Mussolini- Fascism

[Anonymous No.5974669]

The Doctrine of Fascism- written by Mussolini and Giovani Gentile

Would like some discussion, or better yet sources for essays written on this text. I read it the other day and have found myself combing through it again and again out of interest, though i couldn't say why.

Note- I am not remotely a Fascist and don't want to have an ethical discussion about this, I would simply like to better understand the context and meaning of this text, as some of it is very vague, almost like a German philosophy text or something.

here is a copy if anyone wants to read it, its quite short
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

[Anonymous No.5974717]

bump someone must have read this

[Anonymous No.5974748]

>>5974669
Been a while since I've read it but yeah, it does have that character. Fascism (esp early Italian fascism) was very modernist, very abstract, and you could argue idealist in the philosophical sense. So yes, it's all about those broad totalizing ideas of Man as Man and the State as the highest expression of the People and the necessity for purity in politics and all these kinds of things. It's very much of the times.

Do you have any more specific questions? I'll probably give the text a quick skim just as a refresher.

[Anonymous No.5974763]

It was written by Gentile and never read by anyone until the foundation of /pol/.

You guys are extremely funny.

[Anonymous No.5974775]

>>5974669
you probably find it compelling because fascism offers secular spirituality through the state

the manifesto outlines how fascism can provide you with an identity and a community, which is a basic thing people seek when they come of age. some 'find jesus,' many identify with their profession or workplace, others with organized political parties.

it also *seemingly* resolves a *seeming* contradiction between capitalism and communism. the so-called 'third way.' fascism was, and still is, a synthesis of and response to prevailing historical tensions and economic realities

>>5974763
>never read by anyone until the foundation of /pol/

it was assigned to me in a high school history class. its also standard material for european history in undergrad

[Anonymous No.5974778]

>>5974748
>very modernist, very abstract, and you could argue idealist i
I actually thought it was rather more 19th or 18th century than Modernist, all the business about the Nation as a whole, and the Nation acting and not just being, recalled passages of Hegel and Fichte, though I'm not an expert on either. There is a kind of holism I think to it, though it's subordinated by the idea that the highest point of a hierarchy is always correct, it is always the 'way should things be' or whatever. If you know anything about those points I'd be interested, sorry for the amateurism
>>5974763
I explicitly said I'm not at all Fascist, and that board are Nazis, which aren't the same thing.

[Anonymous No.5974781]

>>5974775
> fascism was, and still is, a synthesis of and response to prevailing historical tensions and economic realities

I feel like that's at best a tautology and a truism. I mean, couldn't the same be said of all theories?

[Anonymous No.5974782]

Read the Philosophic Basis of Fascism, by Gentile.

[Anonymous No.5974786]

>>5974775
I can definitely see that is offers a purpose, a sense of belonging to an imagined world and also being able to assert yourself and be within it, but there are many such ideologies that don't appeal to me. I think I can say that I wasn't attracted to it so much as intrigued, but again I haven't been able to put my finger on it.

[Anonymous No.5974791]

>>5974782
You can find that here by the way

Also the Charter of Carnaro was an important writing in baby-stage fascism
http://www.reakt.org/fiume/charter_of_carnaro.html

If you want something more substantial, read The Theory of Mind as Pure Act, also by Gentile
https://archive.org/details/thetheoryofminda00gentuoft

[Anonymous No.5974793]

>>5974782
Thank you this looks interesting

[Anonymous No.5974794]

>>5974778
>>5974778
I would argue that it's the emphasis on purity of action, and the abstraction involved in identifying action as such as the essential thing rather than action towards any more specific goal, that marks it as modernist. There's certainly a holism in the sense that fascism is intended to be totalizing - but totalizing in a specific direction, a direction of action arbitrarily chosen, from which ethics and meaning and spiritual quality will resolve itself. It's the state qua state and political action qua political action that matter AND NOTHING MORE. That's the solution from the fascist point of view.

[Anonymous No.5974796]

>>5974781
Not that guy, but from a simple-minded perspective, the conflict between capitalists and socialists is based around valuing either liberty or equality. Fascism resolves it by asking, why can't we have neither?

[Anonymous No.5974797]

>>5974791
Whoops, forgot the first link

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14058/14058-h/14058-h.htm
Philosophic Basis, read that, especially Part VII, which explains the critical ideological differences between fascism and nationalism.

[Anonymous No.5974802]

>>5974748
Fascism is overtly idealist in the philosophical sense. Fascism is to idealism as Marxism is to materialism.

[Anonymous No.5974803]

>>5974782
>>5974793
>That will we find in the song of the poets and the ideas of the political writers, who know how to use a language harmonious with a universal sentiment or with a sentiment capable of becoming universal. In the case of Italy, in all our bards, philosophers and leaders, from Alfieri to Foscolo, from Leopardi to Manzoni, from Mazzini to Gioberti, we are able to pick up the threads of a new fabric, which is a new kind of thought, a new kind of soul, a new kind of Italy. This new Italy differed from the old Italy in something that was very simple but yet was of the greatest importance: this new Italy took life seriously, while the old one did not.

Sounds almost like Stendhal, I will read this and also these two>>5974791 you've recommended, thank you

[Anonymous No.5974804]

>>5974794
>modernist
Wouldn't that be more accurately characterized as post-modernist?

[Anonymous No.5974813]

>>5974781
the pretense of capitalist liberal democracy is that it is timeless, for some literally "the end of history" (fukuyama). hard economic realities are for these people only symptoms of inappropriate state intervention, and never anything endemic to capitalism (like the problem of automation). in this case government is inimical to economic woes, whereas fascism is *the* solution. totally incorporated economy.

[Anonymous No.5974818]

>>5974804
If fascism argues that the state provides THE answer for man as man, that a fascist state in which the individual has his being represents the ultimate ethical solution, I don't see how it can be regarded as post-modern - as part of a body of thought which rejects grand narratives and final answers for man.

[Anonymous No.5974824]

>>5974794
I do see how that's Modernist then, yes, a kind of uncovering of the one hidden truth or movement in the world?. When you say "totalizing in a specific direction' and 'state..political action..nothing more' does this mean something similar to what I said of 'subordinated to the highest point in the hierarchy' ?

[Anonymous No.5974825]

>>5974669
I've reported the thread, you have your own board, don't shit up the only good one.

[Anonymous No.5974827]

>>5974803
No problem.

>>5974804
Hard to call it that when fascism dialectical in approach. Hegel is idea-material dialectic, Marx is material-material, Gentile is material-ideal.

[Anonymous No.5974831]

>>5974824
Basically yeah. Referring to the same idea definitely. Although I think it's a more fundamental idea than just 'follow the leader'.

[Anonymous No.5974833]

>>5974818
Afaik, fascism is explicitly relativistic, in that yes, the state is YOUR one reality, but it isn't the only state there is, so other people will follow other narratives, which can't be resolved through discussion, but whenever conflict arises, only through force.

[Anonymous No.5974841]

>>5974831
>Although I think it's a more fundamental idea than just 'follow the leader'.
Well in a certain sense it's a tautology that the thing with the most power controls the others, but do you mean something else, that the Sate or Nation somehow supercedes their own power(obviously only in this imagined view of the Fascist ideal)?

[Anonymous No.5974844]

>>5974833
But force is in at least some sense a justification in fascist theory.

I would also argue that a fascist doesn't think of that in terms of other people who have different but still fundamentally valid narratives - rather they are different states but ones which should be organized according to a fascist logic. It's just that states organizing by a fascist logic doesn't preclude conflict even in theory because conflict isn't bad. Do you see what I mean? I think a fascist would say that a liberal democratic state is wrong qua liberal democracy, even if they don't make a claim to include that state in the same ultimate dominion or peaceful state of the world or what have you.

[Anonymous No.5974846]

>>5974827
This spin of dialectics, however, does imply, and by that I mean explicitly state, that truth is a power relation, which in turn pretty much sums up postmodernism.

[Anonymous No.5974849]

>>5974844
This also applies to you then:
>>5974846

[Anonymous No.5974853]

>>5974841
That's true to some extent. But also that following the leader or the state is not just a maxim; it is the best ethical course, the best way to achieve your own fullest being. It's beyond rationality in some sense - subsuming oneself into the decisions of a larger whole which are or might as well be arbitrary in a certain sense.

[Anonymous No.5974864]

>>5974846
Postmodernism would say that truth is a power arrangement and nothing more, and therefore no truth claim can be expected to have absolute validity.

Fascism would say that truth is a power relation which proves it's claim to absolute truth. This is a feature not a bug for fascism. If history is something we make, then the idea that truth arises out of specific historic action and not out of some rational point of view is perfectly fine; just an example of human creative power. Fascists are perfectly fine using force as a criterion for absolute truth.

[Anonymous No.5974870]

>>5974864
Seems more like a semantic problem with the definition of truth than anything else, correct me if I'm wrong

[Anonymous No.5974882]

>>5974846
Maybe, but it's mainly derived from Hegelian monist approach to truth (except here reality is infinitely divisible, not one) plus Nietzsche's concept of the will to power. So it might incidentally be postmodernist, but it comes 100% from modernist ideas, it is a combination and refinement of them more than a critique of them. It might rest very much on what would be Foucault's conception of power and truth, but it embraces those things, rather than reacts against them, it doesn't react against modernism in the sense that most postmodern theory does.

[Anonymous No.5974885]

>>5974864
Alright, so at best, the difference is one of strategy: fascists say, yeah, truth is just power, so let's be powerful, whereas contemporary pomo theory seems to be intent on using that insight as a subversive tool, without this subversive intention being the actual difference to modernism, quite the contrary: this creates ex negativo the vision of a power-independent truth, the modernist heritage.

[Anonymous No.5974891]

>>5974882
Oh my, talking to two people at the same time is tough shit, but again, this answer might interest you, too: >>5974885

[Anonymous No.5974895]

>>5974885
Fascists believe that power is truth but still believe in an absolute truth. Postmodernism doesn't.

[Anonymous No.5974902]

>>5974895
>absolute
You keep using that word...truth can hardly be at the same time power and absolute, unless you're god.

[Anonymous No.5974906]

>>5974885
Nietzsche's historical examination of truth being altered by institutions is very modernist. Foucault did exactly the same thing, and just like Nietzsche he questions our assumptions about things like madness and sex, whereas Nietzsche questioned our assumptions about morality and power itself. The ideological creation of truth was a huge subject of modernism, Marx and Hegel both were concerned with it, but Nietzsche was the most radical. Postmodernism, at least how you're talking about it, is simply the Nietzschean method except with leftist sentiments rather than Nietzsche's overman-sentiments. Nietzsche even critiqued science as an instrument of ideology.

[Anonymous No.5974912]

>>5974895
>Fascists believe that power is truth but still believe in an absolute truth.
Yes, but they believe it only takes up a fraction of relevant truth. Philosophical fascists (that is, people who actually read the material and not /pol/ or Nazis) consider race and the state to simply be useful constructs, but nothing objective or absolute.

>Nationalism, in fact, founds the State on the concept of nation, the nation being an entity which transcends the will and the life of the individual because it is conceived as objectively existing apart from the consciousness of individuals

>For Fascism, on the contrary, the State is a wholly spiritual creation. It is a national State, because, from the Fascist point of view, the nation itself is a creation of the mind and is not a material presupposition, is not a datum of nature.

-Giovanni Gentile

>Race? It is a feeling, not a reality. Ninety-five per cent, at least. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today

-Mussolini

Fascism only tended toward the need of "absolute truth" in order to appease Nazis.

[Anonymous No.5974914]

>>5974906
>postmodernism is just leftist modernism
Is what you just said, think about that.
For realz tho, modernism is what I'd most closely associate with classical liberalism and maybe also orthodox marxism, but hardly with Nietzsche of all people. The idea of eternal return is just about the least modernist thing anyone has ever put into words.

[Anonymous No.5974918]

>>5974914
Postmodernism isn't just leftist modernism, because it critiques leftist modernism.

> The idea of eternal return is just about the least modernist thing anyone has ever put into words.
If it is, it's because it's a throwback. Nietzsche got it from le Greeks.

See this thread, which explains it in depthy
>>5966608

[Anonymous No.5974941]

>>5974918
>because it critiques leftist modernism
And what other group does that? Yup, fascists.
Not saying that Foucault was a fascist tho, even when his love for Khomeini, or the love pomo leftists have for the identitarian discourses of 'marginalized groups' fill me to the brink with second thoughts.
>Nietzsche got it from le Greeks.
Everyone got everything from le greeks.

[Anonymous No.5974942]

>>5974918
>because it critiques leftist modernism.
Not it doesn't it continues it. It critiques it only in that it isn't radical enough, post-modernism in general completely denies its own premise of subjectivity in favor of certain viewpoints.

[Anonymous No.5974976]

>>5974941
>And what other group does that? Yup, fascists
Yes, but this is a rather Manichean point.

>Not saying that Foucault was a fascist tho, even when his love for Khomeini, or the love pomo leftists have for the identitarian discourses of 'marginalized groups' fill me to the brink with second thoughts.

Foucault is more like Max Stirner except he couldn't quite let go of morality, and so had to be a crypto-moralist.


>Everyone got everything from le greeks.
No, I mean eternal recurrence is a poetic parroting of something that was an integral part of Greek religion and life affirmation

>>5974942
>Not it doesn't it continues it. It critiques it only in that it isn't radical enough, post-modernism in general completely denies its own premise of subjectivity in favor of certain viewpoints.
It critiques it mainly because it was a failure that led to hellholes. That is what made so many pomo thinkers break with the communist party of France.

[Anonymous No.5974999]

>>5974976
>Manichean
Am I saying that all pretense of liberty and happiness and humanity in general is under threat by people who call it all just lies? Yeah, you got me.
>Foucault couldn't let go of morality
That's pretty much what I meant when I said that, in a way, genuine pomo is still more modernist than the fascists.
>eternal return is much more genuinely greek
Yeah I know, and that makes it so anti-modernist of Nietzsche to bring it up.

[Anonymous No.5975115]

>>5974999
>Am I saying that all pretense of liberty and happiness and humanity in general is under threat by people who call it all just lies? Yeah, you got me.
No, I'm saying you think of politics in binary.

>That's pretty much what I meant when I said that, in a way, genuine pomo is still more modernist than the fascists.
>Yeah I know, and that makes it so anti-modernist of Nietzsche to bring it up.
I don't think you understand what "modernism" means in philosophy, but what applied to different disciplines, it means very different things. Modernist music, for instance, starts in the 20th Century. Modernist philosophy starts in the mid 19th Century, you seem to be conflating it with liberalism or something.

Nietzsche was a modernist because. well, for one thing, he advocated imposing your own meaning and values. He has a hierarchy of what he considers sources for these values, but the values and meaning themselves are up to you, and Nietzsche thought you could advance different spiritual stages, a slave morality camel could transform into a master morality lion, and a master morality lion could transform into a God-morality child. The sources of values and meanings are different for each one, but it is still up to YOU to craft out of those sources, not society or Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.5975135]

>>5975115
by the way, a couple of ideas you might consider "modernist" due to your poor understanding of modernism, were well known in ancient times. Antiphone the Sophist argued for universal human rights and equality of ethnicity, and Plato argued for legal equality of the sexes, saying we don't leave female hunting dogs at home to care for the pups while males do all the hunting.

[Anonymous No.5975164]

I'm entirely uneducated in philosophy, but I find a lot of the ideas in Doctrine of Fascism. Specifically the idea of man finding meaning through his relationship with society and within the context of his historical and social surroundings. Could anyone suggest me some further reading on this subject?

>>5974818
>as part of a body of thought which rejects grand narratives and final answers for man
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Doctrine devote several paragraphs to exactly this though?

[deleted No.5975174]

Fascism only works in a world without nuclear weapons

[Anonymous No.5975240]

>>5975174
thanks, trusted source

[Anonymous No.5975266]

>>5975164
The idea of man finding his meaning in his relationship with society dates as far back history. While fascism today is seen mostly as dictatorial, that wasn't its ultimate goal. The Persian mode of governance, which is everyone is a legal slave of the King, vs. the Athenian, where people were actually paid to come to assembly (that was to encourage poor people to take an interest in politics, since our word "idiot" comes from the word "idiotes", which meant someone who didn't participate in politics), is very sharp. Mussolini's corruption and appeasement to Nazis doomed fascism. The meaning of "nothing outside the state" in fascism means that the state and the people become inseparable, that there is not feeling of Other toward the state.

>But this State of the Fascists which is created by the consciousness and the will of the citizen, and is not a force descending on the citizen from above or from without, cannot have toward the mass of the population the relationship which was presumed by nationalism.

>Nationalism identified State with Nation, and made of the nation an entity preëxisting, which needed not to be created but merely to be recognized or known. The nationalists, therefore, required a ruling class of an intellectual character, which was conscious of the nation and could understand, appreciate and exalt it. The authority of the State, furthermore, was not a product but a presupposition. It could not depend on the people—rather the people depended on the State and on the State's authority as the source of the life which they lived and apart from which they could not live. The nationalistic State was, therefore, an aristocratic State, enforcing itself upon the masses through the power conferred upon it by its origins.

>The Fascist State, on the contrary, is a people's state, and, as such, the democratic State par excellence. The relationship between State and citizen (not this or that citizen, but all citizens) is accordingly so intimate that the State exists only as, and in so far as, the citizen causes it to exist. Its formation therefore is the formation of a consciousness of it in individuals, in the masses. Hence the need of the Party, and of all the instruments of propaganda and education which Fascism uses to make the thought and will of the Duce the thought and will of the masses. Hence the enormous task which Fascism sets itself in trying to bring the whole mass of the people, beginning with the little children, inside the fold of the Party.

The sign of participation in Athens was religion. Those were not Athenians could not participate in state worship, and for those who were state citizens, worship was an affirmation of identification with Athenian society. Because religion can no longer function this way, fascism fills the vacuum with ideology. But just like Athenian religion, personal "faith" is not an important issue so much as that there is club of ritual observances that unites society

[Anonymous No.5975278]

>>5975266
And to add another parallel: in ancient Greece, one could be part of a mystery religion that had totally different theology from the public.religion, because the public religion's goal is aesthetics and feeling of society. Just as in fascism, the ideology of the party is almost entirely about aesthetics, it is a set of traditions that children are indoctrinated into just like any set of traditions. Fascism, for instance, thinks cultural heroes are important for the same reason Greek mythological heroes were important. Art is extremely important to fascism. Fascist art is art for the glory of society, rather than conservatism in art. Fascism, if anything, promotes radical art.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5975289]

>>5975278
mystery teachings exist even in such strongly exoteric religions like christianity though

[Anonymous No.5975301]

>>5975278
>>5975266
I think I read some of your posts in an earlier thread a few months back. Would you consider futurism as a continuation of fascist thought, rather than simply an art movement existing within the context of it as it's usually portrayed?

If my understanding isn't flawed fascism sounds a lot like democracy minus the enlightenment ideas of liberty, would this be a fair call? Any suggestions on more books on the subject?

[Anonymous No.5975403]

>>5975289
I'm not sure what your point is on that, exactly.

>>5975301
Futurism is a continuation of fascist aesthetics. Fascist ideology only has two sides, the philosophical and the aesthetic, the rest is trimmed off as fat. The aesthetic is what is indoctrinated; the philosophical is far too complex to drill into people, and that really can't be continued so easily because it requires an academic environment to really blossom and fascism is now a stigma in academics. A continuation of fascist philosophy would be something like a right-wing Zizek who jokes about liking Hitler like Zizek jokes about liking Stalin. But that won't happen, because like I said it's too stigmatized, imagine someone having a picture of Hitler in their house the way Zizek does of Stalin and joked about sending opponents to concentration camps the way Zizek does with gulags? The antagonism against fascism can't be cooled, even with self-parody.

>If my understanding isn't flawed fascism sounds a lot like democracy minus the enlightenment ideas of liberty, would this be a fair call? Any suggestions on more books on the subject?
Yeah, Nietzsche. Nietzsche, like fascism, wants a bunch of ubermenschen to cease power, in order to set a radical new example for people to strive for and emulate, in order for everyone to become ubermenschen (in which case everyone would rule)

[Anonymous No.5975439]

>>5975403
I should add here that there is aesthetic philosophy in fascism. Futurism is all about that. The seminal work of philosophy of fascist aesthetics is Sun and Steel. But this philosophy is very different from fascist dialectics; Fascist dialectics grounds itself in dialectical arguments, whereas aesthetic fascist philosophy's function is the same as art's; it's not about logical argument, but rather it is philosophy that meant to look beautiful and inspire and motivate the reader, like powerful music or poetry. The Theory of Mind as Pure Act is fascist philosophy philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5976035]

>>5975403
>Nietzsche was a fascist
He hated nationalism and anti semitism so fuck off and using him to push your horrid ideology

[Anonymous No.5976042]

>>5976035
>>5974912

[Anonymous No.5976097]

>>5976035
>using "fascist" to mean Nazi

You do realize that's as stupid as using "leftist" to mean "liberal"?

[Anonymous No.5976118]

>>5976035
>>5976097
Nietzsche wasn't a fascist. But he did not like egalitarianism, which he associated with slave morality.

No doubt, Nietzsche could in some sense be called aristocratic in his thinking, but to associate him with fascism seems like a correlation without causation.

[Anonymous No.5976184]

>>5976097
>using "leftist" to mean "liberal"
How is that stupid, exactly?

[Anonymous No.5976199]

>>5976184
Are you kidding? Christ, you sound like such an American.

[Anonymous No.5976215]

>>5976118
I don't see where he disagrees with fascism, fascism is basically material-will dialectic inspired by Nietzsche, plus aesthetics heavily inspired by Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.5976223]

>>5974778
Gentile's philosophy is a continuation of Hegel's

[Anonymous No.5976225]

>>5976199
troll detected

[Anonymous No.5976238]

>>5976215
>I don't see where he disagrees with fascism, fascism is basically material-will dialectic inspired by Nietzsche, plus aesthetics heavily inspired by Nietzsche.

Like I said, it's merely correlation without causation. There is no where in Nietzsche's writings where he openly advocates strict statism, nor is there anywhere in Nietzsche's writings where he advocates strict anarchism, and yet both fascists and anarchists both view him as an intellectual inspiration.

[Anonymous No.5976239]

>>5976223
Not exactly. I mean, yes, in the same way the Marx is a continuation of Hegel. Gentile does not believe in God, and considers the Absolute to be purely a creation of the mind, whereas Hegel, although his belief in God in the conventional sense is dubious, believes in Absolute Geist as strongly as he believes in individual Geist.

[Anonymous No.5976254]

>>5976184
HAHA WHAT

[Anonymous No.5976265]

>>5976238
In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche makes a rare mention of his personal political preferences.

>It may well take more than Indian wars and complications in Asia to rid Europe of its greatest danger: internal upheavals would be needed, too, the shattering of the empire into small units, and above all the introduction of the parliamentary nonsense, including the obligation for everybody to read his newspaper with his breakfast.

>I don't say this because I want it to happen: the opposite would be rather more after my heart-I mean such an increase in the menace of Russia that Europe would have to resolve to become menacing. too. namely. to acquire one will by means of a new caste that would rule Europe, a long, terrible will of its own that would be able to cast its goals millennia hence--so the long-drawn out comedy of its many splinter states as well as its dynastic and democratic splinter wills would come to an end. The time for petty politics is over: the very next century will bring the fight for the dominion of the earth--the compulsion to large-scale politics.

[Anonymous No.5976270]

>>5976265
I don't see any political preferences here, other than a succinct and vivid prediction of what was going to happen with Europe after his death.

[Anonymous No.5976282]

>>5976270
You don't see "after my heart" as a statement of preference?

[Anonymous No.5976288]

>>5976270
Right, not everyone is right or left you brainwashed moron.

[Anonymous No.5976290]

>>5974669
Anyone care the summarise the core tenets described in this book?

[Anonymous No.5976296]

>>5976282
>You don't see "after my heart" as a statement of preference?

Yes I do, but it's arbitrary and contentless. He's basicly saying that in order to defend itself against Russian imperialism, Europe has to become as "evil". Seems uncontroversial that states become more authoritarian in times of war in order to defend itself from invaders.

>>5976288
Clearly you fucking faggot, we aren't even talking about left or right.

[Anonymous No.5976317]

>>5976290
Is all the "book" (you can read it in a couple of minutes) is is core tenets.

Basically the core idea of fascism is that subjectivity requires a group, individual expression of subjectivity is almost always some token shit that's meaningless. Napoleon expressed his subjectivity as an individual, but even then he had to do through sublating the subjectivity of all of France.

[Anonymous No.5976354]

>>5976296
He's saying he WANT Russia to become more imperialist. If you have a copy of Beyond Good and Evil, please read 208 entirely. He says Europe is plagued with a sickness and lack of will and says continues to worsen by the day, then he says that Russia would cure that. His comment on the Indian wars is about Russia also weakening, but he'd rather it not.

[Anonymous No.5976366]

>>5976317
Well I was thinking of a summary of about 10 sentences or so

[Anonymous No.5976372]

>>5976354
Okay and how does this prove you right?

If anything it proves my assertion that he was anti-egalitarian and aristocratic, but not fascist in the sense that we all understand fascism to be, i.e an organic and totalitarian political ideology.

Being sympathetic to an aristocratic and hierarchical social order wasn't exactly unique to Nietzsche in the 19th century.

[Anonymous No.5976400]

>>5976372
He's fascist in that he'd like see comfort stricken from society's primary goal in favor of strength, leading a world of overmen. He affirms war (for the same reasons Heraclitus does) and tradition, but at the same time he's an iconoclast. He realizes humanity can no longer be unified by religion for meaning, but he's worried about the drift toward nihilism, which is a issue fascism directly interfaces with.

[Anonymous No.5976405]

>>5976400
>but he's worried about the drift toward nihilism, which is a issue fascism directly interfaces with.

I don't think fascism cures nihilism. And if Nietszche could see what Fascism turned into, I doubt he would either.

[Anonymous No.5976420]

>>5976405
Fascism corroded because Mussolini worked hard to appease Germany, which was a far more powerful nation in every way and were pressing hard for Italy to align with Nazism. If Nazi Germany weren't around, fascism would likely have been quire another story in Italy, and would be a legitimate things to argue for in academics instead of the philosophical equivalent to astrology it's become today.

[Anonymous No.5976433]

>>5976420
So what you're saying is that Nazi-Germany would be, in Nietzsche's eyes, the true overmen, and that Fascism didn't really deserve to exist, because of appeasement.

Sounds like you're actually saying Nietszche was a Nazi.

[Anonymous No.5976454]

Don't forget to read some Carl Schmitt, OP.

Heil Hitler.

[Anonymous No.5976467]

>>5976433
wut. The overman in Nietzsche isn't just the winner, or else the rock that wiped out the dinosaurs would be the overman.

[Anonymous No.5976474]

>>5976467
>wut. The overman in Nietzsche isn't just the winner, or else the rock that wiped out the dinosaurs would be the overman.

Considering the fact that Nietzsche viewed the will to power as a fundamental constant of the universe and not only as a construction in human beings, the rock that wiped out the dinosaurs WAS an expression of the will.

[Anonymous No.5976478]

>>5976474
That doesn't make it the overman.The overman is someone who apprehends time and existence a certain way and creates values from that and lives accordingly.

[Anonymous No.5976487]

>>5976478
>That doesn't make it the overman.The overman is someone who apprehends time and existence a certain way and creates values from that and lives accordingly.

Indeed, but appropriating Nietzsche's philosophy as fascism, simply is ridiculous, because as I said, he was as critical of nationalism, as he was of any other ideology or perceived truth claim.

[Anonymous No.5976521]

>>5976487
Back to this, which I guess you didn't bother to read

>>5974912

[Anonymous No.5976531]

>>5976521
>Philosophical fascists (that is, people who actually read the material and not /pol/ or Nazis) consider race and the state to simply be useful constructs, but nothing objective or absolute.

>Useful constructs

Sounds like bullshit to me, and meaningless. What is the point of creating a philosophy that does not have any content?

[Anonymous No.5976551]

>>5976531
What do you mean "doesn't have any content"?

https://archive.org/details/thetheoryofminda00gentuoft

[Anonymous No.5976564]

>>5976551
So Giovanni Gentile was a smart philosopher who criticized earlier philosophy.

How has this anything to do with the political ideology known as Fascism?

[Anonymous No.5976569]

>>5976564
>so Marx was a smart philosopher who criticized earlier philosophy
>how has this anything to do with the political ideology known as communism?

[Anonymous No.5976586]

>>5976569
The point I'm trying to make is that there is a huge distance between what you profess to believe, and your personal political allegiance, and what is the actual reality.

You are literally doing the exact same thing as Marxists when they say the USSR had nothing to do with Communism or Socialism, or Marxist ideology, i.e you are laboring in massive self-deception.

[Anonymous No.5976614]

>>5976586
No, that's not really true. I mean, the Nazis overtly contract core tenants of fascism, such as racial equality.

>The province recognizes and confirms the sovereignty of all citizens without distinction of sex, race, language, class, or religion.
-Charter of Carnaro

It's more like saying contemporary China is communist.

[Anonymous No.5976622]

>>5976614
>overtly contradict

[Anonymous No.5976635]

>>5974763
The right image is /pol/ before the cucking, the left is /pol/ after the cucking.

[Anonymous No.5977432]

Where is Glenn Beck with his faggotry ass chalk board to explain this?

[Anonymous No.5977443]

>>5974846
Funny, Hegel said that the true was the whole, which I took to mean that truth exists in unity. Marx was full of shit, though

[Anonymous No.5977444]

>>5977432
Wouldn't he say that it's basically liberalism or communism?

[Anonymous No.5977460]

>>5974669
I've made a presentation about this for a class in uni. It was fun making it.

[Anonymous No.5977466]

>>5977443
>Hegel said that the true was the whole, which I took to mean that truth exists in unity
Yeah, he thought the truth is true until you have it all. Not really a fascist idea, but fascism doesn't think objective truth is as relative as subjective truth--that doesn't mean subjective should override objective, just that there's not enough objective truth for our souls to feed upon.

[Anonymous No.5977483]

Will it ever come back?
>inb4 we're already living in it

[Anonymous No.5977670]

>>5977483
It might, but it will take a long fucking time and it won't associate itself at all with the term "fascism" or the original fascists.

Fascism was a product of radical leftists who became disenchanted with the leftist obsession with comfort as the highest good. Fascism is more concerned with the enfeebling and debilitation effects of capitalism, than with capitalism making people work too hard, the pursuit of money and leisure above all else. Liberal humanist says these pursuits are innate an natural (especially neoliberalism), but fascism sees what society idolizes are largely a product of culture. But rather than trying to revert culture to something that was only possible with certain material conditions (traditionalism, for instance, favors a culture that only really exists with agrarian economies), fascism seeks to create a new empowering culture compatible with the post industrial world. Hence futurism and the aesthetic of pic related.

[Anonymous No.5977696]

>>5977670
Fascism's foremost enemy is ideology that works toward The Last Man as a condition, be it like BNW world or a consumerist toybox or any other possible incarnation.

[Anonymous No.5978392]

>>5977670
>>5977696
Dayum. Assuming Shitler didn't happen or Musso ignored him, would Italy have become the great pseudo-Roman imperial glory Musso wanted? Or at least have gotten somewhere? Wasn't Romania on the verge of having a non-enforced fascist state?

[Anonymous No.5978663]

>>5978392
I don't know if Mussolini could have ignored him, it seems like he was concerned that if he wasn't an ally of German, he would have been invaded (or else he surely wouldn't give a shit about bending over backward to appease their demands for things like antisemitism, which Mussolini, whose lover and head of propaganda was an openly Jewish woman, likely saw as pointless idiocy).

Assuming Hitler actually had the balls to invade Italy, if Mussolini stuck up a resistance himself, he would have become a hero in the West and fascism would have gained as much traction in universities as communism did due to loads of communists in the French Resistance. After that, Mussolini might also end up as a mere puppet of the U.S. or the USSR, unless he had the strength to pull a de Gaulle...if so, then Italy might acquire its own Delian League, seeing as how fascism manages to appeal to a lot of bases, and might well prove more popular with workers than Stalin does. This scenario is really too complex to hypothesize about, the only sure thing is that it would have given a brand new mainstream right-wind ideology that would affect politics and academics hugely.

[Anonymous No.5978702]

>>5977670
That is most definitely not fascism by any accepted definition of it historical or otherwise. You are outright fabricating the goals and history of fascism.

[Anonymous No.5978741]

>>5978702
This is absolutely a goal of fascism. Fascism takes massive inspiration, both in dialectic and in politics, from Hegel's Philosophy of Right, which considers our neurotic pursuit of comfort to be dangerous.
And if you don't think the fascist Party is mainly about aesthetics as far as indoctrination goes, then you can't possibly have read D'Annunzio.

[Anonymous No.5979879]

hitler was a great leader and fascism was a great vehicle of temporary success.

unfortunately the victors told history and motives wrong....primarily jews.

[Anonymous No.5981577]

>>5974763
>"I AM SILLY"

[Anonymous No.5981639]

>>5974669
read some Robert Michels
he was an elite sociologist and Weberian that started out as an anarcho-snydicalist and then made his way to Italian Fascism...which is a flipflop that someone as smart as him seems impossible, and therefore interesting, that he actually did it.

[Anonymous No.5981644]

>>5981639
thanks for this rec m8, srs

[Anonymous No.5981895]

Bump

[Anonymous No.5984042]

bump for study purposes