/lit/ - Literature

>>20537165
>And is it this army of stragglers that stops Mannerheim and Kolkhak? Never again. If Petrograd (St. Petersburg) does not fall, if Denikin marks time, it is because the great Jewish bankers of London and New York so desire, linked up as they are by racial ties with the Jews who, in Moscow as in Budapest are taking revenge on the Aryan race which has condemned them to dispersion for so many centuries. In Russia 80% of the Soviet leaders are Jews. In Budapest 17 out of the 22 people's commissars are Jews. Might it not be that Bolshevism is the vendetta of Jewry against Christianity? It is a subject certainly worth pondering. It is entirely possible that Bolshevism will drown in the blood of a pogrom of catastrophic proportions. World finance is in the hands of the Jews. Whoever possesses the nations banks controls their politics. Behind the puppets of Paris stand the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, the Schiffs, the Guggenheims, who are of the same blood as the masters of St. Petersburg and Budapest. Race does not betray race. Bolshevism is defended by international plutocracy. That is the essential truth. International plutocracy, dominated and controlled by the Jews, has a supreme interest in hastening all of Russian life through its process of molecular disintegration to the point of paroxysm. A paralyzed Russia, disorganized and hungry, will tomorrow be the place where the bourgeoisie—yes the bourgeoisie, my dear proletarians—will celebrate its spectacular abundance. The kings of gold believe that Bolshevism must live now, to better prepare the ground for the new business of capitalism. American capitalism has already obtained a great "concession" in Russia. But there are still mines, springs, lands, workshops, which are waiting to be exploited by international capitalism. This fatal stage in human history is not skipped, especially in Russia. It is useless, absolutely useless, for the advanced and even conscious proletarians to warm their heads to defend the Russia of the Soviets. The fate of Leninism does not depend on the proletariat of Russia or of France, much less that of Italy. Leninism will live for as long as the kings of finance so desire; it will die when the same kings of finance decide to kill it. The anti-Bolshevik armies, which from time to time are affected by a mysterious paralysis, will become simply overwhelming at a given time which will be chosen by the kings of finance. The Jews of the Soviets precede the Jews of the banks. The fate of St. Petersburg is not determined on the icy steppes of Finland, but in the banks of London, New York and Tokyo.

>To state that the international bourgeoisie now wants to destroy the Soviet Regime is to state a gross lie. If, tomorrow, the plutocratic bourgeoisie decides to destroy it, they will have no difficulty whatsoever because their "accomplices", the Leninists, already sit and work for them in the Kremlin.

—The Accomplices
Published in Il Popolo d'ltalia, June 4, 1919

>>19226897
The people I hang out with, 'artists' just as yourself don't care about 'democratic ownership' over the means of production. 'We' want our paycheck, or more importantly free time—for our intellectual and artistic pursuits. I don't want my opinion to be heard in a factory. I don't even want to be near one, if I had to work in one for the rest of my life I would put a bullet in my brain.

'Managers' are not bourgeoisie. They are not the owners. They are not the rentiers. They are workers, employed by the owners as directors, because they contain a special set of skills which is necessary when dealing with an economy as specialized as ours. The fact of the matter is that the masses have poor organizational ability. You cannot 'democratically' run a company that has tens of thousands of workers, each specialized with a particular set of skills. You need leaders.

Workers don't want 'workplace democracy', they want a living wage, they want shorter hours, they want healthcare. If they're not getting their needs that is what the general strike is for, but workplace democracy is hardly the qualm of any working man.

The masses never accomplish anything. The masses still participate in elections, the mass delusion of democracy. I have never voted in my life and never will. Men don't 'vote' they use violence. Your fetishization of democracy is the same stupidity as the social democrats—who the Fascists and the Revolutionary Syndicalists before them rightfully opposed as a degeneration of socialism.

Thread for sharing and discussing literature and essays from members of the Fascist First Hour who fought until the end, authors including Benito Mussolini, Giovanni Gentile, Ugo Spirito, Sergio Panunzino, Mino Maccari, Berto Ricci, Elio Vittorini and F.T. Marinetti.

Also worth discussing is the communist opposition who ended up joining the Fascists in the civil war [Bombacci was executed and Bordiga who quit politics but expressed support in quiet]—as well as former Fascists who changed sides, A.O. Olivetti after the March on Rome; Edmondo Rossoni, Curzio Malaparte, Giuseppe Bottai, Romano Bilenchi who changed sides after the Italian Civil War.

Any literature from the time period is also welcome, the history of this period is quite a mess. Fascism meant something different to each and every single individual which I listed, but it is also what precisely made them all 'Fascists'.


Very difficult to find English translated works from these people. Fascism remains an enigma to those who are outside of it.

>>19222259
>The idea I reject is that shit about history only moving in one direction and all societies gravitating towards socialism
He clears this up in the poverty of philosophy. No he does not say 'communism is inevitable' and even Engels admitted that their work being interpreted as 'economic determinism' as flat out wrong. I cannot remember the name for the life of me of that article he wrote.
>I don't even dislike socialism I just know this isn't true or scientific
I don't know what you mean by 'isn't true'.
I don't think it HAS to be scientific either—many Marxists would disagree with me on that though. You must be critical of people who adopt the title of 'Marxist'. Marx didn't like people who call themselves that and the bread and butter of his work is difficult for the layman to grasp.
You might want to get into Sorel and syndicalism, who after the 'Crisis of Marxism' 'rejuvenated' socialism and gave it some virility after it turned into a parliamentary and bourgeoisie movement. Indeed syndicalism was arguably the most genuine interpretation of communism at the time—following that you'll also want to get into fascism. For reasons that should be obvious after you study it.