National Populism ideas

[Strategos' Risk]

I hope it's not too much for me to suggest these ideas, but I was wondering if National-Populism might get more coverage in future updates.

What if the Belgrade Pact went National-Populist? I was thinking you could have a pseudo-fascist Mediterranean Federation comprised of the Iron Guard Romanians, you could get a nationalist Serbia (which is under a somewhat autocratic junta anyways), Greece, and perhaps a reunified Italy under the north. The Federation would be mostly anti-Bulgarian/anti-Austrian with expansionist ambitions, and perhaps be on good terms with the Catholic League.

While it may be cliche to have an Axis-like alliance of fascist nations, wouldn't it be ironic for many of these national populists to be Slavic? Okay, maybe only the Serbs are Slavs, but consider this second idea: what if the Belgrade Pact became not part of a Mediterranean Federation allied to a national-populist Italy, but a national-populist Russia. That's right, in that divergence, Slavic fascism faces off against Germany monarchism and Anglo-Gallic revolutionary leftism. Quite the mirror universe to our WWII, no?

And to repeat a question I had in another thread: what makes the AUS national-populist, other than for the presence of bigoted and regressive people such as Fritz Kuhn and Father Coughlin? Isn't it still very economically leftist? Why are they and the Syndicalists so opposed to each other?

 

[unmerged(169228)]

National Populism is a term Kaiserreich uses for heavily centralized rightwing dictatorships, which promised radical changes to society. This includes a diverse mix of ideologies, as Longs American First movement, autocratic dictatorships, populist German politicians as Röhm, the fascistlike Romanian Iron Guard or the Japanese militarists. What set this group apart from the similar Paternal Autocrat dictatorships is that Paternal Autocracy encompasses the traditional, conservative dictatorships. National Populists all claim to either break with the past, or will lead the nation back from its current decadent state to the glory of the past. As such

National Populist countries are characterized by a strong national identity and have a strong appeal to certain disgruntled parts of society and often use populist rhetorics.

National Populists usually encourage centralized control over the economy, just as the syndicalists, but not to give the people the control over the means of production. Such a move would be based on the idea the interest of the state is more important for the interest of an individual.

 

[Asalto]

I agree with FlyingDuchie, National Populism is spectrum of various ideologies, and not special ideology itself. Totalism for example is as very specific form of Syndicalism, common name for very similar movements like Mussolini's National Syndicalism, Mosley's Maximism, and Bolshevism of Bukharin (Georgian quasi-Menshevism of Beria probably also fits in this category), plus some other hardline Syndicalist factions.

On the other hand, National Populism is totally diffrent. It's not special ideology or common name for the same tendencies, but just a spectrum of far-Right movements. National Populists can be the most radical elements of America First-Union Party, Jingoist military regimes, various ''Third Way'' regimes, and also theocratic states, like Turkestan, Shangqing Tianguo, and even Catholic countries of Xavier's bloc.

As for Balkan countries, members of Belgrade Pact, they are more like united in common interests, like in fight against Ottomans and Habsburgs. Serbia is under military Junta, Iron Guard Romania has radical ''Third Way'' regime, Greece is a bit authoritarian constitutional monarchy.

As for Huey Long, he maybe has some Left characteristics (at least according to American view on political spectrum, where collectivism=Left, individualism=Right), but generally he fits more the far-Right populist or ''Third Way''. In fact, he is corporativist, and in my opinion corporativism isn't to be confused with Left-Wing Socialism. Corporativism isn't based on equality, it's based on wish to abolish class struggle and bring cooperation between all classes (labours, employers, etc.). Corporativism is collectivist ideology, but doesen't seek to create class-less society, it just views nation/state as living organic body. Fascism was also based on corporativism, but there are also many other types of corporativism. Such political thought is not really compatible with Left-Wing ideas of equality. Corporativism also doesen't have much with corporations (big business), it is derived from word ''corpus'', which means body. The basic idea is to make the state a working body where all classes and groups represent organic parts that must cooperate with each other. That's far from Syndicalism which is oriented only towards ''liberation of labour'', and also far from classic liberal capitalism which is based on free market and not on state intervention.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Fair enough, but I'm still wondering if my two ideas involving nations of the Belgrade Pact going fascist and forming the rough analogue of the Axis in Kaiserreich would be viable. And I know that fascism wasn't exactly invented as in OTL, but perhaps an analogue could be created- after all, the Iron Guard exist in this timeline. I know having an alliance of all national-populist regimes would be impossible, since n-p is a broader term than even fascism is in OTL.

At the same time, I'm wondering if having the specific regional Belgrade Pact could become an explicitly fascist/n-p alliance with specific objectives, whether it is to expand in the Mediterranean against Bulgaria and Austro-Hungary (if Italy joins) or become the "little brothers" of a great power (if Russia joins).

 

[unmerged(169228)]

The problem is, the only country that you could call fascist is Romania, and I doubt many countries would look at Romania as an example. Both other Balkan Pact members are too traditional in their ideas, using nationalism and hurt pride as ideology. I doubt that an alliance based on revanchism against Bulgaria would gain the status od grand alliance. Even with Bulgaria divided between themselves, they are nothing more than minor players in the Balkans.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

That's why I'm suggesting having them partnered up with a more powerful player, either a reunified Italian Federation, or an expansionist Russia. Though in the latter it's less a partnership and more like becoming pawns of a theoretical fascist/national-populist/militarist Russia.

 

[unmerged(169228)]

Fascism (or fascist like ideologies) are very impopular in the Kaiserreich world, where traditionalism still rules supreme and any break with traditionalism is seen as closet syndicalism. Its true the Italian Federation can go National Populist, but the rule of Cardinal Innitzer would have little in common with the likes of Codreanu, Nedic or Metaxas. Can you see a pope supporting the orthodox Greek or Serbs? Innitzers politicals goals wouldn't lie in the Balkans, but in Italy and France too. Wrangel Russia could meddle in the Balkans, but I guess reclaiming all the Russias would take up all his time.