/lit/ - Literature

>>21728298
>That's disingenuous though. Fascist Italy clearly used more Roman imagery than the US
How can you measure that? Really, what does the use of imagry in architecture or symbols tell us about a political movement? Is there some deep metaphysical meaning behind a choice in architecture? What does 'Roman imagry' even mean? Rome lasted for millenium, it's history long and intricate. It had times of prosperity and times of decline. I already stated that some of the Roman 'imagry' the Fascists used weren't even Roman at all. They had the Fasces, used commonly by every nation to represent justice. Mussolini called Italians 'Roman', but indeed it is common for many Italians to take pride in the Roman Empire.

But what does the form of imagry of the Fascists tell us about it's substance? Does it tell us anything about policy, law, events, or anything of the sort? It doesn't tell us anything at all! Only that the Fascists liked eagles, and the Romans also liked them. Other than that this information tells us absolutely nothing.
>I realize you are exaggerating to prove a point so I won't be pedantic, but the expansion of Italy was far more rapid and also qualitatively different from other European expansion.
How so? England, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal all had colonial posessions. Italy too needed them, because of the aforementioned emigration problem. Emigration hurts the economy, and the solution was more land.
>All the reasons I provided are also Realpolitik - invading to expand resources or solidify political positions are all realpolitik.
Then what is the problem with invading countries? If it's 'realpolitk' you cannot say Fascism is predicated on expansion. Nations are predicated on expansion. Nations vent frustration on foreign enemies? What are Fascists? They are just people, governing a country. There is no ideology to follow, no book of Fascist tenants. Just realpolitk. Like democracy, dictatorship, or any kind of political system. Just agents of will.