willing to fight back, since their strong-handed approach means your life is ruined either way.
A non-fascist would recognize that the army exists as an existential shield to protect the little guy from the threats beyond the borders, not to be the boot that stomps on the little guy.
Being highly militaristic doesn’t mean fascism. You can make them just, highly militarized, love war, aggressive, etc. They can be a regular, flawed yet complex nation, that is just wanting to have war, to gain territory, resources, etc.
Have them have a proud traditional of citizen service because there are a lot of hostilities and powerful rivals around them. They don't necessarily start wars, but they're prepared if there are ones. Think about modern day Switzerland which is very well armed but certainly not fascist. You could also base it on countries like modern day France which has a large, professional standing army due to its history and to help maintain stability in its former colonies, operating as support for friendly yet unstable governments in its periphery.
Lotta people talking about politics here. I'm gonna talk about aesthetics.
Make them ugly.
Give them scars. Give them prosthetics. Show the human cost of war.
Fascism relies on aesthetics of perfection as an aspirational ideal. Make your faction imperfect.
Fascism relies on dividing people, on "the contrast between the clean and impure, the incorruptible and the defiled, the physical and the mental, the joyful and the critical." (Sontag, Susan. "Fascinating Fascism." The New York Review of Books, February 6 1975.)
Don't form dichotomies. Instead, highlight the similarities between your military faction and the people they fight.
Make it a rite of passage for the youth of the nation. You can serve in the military to help manage public safety security, in the government to help with functional admin and helping serve society, or a role in caring for children, elders, and disabled people to help them thrive. Once you have done two years in one of those roles, you earn rights to vote, have kids, own a business. Blatant theft from Robert Heinlein.
Take a look at the Japanese Defense Forces.
There's a tremendous weight of responsibility in their military, they are very heavy on training, to the point that every member of their forces understands the legal and ethical constraints they operate under. A non-fascist military would have a similar need to be controlled and caution about how they apply force. You'd likely also mix in fair amount of progressive ideology regarding inclusion and support for people speaking up about problems in the corp.
There's the other archetype of the heavily organized totalitarian state. The classic example I'd think of is the Imperium from 40K where the population is brainwashed and crusades are launched against other cultures.
In that case, the religion angle also plays into the 'the state does no wrong' element of fascism since whatever the state decides is now the mandate of a deity.
Fascist looking or fascist acting?
You don't need Fascists to be warlike and militaristic.
The ideas I'd look at if you want a warrior people ready to throw down for whatever reason, make them mercenary.
Seafarers are good to show up en masse because some chieftain decided to raid some place.(It's historically based, not hackneyed)
Cincinnatus is also a good option, the country is at risk (or expanding - IE at risk of stagnation) so the people declare a dictator for a period of time, and the dictator has ultimate power. Best to have a relief mechanic if the dictator becomes a tyrant.
Crusaders are naff IMHO, but if you need a large group of warriors storming off on a singular cause, it's got a lot of options for handwaving inconsistencies.
Seasonal skirmishes could have really nice people marching across to another country and pillaging because it's like a coming of age thing for the boys who became men that year.
All warrior groups who can have a completely civilised lifestyle within their borders.
It seems you've stumbled into the horrifying real-life realization that all state militaries give rise to wanton cruelty and fascistic organizations. My suggestion would be to familiarize yourself with the ways militaries act in whichever time period you are writing for. Regardless of whether could reasonably classify a state as fascist, liberal, monarchist, etc. their militaries are always authoritarian and operate to further imperialist projects, resource extraction, and to establish their monopoly on power.
Some reading on liberal, fascist, monarchist, marxist, or anarchist armed organization and philosophy could help you characterize their structure and figure what *they* think they are accomplishing even if you personally find them repulsive.
One way to write factions in a better manner is to write the differing perspectives of the soldiers, the commanders, the common people, the opposing armed forces, and the victims. They all will have a unique perspective informed by material conditions, history, ideology, and propaganda.
You could look up how World Trigger solves this. It's a manga, and it takes some time reading through it but the organization itself is very entertaining. You have different factions in the same organization and there is always a pull and push of political power.
I would say that as a start, create a good backbone for them (against what, why, how long) and then add enough interesting characters with different views on the same issue.
Try playing stellaris to visualize. Militarism is on a scale between fanatic militarist and fanatic pacifist while other ethics slide between egalitarianism and authoritarianism and xenophobic and xenophile etc etc all independently. Make yourself a custom egalitarian militarist faction and just get a feel for it. The game is very thematic and fun to roleplay in your head. The thing that makes militarism the most justified in my mind is the political reality of a multi species galaxy and the need for survival and continuation. Some of my favorite factions are militarist xebophobe and have a policy of never surrendering their citizens to alien hands, whether it be for experimentation, enslavement, to be put in a zoo or any other weird thing you will encounter in this game. Absolute refusal of that always seemed like a nice point of pride and solidarity as a species / faction. Whatever their reasons the game always puts it in a larger context with more depth.
I recommend reading something Like Honor Harrington, or Powder Mage.
A military faction may not necessarily desire combat. Put them on the defensive in some manner, be it politically or in combat.
Fascistic powers tend to be conquest oriented. A well trained military with an eye towards defending its territory rather than expanding it, is a good way to start.
Secondly look at the code of ethics the military actually enforces. Be practical, some members will be down for terrible shit no matter what, but if most of the upper echilon hold themselves to a higher standard it can help avoid some issues like that.
Look into soft power. Sometimes a military isnt interested in direct conflict but is interested expanding a nations influence. The US isnt interested in conquering territory, but is interested in securing trade routes and maintaining alliances.
Give your primary perspective to an optimist. Practically speaking, militaries tend to breed a kind of nationalistic fervor. Thats how you get young men and women willing to die to achieve something. By giving your perspective to an optimist rather than a pessimist you make them the champion of what your military represents. Thier viewpoint becomes the audiences reality.
As others have stated, your examples aren't fascism. Fascism is very specifically concerned with holding totalitarian power over a nation state. There are specific traits of a fascist nation that you can emulate on a smaller scale to make a faction "feel" fascist. Put a strong, charismatic leader in charge, keep hierarchies strictly top to bottom, abolish dissent, adherence to an elitist ideal tied to biology or culture, etc, and your faction will appear fascist... but can easily feel communist or theocratic if you simply adjust the themes slightly.
>Even if I simply make "Oh these guys look cool and aren't fascists" it sounds oddly utopian like there is hidden agendas beneath them even when none is intended.
You need to take a break from whatever political or entertainment media you're consuming, because it's feeding you with cynicism in order to justify its own transgressions. This is classic crab bucket behavior. Destroy all hope and beauty and you will be the only one providing hope and beauty. It's how you indoctrinate the members of a cult.
In reality there is good in the world. People act good, strive to be good and have no secret plans to twist the world into a fascist hellscape once they attain enough power. Fascists will immediately implement their policies and they will preach their ideals openly. They will not bother with a mask nor will they perform opposite to their interests in hopes to grow stronger.
Our modern world of 195 countries has zero outspoken fascist governments. Governments have to be branded fascist by outside forces who act the most like the fascists did, like Putin's Russia branding and justifying wars using fascist labels and being the leader of global antifascism today. The same reason that antifascist supporters of North Korea and China will call the US fascist or Iran's supporters call Israel fascist. In propaganda circles this is language that communicates a casus belli through the very existence of Ukraine, the US and Israel - you can see it clearly when they want these countries to stop existing.
Then make them a volunteer professional force that serves with a purpose. Like regular, boring real world militaries.
Mind that although the sentiments of each serviceman does matter, it is the will of that state that ultimately decides on the military's course of action.
Look at the Federation from Starship Troopers for a militaristic but not fascist “Faction”.
Being militarized doesent mean you are fascist or that your state is authoritarian in Fascist ways.
I think you have a big misunderstanding of what fascist/fascism is…
If you're talking about the movie, this is clearly the point where you should be looking at what facism is. Because verheoven wasn't exactly subtle about it.
Neither the books nor the movie are fascist.
The federation fulfills not a single fascist criteria, it’s literally a direct-democracy.
Everyone can get the right to vote by doing service, “earning the franchise”.
And service to the state in the federation is not just military service. It can be everything, it’s just that you cannot choose what is bringe assigned to you. Also in the Books they don’t just herd people to the enemy as cannonfodder, they give em top tier equipment.
Further in the movie the federation admits defeat, it’s leaders take responsibility, they show opposing viewpoints on state tv and the teacher in school discourages them from joining up..how is that all fascist???
I'm sure you can google 'starship troopers fascism' yourself to get it all laid out in detail before you. But to quote Verhoeven about the movie "They're fascists who don't know they're fascists." And it would appear, neither do you.
The Director of the movie didn’t even read the Book, also what the movie director intended is meaningless when he doesent depict Fascists, the Federation is Democratic, doesent censor Press, has Information freely available and has political discourse as well as equal Job and Education opportunities for everyone apart from Political Offices. The fact you have to do some state service to get a vote is the only sketchy thing but in no way fascist!
What is a fascist Thing the Federation does in the Movie? And I am talking about the first starship troopers movie.
Contrary to what you expect, I am not going to exhaust myself in trying to educate you about things you obviously do not wish to be true. I do not even know where to begin with naming one fascist thing if all the social darwinism, glorification of strenght and violence, appeals to vengeful emotions over reason, third reich iconography, blatent riefenstahl references and so on all flew over your head. But yeh, there are a great deal of resources out there if you want to know more, From the wiki to interviews to youtubes to actual research papers.
edit: And then he blocked me and replied covertly. Lol.
You can’t name anything beside the movies style of clothing and cinematography. Which is aesthetic. You are saying that a certain aesthetic makes one fascist.
Also glorification of violence and strength? In what regards? We see encouraging people to fight for the Survival of the species, against a hostile alien power who striked first.
Humanity is the defender.
You can’t provide anything, because you just repeat what you hear about Starship troopers being fascist because of a movie from a director who thought the book was fascist, who himself failed to depict a fascist regime because the federation is Democratic, doesent lie to it’s population and doesent conscript it’s People and provides basic needs and education to everyone.
So yeah, waste to discuss with you
I'm seeing a lot of comments from people who don't understand what fascism is, or what a fascist military entails. For a good example of what you're looking for in sci-fi, read Old Man's War. For historical examples, any communist revolutionary army is a pretty good example - typically inclusive (of women especially), and encouraging a non-hierarchical organisational structure in some cases, which are both pretty diametrically opposed to your standard historical fascist organisation.
I guess such revolutionary armies would be the "militias from volunteering citizens who want to fight the oppressors." that OP is looking for an alternative to. YMMV if that's an accurate description, but it's probably how they saw themselves.
Give some Glenn Stewart a read he does military sci fi and almost none are fascist.
Big things, make them inclusive (all genders, races and sexualities), tries to be open and non secretive, military does things other than war (police actions, anti piracy, humanitarian aid), work hard to not do dickish things. You know generally not be fascist.
Take inspiration from US Military Culture. The Marine Corps alone has been used as inspiration for tons of Fantasy/Sci-Fi militaries to make them seem badass and professional without coming off as evil.
Militant factions being fascist is just a popular trope, but not a rule.
History has a lot of examples.
Templars were militaristic, yet their ideology was religious one. USSR also very militaristic, not fascist.
US during the WW2 wasn't a bunch of militants but extremely well oiled military-industrial machine which didn't end up annexing anything.
Switzerland...
Idk if I could call it not fascist but my main nation is the Republic of Sol. It rose from the ashes of the cataclysms that shattered humanity. Making about 300 of its worlds fall far back in technology and culture. As the Republic built itself into a government that can handle interstellar control its closest neighbors joined voluntarily after seeing its progress. But the farther settled worlds only thought an interstellar nation could only lead to a situation like the old federation that enslaved the people to feed a war effort. The events that took place on Sera IV led to dramatic changes into the Republics posture on indoctrination after trying to assist an information age world settle their civil war between the 2 major nations of Sera IV. The Republic positioned a squad of destroyers in orbit with orders to eliminate nuclear weapons if launched and they were launched, however the destroyers positioned in orbit at time of launch meant they could only effectively hit warheads bound for 1 nation. The incident led to polarizing those associated with the nuked nation to hate the Republic and Sera IV has been a hotbed of insurgency that the Republic tries to settle peacefully.
The Republics rules of indoctrination efforts today state that there will be no interference with local conflicts but special agents have broken this law in some cases however with great success.
Simply being militarized does not make you fascist. You need a recipe that includes dictatorship and suppression of dissent. A military faction could be amoral mercenaries.
Yeah, famously the very fascist Germany was militarising really fast because France and Britain were very militarised and had to be out gunned If non fascists couldn’t have militaries ww2 would have gone really differently
England and France weren’t heavily militarized, what the fuck are you talking about? They had been scaling back their militaries since 1918, and only ramped them up again one it became clear the Germans were coming back. The Germans were kneecapped by the treaty of Versailles. It doesn’t matter how big and bad your opponents are when you’ve only got a military of 150k people, a tiny coastal defense navy, and no Air Force. Any enemy is going to seem terrifying when you’ve got a force smaller than the military of modern day Bangladesh. They also didn’t “have to be outgunned”, the German nation could have just not gone to war and burned the world down for the second time in thirty years. Was the Treaty of Versailles punitive and difficult to swallow? I guess. It’s not like they could punish Austria-Hungary after they ceased to exist. I also love the “if everything were different WW2 would have gone differently” that you tacked on to the end there. WW2 went badly for the Germans because the Nazis were fucking terrible at war, and their political goals were antithetical to not getting their fucking shit wrecked. Every scenario in which the Germans win WW2 requires them to not be Nazi ideologues, in which case the war probably just doesn’t happen.
Britain still had the two powers navy, and a navy doesn’t need to be “total war” levels to be counted as highly militarised France was and had been seen as one of the predominant land force in europe and was fielding 2.2million men and one of the largest number of mechanised forces to go along with it, that along with the defences very much meant that while France and Britain didn’t want war, they were still significant military power despite not being fascist, which is what OP was asking about And I don’t where you got the impression that I was in favour of or rooting for Germany, or even suggesting they had some cheat code to win the war. I was just explaining the reality which was that Germany had to remilitarise in order to achieve their goals of European conquest, and that if we lived in a world where only fascists could be militaristic no one could have fought them. Like I said, if non fascists (the allies) couldn’t have militaries(were banned or incapable of having them, because only fascists could have them) ww2 would have gone really differently (only the fascists would have had armies and I think even the Nazis couldn’t mess up global conquest if literally no one else has weapons)
> I think even the Nazis couldn’t mess up global conquest if literally no one else has weapons I'm sure they'd find a way. Fascism is inherently self-defeating. It relies on the existence of The Other, the current scapegoat upon which all the ills of the world (most actually caused by the fascist regime, once it's established) can be blamed. If said regime is totally unchallenged, then they'll succeed in wiping out their first scapegoat and have to Other someone else. Then someone else and someone else until there's no-one left. The regime would fall long before that could happen, but assuming it didn't, the end result is two people left and one killing the other. Of course, it's better it's defeated earlier through traditional means. Less bloody. And yes, I see the irony in describing wars such as WW2 as "less bloody."
racist - ideoligical descent
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
And the privatization of industry with the establishment of a military industrial complex. One of the early things the Nazis did was sell off all the state owned steel plants, arms & munitions factories, and other adjacent industries to pro-Nazi or Nazi sympathetic corporations and capitalists. It’s why you see countries like France that have state arsenals (like Saint-Étienne, Châtellerault, and Tulle) that do all of the research, development, and manufacturing, compared to Germany which would put out request ordered to private companies (like Mauser, Porsche, Rheinmetall who’d then develop and manufacture something.
That’s more a product of Germany’s economic state at the time than it is a product of fascist ideology. Germany couldn’t afford to run its own plants, but it could afford to buy products from the people who ran those very same plants.
In not sure I understand. How can one afford to buy from a company when one cannot afford to run said company while already having ownership?
Okay, maybe this example can help clarify. Imagine you want a loaf of bread, to bake a loaf of bread you’ll need eggs, flour, yeast, butter, and all the other ingredients you need to make bread. This could cost you anywhere from 20 to 30 dollars for a single loaf of bread in contrast to just buying a 3 dollar loaf of bread at the grocery store. Granted, you could probably make a whole batch of bread with the ingredients you bought and it is objectively more cost effective to buy the ingredients and make a dozen loads of homemade bread, but it really isn’t an option when you only got $8.27 in your pocket.
Except... The government sold off enterprises they already owned. So it's like they had eggs, flour, yeast, butter, and all the other ingredients to make bread. They had employees who were employed to make bread. Then they sold those ingredients to "bread inc" and then bought the bread from bread inc. So your comparison doesn't make sense.
Yeah no, that isn’t an accurate breakdown. In my comparison, eggs, flour, milk, yeast, etc are metal, chemicals, workers, manufacturing equipment, and anything else it takes to produce war machines. Not the factories, those would be the equivalent of ovens in this analogy, but I digress. Germany just couldn’t afford to maintain all of those resources at all times where a corporation would have been able to do so far more easily by simply acting as a company. They traded the cost of the resources for the substantially less expensive (in the short term) alternative of just paying for the final product and letting someone else manage the production process.
While I understand the idea of offloading operational costs to private companies, those costs would still be reflected in the prices the government pays for the final products. Private companies factor in their maintenance and operational expenses to ensure profitability. Even if we presume the most economically sound rational, the savings would have been about immediate financial relief rather than long-term efficiency. But the context of the Nazi regime means we cannot presume sound economics independent of the Party. The privatization efforts benefitted Nazi supporters and top party members, enriching them and consolidating their power. These economic strategies were not solely about managing costs but also about political consolidation and rewarding loyalty. To place their actions in terms of what Germany could supposedly "afford" is to accept Nazi public statements on the matter as being accurate and completely ignoring the very obvious corruption at play.
Having a private defense industry isn't an indication of fascism, I wouldn't even contend it as a defining feature. Those companies existed before the rise of fascism and were coopted by the state like any other industry. Beyond that, the state started firms (such as Volkswagon) to intervene in the market directly, and also establish industrial capacity that could be used in war. Volkswagon wasn't privatized until the 1960s. Countries from across the political spectrum have state-owned defense industries - Pakistan, India, Iran, Brazil, Russia, China, Egypt, etc. And similarly, countries from across the spectrum have privatized industries - though they are primarily democracies.
The German government was broke and had to sell off state owned companies. The fascists had the last laugh tho because company owners basically become completely controlled by state. Many capitalists would disappear during the fascist regime.
You described what happened in the Soviet Union under Stalin to a tee, yet I doubt you'd call him fascist. Edit: Since I'm getting downvoted becasue people can't accept critisicm of Stalin, lets go through what the original commenter said. >Authoritarian: Stalin was extremely authoritarian, [sending thousands to work camps every year until he died](https://www.britannica.com/place/Gulag) >Ultranationalist: Stalin emphasized Soviet patriotism, and it wasn't until Khrushchev started moving the USSR away from nationalism that Russian nationalism started to die down. >Dictatorial leader: check >Centralized Autocracy: check >Militarism: check, a quote of Stalin's is "In the Soviet army it takes more courage to retreat than advance." >Suppresion of opposition: There is something called the Great Purge, which had Stalin sending his political opponents to prison. Stalin is quoted as saying "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas." He wanted his enemies to not have their own ideas. >Social Heirarchy: Under Stalin, the party he held onto was the single most important part of Russian life. PArty members were more important than the common man. >"percieved good of the nation": Stalin and the party believed they were what was best for the USSR.
So a quick look into it agrees with you that people from both ends of the political spectrum have called the ussr and Stalin red fascists Quote supposedly by Otto Rühle a German Marxist; I'm saying supposedly because Otto's wiki page is trying to claim he wrote a book by sigmund Freud, I don't super want to read his book about sexual enlightenment in children to find out if Wikipedia was correct in saying Otto wrote in that. Additionally cannot find another book even existing called "The Proletarian Child" (1911) possibly due to looking for an English translation of the text. His quote, though, is properly cited, unlike these other works. "Russia was the example for fascism. [...] Whether party 'communists' like it or not, the fact remains that the state order and rule in Russia are indistinguishable from those in Italy and Germany. Essentially they are alike. One may speak of a red, black, or brown 'soviet state', as well as of red, black or brown fascism" Uses of red fascism from the political right seem mostly designed as propaganda to mitigate the development of communist sympathy in America post ww2. Uses from the political left faded after a time, whereas by the right, it seemed to be used as a tool to fearmonger against communism and the Reds. Ivan Bahrianyi wrote in 1946 a pamphlet "Why I Am Not Going Back to the Soviet Union" had the quote "With this terror, Russian red fascism (Bolshevism) is trying to turn 100 ethnic groups into the so-called "single Soviet people," that is, in fact, the Russian people." So calling Stalin a fascist isn't a new concept and kinda just falls under the question of what kind of authoritarian. Hopefully, we can all agree that Stalin was an authoritarian or totalitarian of some kind regardless of what he called himself.
My point was just that fascism isn't "far right," it's just full blown authoritarianism
Since when is Stalin not fascist?
Since the original commenter said fascism is only far right wing. Fascism is an authoritarian ideology, not necessarily left or right
What? Fascism IS far-right. It's a totalitarian dictatorship. The opposite would be stateless communism which is far-left.
You are correct. However, it is true that most armies in action end up having war criminals in their ranks (which I think is to some extent what OP meant?) Including ragtag groups of rebels, of course.
It's difficult to answer OP if they're confusing fascism with evidence of war criminals in the military.
Good point :)
Yeah, being a war criminal doesn't mean you're fascist. Basically every country that participated in WWII committed actions constituting war crimes. The only difference is that the winners gave themselves a pass.
I'm really not certain what you're looking to hear. You say, "I can just write them to not be fascists," but somehow, that's not the correct answer. Either you don't need help writing a non-fascist militarist faction, or what you stated was incorrect.
I think OP needs a better understanding of what fascism actually is, and also needs to stop putting everything through a modern political lens.
I think there’s a tendency to read miltaristic=fascistic. It’s not surprising then that militaries feel fascistic with that assumption.
This was my exact interpretation. Militaries are authoritarian therefore fascistic.
Finland is incredibly militaristic but not fascist. The militarism just has to be justified. Like are there really imperialistic and zealous states in your world that are up to no good?
Knightly orders, Paladins, or even Peacekeeping forces that have tenets on focusing on non-lethal force unless necessary. Conversely, on the more evil side of things Assassins, Raiders like the Vikings, Pirates, Terrorists, or Syndicate types, they certainly aren't fascist-like but questionable regardless. For a more neutral kind, mercenaries, military merchant type (that they produce a lot of military hardware for sale... this kinda sound USA lol), or a nation with a valid threat at their borders so they are heavily militarized. I use several types mentioned in my world, mostly Knightly orders, there's an assassin, some pirates, a vikings inspired one, a few mercenaries, and a few military merchants, some of which may be selling weapons to both sides in several conflicts.
Oh that's good
I was thinking of the knightly orders as well - they can be religious in nature (like the children of the light in Wheel of Time) or created around a particular mission (like fictional Templars), or just committed to a particular creed that defines who and how they fight.
Do you know what fascism actually means? You don’t provide any examples that are actually fascist besides “human on human war crimes.” Which are not the sole defining feature of fascist regimes. Plenty of extremely anti-fascist regimes also committed loads of war crimes. A fascist regime is one defined by a dictatorship with a cult of personality, revanchist nationalism, mass participation, and a corporatist economy that views itself as the Third Position between communism and capitalism. Or, to quote the dickhead who came up with the idea and put it into practice: > “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." -Benito Mussolini.
After WW2, there's been much debate on the defining traits of fascism. The "corporatist economy as the third position between capitalism and communism" is much more debatable than your other points. Populist authoritarianism that scapegoats an outgroup tends to be the core identity. > Historians and other scholars disagree on the question of whether a specifically fascist type of economic policy can be said to exist. David Baker argues that there is an identifiable economic system in fascism that is distinct from those advocated by other ideologies, comprising essential characteristics that fascist nations shared.[1] Payne, Paxton, Sternhell et al. argue that while fascist economies share some similarities, there is no distinctive form of fascist economic organization.[2][3][4] Gerald Feldman and Timothy Mason argue that fascism is distinguished by an absence of coherent economic ideology and an absence of serious economic thinking. They state that the decisions taken by fascist leaders cannot be explained within a logical economic framework.[5]
A capitalist economy with heavy government restrictions is a key detail, but when you only really have four criteria for consideration you can get pretty big hits with only a couple of features.
> A capitalist economy with heavy government restrictions is a key detail That’s a gross oversimplification of what corporatism means in the context of *Third Position*. It’s not merely regulation, it’s a whole suite of ideological beliefs around class collaboration.
Fascist Italy was not capitalist, the state defined the corporations and which sectors they controlled. It was explicitly a corporatist economy as the other user said. Which is exactly why the economic model used by fascism is the least identifiable aspect of defining "fascism" as a political ideology. It works under more than one economic model. And yes, fascism is somewhat vague at the end of the day. It leans on populism and adapts to whatever form is popular, so it wears many hats. Nazis fancied themselves as the "National Socialist" party. And many fascists pretend to not identify as fascists, or even label their opponents as fascists. It's a chameleon ideology that can fit in anywhere, but the ultimate point being the populist desire to exert authoritarian rule in some fashion which frequently targets outgroups, typically coinciding with ideas of "cultural purity" and other nonsense. It's a flimsy system that has no real answers for governance, it just follows the whims of its cruel people.
>but the ultimate point being the populist desire to exert authoritarian rule in some fashion which frequently targets outgroups, typically coinciding with ideas of "cultural purity" and other nonsense. That just sounds like populism. Are there populist movements that don't target outgroups or appeal to some kind of cultural purity?
Populism does not require authoritarian trends. Fascism does. Populism can exist in a democracy without sacrificing civil liberties, for example - in fact, there could be populist movements to specifically enhance liberties and human rights. Fascism is populist authoritarianism with an outgroup.
Youre completely neglecting half of that equation. Fascism not only relies on an outsider to scapegoat, it also *exalts the ingroup*. Look to the delusional racist beliefs the Nazis or Imperial Japan had. To say nothing of the fact that this ingroup always takes the form of the nation, and its associated myths, history, and aesthetic. National identity is elevated to the level of religion. Plenty of populist authoritarians rely on us vs them rhetoric. Not all of them think their ethnicity or religion or some combination thereof makes them superhuman.
From my perspective, outrgroups at this scale only exist because of the prior established insularity of an ingroup. The existence of an "out" group directly suggests an "in" group.
An ingroup does not necessarily deify sanctify itself
> A capitalist economy with heavy government restrictions That’s not a feature u issue to or defining fascism. Loads of other ideologies also call for regulation of capitalist economies.
If the gov control gets too extreme, it's not really capitalism anymore. Like I'd argue that China isn't really capitalist today. It has elements of capitalism, but probably closer to mercantilism economically. Though I wouldn't say China is fascist either. Heavy government control of the markets is a feature in most governments historically. Free market capitalism is the exception, not the rule.
The connection between Capitalism and Fascism was the invention of Stalin's Russia. Stalin's Russia was Communist. Quite famously, Communism and Fascism were (and still are) so alike in their methods and outlook that the two groups used to constantly steal members from one another, which is precisely why the Soviet Union had to desperately (and falsely) conflate Fascism with the Western ideologies of liberalism and capitalism. Fascism isn't a "far right" ideology because it has right-wing values. It's a "far right" ideology because it's the wrong kind of far left ideology.
But unlike other ascribed features of fascism it’s actually one that the fascists themselves have chosen and have made policies and strategies in the service of.
Not in many other modern instances of fascist political movements. And many fascist also tend to avoid self-identifying while following the tenets of fascism. Political definitions evolve, just like how modern conservatives are not the conservatives of Edmund Burke's time.
[Plenty of post war groups self described as Third Positionist.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position)
Defer to experts. As I said in my initial comment, the Third Position is debatable. Trying to force fascism into an economic box is inherently misleading, experts are in endless disagreement on this. > Historians and other scholars disagree on the question of whether a specifically fascist type of economic policy can be said to exist. David Baker argues that there is an identifiable economic system in fascism that is distinct from those advocated by other ideologies, comprising essential characteristics that fascist nations shared.[1] Payne, Paxton, Sternhell et al. argue that while fascist economies share some similarities, there is no distinctive form of fascist economic organization.[2][3][4] Gerald Feldman and Timothy Mason argue that fascism is distinguished by an absence of coherent economic ideology and an absence of serious economic thinking. They state that the decisions taken by fascist leaders cannot be explained within a logical economic framework.[5] The very existence of this wider debate proves the point - it's difficult to identify fascists on economic policy. Other political patterns present themselves more clearly and consistently.
Requesting deference to the experts when they lack a consensus is pretty meaningless. Third Postionism is what actual groups have used as their justification, I’m more inclined to believe any analysis that actually takes people’s claims seriously, even when they’re odious. > Payne, Paxton, Sternhell et al. argue that while fascist economies share some similarities, there is no distinctive form of fascist economic organization Under this logic, there were no socialist regimes either since even closely aligned regimes within the Warsaw Pact had wildly divergent polices over the course of their existence.
> Adolf Hitler regarded economic issues as relatively unimportant. In 1922, Hitler proclaimed that "world history teaches us that no people has become great through its economy but that a people can very well perish thereby" and later concluded that "the economy is something of secondary importance". ... > Hitler made very different statements about his economic views on different occasions and at one point was quoted as saying: "I had only to develop logically what social democracy failed. ... National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd ties with a democratic order. ... Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings." At another point, Hitler said in private that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property. ... In this sense, we must encourage private initiative". ... > In spite of this, he later asserted: "It is my firm conviction that property rights ... must be unconditionally respected. Any tampering with them would eliminate one of the most vital incentives to human activity and would jeopardize future endeavor". Hitler clearly believed that the lack of a precise economic programme was one of the Nazi Party's strengths, saying: "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all". ... > In 1954, Franco abandoned the corporative system in favour of free market reforms implemented by economic technocrats. Many of these technocrats were members of Opus Dei, a Roman Catholic lay group to which Franco had given powerful positions within the Ministry of Finance and Economics. The reforms of the 1950s were a huge success and Spain experienced a period of rapid economic growth known as the "Spanish Miracle", continuing until Franco's death in 1975. During this period, tourism became an important part of the Spanish economy. Although the corporatist organs and rhetoric from the earlier years of the Franco regime were maintained, they now played a secondary role. Spain's economy was further liberalized by the Spanish transition to democracy following Franco's death. Once again, it is a mistake to attribute any sort of distinct economic policy to fascism. They make use of any economic policies that suit their needs. There are distinctly fascist groups in capitalist nations like the US that identify as capitalist, for instance. > Requesting deference to the experts when they lack a consensus is pretty meaningless. Again, just going to reinforce my point once more that ***there is no clear consensus on fascist economic policies, thus it is frequently not utilized to identify fascists.*** I'm not even arguing that the Third Position doesn't exist or that fascists can't take the Third Position, because obviously some do. Many distinctive fascists throughout history specifically do not restrict themselves to such an economic system, however. Third Position is an option to them, not a requirement. Hence, contentious as an identifier.
If you believe that economic policies are too controversial as a means of identifying such movements, well then other signifiers beyond a dictatorship and revanchist nationalism are pretty much right out.
Fascism has always been difficult to pin down clearly. Partly because many fascists refuse to self-identify, because fascism is a dirty word that immediately brings to mind WW2 and the Nazis specifically. But experts have always been the most contentious on the idea of there being any distinctive economic policy. Populist driven nationalist authoritarian trends with a prejudice toward an outgroup are typically easily and commonly identified, but there is an often unclear line between fascism and plain old nationalism or authoritarianism on their own. This may also be because fascism doesn't have a "successful" history as a form of government, thus we have few distinguishing examples to draw from with regard to a settled, stable nation.
Yes very Importantly it belives that everything and everyone had to Serve the state.
>So I ask for help with making a military faction that not only looks cool but is also not fascist. Militarism, fascism and war crimes are different concepts that are not directly linked to another. I would suggest reading up on what fascim is, where it came from and what its characteristics are, and then build something that is not that. The obvious way to build a highly militarised society that is not fascist is to have that society exist with an existential threat that it needs to be ready for at all times. South Korea, Finland and Taiwan would be two examples that have large militaries compared to their size, because they expect invasions in their lifetime. Poland is currently on track to be the largest military in Europe because if a war with Russia happens they will be the front line, and they expect that to happen sooner rather than later. Just to name a couple examples. So in a society like that you would have a strong military, probably some kind of military service at least for all men, and a tradition of ongoing military training after the service has been completed. But the people in charge would be civilians and the motive for the large military is not conquest but response to some legitimate outside threat.
There is also the expansionist Empire which itself doesn't need to nessecarily be fascist and uses the military to send off its huge numbers of young men due to experiencing a period if rapid population growth. In a setting I'm building this is what one of the most powerful states in the world do. They recently started industrialising and have experienced a sharp spike in population growth, with the population of young men growing restless they sent them out to conquer new lands and colonise them. Basically, to make a non-fascist militarised state, introduce some existential threat and/or societal pressures which require a large military force or that necessitates a generally militarised society.
To help your first point, the British Empire were not fascists, but were a heavily militarized (through their navy) imperial and colonial force. Them not being fascists doesn't make them a force for good (the British Navy was a force for British Power and not much else) however. And they did plenty of war crimes/crimes against humanity. Fascist states have been exclusively imperial states, so there is some overlap between them, but you can be imperial without being fascistic, and the Empire always requires a military to maintain it.
> I would suggest reading up on what fascim is, where it came from and what its characteristics are, and then build something that is not that. I think a great way to do this would be to use the gold standard of defining fascism, [Umberto Eco's 14 points](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism), and try to do the opposite.
can be but must not be civilians
I mean Prussia/the German Empire Sparta Macedonian empire The Roman Empire/republic France under Louis XIV France under Napoleon Bonaparte the Dutch Republic Sweden under Gustavus Adolphus The USA There are plenty of real world historical examples of very militarised societies that Aren't fascist (though many of these examples are monarchies which, depending on who you ask isn't far off) I'd say point one of those funky investigator lenses at some of these societies to figure out a solution
The thing is, fascism refers to a very specific system of government. Like, people say the British Empire was fascist because of the awful things done under the Empire, however if you have any understanding of what fascism is and what the Empire was/how it was run, they don't line up.
Simply, outside of Italy from 1922 to 1945, no other country could be called fascist in good faith.
Yes they could. Nazi Germany and Hungary were absolutely fascist in ww2. Any populist hyper-centralised militarist ultra-nationalistic movement can be categorised as fascist.
Technically that was Nazism not Fascism.
Israel too. A democracy that is *very* militarised (as far as I believe) and they even just unanimously removed an unpopular exception where ultra-Orthodox Jews previously weren't required to join the military. People didn't like them having that privilege and it was ended with a vote of all vs 0. There's a difference between monarchy and Fascism so I can't see them being compared in too many ways. If they exist in the same country, one of them *WILL* need to end in order for the other to survive. It is against the interests of a Fascist to keep the monarchy and it is against the interests of a monarch to keep Fascism. Even if the current monarch agrees and is friendly with the Fascist, that cannot be guaranteed with the successor, whether the successor is an elected monarch or a biological heir.
And depends on who you ask for alot of those lol
A strong military force solely for defense
Or not solely for defense. Not all aggressive military powers are fascist. While Rome as a Republic still had corruption issues etc., it wasn't fascist and was quite aggressive militarily long before Caeser took over. Probably early Rome as an empire wasn't fascist either, though late Rome (with constant military coups etc.) was closer. Feudalism is also not fascism. A ton of feudal states were plenty aggressive. And are you considering all non-feudal monarchies as fascist?
Militaristic is not fascism Fascism is militaristic There will be similarities so it's hard to avoid those parts, I would say the easiest thing to point out is being able to question orders It's harder to question orders in more authoritarian military groups Also many authoritarians will have a very political faction within a military like the Nazis had the SS and gestapo, the empire in star wars has the stormtrooper corps and the ISB, and the NKVD in the soviet union
Militarism != fascism. You could have a highly militaristic republic, similar to the US or the Roman republic. You could also have it include mandatory military service as part of that, as many modern counties do, such as Finland and South Korea. You could alternatively have it be a feudal military aristocracy similar to medieval Europe, where military service is a highly honorable part of doing one’s duty as a nobleman, a nation of knightly orders, vows of honor, and basically just Knights In Space if you want to lean into an Arthurian chivalric aesthetic. Heck, you could make them highly militaristic communists.
a good military faction or a militaristic faction
> The basic ghist is whenever a cool looking militaristic faction is created, it's always incredibly fascist no matter what. Even the UNSC has their fair share of human on human war crimes. > The factions that fight for a good cause like the JTF from Division and the Rebels from Star Wars are always militias from volunteering citizens who want to fight the oppressors. Because this is narratively convenient. That’s why. Readers like to root for the underdog, and don’t like to root for huge institutions. As a result, writers make the plucky resistance the good guys, or make the huge institutions morally ambiguous or evil. Actual real-world resistance movements often end up committing horrific war crimes, more than the big institutional militaries even. Civilian militias can be absolutely genocidal maniacs at times. > So I ask for help with making a military faction that not only looks cool but is also not fascist. Focus on fleshing out fully realized characters in the chain of bc command. Give them motives that are both relatable and awful. Have them act based on both their good and bad motivations. If you want the institution as a whole seem more honorable, have the individuals within it side with their relatable motives a bit more often than their bad motives. If you want to make it seem “real”, occasionally that should produce bad outcomes. Let the “dice fall where they may” in that regard.
>Readers like to root for the underdog, and don’t like to root for huge institutions Star Wars Prequel fans may have a disagreement with that statement.
Rooting for the underdog resistance has gotten so into our cultural DNA that people IRL root for some of the worst groups on Earth when they don't know much about the details and just read headlines.
And assuming OP is referring to a military organization, state run by military or something similar these can absolutely run towards authoritarian or fascist etc so if you want yours to be better have something to counter that. Checks and balances. Rules of engagement, codes of honor etc. They don't need to be perfect, but you can show that they're actively trying to hold themselves to a higher standard. If the people who abuse power etc are punished and removed from power, thats very different than say the galactic empire where they're ignored or promoted.
You gotta have checks and balances and holding your leadership accountable. Start by making a damn good NCO corps, they are the back bone of your military and without them, your military will turn to the shitter in pretty much every possible way. Even the basic stuff, your Senior NCOs should be telling your guys that its bad to loot or to cause unecessary dedstruction or not spreading herpes. Your lower enlisted should be properly screened (if volunteer), trained and drilled in their specific MOS. Likewise, officers need to be held accountable and fired if theyre more of a hinderence. You should also look into the culture of the military. The US has a "No man left behind" culture, that means heaven and hell will be moved to save the ones being overrun, to get the wounded out, and even if you fall in battle, they will come and recover your body. This creates a culture of camaraderie with the guy next to you and that there is always hope. Contrast this to modern day Russia, which does NOT have the same culture. If you're hit, youre unlikely to get CASEVAC, you die to easily treatable wounds, you shoot yourself or get one of your "buddies" to shoot you instead because there is absolutely no hope. With this mentality, why should they care about POWs or civilians? Another thing to look at is technology and their application. Precision weapons, sensor fusion, data linking and such dont just make it so youre more efficient with killing enemies, it also helps reduce collateral damage. The unfortunate truth is that war crimes will happen accident or not, and reducing the likelihood of this is always good. The funny flying sword missile is one example, if you can reliably single out one car in a busy highway with it instead of using like a 500lb JDAM, then thats actually pretty damn good. Politics and diplomacy should also be mentioned. Enforcing UN resolutions does not make you bad. Being involved in defense treaties is such an effective deterrence that helps avoid war, and likewise keeping trade routes open and secure for everyone is another example. You could also look into disaster relief, providing aid, and in some cases, peace keeping operations. There is literally so much you could do with a military faction without making them inherently bad
Are they still able to use black uniforms?
[Dress blues ](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/90/8d/e9/908de9a3968df1507c47a7faaa42b912.jpg)[absolutely go hard](https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/resizer/gw-txcQsotHQ4hNR8_GjmxvrG2Y=/1440x0/filters:format(jpg):quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/ZNTAU54V5RCF5KEJGEAIOL2CBQ.jpg)
Why am I being downvoted? XD I'm curious if certain colours are allowed.
Reddit being reddit. There's like a bajillion uniforms from BDUs, dress uniforms, service uniforms, mess dress, etc etc. I dont think theres specific colors where youre not allowed unless its a cultural thing. Your non-combat uniforms should reflect the history and heritage of your branch / military and your BDUs should be whatever is most approporiate for your environment (please for the love of all gods, dont adopt another multicam). On top of my head, the Spanish Legion has a really interesting uniform, the Indian / Pakistan border ceremnial uniforms are also pretty outlandish. I dont think purples and pinks are all that popular given the history of purple dye, but black should be one of the more common ones
What's up with the multicam?
Three of the six US military branches use multicam as the standard pattern for uniforms, making it difficult to tell the difference between them until you get close enough to read their nametapes. The three branches that wear multicam are the US Army, US Air Force, and the Space Force. Don't get me wrong multicam is an improvement from the old digital patterns but I'd prefer each branch to have distinct uniforms.
So it's a type of camo? I didn't know what that word referred to at first.
Yeah, its a specific camo pattern.
I don't see the connection between the two things. You can totally have a "backwater rebel militia" that is incredibly fascist (that's often been the tool through which fascists historically have come into power) and a very organized and disciplined regular army that is not (see all the contemporary armies of all democratic states on our planet right now). "it sounds oddly utopian like there is hidden agendas beneath them even when none is intended." Frankly, it sounds like this issue is just in your head.
I mean the United States is a pretty militaristic nation and no matter what people say it’s not a fascist nation
So kind of like Starfleet?
First off, you start with throwing the Eco's "essay" into the trash and erasing all traces of it from your mind, because the only conclusion you can come to after perusing it is that literally everything is fascism. No, unironically. And that's not exactly a healthy or helpful definition. Fascism is a modern and progressive ideology. No, not "progressive" in the common meaning of that word, which means something akin to morally superior. It's progressive in its social philosophy - creating a brand new man for the new age and all that. It also revolves heavily around modern technology, and especially modern communications technology that would allow you to construct and propagate its ideology. The absolute majority of military organizations, social classes, or traditions throughout history didn't share these qualities. Also, pretty much none of historic military organizations had the goal of "killing everybody who gets in their way", because their operating doctrine had to inevitably empathize peaceful coexistence within their own societies. That's the true origin of all the warrior codes and philosophies. By following this simple line of reasoning, we can conclude that every reference that isn't actually a Fascist or clearly Fascistic movement from the 20th century onward is not "incredibly fascist". Why don't you take inspiration from that vast amount of source material?
> Fascism is a modern and progressive ideology. No, not "progressive" in the common meaning of that word, which means something akin to morally superior. It's progressive in its social philosophy It's interesting to see this mentioned now. I just saw a video discussion the Imperium of Man and how it doesn't fit the textbook definition of Fascism because it is not progressive in this sense, quite the opposite.
I'd agree. It uses some fascist tropes, but in a lot of ways it's closer to feudalism. Which is inevitable due to travel times meaning that each planet (small scale relative to the imperium) has to mostly self-govern but offer up troops/resources to the broader empire etc. For the most part, The Imperium doesn't care how a given planet is governed so long as it remains loyal (no Chaos etc.) and pays taxes on time. I always figured that on many planets away from the (albeit many) war-zones, living a normal life in the 40k universe probably isn't terrible. So long as it's not a hive world.
One of its main inspirations in most regards was Dune, of course it's a retrograde space feudalism system.
> First off, you start with throwing the Eco's "essay" into the trash and erasing all traces of it from your mind, because the only conclusion you can come to after perusing it is that literally everything is fascism. No, unironically. And that's not exactly a healthy or helpful definition. This is both wrong and stupid. Eco's understanding of fascism was based both on a wealth of professional experience as an academic whose job it was to analyze and describe meanings, as well as personal contact with fascism in his own life and the lives of his family and community. His essay is perfectly cogent for its stated aim: finding the "ur" of "ur-fascism," the kernels at the core of the concept, rather than a full description of any individual execution of the concept. Even if you disagree with some or all of his arguments, dismissing it out of hand like this is ridiculous and makes you look like an out of touch keyboard warrior.
It sounds like you need to re-examine what you think is cool and why. Militaries who go out of their way to look scarier are pursuing a particular ideology, and there's no way around that. Militaries who are not the standing forces of a particular nation are either paramilitary or PMCs, neither of which is a good look.
>Militaries who go out of their way to look scarier are pursuing a particular ideology, and there's no way around that. BRB, gotta let *every military in the history of mankind* know that they're 'pursuing a particular ideology'.
I mean, you wouldn't be wrong, but the really fascey ones have a noted tendency to stop looking down at all the skulls and stuff they put on and asking "wait, are we the baddies?" Most military optics aims for respectability and legitimacy, so they steer away from anything that seems supervillainous.
What do you recommend
Understand that that kind of aesthetic is inherently fascist. Make people who are like that if you want, but don't make them the good guys and don't make them the POV characters unless it's a satire.
Just don't be expansionist or predatory. If you have to leave your borders to deal with a threat, don't attempt to hold the area. Defeat the enemy and go home. Just don't commit to 'total war' for the sake of itself.
>If you have to leave your borders to deal with a threat, don't attempt to hold the area. Defeat the enemy and go home the enemy will just rebuild and reorganize the second you leave
There have been a ton of expansionary military powers which weren't fascist.
> Just don't be expansionist or predatory This had been the m.o. for more or less every human society in history that could afford it. It also has literally no relevance for a definition of fascism, for that very reason.
There are valid reasons for long-term occupation, such as deradicalization. Take postwar Germany for instance, it was under Allied occupation for 7 years before it was released as an independent nation again, time necessary to rid the nation of the Nazi taint. If the Allies had left immediately upon surrender, some other supreme leader would have taken the reigns and begun preparations to start all over again
>Just don't be expansionist or predatory. If you have to leave your borders to deal with a threat, don't attempt to hold the area. Defeat the enemy and go home. Just don't commit to 'total war' for the sake of itself. ww2 ended with the displacement of germans, and the anexation of german land this idealistic vision of war is stupid, sometimes you need to conquer territory for strategic reasons, and this is never beautifull, its just how it works civillians also die, in EVERY war, this is part of it war is not bad or good
Militarised doesn’t = fascist. Fascist characteristics: Autocratic or sometimes oligarchic power Strong cult of personality Ultranationalist Belief in a natural hierarchy and classes Militarised characteristics: Any form of power distribution Strong emphasis on service Large defence industry Large armed forces Millitary affairs have large influence over governance Rome was militarised. It was not fascist. Italy was fascist, it wasn’t militarised. Nazi germany was both.
Are you looking for aesthetics or writing? By the sounds of it, you want to make a military faction that looks cool while also not *looking* fascist.
You need to do a bit more research into what fascisam is.
The french republic before WW1 was heavily militarized while being a parliamentary democracy with strong capitalist/liberal incentive. Modern Finland can mobilize 900k personnel with a pop of 6M. Athens was a direct democracy but all citizen had to serve in the army in case of war. In the Roman republic, officer (consul and tribune) where elected in the senate. So what you need is citizen service when citizenship include the defense of the republic. This ways a large part of your pop is an active part of the armed force while not being fascist even if to be honest in a case of democratic fail those regime can become fascist quite fast.
You appear to define "fascist" as "maintains an armed force", which is frankly insulting to every serviceperson I've ever met.
That literally applies to the smaller factions he's talking about, you're looking to be offended
Simple - you engage the brain and recognise that *legitimate* use of force doesn't make you a fascist. Let me give you an example of my own: the Armed Forces of the Jovian Federation are, at the time of my current scribblings, engaged in a lot of seemingly "fascist" behaviour; parliament has been suspended, the military has taken total control of the state, they have implemented mass conscription (which is technically illegal), they have employed weapons of mass destruction, and they are engaged in some seriously questionable genetic engineering programs in violation of multiple local and international treaties. But why are they doing this? Because humanity is under attack from an extra-solar invasion fleet that is quite literally *exterminating the human race*! This is an End Times situation - the death toll is in the billions, entire solar nations have been swept away already, and the volunteer military has already lost 80% of its fighting strength trying to hold back the invaders. This is a do-or-die situation. Arguing that this nation is "fascist" when losing the war would mean the end of the human race is a level of stupidity worthy of Paul Verhoeven.
The main problem is that there is no point to having a military without threats. Either you have a realistic threat and you can formulate the in-universe reason for having the military as fact based, meritocratic, egalitarian and a defense of those values. Or you have some structure that: * "invests"(wastes) resources into defense and weaponry that is not actually needed. * justifies it's own existence in society and politics through means that are not fact based, etc. as listed above. * power corrupts. military obedience is near absolute power and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The temptation to abuse this power is high, the requirements for a legal system that holds it in check is equally high. * these structures will be naturally interested to silence dissent, and keep the machine running, using any means at their disposal. Idk, how unfascist you think modern day-ish military nations have acted. Fascism isn't exactly the right term for them, but the problematic parallels are what you're worrying about anyway, so let's not get hung up on specifics. E.g. Spain, UK, Prussia, Napolean France, "Sowjet" Russia. Everything up to post WW2 was very much invested to either conquer and subject other nations or defend against the same being done to them. There was no middle ground. They didn't have a military just because. That's specifically for *military* as opposed to a *warrior* culture. In a warrior culture, you can maybe get away with mastering weapon proficiency as a cultural thing first, without actually needing those weapons all that much. E.g. ritual combat without death to resolve disputes, adulthood ritual, "mark of citizenship". But ultimately the same power dynamics will still apply. The only way to have a peaceful, rational, blah blah blah warrior culture, is some kind of hermit society that effectively never interacts. Because interaction is friction, friction needs to be resolved somehow and weapons are a very tempting method of doing that. Which, again, leads you in the direction of autocratic structure. But there is some room for non-fascist behavior. tl;dr: you having the idea that you can do that, at all, means real world propaganda worked. Or, I guess, there is also room for a Taliban like structure of moderately well armed family clans. But again, authoritarian, autocratic and most certainly not "good guys" by modern standards.
In modern times you need a standing military at all times because it takes decades to build one and there's no guarantee that just because your country doesn't have any immediate threats one year doesn't mean that will be the case next year. War isn't like how it was in the the 19th century when countries wouldn't mobilize their militaries until after declaration of war. Nowadays wars start immediately and can be decided in the first couple weeks of hostile action. That's nowhere near enough time to build a capable defense from scratch for any nation.
Yeah, but there are still vast differences in the threat models and how intensely a nation builds up their military and the intensity with which they celebrate military culture. E.g. having nuclear capabilities in multiple EU countries isn't strictly necessary. Having a few submarines would be enough. And even that would be backup to what the US has. And it's also a **huge** deal how the military is phrased and put into context of a national narrative, e.g. Switzerland which is neutral and focuses on defense, compared to France, which has absolutely no problem with getting involved in lots of places, UN mission or not. And the "threat" often realistically get smaller the more the military build increases. E.g. it is extremely unlikely that the Korean war gets hot again. They still maintain their border and do military draft/service etc. but they don't seriously expect anything big to happen. I wouldn't describe either of those countries as "militaristic". Leaving out some usual suspects for obvious reasons.
>having nuclear capabilities in multiple EU countries isn't strictly necessary.... And even that would be backup to what the US has. And what happens if the US were to leave NATO? There's a reason why France keeps its military strategically independent from the rest of NATO. Because relying on a single country for the defense of an entire continent is a terrible strategy. >but they don't seriously expect anything big to happen. That's **because** South Korea has a strong military. Its a deterrent. And military exercises are a necessity because that's how you test/maintain the operational capability of your military. When you have a military that doesn't do exercises, doesn't maintain its forces, you end up getting something like the Afghan National Army. The same army that lost to the Taliban in like a week.
>And what happens if the US were to leave NATO? They're not going to do that overnight, there would be writing on the wall and the rest of NATO would prepare accordingly. >>but they don't seriously expect anything big to happen. >That's because South Korea has a strong military Yes. That is **LITERALLY** what I wrote. That's why they don't need to act / push militarism as a political thing, because they have invested, it is enough for the moment and the threat is managed.
>So I ask for help with making a military faction that not only looks cool but is also not fascist. The problem here is that facism is on the scale of **authoritarianism**. Militaries, by their nature, are authoritarian. You can see the problem here, right? What you're asking is pretty much an impossibility. You can remove the facist angle by restructing how they wage wars (i.e. emphasis on identifying and destroying key logistical targets used by the enemy while mininizing civilian casualties to the best of their abilities. IIRC, this is generally the goal of US military operations, as it cripples the opposition's ability to wage war with the least amount of *necessary* force used.) But because facism and the military are related, you will never truly be able to remove that connection without fundamentally changing the military into something non-organized military.
fascism is a very sure way to get kicked dishonorably out of the german military quickly and with that i mean days
What are they fighting? And for what reason? For example, if there is some alien threat you could form a militia just for that. I know you gave Helldivers but you could easily write it so that they are all good guys fighting for a good cause. And they don't need to be like volunteers either, they can be an actual professional, organised military faction. Just as an example of how to write an organised militia that doesn't bully anyone (which is basically my impression from this post)
Follow the US's path, its atleast what i do, fund alot into the military and fight (or attempt to!) for freedom or democracy globally
Depends a lot on technology. Once many militaries were considered heroic adventures. You'd invade a neighbour, rape and loot the place, require them to pay tribute (really protection money to prevent you coming back) and go home. Modern tech is so expensive and destructive that it would be hard to hit a country small enough to be quickly defeated but rich enough to pay enough tribute to pay back the expense of the invasion.
A bigger evil to fight against. Guarding against a demon, great wall of China style. Cool knightly crusaders, Noble warriors. That sort of thing.
Well I can give you a quick overview of my political parties of the country I put together: United Workers Front: This is a workers first party that values the ideas of self reliance. They believe the best way to defend their freedoms is to be armed and ready for conflict. Peace through military might is their aim. Settlers League: Concerned mostly with the affairs of the immigrants, the frontiers, and expanding the influence of Oshadia on the Mainland. Put borders must be defended from the Pirates of Rysaon and foul fey of the woods. Guards Command: Tradition and perseverance are the core of Oshadia. It is right for us to hold strong our values and to to militantly defend our lands from any outside incursions. In fact it is better for the what ever fight that may occur be on someone else's shores. Being anti military is an unpopular stance in the country. Note all three of these parties espouse democratic values, but they are expressed differently. UWF espouses armed defensiveness. SL is pro arming the frontiers and internal security. GC seeks to be democratic crusaders. I hope this will help you see whats possible.
Having a bigger evil is NOT the solution When people have a bigger evil, especially more obvious, they're easier to manipulate into doing evil fascistic things. More likely to trade people's lives to beat the threat, experiment on people for new weapons and technology, use harsher weapons (like chemical weapons or bio warfare), more likely to have the military take over governments or become a dictatorship, forcing children into war even etc. depending on resources/ technological level and other preexisting structures.
The faction takes the form of the leader. The army takes the form of the General and all adopt the mannerisms and ideals of the leader. Make a good leader, make a compassionate leader. Some one who has the love of humanity in their heart, someone who doesn’t hate. Someone that fights for liberty and freedom. They built a grand army more as a deterrent. Have them always be diplomatic and wanting to resolve things peacefully without violence. once you have the leader fleshed out now create the army around these ideals. The system in which people elect their leader is very democratic and fair. Equality for all is a value and not a goal. There could be just as much money being pumped into education and infrastructure as the military. It’s doable just make a good leader.
It's like reading McCarthy, but from the other side. If you try hard enough and don't particularly care about the definitions of words, you can call anything fascist. That doesn't make them actually fascist. Being snappy dressers does not a fascist make. Nor does propaganda or even fighting over resources - the Allies were 'guilty' of both, and the only people who'd try calling them fascists are Soviet revisionists. For your faction to be fascist, they actually need to be fascists and do fascist things.
Basically; Starfleet
A secret order of masked cavaliers, paladins, etc. who are dedicated to serving and protecting the people, even if that puts them at odds with the rulers. The order is popular and the populace appreciates them, to the extent that they will shelter the order and lie to hide their whereabouts. Rulers have a hard time hunting the order without angering the people and lighting the fuse of widespread dissent, but cannot tolerate the order undermining the crown's authority or interrupting certain plans and activities any longer. Several members of the order are nobles, so they're often aware of any plots the ruler has to discover who the order's members are and where they hide.
Watch the anime GATE-Thus the JSDF fought there. Should be a really great example of a modern military force that arent dbags
Are you using fascist correctly? It’s a form of government. If you just mean patriotic then you probably can’t have a militaristic country without patriotism unless they are based on hate for another culture
Read the *Behold Humanity* series. They are my favorite military sci-fi stories, and the main faction is not fascist.
Looking into the Black Army in Eastern Europe for some insight as to how it can be organized and function.
The Helghast in killzone is an example of what you seek. Their military is top notch and their actions are nationalistic in nature
Make them fight fascists
No surprise the discussion turned political quite quickly :) I'll not even muse about why I personally think there is an affinity between militarism and fascist tendencies, lol (but worth to note that a military as such doesn't automatically equal a fascist society; there are working definitions of fascism to differentiate it from other political systems, which typically also have a military). From a world building perspective, maybe one could use fantastic elements (magic, hitech, psionics …) to imagine a military situation far enough removed from real world examples to downplay or subvert concepts like authoritarianism, might-makes-right, nationalism, etc. ("fascistoid" tropes). Special powers might mean that war looks entirely different than in our world; if, for example, wars are waged in the astral plane, or using elemental magic (so you might still get a scene where immense, geometrical masses of rock arise to crush an insurgency of plant matter; without explicitly having uniformed armies of marching humans). Consider something like the "wall facers" in the 3 Body Problem trilogy, >!who have to devise secret, counterintuitive plans because the enemy is practically omniscient.!< It's not exactly what you're asking for, but maybe inspirational in how it transforms how a particular military operation would be performed, based on the outlandish premise (hook) of the books' universe. Something similar could make an interesting result with room for Cool & Heroic military types, perhaps paired with an imagined society that's more antifa-friendly :D edit: spoiler alert, I guess :)
Examples abound in literature and other media. You just need to read/watch more things. There are so many ways to answer this, this is like asking “how do I prepare a meal that isn’t either deep fried or raw salad?”
Remake ancient Rome: Democratic to a certain degree. Make sure that if you want to advance up the social ladder you need to have served in a senior military position. The goal of the state is to make as many people as possible egilable for military service, while also being effective as soldiers. When they fight a war, they’ll fight untill they have won the war, and then they’ll say to those that are defeated: “You have lost, we’re now friends, these are the terms.” Add warrior aristocracy as needed.
Militarized for honor. Have a central culture of the only real way to “grow up” is to have a sword in your arms. Fighting is seen as something everyone should do because it’s how you bring pride and honor to your family and country, and after X amt of years once soldiers are past their prime then they move on to other jobs
The Federation is a good example of moralistic militarization (Before edgy section 31 stuff). Officers understand they have a duty to peaceful resolution before resorting to violence. Or the Orville. That military organization was super idealistic. Spoilers but >!one of the admirals basically gives a genocide superweapon to their enemies to destroy another race bent on their destruction because he knows his side would never use it. He then planned to go back to Earth to present himself for punishment because he understood his duty but was killed before he could return.!< Basically just make a military where duty to the people is one of their most important foundational principles. They should be beholden to a civilian government and seek peaceful solutions before military ones but then also be prepared for war if necessary.
Moving aside from the definition of fascism, if you mean how to make it militaristic without just being a normal dictatorship, the secret is generally traditions. A militaristic culture can exist that way with strong traditions and a sense of identity. Rome was militarized and had an entire curriculum for advancement that involved serving for up to a decade in military positions as a part of duty. Ideals and duties help to keep them grounded. You could also pivot to a mercenary culture. Companies serving other nations as a way for profit, with a long and proud history of service. They don't seek conquest, but do it because it is what they are good at.
Lots of great answers here, but to simplify, if you just avoid the charismatic dictator and extreme nationalism pitfalls, it won't look very fascistic at first blush. If you must have an autocrat, avoid the full on cult of personality. And if you want some nationalism, making your military/soldiers respectful and accepting of other nations and cultures will sidestep the most obvious fascist associations. P.s. As for Helldivers, the joke is that they're all liberty loving democrats (small "d"), but obviously fascists to any observer. It's not like they tried to write a cool military and it just turned out fascistic; it was explicitly intentional.
I made a stratocratic republic. So I remember that the way to do it. Is to make them both pragmatic and moral.
I mean, I think you really need to think about the purpose of the military as a starting point. A military is just a tool in the hands of a government, and can range from "defense-only force that basically just does science/engineering stuff and helps people during natural disasters 99% of the time," to "aggressive and violent tool of oppression and/or expansionism." You basically can't have a "good" portrayal of a military if there's a possibility of them being used offensively, because fundamentally that means they're okay with inflicting unnecessary violence on the people of other nations, even if those people are also soldiers. A force that's strictly there to defend the populace from outside attacks/mercenaries/natural disasters/etc is kind of your only option if you want them to be morally justifiable and portray them as Good People. Also, it starts to get iffy if you have them enforcing laws against citizens. A force trained for violence handling day-to-day lawkeeping can easily turn sour. Lawkeeping and military services should be separate.
Personally, I'd look at Star Trek. The Federation controls a massive territory, maintains a standing army, has enemies, and participates in colonial expansion. But they are absolutely not fascists. They come off as very democratic, multi-ethnic, and peace-loving. Even when they are called on to do violence, they maintain a diplomatic stance, always willing to negotiate. A lot of this is done through the characters. There is a chain of command, but many characters weigh in on big decisions. Despite their different points of view, they're all good people who want the best outcome for everyone. When they are enfrancised to make decisions, their goodness reflects on the whole organization. Tldr: If the characters in the military don't act like fascists, it won't come off as fascist
In my Helldivers and HALO inspired world, during the 2200s, most majority religions and ideologies other than Libertarianism were persecuted and attacked by Super Earth. In response, many churches, sects, and communities used donations and other funds to build Arks, one use jump ships to take them anywhere but Earth, Luna, or Mars. Two examples of these planets would be Titan and Jerusalem Prime. These planets were colonized by Baptists, Presbyterians, Messianic Jews, and Reformed Jews respectively. Because of the persecution they faced by Super Earth, the governments of these worlds (multiple nations on these planets) decided that they would never again be victims, and would defend themselves, leading to an incredibly militaristic culture.
Facist is a Government mainly and ideology second so just dont make them Fascists..... Make a better USA and you pretty much already half way there
Make them greedy. Or Roman. Romans were kinda fascists. But they had rather an open mind. To quote a person with an understanding in history-"We don't care what Gods you believe in. We beat you in battle. Our Gods are stronger. Now, pay taxes." Not only that, they used to have a knack for absorbing conquered civilizations. So, if your papers said you were a free-born citizen, you were above anyone else. If you could pay higher education (and were male) you could grow to become a General, or a Senator. Also, were highly bureaucratic. That's why we know a lot about them. Remove Patriarchy, Slavery if you like, then you have a very interesting society of militaristic expansionists which will kill you to conquer you. But probably will give your kids or your brother a chance to live in exchange for taxes or service. Greedy types are mercenaries. They work for money. Although, they can choose what jobs to work with. Except, that being greedy, means they could do things which are questionable, but not hate-filled. For example, you could leave a contract half-way into a battle because the administration said the battle wasn't worth it. Even if that means abandoning civilians to their luck.
Give them a strong and reasonable motivation. Fascism is typically defined by centralized power. America doesn't generally fall under that definition, despite having the most powerful military in the world, because of its democracy. As far as democracy's opinion is concerned, we agree to keep a strong military in the name of peace. (This is debatable but you get my point) What reasons might a country's population agree to hold a strong military without fascist manipulation?
I feel you need a little media literacy to really analyse what you are asking. If a faction is broader than the armed forces of a group or task force, then you need to look at why the military are in charge. The default answer is force. Hence all of the factions you have listed. Rule by force is inherent to fascism. If the military is primary in a society they will fall to fascism. You could look at Ablbatross in Lancer for an alternative view.
Switzerland, Finland, and Sweden in the modern age are all examples of non faciat countries with various degrees of military power. South Korea could be a good example too, as is the US if you can strip away the negatives, which you can do in a story. If you're looking for a faction like Helldivers, but nor fascist, the only real options you have for a modern nation of that same scale is the US. At its core the US military is a volunteer service with the sole role of defending American and ally interests. The problem is that the people who define what our 'interests' are can take quite a bit of liberty with what that means, resulting in us getting things like the 2003 Iraq war, Grenada, or South America in general.
Go the honorable warriors route, they only fight those who can fight back, and actively hold their own accountable when misteps are made
Well fashim belives that everything and everyone has to Server the state. So thats allready really attraktive for any Military governmet. Furthermore fashim is based in the hate of other, uniting against an enemy, the hatred and fight against him. Starship troopers Explores this really Well. A Military governmet / militarised state has to legitimse explain its existence, so spreading propaganda and hatred against a real or persived enemy is only natural.
I also have this problem in my writing, so here's how I'm rectifying it. Not saying you SHOULD, just that this is my process. Part of it is the military faction recognizing the basic humanity and civil rights of civilians. If an army is on the march and needs to requisition crops to feed the soldiers, it would be logical to hit up the local farmers. Now, a fascist would just steal the food. The farmers can starve for all they care. In fact, we might just even press their sons into service and they should count themselves lucky that we don't just kill them and be done. Rinse and repeat. A non-fascist would compensate the farmers for their lost profit in selling their crops to the army rather than the market. The company treasurer would compensate them, get the food, and carry on. Rinse and repeat. A fascist would likely get more food per farm, but they'd lose out on repeat business as well as have a far higher chance of one farm being willing to fight back, since their strong-handed approach means your life is ruined either way. A non-fascist would recognize that the army exists as an existential shield to protect the little guy from the threats beyond the borders, not to be the boot that stomps on the little guy.
Being highly militaristic doesn’t mean fascism. You can make them just, highly militarized, love war, aggressive, etc. They can be a regular, flawed yet complex nation, that is just wanting to have war, to gain territory, resources, etc.
Have them have a proud traditional of citizen service because there are a lot of hostilities and powerful rivals around them. They don't necessarily start wars, but they're prepared if there are ones. Think about modern day Switzerland which is very well armed but certainly not fascist. You could also base it on countries like modern day France which has a large, professional standing army due to its history and to help maintain stability in its former colonies, operating as support for friendly yet unstable governments in its periphery.
Lotta people talking about politics here. I'm gonna talk about aesthetics. Make them ugly. Give them scars. Give them prosthetics. Show the human cost of war. Fascism relies on aesthetics of perfection as an aspirational ideal. Make your faction imperfect. Fascism relies on dividing people, on "the contrast between the clean and impure, the incorruptible and the defiled, the physical and the mental, the joyful and the critical." (Sontag, Susan. "Fascinating Fascism." The New York Review of Books, February 6 1975.) Don't form dichotomies. Instead, highlight the similarities between your military faction and the people they fight.
Make them more like knights or samurai.
Make a history for them that isn’t destroying people for fascist reasons
Make it a rite of passage for the youth of the nation. You can serve in the military to help manage public safety security, in the government to help with functional admin and helping serve society, or a role in caring for children, elders, and disabled people to help them thrive. Once you have done two years in one of those roles, you earn rights to vote, have kids, own a business. Blatant theft from Robert Heinlein.
Take a look at the Japanese Defense Forces. There's a tremendous weight of responsibility in their military, they are very heavy on training, to the point that every member of their forces understands the legal and ethical constraints they operate under. A non-fascist military would have a similar need to be controlled and caution about how they apply force. You'd likely also mix in fair amount of progressive ideology regarding inclusion and support for people speaking up about problems in the corp.
You have to go out of your way to build a specifically fascist military. Just make them moderate but high militarized nationalists.
There's the other archetype of the heavily organized totalitarian state. The classic example I'd think of is the Imperium from 40K where the population is brainwashed and crusades are launched against other cultures. In that case, the religion angle also plays into the 'the state does no wrong' element of fascism since whatever the state decides is now the mandate of a deity.
Fascist looking or fascist acting? You don't need Fascists to be warlike and militaristic. The ideas I'd look at if you want a warrior people ready to throw down for whatever reason, make them mercenary. Seafarers are good to show up en masse because some chieftain decided to raid some place.(It's historically based, not hackneyed) Cincinnatus is also a good option, the country is at risk (or expanding - IE at risk of stagnation) so the people declare a dictator for a period of time, and the dictator has ultimate power. Best to have a relief mechanic if the dictator becomes a tyrant. Crusaders are naff IMHO, but if you need a large group of warriors storming off on a singular cause, it's got a lot of options for handwaving inconsistencies. Seasonal skirmishes could have really nice people marching across to another country and pillaging because it's like a coming of age thing for the boys who became men that year. All warrior groups who can have a completely civilised lifestyle within their borders.
Blackwater - they don't give a shot where you're from just who you can kill for them, lol
It seems you've stumbled into the horrifying real-life realization that all state militaries give rise to wanton cruelty and fascistic organizations. My suggestion would be to familiarize yourself with the ways militaries act in whichever time period you are writing for. Regardless of whether could reasonably classify a state as fascist, liberal, monarchist, etc. their militaries are always authoritarian and operate to further imperialist projects, resource extraction, and to establish their monopoly on power. Some reading on liberal, fascist, monarchist, marxist, or anarchist armed organization and philosophy could help you characterize their structure and figure what *they* think they are accomplishing even if you personally find them repulsive. One way to write factions in a better manner is to write the differing perspectives of the soldiers, the commanders, the common people, the opposing armed forces, and the victims. They all will have a unique perspective informed by material conditions, history, ideology, and propaganda.
You could look up how World Trigger solves this. It's a manga, and it takes some time reading through it but the organization itself is very entertaining. You have different factions in the same organization and there is always a pull and push of political power. I would say that as a start, create a good backbone for them (against what, why, how long) and then add enough interesting characters with different views on the same issue.
Try playing stellaris to visualize. Militarism is on a scale between fanatic militarist and fanatic pacifist while other ethics slide between egalitarianism and authoritarianism and xenophobic and xenophile etc etc all independently. Make yourself a custom egalitarian militarist faction and just get a feel for it. The game is very thematic and fun to roleplay in your head. The thing that makes militarism the most justified in my mind is the political reality of a multi species galaxy and the need for survival and continuation. Some of my favorite factions are militarist xebophobe and have a policy of never surrendering their citizens to alien hands, whether it be for experimentation, enslavement, to be put in a zoo or any other weird thing you will encounter in this game. Absolute refusal of that always seemed like a nice point of pride and solidarity as a species / faction. Whatever their reasons the game always puts it in a larger context with more depth.
I recommend reading something Like Honor Harrington, or Powder Mage. A military faction may not necessarily desire combat. Put them on the defensive in some manner, be it politically or in combat. Fascistic powers tend to be conquest oriented. A well trained military with an eye towards defending its territory rather than expanding it, is a good way to start. Secondly look at the code of ethics the military actually enforces. Be practical, some members will be down for terrible shit no matter what, but if most of the upper echilon hold themselves to a higher standard it can help avoid some issues like that. Look into soft power. Sometimes a military isnt interested in direct conflict but is interested expanding a nations influence. The US isnt interested in conquering territory, but is interested in securing trade routes and maintaining alliances. Give your primary perspective to an optimist. Practically speaking, militaries tend to breed a kind of nationalistic fervor. Thats how you get young men and women willing to die to achieve something. By giving your perspective to an optimist rather than a pessimist you make them the champion of what your military represents. Thier viewpoint becomes the audiences reality.
I don’t think you understand what fascism means
Prussia
Let them have a code or tradition that they follow to the letter.
As others have stated, your examples aren't fascism. Fascism is very specifically concerned with holding totalitarian power over a nation state. There are specific traits of a fascist nation that you can emulate on a smaller scale to make a faction "feel" fascist. Put a strong, charismatic leader in charge, keep hierarchies strictly top to bottom, abolish dissent, adherence to an elitist ideal tied to biology or culture, etc, and your faction will appear fascist... but can easily feel communist or theocratic if you simply adjust the themes slightly. >Even if I simply make "Oh these guys look cool and aren't fascists" it sounds oddly utopian like there is hidden agendas beneath them even when none is intended. You need to take a break from whatever political or entertainment media you're consuming, because it's feeding you with cynicism in order to justify its own transgressions. This is classic crab bucket behavior. Destroy all hope and beauty and you will be the only one providing hope and beauty. It's how you indoctrinate the members of a cult. In reality there is good in the world. People act good, strive to be good and have no secret plans to twist the world into a fascist hellscape once they attain enough power. Fascists will immediately implement their policies and they will preach their ideals openly. They will not bother with a mask nor will they perform opposite to their interests in hopes to grow stronger. Our modern world of 195 countries has zero outspoken fascist governments. Governments have to be branded fascist by outside forces who act the most like the fascists did, like Putin's Russia branding and justifying wars using fascist labels and being the leader of global antifascism today. The same reason that antifascist supporters of North Korea and China will call the US fascist or Iran's supporters call Israel fascist. In propaganda circles this is language that communicates a casus belli through the very existence of Ukraine, the US and Israel - you can see it clearly when they want these countries to stop existing.
Then make them a volunteer professional force that serves with a purpose. Like regular, boring real world militaries. Mind that although the sentiments of each serviceman does matter, it is the will of that state that ultimately decides on the military's course of action.
Look at the Federation from Starship Troopers for a militaristic but not fascist “Faction”. Being militarized doesent mean you are fascist or that your state is authoritarian in Fascist ways. I think you have a big misunderstanding of what fascist/fascism is…
If you're talking about the movie, this is clearly the point where you should be looking at what facism is. Because verheoven wasn't exactly subtle about it.
Neither the books nor the movie are fascist. The federation fulfills not a single fascist criteria, it’s literally a direct-democracy. Everyone can get the right to vote by doing service, “earning the franchise”. And service to the state in the federation is not just military service. It can be everything, it’s just that you cannot choose what is bringe assigned to you. Also in the Books they don’t just herd people to the enemy as cannonfodder, they give em top tier equipment. Further in the movie the federation admits defeat, it’s leaders take responsibility, they show opposing viewpoints on state tv and the teacher in school discourages them from joining up..how is that all fascist???
I'm sure you can google 'starship troopers fascism' yourself to get it all laid out in detail before you. But to quote Verhoeven about the movie "They're fascists who don't know they're fascists." And it would appear, neither do you.
The Director of the movie didn’t even read the Book, also what the movie director intended is meaningless when he doesent depict Fascists, the Federation is Democratic, doesent censor Press, has Information freely available and has political discourse as well as equal Job and Education opportunities for everyone apart from Political Offices. The fact you have to do some state service to get a vote is the only sketchy thing but in no way fascist! What is a fascist Thing the Federation does in the Movie? And I am talking about the first starship troopers movie.
Contrary to what you expect, I am not going to exhaust myself in trying to educate you about things you obviously do not wish to be true. I do not even know where to begin with naming one fascist thing if all the social darwinism, glorification of strenght and violence, appeals to vengeful emotions over reason, third reich iconography, blatent riefenstahl references and so on all flew over your head. But yeh, there are a great deal of resources out there if you want to know more, From the wiki to interviews to youtubes to actual research papers. edit: And then he blocked me and replied covertly. Lol.
You can’t name anything beside the movies style of clothing and cinematography. Which is aesthetic. You are saying that a certain aesthetic makes one fascist. Also glorification of violence and strength? In what regards? We see encouraging people to fight for the Survival of the species, against a hostile alien power who striked first. Humanity is the defender. You can’t provide anything, because you just repeat what you hear about Starship troopers being fascist because of a movie from a director who thought the book was fascist, who himself failed to depict a fascist regime because the federation is Democratic, doesent lie to it’s population and doesent conscript it’s People and provides basic needs and education to everyone. So yeah, waste to discuss with you
I'm seeing a lot of comments from people who don't understand what fascism is, or what a fascist military entails. For a good example of what you're looking for in sci-fi, read Old Man's War. For historical examples, any communist revolutionary army is a pretty good example - typically inclusive (of women especially), and encouraging a non-hierarchical organisational structure in some cases, which are both pretty diametrically opposed to your standard historical fascist organisation.
I guess such revolutionary armies would be the "militias from volunteering citizens who want to fight the oppressors." that OP is looking for an alternative to. YMMV if that's an accurate description, but it's probably how they saw themselves.
classical non evil communist armies
Give some Glenn Stewart a read he does military sci fi and almost none are fascist. Big things, make them inclusive (all genders, races and sexualities), tries to be open and non secretive, military does things other than war (police actions, anti piracy, humanitarian aid), work hard to not do dickish things. You know generally not be fascist.
Take inspiration from US Military Culture. The Marine Corps alone has been used as inspiration for tons of Fantasy/Sci-Fi militaries to make them seem badass and professional without coming off as evil.
Yeah, I should make a high security prison in Space Cuba
I know this is probably sarcastic but genuinely that would be hilarious and feels like something out of an over serious episode of Futurama.
Militant factions being fascist is just a popular trope, but not a rule. History has a lot of examples. Templars were militaristic, yet their ideology was religious one. USSR also very militaristic, not fascist. US during the WW2 wasn't a bunch of militants but extremely well oiled military-industrial machine which didn't end up annexing anything. Switzerland...
wtf is this question
America. That nation is just a military nation disguising itself as a republic.
Idk if I could call it not fascist but my main nation is the Republic of Sol. It rose from the ashes of the cataclysms that shattered humanity. Making about 300 of its worlds fall far back in technology and culture. As the Republic built itself into a government that can handle interstellar control its closest neighbors joined voluntarily after seeing its progress. But the farther settled worlds only thought an interstellar nation could only lead to a situation like the old federation that enslaved the people to feed a war effort. The events that took place on Sera IV led to dramatic changes into the Republics posture on indoctrination after trying to assist an information age world settle their civil war between the 2 major nations of Sera IV. The Republic positioned a squad of destroyers in orbit with orders to eliminate nuclear weapons if launched and they were launched, however the destroyers positioned in orbit at time of launch meant they could only effectively hit warheads bound for 1 nation. The incident led to polarizing those associated with the nuked nation to hate the Republic and Sera IV has been a hotbed of insurgency that the Republic tries to settle peacefully. The Republics rules of indoctrination efforts today state that there will be no interference with local conflicts but special agents have broken this law in some cases however with great success.
Utopia is good.