/lit/ - Literature

>>18931564
check Ramiro Ledesma Ramos

>>18931570
It attempted to bridge the gap between nationalism and the anarcho-syndicalist of the dominant trade union, the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT), by revising Syndicalism altogether.

His admiration for Nazism brought him to imitate Adolf Hitler's hairstyle.

[On himself:] "The red shirt of Garibaldi fits Ramiro Ledesma and his comrades better than the black shirt of Mussolini."

>>18931570
>Ramiro Ledesma Ramos
Funny, in his "¿Fascismo en España?" he considered the blackshirts to be too reactionary and likened himself to Garibaldi. It's a shame he was assassinated, the Spanish Civil War was a great tragedy.

Ledesma is often accused of anti-semitism. How much truth is there to this? I know he was a fan of Adolf.

>>18931592
>>18931600
Ah well you just said the exact same thing as me haha. Was he an anti-semite though?

>>18931564
Goebbels' diary desu

>>18931610
Funny, in Goebbels diaries he directly criticized Fascism for not having a proper "Weltanschauung" unlike National Socialism. Early Goebbels considered himself a "German Communist" and expressed that the difference between Leninism and the Hitler faith was "very slight." Though I consider the NSDAP to be philosophically barren aside from the few party members who had intellectual tendencies like Schmitt or Heidegger. The NSDAP was it's own beast entirely and deserves to be separated from the Italian Fascist movement- as the two really only share surface level similarities.

People often forget that Fascism was not a single unified movement under one ideology but contained many subcultures which varied from city to city and neighborhood to neighborhood. We can observe tendencies of Liberalism, Monarchism, Anarchism, and Communism all present in various Fascios. Their one single unifying factor was that they all agreed to be under the leadership of Mussolini- as this was how Italian Politics worked at the time. The leader was more important to the movement than it's policy.

That Mussolini represented so many different political tendencies explains why Fascism is viewed as incoherent today, and why Mussolini would contradict himself from one week to the next.

>>18931731
>However, from the day when he came into power he showed that he realized that his principal enemy was not conquered Communism, nor impotent Socialism, nor non-existent democracy, nor dis- credited Freemasonry, nor waning Liberalism, nor the domestic Catholics, but Fascism itself. From the day when he formed an exclusively Fascist ministry, began his conflict with Fascism. His most serious troubles, his most insuperable obstacles, his severest threats, have always come from the Fascists.
-Fascism: Giuseppe Prezzolini, p. 19

>>18931564
I like Zeev Sternhell’s books on the intellectual history of fascism

>>18931785
>Zeev Sternhell
If I'm not mistaken his works deal with what is considered today to be French "proto-fascism" with Cercle Proudhon and Sorel's brief adventure with Integral Nationalism, which is quite overstated in my opinion because Sorel never abandoned Syndicalism but only had a brief flirtation with people like Maurras because of shared anti-democratic, anti-parliamentarian views. Sternhell's work is good for recognizing one of the wings of Fascism, but I've yet to find English language work on the names which I shared in my OP.

>>18931896
He talks about way more than just early French antecedents to fascism but also about bona fide fascist intellectuals and organisers like Brasillach, Rochelle, Valois, de Man, etc. I haven’t read his book on Italian Fascism yet but I assume he discusses people like Rossoni at some length (he touches on him in the French fascism book too).

>>18931922
I will give his work on the Italian movement a read. I hope I find out something new.

>>18931965
Not that anon but Eugen Weber is also pretty good on the French scene from what I recall.

How might one start from zero to get a non-pozzed idea of the philosophy of fascism? What’s “the book”

>>18932304
https://counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

>>18932313
Thank you

>>18932304
By not posting sonnenrads, dropping the /pol/ lingo, and disassociating the NSDAP with Fascism.
>>18932313
Anti-usury is always a good stance.

>>18931564
You forgot to name Nicola Bombacci

>>18932780
Easy enough—I have no great allegiance to the symbol of the lingo

>>18932907
Yeah you're right. I would love to read the articles he wrote and how he justified joining Mussolini in the end. Literally one of the founding members of the Italian Communist party. It's so funny because he was actually right. Stalin never made socialism.

What a tragic figure. His story makes me so sad.

>>18933236
Are these articles available? Are they just untranslated? Please link them if you know where to find them.

>>18931731
>The leader was more important to the movement than it's policy.
The emphasis on the leader who can discipline and focus the movement with his charm and ability seems to be the defining thing about it, than any theory, which is probably why few of these regimes outlasted their leader, and why Mussolini's own regime ended up being co-opted by the Germans.

This is why the "China = fascist" stuff doesn't work since Deng (and every socialist who supported his reforms) viewed it as a temporary stage, whereas the fascists often see that as the end goal. Deng wasn't also particularly charismatic either, although he certainly had ability. I never see fascists talk about "transitional" states, but maybe they're out there.

>>18933236
He is a very interesting figure and someone who both the right and the left try to ignore

>>18931564
>Left-Fascism
Are we talking about people like Ernst Niekisch? Also, why do you oppose "Right-Fascism"?
Interesting that this thread hasn't been derailed. There's a Spengler thread up right now that just got infested with some abnoxious retards.
>>18932780
>disassociating the NSDAP with Fascism
Not even Fascists did that, so, Why? For optics?

can someone give me a good history book about Fascism? If possible not something ridiculously against it but neither pro fascist, the less sentiments the better. And if possible in French but that's optional

>>18933246
They should be available somewhere, a lot are probably in italian books that made studies on him. They should exist for sure but will just be difficult to locate.

Per la Costituzione dei Soviet. Relazione presentata al Congresso Nazionale, Pistoia, Tipografia F.lli Cialdini, 1920.

Le vere memorie di Nicola Bombacci, come Frièland, Bologna, Cooperativa Grafica fra ex combattenti, 1923.

Il mio pensiero sul bolscevismo, Roma, La Verità, 1941.

I contadini nella Russia di Stalin, Roma, Novissima, 1942.

Lavoratori ascoltate. Questo è il bolscevismo, Roma, s.n., 1942.

Paradiso o inferno? Vita quotidiana nell'U.R.S.S., Roma, La Verità, 1942.
I contadini nell'Italia di Mussolini, Roma, s.n., 1943.

Dove va la Russia? (Dal comunismo al panslavismo), Padova, Minerva, 1944.

Questo è il comunismo, Venezia, Casa ed. delle Edizioni popolari, 1944.

His works according to italian wikipedia.

>>18933251
There is a quote about Codreanu, stating that despite all his personal qualities his charisma did not make the Legion, the Legion made him charismatic. He filled the space it created, and that made him the man he was.

That is how fascism works, by producing excellence throughout the whole hierarchy including the top. It's not mere despotism or party "machine." Fascism is a transitional state in the sense that it has normal periods as well. Those periods just look like the healthy periods of any republic.

Arguably the whole point of fascism is to reignite faith in man and thus genuine political idealism. Fascism isn't for or against any one apparatus necessarily, it is against the view that only a properly tuned apparatus produces a functional state, that human beings are subordinate to apparatus. Apparatus is always subordinate to healthy human beings. Healthy human beings arise from and flourish in healthy communities. In our age where every political instinct is directed toward "fine-tuning," how can one manipulate the ugly masses into doing this, how can one turn all the self-interest of the elites against each other so they balance out, etc., fascism's genuine idealism is hard to look directly at, like the sun. Usually the bourgeois sensibility stops looking directly at it and says he just doesn't want to look at it, because it was naive and not worth looking at, but what really happened is that seeing the light of genuine faith and love in human nature and one's people was so unusual for him that it hurt his eyes and blinded him.

The reason fascism currently produces Hitlers and Mussolinis and Codreanus is that the evil they are being summoned forth by the collective will to fight against is equally evil, it's just more distributed like a poison in the bloodstream.

>>18933297
>Also, why do you oppose "Right-Fascism"?
Because I am a socialist.
>Not even Fascists did that, so, Why? For optics?
Because it's not Fascism.

>>18933297
*obnoxious
>>18933251
>the leader who can discipline and focus the movement with his charm and ability seems to be the defining thing about it
Yes, if I remember correctly Mussolini was very much inpired by D'Annunzio in his performances. It was in a Bowden speech about D'Annunzio:
>But Fiume represented a direct incursion of fantasy into political life because there is a degree to which D’Annunzio combined elements of performance art in his political vocabulary. There’s no doubt that he thought of politics as a form of theater, particularly for the masses, and this is because he was an elitist, because as an elitist he partly despised the masses except as the voluntarist agents of national consciousness. He theatricalized politics in order to give them entertainment without allowing them any particular say in what should be done. This idea of politics as performance art with the masses onstage but as an audience, an audience that responded and yet was not in charge, because there’s nothing democratic about D’Annunzio from his individualistic egotism as an artist all the way through to his sort of quasi-dictatorship of Fiume. He represented a particularly pure synthesis and the violence that was used and so on was largely rhetorical, largely staged, largely a performance, partly a sort of theater piece.
>D’Annunzio largely created Italian Fascism. Nearly everything that came out of the movement led by Mussolini at a later date originated with him and his ideas. The idea of the man alone, set above the people who is yet one of them, the idea of a squad of Arditi, people who are passionate and fanatical and frenzied with a stiff-arm Roman salute who are dressed in black and who are an audience for the leader, as well as security for the leader, as well as a prop to make sure particularly the masses and crowd when they are listening to the leader go along with what the leader is saying, as well as a sort of nationalist chorus . . . All of these ideas come from D’Annunzio and his period of forced occupation and Italianization of the port of Fiume.
https://counter-currents.com/2015/11/gabriele-dannunzio-3/

>>18933297
Fascism as a movement directly emerged from syndicalism, which considered itself the correct interpretation of Marxist communism, though Mussolini himself was more of a Blanquist and elitest.

>>18933254
Bolshevism had a lot of energy of the kind that was capable of uniting red Cossacks with avant-garde intellectuals wearing red leather and giving themselves (or their kids) ultra-modernist revolutionary names like Iskra ("Spark") or Noyabrina ("November"). My name is October Reactor!

https://youtu.be/7Q8z_y0Ye7U

And it's happening in Russia -- perceived as a very backwards country -- against all historic expectations. I think it would've seemed really bizarro at the time.

With Bombacci, I think what happened is that he was really enthusiastic about this, but then found himself sitting around in Leningrad in 1921 when things were settling down and the wave had crested, and now it's time to sit around in conference rooms and hash out what you're going to do next, and it's kinda boring in comparison to the really red-hot revolutionary years.

Then here comes Italian fascism which is a movement of the right (which is how the chips fell in the end anyways), but it's the right being reinvigorated by the challenge posed by the revolutionary left. It's like the antithesis of Bolshevism, while adopting some of the same energy and phrases -- but for different purposes. Then he runs off and joins it, because that's the new thing, and there was no going back, and then he ended up dangling from a rope in 1945 and that's the end of the story.

>>18933343
>fascism's genuine idealism is hard to look directly at, like the sun
It helped Codreanu that he looked like Tyrone Power, the Hollywood swashbuckling actor -- it'd be like if a Johnny Depp (at his prime anyways) lookalike was leading a Romanian fascist party. That's kind of funny to think about though, because the "sun" motif is very common in communist aesthetics. Look up Soviet or Chinese communist propaganda posters and you'll see it all the time.

https://youtu.be/dL4Vg0FpQjI?t=48

But again, for what purposes? With fascism, how to create "healthy human beings" has often been wrapped up in ideas of social Darwinism and "survival of the fittest" and "the strong should dominate the weak" and so forth, which naturally puts communists on top of fascists' death lists. In a sense, fascism is anti-bourgeois but it contains the logic of total competition and war between nation-states. Anyhow, the Legion of the Archangel Michael was unusually morbid for a fascist party even by the standards of European interwar fascist groups.

>>18933326

>>18933355
Not that anon, but interesting thread. I consider myself a fascist, but I never thought of dividing it into left- and right wing, though I would consider myself socialist on a fair few points. But for me it was the Third Way, a rejection of both mainstream left and right.

Could you explain the difference between left and right fascism? I'm interested. It's not often we have threads that don't immediately get derailed.

There was a thread a few days Gentile which was very interesting since I hadn't read anything by or about him other than skimming through his wikipedia article.

>>18933562
>With fascism, how to create "healthy human beings" has often been wrapped up in ideas of social Darwinism and "survival of the fittest" and "the strong should dominate the weak" and so forth
I don't think that's necessarily true. This is the meme in bourgeois/liberal scholarship on fascism but in reality a lot of fascists were idealists, romantics, mystics, and so on. The real rift, hinted at in this thread already, seems to be between "right fascists" who see fascism as a tool for reasserting some kind of natural authoritarian tendency like a church or aristocracy, and "left fascists" who see fascism as genuinely socialistic. It's not a simple divide either. Arguably Maurras could be considered a right fascist despite his eclectic "classicism," but so could E.J. Jung and Papen. Most volkisch socialists and fascists would fall within the left of fascism and they understandably have many more connections with anarchists and other left socialists than the Jung types would, but even so, full-blown "beefsteak Nazis" and National Bolshevists are pretty rare and occupy the leftward fringe of left fascism itself.

Nowhere in any of these groups is there a necessary obsession with social Darwinism in the Spencerian caricature sense. The Germans had their racial fixation which filtered a lot of that old Gobineau/Spencer stuff through Chamberlain and his epigone Rosenberg, but the racial fixation seemed weird even to other fascists within Germany, let alone abroad. See for example Evola's essay on race. The same was true in every country. Even in today's right wing you can see the same variety of symbols. Some people are hung up on the symbol of race, or it's the easiest one for them to understand, but this leads them to an atheistic paganism that will cause degeneration (including racial degeneration eventually). Others are hung on the symbol of resisting degeneracy, like right wing Catholics, but are somewhat blind to how race factors into that and how race is one of the many things that needs to be preserved in its distinctness to a reasonable degree.

For all the memery, Evola is a good high representative of how fascism may mean many things and encompass many things. His race essay shows how the race concept is one particular manifestation, evidently compelling for some people (the Germans), of a more primordial fascist tendency. This is also the source of his distancing himself from the Fascist state by saying he was above fascism. Fascism is higher and more basal than any of its manifestations. It is not mere oligarchic reaction, although it takes the best of aristocracy from the ancien regime. It's also not mere levelling, like internationalist communism and anarchism lapse into, but it takes the anti-bourgeois spirit and revolutionary verve and occasional blanquism of those movements.

>>18933676
Even the Legion wasn't so bad. The cult of death was a cult of warrior commitment, an attempt to create a new Arditi for the coming conflict with the bourgeois state. And look what the bourgeois state did, it wielded the tools of death much more callously and coldly than the Legion did when it finally came time to suspend the farce of bourgeois political procedure and treat the state like what it was: the apparatus of deracinated money-power.

The forces of health have their downsides. Hitler was daemoniac and single-minded and blind to the fact that he surrounded himself with hyper-effective monsters. Nietzsche's "blond beast" is an amoral Conan-esque monster and can only be friends with other blond beasts. Codreanu was harnessing and binding together all the repressed and latent elements of health that had been suppressed and rendered comatose so the slow poison of domination by a foreign bourgeoisie could take its effect. Some of those elements and currents of latent energy were bound to be ambivalent, for instance extremely powerful in defence of the homeland but also extremely callous.

On the issue of leftist fascists there is a great quote by one of the French fascists in one of Sternhell's books:
>Mere reactionaries are simply pining after the age where one had servants.

>>18933326
Dylan Riley's The Civic Foundations of Fascism in Europe

Zeev Sternhell's Neither Right Nor Left: Fascist Ideology in France

>>18933645
Socialism is a mode of economic organization in which the means of production belong to the workers who use them. Fascism was born out of the specific economic and political climate present and unique to Italy at the time. Fascism was not a set ideology or doctrine but a way of politics. You can literally be a communist Fascist as Bombacci was, and others were even Liberals or Monarchs. Not even Gentile's philosophy enforces a particular way of thinking and academics today interpret him liberally.

The most important aspect of Fascism is the leader, this is just the way Italian political movements were at the time. It's the personality of the leader which shapes how the people are ruled.

D'Anunnzino's is considered the first "Duce" in his occupation of Fiume and his rule was characterized with cocaine, hookers, and beating up Croatians.

So what is Fascism? The leader and his values– which can be anything.

>>18933676
>For all the memery, Evola is a good high representative of how fascism may mean many things and encompass many things.
Was Evola even a fascist though? He seemed like had a highly aristocratic ideology in which the ancien regime = always better, so even the fascist "revolution" in Italy would've been theoretically bad from his perspective, and I've heard some of the survivors of that regime, when they were still around, didn't think of Evola as one of their guys, and he was a pretty marginal figure when those guys were actually in power. Evola's influence strikes me as very much post-war with the belief that the West had entered into an interregnum so one should retreat inwards and become an "aristocrat of the soul" and so forth. His kind of thinking eschews mass politics.

Sorel was insanely based.

>>18933676
>I don't think that's necessarily true. This is the meme in bourgeois/liberal scholarship on fascism but in reality a lot of fascists were idealists, romantics, mystics, and so on.
This is where I see elitism of it though, which you do see in common with occultic / esoteric stuff, where the fascist vanguard are smarter and superior to the "common" sheeple or NPCs or whatever. In the contemporary manifestations of this, they convince themselves they're better than their lessers, which contrasts with the fact that many of them are low on the social totem pole or feel like failures, and the contradiction drives a lot of resentment which can boil over into violence. I suppose that's where you can connect Evola, though, because while he had an aristocratic ideology that eschewed the masses, if we're living in an interregnum that leads to civilizational decline or collapse, then why not speed it up? That's a recipe for individualistic terror.

>>18934142
I don't consider Evola a Fascist but Fascism while appealing to popular sentiment was never really a "mass movement." I mean Musso was literally lynched by a crowd.

>>18934253
That did happen, and I'm not well read on their development, but they did organize themselves in political parties with mass organizations attached to them. I don't see that from Evola. I think the far right being so influenced by him has probably had a demobilizing effect overall.

He seems like he's the intellectual for the far right that Death in June is to their music. Like, the outside world is all busted, but you have this inner sanctum. It is very romantic though.

https://youtu.be/F_S8bPXK8ao

>>18933805
I’m not sure about the leader thing exactly. Certainly it’s important but is it the defining aspect of fascism? Aren’t communist regimes like those in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cuba, Romania, Yugoslavia, North Korea, etc. also often defined, at least in some periods of their history, by a kind of Führerprinzip? And Italian Fascism was not exactly an absolutist dictatorship. Mussolini was regularly bullied and overruled not only by members of his Fascist Ground Council but by grassroots organisations like the Squadristi. Certainly the cult of Mussolini was important to Italian Fascism, but I wonder if it is *the* defining characteristic of Fascism, any more than it might be of communism, or of simple bourgeois authoritarian dictatorships, or of human politics in general.

>>18934337
That Musso wasn't an absolutist dictator was a part of his personality. He could have murdered the King but that would have meant civil war, which there was after '43 anyway. Like earlier posts saids there were many factions, but Mussolini was the defining feature of Fascism. No Mussolini, no Fascism.

>>18933572
>>18933713
thanks guys

>>18934337
I think there are some things that you'll see in different kinds of regimes (a leader, political rituals, etc.) that are just common to them all in form, but are different in the substance. I think communist regimes have tended to survive the deaths of their leaders, because the emphasis is more placed in the communist *party* as the representative of the collective will. The party is like your "mother," basically. It's almost feminine:

https://youtu.be/AF8so_FlVE0

You still see this in North Korea, which has a leader cult that's completely out of control, but even then, the North Koreans have been deemphasizing Kim Jong Un as the "leader" at least relative to them. It's very strange, and very few have commented on this, but they've been calling him "comrade" now or "respected comrade." Really in the past year.

Now, of course, there have been communist leaders who have taken on enormous dimensions like Stalin, Mao and Castro, and that contains a lot of dangers, but actually the Cubans avoided building a personality cult around Fidel despite his charisma (no statues, and they don't name anything after him -- preferring Che for this instead). So, anyways, I think they've been able to adjust it, with the individual leader becoming prominent during periods of rapid and intense change. As Gramsci put it: "In the modern world, only those historico-political actions which are immediate and imminent, characterised by the necessity for lightning speed, can be incarnated mythically by a concrete individual." The world is undergoing extremely rapid changes, and it's now necessary to move rapidly, and that's the moment in which the concrete individual emerges from the party to focus people and see the populace through the "crisis," while fulfilling their role as Great Men of history, and this visualizes it to me:

https://youtu.be/JOWRembdPS8?t=69

>>18934535
Also turn on the subtitles on that first video. "I compare the party to my mother, my mother only gave birth to me, and the glory of the party shines on my heart."

>>18934535 (me)
Another example of this:

https://youtu.be/3-z-zRnXGHE

What's interesting to me about this is that it starts with an ode to the party (the whole thing is a combined celebration and "reenactment" of the party's history), but Xi's image on the screen doesn't really show up for an hour and 45 minutes into the show, even though he's in the literally crowd with the rest of the party's standing committee.

This probably draws a lot of comparisons to Triumph of the Will with the mass performances and so forth, but Triumph of the Will begins with Hitler flying in from "heaven" and landing in a plane, right?

https://youtu.be/_6uVrO5d6KU

>>18931659
>Early Goebbels considered himself a "German Communist"
Really? This sounds new to me
>The NSDAP was it's own beast entirely and deserves to be separated from the Italian Fascist movement- as the two really only share surface level similarities.
While I somewhat agree that they are not the same thing, the situation is complex, Hitler admired Mussolini for his accomplishments and didn't like him personally. Also, both fascism and NS evolved through time, even the "middle" fascism wasn't racist [OP mentioned a jewish supporter of Mussolini I have never even heard about], after 1943 RSI was basically a puppet of Third Reich, even recycling themselves as "republicans" instead of clerical and monarchist (two concepts Benito himself didn't like)...

>>18931731
>>18931769
Hmmm I agree that there were internal conflicts between various shades of fascism but
>Liberalism, Monarchism, Anarchism, and Communism
This sounds a bit extreme. I mean, yes, Bottai, Giolitti, some Savoia dude I forgot the name of... But I don't think fascism was THAT heterogeneous as you make it sound

>>18932907
>>18932907
Damn here >>18934762 I wrote Bottai and meant Bombacci, my mistake

>>18933343
woah dude.. far out bro

>>18934762
It's true though. The fascists did very little to replace positions that were already taken up. Remember, Italy had a civil war too. Italy wasn't even united as a country for a century.

>>18931769
>His most serious troubles, his most insuperable obstacles, his severest threats, have always come from the Fascists.
https://youtu.be/5pm8GITlc8M

Leftism IS Fascism.

>>18935143
/thread

>Very difficult to find English translated works from this revolutionary wing of Fascism.

Impossible at the very least. I'm learning italian precisely for that reason.

>>18932304
Benito Mussolini's Opera Omnia.

Damn what a good thread. I was the sonnentard above, learned a lot here on a topic I thought I already knew a good deal about. So, is the consensus then that fascism is a sort of political romanticism regarding human greatness or potential?

>>18935301
That’s not a bad description. Zeev Sternhell describes early fascist thought as an ‘idealist revision of Marxism’—that is, that it emphasises the human will, ‘spirit’ and action rather than a deterministic and materialist view of human history and development.

>>18933326
A. James Gregor's "Italian Fascism and Developmental Dictatorship" is great. Emilio Gentile's "The Struggle for Modernity: Nationalism, Futurism, and Fascism" is another essential book.

>>18931731
Fascism wasn't that heterogenous, nor was the element of a leader the only defining aspect. The notion of a "Leader" as a mobilizing myth was well-established in the doctrines of the revolutionary syndicalists long before the advent of Fascism, and was a consequence of a throughout analysis of social interaction.
The principle of leadership wasn't born from a necessity of an "unifying" element in the face of an heterogenous organization that carried no doctrinal foundations; on the contrary, Fascist elitism was based on the reflections already developed by Roberto Michels and Sergio Panunzio: that is, that any kind of revolutionary organization is oligarchical in nature, and thus, just a revolutionary vanguard -of which the Leader was both a mobilizing myth and the defining element of the organization- was capable of paving out the way to Socialism. In fact, in order to defend such position as completely marxist in nature, Marx's support for german communists -on a time where the proletariat was but an exiguous minority- was recalled.

Therefore, the Leader principle was the consequence of a strong ideological conviction, not the absence of one.

>>18931564
Not a thing, get off Wikipedia.

>>18935301
If you like all this, check out Paul Piccone and Telos, the most interesting leftist journal of the postwar period, and their rapprochement with the European New Right in the early 1990s.
https://c2cjournal.ca/2009/06/where-marx-and-conservatives-meet-the-writings-of-paul-piccone/

You can read about it in Bar-On, Where Have All The Fascists Gone?

>>18935457
>The principle of leadership wasn't born from a necessity of an "unifying" element in the face of an heterogenous organization that carried no doctrinal foundations; on the contrary, Fascist elitism was based on the reflections already developed by Roberto Michels and Sergio Panunzio: that is, that any kind of revolutionary organization is oligarchical in nature, and thus, just a revolutionary vanguard -of which the Leader was both a mobilizing myth and the defining element of the organization- was capable of paving out the way to Socialism.
Where can I read about this?
>In fact, in order to defend such position as completely marxist in nature, Marx's support for german communists -on a time where the proletariat was but an exiguous minority- was recalled.
And this.

Good post. Thank you.

>>18936025
It is literally a thing and Wikipedia says quite the opposite.

>>18934700
Your observations remind me of this Zizek clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqZmXf3MfKQ

>>18936322
I took it from Gregor's "Italian Fascism and Developmental Dictatorship" and "Mussolini's intellectuals"
He explains it much better than me.

How do I rectify my individualism with Gentile's philosophy?

Gentile is often accused of being solipsistic, and from my reading of him he doesn't seem to oppose the individual but opposes the liberal conception of the individual as as an independent monad- where individualism is opposed to the state.

Does the state create the individual, or does the individual create the state? If it's thought as perception which creates the state then isn't the state the creation of the individual?

>>18937881
Gentile is a meme. Nobody gives a fuck about his insane ramblings.

>>18937938
but gentile makes sense to me. the world is a creation of mind. how can you argue with that?

>>18935296
How is this so hard to find?

>>18937938
Filtered

>>18937965
>Over 35 volumes
>Only in italian
>Everything Mussolini ever wrote: from novels to philosophical tracts

The biggest meme of contemporary politics.

>>18937996
(((they))) are at play

>>18937996
it would probably be entertaining to read. mussolini from what I know was a fun person to be around. I'd like to have a friend like him and go on adventures.

>>18937346
Yup:

https://youtu.be/X_vpJusMR14?t=474

>>18937346
>I believe in jewish folk tales and snort lots of adderall please let me tell you all about my half-baked pschyopoltical theory

There's a reason he and Jordan Peterson were paired up. They're the same.

All Fascists get the rope

>>18935301
fascism was a cope tailored for the scared bourgeoisie. it was coming to the realization that capitalism will inevitably lead to its own demise and going full copium: n-no, we can totally save capitalism and make it work forever, we just like need to a lot of will lmao.
by now though it's pretty much worthless, because lessons were drawn quickly after the 30s and 40s, and liberal democracies learned how to implement fascist methods while keeping a liberal ideology, and, equally importantly, how to use fascism as an alibi and a boogeyman to help further strengthen its rule.

>>18938669
Capitalism was just beginning in Italy you moron. More than half of the country was farmland. The socialist party (who were parliamentarian social democrats) were bourgeoise and reformist while all the Fascists belonged to the revolutionary syndicalist wing.

>>18938669
Not even Gramsci believes this, please stop.

>>18938669
This is 100 IQ in action.

>>18938669
First half of this post is totally incorrect. Second half is totally correct. As for the rest of you who take a bunch of banal observations or positions about politics and link them to fascism, why? Couldn't you have those without larping as a cartoon villain? No one offline will entertain those ideas as you present them because you've insisted on pretending to be some kind of witch, as opposed to say, a herbalist

>Americans wake up
>thread goes to shit
Every fucking time.

Left fascism... Literally the worst of all worlds. It's like if someone went out of their way to be wrong on every issue possible. Like those idiot nazbols

>>18938810
In what way?

>>18938669
Bourgeioise types are liberals/leftists

>>18938810
"Left" Fascism is just the more intransigent and radical wing of Fascism, placing an emphasis on social issues and the determinative economic-historical conditions.

>>18938810
This. People itt need to grow up

>>18938935
What is so bad about it?

>>18938669
/leftypol/ meme

>How then did Germany “break the bondage of interest”? Few now know. Rearmament is not a sufficient explanation. Prof. A. J. P. Taylor, the eminent British historian, and hardly a Nazi sympathizer, writes:

>"Fascism, it was claimed, represented the last aggressive stage of capitalism in decline, and its momentum could be sustained only by war. There was an element of truth in this, but not much. The full employment which Nazi Germany was the first European country to possess, depended in large part on the production of armaments; but it could have been provided equally well (and was to some extent) by other forms of public works from roads to great buildings. The Nazi secret was not armament production; it was freedom from the then orthodox principles of economics . . . the argument for war did not work even if the Nazi system had relied on armaments production alone. Nazi Germany was not choking in a flood of arms. On the contrary, the German Generals insists unanimously in 1939 that they were not equipped for war and that many years must pass before “rearmament in depth” had been completed."

>Answering predictions of ruin by orthodox economists throughout the world, Hitler explained that Germany had not withdrawn from world trade but had bypassed the international financial system by means of barter, stating:

>"If certain countries combat the German system this is done in the first instance because through the German method of trading their tricks of international currency and Bourse speculations have been abolished in favor of honest business transactions. . . . We are buyers of good foodstuff and raw materials and suppliers of equally good commodities!"

>Taylor comments on German trade barter:

>"Germany was not short of markets. On the contrary, Schacht used bilateral agreements to give Germany practically a monopoly of trade with south-eastern Europe; and similar plans were being prepared for the economic conquest of South America when the outbreak of war interrupted them."

>>18939135
>Henry Liu adds an interesting comment regarding communist China by way of comparison. It is instructive for us today in that Marxism has failed historically as an alternative to capitalism — as both Spengler and Eckart pointed out — especially with its inability to address the world financial system upon which monopoly capitalism is predicated. Liu writes:

>"After two and a half decades of economic reform toward neo-liberal market economy, China is still unable to accomplish in economic reconstruction what Nazi Germany managed in four years after coming to power, i.e., full employment with a vibrant economy financed with sovereign credit without the need to export, which would challenge that of Britain, the then superpower. This is because China made the mistake of relying on foreign investment instead of using its own sovereign credit."

"Maintain capitalism by destroying it and creating an autarkic corporatist society of unions and the first true welfare states" - internet communist living under capitalism paying $300,000 for a liberal arts education to study Adorno who worked with the CIA to move the Institute for Social Research to Columbia and produce a liberal business class of leftist theory-trained talking heads for the intelligence agencies and mainstream news companies

>>18938694
>Capitalism was just beginning in Italy you moron.
so what? over one million industrial workers were involved in strikes in Italy in 1919 and the solution to that crisis of capitalism were fascist militias that beat the workers into submission, and the later dismantling of independent worker organizations

>>18938721
>Not even Gramsci believes this
who cares what this dumb retard believed? in fact, as a general rule, him not believing something makes it more likely to be true

>>18938852
bourgeois types are whatever they need to be. if a fascist party appears as the best bet for stabilizing the country in crisis and beating the workers into submission so that profits can keep flowing, they'll be okay with fascism.
it's just that today, more often than not, the fascisized post-WWII democracy can do the job just as well and its rule is further strengthened by reminding everyone that evil fascism is just around the corner waiting to exploit any weakness, so the workers better remain fully subservient to the liberals and not cause trouble. this is the only reason why they tend to be lib-left rather than fascist, but it doesn't always have to be like this.

>>18939135
/leftypol/ is an even worse shithole than /lit/ so I'm not reading your copypasta

Since this was a nice thread before the lowercase twitter tranny showed up I vote that everyone who isn't mentally retarded just ignores him. You can already see he's going to block reply to every person fishing for (you)s without attempting actual discussion, so why bother. If you reply to the tranny, may your first child be a trans child.

>>18939786
>so what? over one million industrial workers were involved in strikes in Italy in 1919
Just around 1/40 of the population, so much for the "moltitude". There were many more war veterans who seeing themselves betrayed by the liberal institutions joined Fascism, the same movement which attacked the bourgeoisie both materially and spiritually, even going as far as to change language to remove their trace. It also didn't help that the strikes were usually followed by looting, further radicalizing the moderate veterans, just like my great-grandfather.

>>18939827
Not only was the working class tiny in many countries that went over to fascism but it was often heavily Jewish and urban compared to the vast majority of the poor population that was rural and traditional. Jews were often recent immigrants from Russia and elsewhere who despised the local population. So you have a situation where the majority of the "workers' movement" is Jewish middle class atheists and anti-nationalists who arrived in the last generation or so, usually dominating the press and universities, and telling the illiterate and depressed native peasantry and proto-workers that what's best for them is to open the gates to the Bolshevik hordes and singing Russian revolutionary songs on university campuses.

In many cases, in countries that only achieved national independence or unification in the last 30-50 years, after centuries of oppression, sometimes by Russians.

>>18939827
>It also didn't help that the strikes were usually followed by looting, further radicalizing the moderate veterans
It'd be even worse if they found out you were a volunteer.
>just like my great-grandfather.
One of the OGs. I don't know if there will ever be a movement with that kind of energy ever again.
>>18939875
Italian Jews were Italians.

>>18939804
this is ironic because apparently the fascist larper faggots are even bigger snowflakes than tankie twitter trannies, which is quite a feat, I have to say

>>18939827
>Just around 1/40 of the population
first, you're conveniently forgetting their immediate families. second, their weight was crucial because of the importance of heavy industry compared to agriculture and of the cities compared to the countryside. as far as their impact is concerned, a few hundred thousands workers occupying factories in big cities (such as Fiat's) have an enormous force multiplier compared with isolated peasants in tens of thousands of tiny villages, or whoever else. what matters is the relative force of those politically active. if you compare absolute numbers with the mass of the static population, including everyone from newborns to 80-year-old invalids, you'll always get a minority. if you're really too stupid to understand this, you should stop commenting on anything related to politics in any way.

>>18933326
Revolutionary syndacalism*
Please, be more specific next time

>>18939958
>first, you're conveniently forgetting their immediate families.
Irrelevant when we're talking about active subjects, as you said. One wouldn't be a Socialist just because a relative was, and many times families found themselves on opposite sides of the wall.
>second, their weight was crucial because of the importance of heavy industry compared to agriculture and of the cities compared to the countryside.
What a joke, Italian industry was infinitely less relevant than agricoltura at the time, being confirmed in the industrial triangle of the North and with its center in Milan, the biggest Fascist stronghold after Rome.
>have an enormous force multiplier compared with isolated peasants in tens of thousands of tiny villages, or whoever else.
Those peasants were not isolated at all, all life in Italy was and is structured around the comune, otherwise they couldn't have been drafted to war. That's how Maoism won, through controlling the country side, not isolated industrializing cities.
>what matters is the relative force of those politically active.
Socialist strikes made sure Fascism had the upper hand. If you're not Italian, stop talking about Italy. If you're "Italian" (and by Italian I mean a Maghrebi living here) kill yourself.

>>18939944
Some Jews are assimilated, some aren't. Hypersensitivity to the Jewish issue like it's some kind of magical rune is silly. Jews are just people. Jews in Hungary were very assimilated, Jews in Germany not so much, Jews in Romania definitely not. The issue is most often Russian emigre Jews with radical and zionist identities overlapping.

>>18939958
Just make interesting posts instead of opinionated yet substanceless tranny posts and you're fine. You seem to have gotten the message and increased the amount of effort, so my post was a success.

>>18940035
>Irrelevant when we're talking about active subjects, as you said. One wouldn't be a Socialist just because a relative was
I'm talking about wife, children and other dependents of the worker, who clearly shared immediate interest in the success of the movement
>What a joke, Italian industry was infinitely less relevant than agricoltura at the time
no, it wasn't. it was crucial to the war effort and the industrialists had already amassed sizable influence. and history was on their side too. besides, there were also strikes of farm workers in agriculture.
>Those peasants were not isolated at all
I'm talking about independent smallholders and to an extent also the mezzadri. and the draft has nothing to do with this

>>18940212
A lot of strikes went on in public companies in things like the railway service, which would directly hurt white collar workers (who the Fascists appealed to) from getting two and from their job. I think I'm going to have to study the Biennio Rosso in detail to know what really went on- but "Strikes = Good" shouldn't really be the default position and union leaders can be really opportunistic and hurt workers too. Don't think for one minute socialist leaders wouldn't use workers to ignite more feuds between the Fascists given their previous bad blood from their split from the PSI. Fascists praised worker takeovers when the national flag was raised over the factory than the red flag. You should really think of the economic circumstances that each and every singe class was in. Capitalists are going to fund whoever would be the most beneficial for them- they thought Fascist violence could be controlled and this was demonstrably not true.

That Rossini's Fascist syndicate had 1.8 million members and expressed that worker control over the means of production was a "historical inevitability" should really give you some hints. Bolsheviks had unity between the peasant and the worker. The leftists movements in Italy would have greatly benefited from union between the soldier and the worker.

>>18940212
>>18940212
A lot of strikes went on in public companies in things like the railway service, which would directly hurt white collar workers (who the Fascists appealed to) from getting to and from their job. I think I'm going to have to study the Biennio Rosso in detail to know what really went on- but "Strikes = Good" shouldn't really be the default position and union leaders can be really opportunistic and hurt workers too. Don't think for one minute socialist leaders wouldn't use workers to ignite more feuds between the Fascists given their previous bad blood from their split from the PSI. Fascists praised worker takeovers when the national flag was raised over the factory rather than the red flag. You should really think of the economic circumstances that each and every singe class was in. Capitalists are going to fund whoever would be the most beneficial for them- they thought Fascist violence could be controlled and this was demonstrably not true. Again, remember that capitalism was just beginning in Italy. The bourgeoisie in Italy did not have the control over Italian culture like they did in France or England.

That Rossini's Fascist syndicate had 1.8 million members and expressed that worker control over the means of production was a "historical inevitability" should really give you some hints. Bolsheviks had unity between the peasant and the worker. The leftists movements in Italy would have greatly benefited from union between the soldier and the worker.

>>18937881
Evola did it with Traditionalism

>>18940981
Which works from Evola directly deal with Gentile's philosophy?

Giovanni gentiles Critque of Dilatic Materlism was just recently translated from Italian to english.
https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/giovanni-gentile/philosophy-of-marx/paperback/product-yqzkew.html?page=1&pageSize=4

> To Gentile, Marx's externalizing of the dialectic was essentially a fetishistic mysticism. Though when viewed externally thus, it followed that Marx could then make claims to the effect of what state or condition the dialectic objectively existed in history, a posteriori of where any individual's opinion was while comporting oneself to the totalized whole of society. i.e. people themselves could by such a view be ideologically 'backwards' and left behind from the current state of the dialectic and not themselves be part of what is actively creating the dialectic as-it-is. Gentile thought this was absurd, and that there was no 'positive' independently existing dialectical object. Rather, the dialectic was natural to the state, as-it-is. Meaning that the interests composing the state are composing the dialectic by their living organic process of holding oppositional views within that state, and unified therein. It being the mean condition of those interests as ever they exist.

Fascism is cringe and infantile whatever its colours and shapes may be.

>>18941329
Is Giovanni making an argument for Ethnopluralism, or I'm reading this wrong? Marx said the state would sublimate the individual into communism, Giovanni is saying that is impossible the inherent atomization of the individual, and the goal of the state is to harmonize the contradictory interests between these groups?

>>18941329
How is this any different than Marx Stirner's nominalism?
>>18940987
Max Stirner is Giovanni Gentile's 1:1 -

>>18941403
I think that's just Gentile justifying a Corpratist State. The state isnt a product of the dialectic as much as it is the totality of an entire system. So it isnt a product of a particualr negation but rather what the negation resides in. When negations occur, they synthesize into higher and richer concepts. So a synthesis of concepts negates both concepts but also affirms them, it's Aufhebung essentially. A higher form of what the original concepts were. These negations do not exist on their own but are part of a system which allows these negations to occur in the first place and give them meaning outside of a meaningless abstraction. The system is the state.

>>18940987
his early stuff, like Saggi sull'idealismo magico