Asklemmy

Not really.

Colonialism is proto-fascism or more correctly fascism is merely colonialism turned on white people by their immediate neighbors instead of an empire an ocean away. All the tactics and horrors of fascism were adopted from colonial practices by European empires in Africa, by American settler colonizers in the Americas, etc. The mass propaganda model was designed based on American advertising psychological studies and practices. The only true innovations were mechanization (use of extensive trains, computer systems for organizing the exterminations, etc), and white people being the victims. Fascism itself arose specifically due to the threat of socialism as a way of combating it by the capitalists.

Monarchism is an unjust, vile, backwards, reactionary system of government and rule. It has presided over colonialism but it also predated it and colonialism has also occurred from nations without monarchies (US is prime example, but France is another, they continued colonialism well into the very end of the 20th century long after they chopped off the heads of their own monarchs and some including myself would argue their neo-colonialism has continued right up until recent events like the formation of AES in the African sahel).

Now I haven't thought a lot on this particular question or explored it in depth looking for a connection (maybe you can find one if you want to start drawing lines from x through y to then z) but right now I wouldn't say that there is any kind of direct line from monarchism to fascism per se. Monarchism upholds itself through brutality and injustice yes and is predicated on unjust thinking and supremacy and I suppose one could explore the influence of monarchism and monarchist thinking on the development of colonialism and racism but in truth capitalism and proto-capitalist modes of production are the father of fascism via the development of colonialism.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the prefix proto from the Greek πρωτο- meaning before.

Specifically proto-fascism is the precursor movements that became fascism, particularly in Italy in the early 20th century. It isn't some generic term for "kinda a bit like some parts of fascism, I dunno maybe?"

It seems to me they are both rigidly hierarchical structures, with very low social mobility mostly based on birth. But aside from that, there is not much more in common I think.

Not really. The creation of a lot of early monarchies were based on the military taking control of an area, then distributing portions of the area to key military members as a way to buy loyalty.

In contrast, fascism usually requires a corruption of a democracy and has different reasons for forming.

No, and based on reading your incredibly rude response to people trying to answer your question in an Ask community, you clearly don't understand what "proto-" means.

Lol wut??

Fascism is underpinned by nationalism, mass mobilization and the institutions of the nation state, concepts which didn't emerge until the early 19th century.

Monarchy is based on feudalism, where an elite own land and appoint a hereditary ruler who frequently claims divine right.

Fascism and monarchy both rely on absolute authority but they're products of different eras.

A monarchy is a government form.

Monarchies can be anything from a parliamentary monarchy to an absolute monarchy, and yes there have been fascist monarchies as well - see WW2 Japan or Romania if I recall that correctly

No. It's another form of government that has its own issues, but not all authoritarian regimes are fascist.

On the other hand, neo-feudalists are reactionaries because they want to return society to a mythical past where a heirarchy of elites rules over their subjects. Fascism, neo-feudalism, and conservatism are all subsets of reactionary ideology, but they are not the same thing.

Monarchy and fascism share some characteristics but the things that make fascism what it is don't originate from Monarchism or a revanchism for monarchy in any sense. When fascism qua fascism arose in Europe it was a separate formation from monarchists, for example, who still existed in substantial numbers in those countries back then. Instead, fascism arose from declining material conditions in countries that were losing imperialist status, such as losing colonies or having large foreign debts after World War I, and this situation - and "solution" - were both highly capitalistic. Fascism recruits from the petty bourgeoisie for its foot soldiers at the behest of factions of the haute bourgeoisie.

Capitalism is proto-fascism. Fascism, to the extent that it exists beyond World War II, has often been reinvented for crises of capitalism, whether domestic or imposed through imperialism. And who did the fascists take so much inspuration? For the Nazis, it was the United States, a bourgeoisie democracy (capitalist) premised on genocide and slavery.

I am a citizen of two countries: a republic and a monarchy. Both are advanced European liberal democracies.

One has a strong far right, refuse to acknowledge its own regional languages because of the threat they pose to the national unity and has a very strong head of state that can decide a lot of things alone, without being responsible before the Parliament.

The other has almost no far right, a very numerous immigrated population, recognizes three national languages but officially communicates in two other languages spoken by its two biggest immigrated communities, has a weak head of state and a strong Parliament.

Which one is the most “proto-fascist”? The first.

Which one is a monarchy? The second.

I’d argue this could be true but it heavily depends on the type of monarchism a state has, how nationalist its peoples are, how militant the state is, and if there’s a strict order to society that is trying to be imposed.

Obviously, being a proto-fascist state, it wouldn’t need to have all of these at once and not to the extent they would be if the state was fascist but if enough of these indicators appeared to exist, I think you could make an argument in favor.

They're both forms of autocracy, but their ideological justification and means of maintaining control are at least somewhat different. I don't see any particular reason why said justifications would shift from monarchical →fascist ones; if anything, I'd expect it to go in the other direction as a fascist dictator seeks to "legitimize" his rule by claiming "divine right" or naming a hereditary successor. I would be more inclined to agree with the statement "fascism is proto-monarchism."

Of course. Look at the "network state" concept that the alt right tech bros love.

Tiny nation states ruled by the elites, where laws and rights are set not by a wide ranging view of human rights, but by those in power. One of your only rights is the ability to leave. To where? Who knows, and surely nit with all your valuables going with you. No voting, not basic dignity, nothing else if the techo kings dont want to provide it. Corpo kings, contract as the only law.

The end state of the above and fascism is the same. A ruling class that sets the rules, and a citizenry that has to abide by them, or else.

Is it literal fascism? Who knows. Are you under the boot of a privileged class, at the full mercy of their whims just like monarchy or fascism? Yes indeed.