Crucifixion Eclipse The Large Gizāh  Pyramid : Nostradamus’ Birthdate at Central Axis of Giza Pyramid :

Benito Mussolini's Intellectuals


  Welcome, Guest                        Michael Report  

[Contact, Search] World History - Yahoo! - Help

 : H O M E :  

 

 

 I N D E XBook of Life  Index  directory B I B L E Apocalypse Book of Revelationsdirectory W E B S> Internets  directory J O U R N A L  > Journal Directory directory G A L L E R Y >photo gallerydirectory W M D  > XLXXII  ARMAGEDON  directory G A M M A > gamma index 

Privacy  [Public]  


(location) reovultionary20thcent_8

Fascist Origins: As Concept not as Expression

 

The First Fascists ( Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle) – Michael Johnathan McDonald. October 18th 2007. University of California, Berkeley. Undergraduate, History Major.

Aristotle

Aristotle/Plato/Gentile are communalist theorist.

Lock is an individualist theorist.

 

USA priority is the individual, not community.

Scientific Terminology

Scientific Method, begun by Socrates, who placed inquires in the forms of questions. This began a deductive process, the first form of scientific methodology.  During the Greek Philosopher period, atoms were understood to be the smallest particles in the universe. (They had no idea of their physical properties or compositional make-up, but they understood that atoms held matter together and consisted of the smallest individual substance separately identifiable. Therefore, men, as individuals could be related to the idea of an atom. With the most proximate investigation of Aristotle’s this theory of social science, he compared the properties of communitarian of the Persian Empire to the properties of individualism of Athenian democracy ( as well of a whole litany of observations of social regions). Thus social science was born from the Greek Philosophers)

Community Genus

Genrea—unknown, but allowing for volumous records we start in antiquate Greece.

Genrea: The Greek Philosophers, beginning with Socrates who questions some of Democracies’ conceptual shortfalls. Does the individual create in and of themselves, or does the community do this effortlessly, by its vary existence?

Genrea – Plato’s community has priority over the individual. Aristotle took the argument further with emphasis.

Species’ – Fascism

Species’ – Marxism, Communism.

Species’ – National Socialism ( Hitlerean Germany)

Species –  Hegel

Plato: What makes a person:  morality, speech, culture, etc…add what goes into a community here (that is why Plato wrote the Republic). Plato gives priority to the community.

Aristotle’s “Ethics”: the community has priority over the individual. Genrea. Species is Fascism. Aristotle’s argument against the individual: Create a person born of women, dropped it on the sand, will it survive? Would that be a person, a human, anything that one could recognize? Without the community you would not be a person.

Hegel: One cannot be a human unless you are an intrinsic being of a community. It is a persuasive argument, is not a truth. It is a claim, like all other persuasive claims.

Member in Genrea of Plato is conformity. Like Fascism, it is conformity, Like Catholic Church. Communities have laws, which are restrictions, protocols’ of behavior, as a general absence of arbitration, litigation, and or nonconformity.

 

 

Individual Genus

Genrea—unknown, but many use Greek antiquity of the democratic period as the highest achieved, and recorded ( historically speaking, the most information) evidence we have on hand.

Lock, individual first, then a compact ( contract between individuals) makes a community. Aristotle said, community comes first.

The vehicle of Truth

Communitarian political movement: priority, truth, community.

Truth

Communitarian political movement: no choice, acts upon truths, that are only persuasive claims but communicated as impeccable truths, which never can be proved.

Priority

Priority is given to the community ( state in 20th cent.) not to individual  or individual interests.

Community

Community Society: sacrifice, labor, no sin, ( under Mao’s crime rate, there was low crime-rate.), keep people honest and clean, if you give me a power. It will be so painful, you will never dare to do it. This is called the price to pay.

Gentile paid the price. He called on those to be suppressed who opposed the “impeccable truths, the community, and its priority.”

The vehicle of Truth, the Church, I conformed because I expect it to fulfill my personal happiness. In order to do this, I must follow the rules, the scriptures, or the laws – I assume that will make me a happy person. In the USA, we have choice; we are not restricted to one point of view.

Religion of community, Plato, is like having no choice, and there a communitarian political movement, argues without the political community you are nothing, Obedience. Think of all the religions, obedience to the creator. All, Islam, any religion, uses communitarian submission dimensions. It is the psychology of commitments.

In USA you can go from one religion to another religion, you can chose what you want to be, it is a perceptual understanding of the founders of the United States of America. USA offers individualism, but you can choice your communitarian societies (fraternities, clubs, etc.)

Freedom

Being free means doing what the Hell [ whatever, in this case] you want. – A. James Gregor (Oct, 18th, 2007). 3:00 pm.

“Law is the antithesis of Freedom.” Michael Johnathan McDonald (Oct, 18th, 2007). 11:01 pm., Berkeley.  ( If someone has not already said this before?). Law restricts in a general sense and Freedom emancipates from a restriction. If a Law promotes Freedom, then it restricts the freedom of others to impose suppression, control, and dominance. Therefore, Law remains in its normative sense, a restriction, argued of course with cognition.

Which society would you like to live in?

(Organized) Communitarian society: Fascism, Communism, Kingship (in the past)

Price the Italians, Germans, Russia, China paid for order. That was the price you pay. What are the benefits: developments, progress, order, stability, less crime, more communitarian-morality, have a low-paying job.

(Non-organized, Loosely-organized) Individualistic society: narcissism. A narcissistic society. Deformed personalities. (We are just following our Life, Pursuit of happiness).

 

NAZI, 13 million soldiers and civilians died, lost by 5 other armies attacking them.

In the USA, no hesitation to protests, even with no grounds to what one thinks they are saying.

United States of America

We live in a society, that has a peculiar kind of context. The revolution for the US American independence, people made an argument (distinction precepts in the Declaration of Independence, only). What are the implications: these truths shall be self-evident? ( writing post Lockean environment, only certain ways of understanding what they knew were truths. 

( mathematical truths were truths, no  one argues about math)

USA cannot impinge on one’s individual rights( but we have been passing laws ( restrictive) ever since.

Look at the Context

Periodic context are normatively classified as “A class of truths.”

Precepts give a certain type of priority.

 

Marx called this for America: Narcissistic, meant in the context of a impeccably USA priority. I come first. Similar to the Classical Greeks, of Might is right, I come first ( see Socrates observation of Classical Greek society when it was declining, after the beginning of its humiliation period).

The context. The more knowledge one had to understand what they were writing, that is in what context they wrote, Gregor ( not always the case, mjm).

A class of truths, the founders: religious revelation ( Deist, the creator, communicated to men about truths, they were indisputable to argue about). But as  commitment, once you accept those truths ( life liberty and pursuit of happiness) What does it do, it gives us priority, it means somehow or other, we have certain kings of constituent rights. The terms are vague, but it give individuals the rights. People ask, who gave you that right?

USA intuitive, I have a right to life.

A precept is something you do not argue about. You set the parameters for discussion. I come first, I have priority. I Am first. All of USA have that natural response. The I’m first, it is spontaneous individual, born into a society that says –I come first.”

This is what  Marx claimed of perceptual societies, as the USA and France – they were Narcissistic, selfish, Marx claimed ( later V. I. Lenin would add in “imperialistic,” one would guess to lay emphatic notions of the driving “I’m first, I’m more important,” economics behind narcissism).

 

Marxed called it, Called Bourgeosi liberalism

 

Why it gives license to capitalism.

 

Paying the Price

Gentile paid the price.

Gentile: you must be punished if you do not follow the rules (like the parents making rules for the children). This is part of the ideological doctrine of a Communitarian Society.

 

Gentile remained convinced his whole life that : “racism is a violation of society.

But regime had to pass anti-Semitic legislation, because of Germany’s demands (Mussolini had to accept this precedent on Germany’s military showing up on the boarders of Italy demanding obedience, and forcing the issue of “race theory.”), so Gentile had to live that way. It was enormously painful; he was assassinated because he believed in the regime, loyal to the community. He was prepared to accept that price. Without the community, he would not be a person. He walked the walked and talked the talked. Loyalty was an issue to his beliefs that the community creates the individual, not the other way around as Lock argued. He was not happy the forced racist doctrine which entered the Italian political portfolio.

 

Communitarian political movement is the revolutionary political system of the 20th century.

 

In a communitarian political movement, there is a sacred book. In the secular societies, we have many sacred books, we can read them or not. 

 

Everyone at the turn of the century was arguing over Karl Marx’s thesis of “Industrial Capitalism” could not survive.

Karl Marx (1818-1883)  ( and Frederick Engels)

 

(1)  History is made by the means of production

a.      Human labor power

b.     Properties of soil, climate, and available raw material.

c.     Technology

(2)  Capitalist System

a.     Must expand

b.     Pursuit of profit

c.     Provide subsistent wages ( claim false)

d.     Create mass pauperism ( poor masses)

e.     Catastrophic collapse of capitalism ( catastrophims)

(3)  Labor theory of Value

a.     Human labor provides profit

b.     Profit is actual value

c.     Competition is forced

d.     Increases the amount of fixed capital ( machinery and collateral support)

e.     Marxists speak of this as “high organic composition of capital.”

f.        Profit must necessarily decline

g.     Ultimately profits must fail

h.     More and more middle class reduced to wage labors

i.         System profit rate approaches zero.

j.         Grand bourgeoisies ( owners of great corporations) can no longer defend the system.

k.      Vast majority are now proletariat

l.         Seizer of the factories

m.   Eliminate private property.

n.     Workers produce goods for use, and not for profit

o.     It is inevitable ( a prediction)

(4)  Structure rests upon moral appeal

a.     serving people’s needs is good, working solely for profit is bad.

Benito Mussolini’s Intellectuals

 

[Italy’s] Nationalists argued that distributionistic domestic policies weakened the capital accumulation and productivistic essentials of a sound economic policy Italy was resource poor, and distribution to simple consumption, reduced the available resources for production.[1]

 

 

 

Italy’s economic problems:

No industry.

Overflow of college graduates.

High-rate of illiteracy for the peasants, farmers, rural settlements.

North - - some limited industry.

South - -  mainly agrarian

 

 

 

Born in Predappio in the agriculture Romagna region on July 29,1885. Came from a lower middle-class family.

Father, Blacksmith, self educated revolutionary socialist (Marxist-like)

Mother, a teacher, who was determined that her son use education as a means to rise out of obscurity.[2]

 

Mussolini taught elementary school at the age of eighteenth (1901), then emigrated to Switzerland in 1902. Stayed there for two years, in which  he met several leaders of the revolutionary faction of Italian Socialism and Syndicalism who gave him his first systematic introduction to Marxism.[3]

 

By1910, an unknown Mussolini had absorbed a variety of experiences that became the basis for his political outlook as he began to rise within the Socialist Party. First, there was a legacy of his socialist and anticlerical father and of his native Romagna, a region marked by violence class conflict and strong anarchist and republican political tradition.[4]  Republican political traditions consisted of pluralistic city-states from the late middle ages and fruition during the proto and Italian Renaissance period (1350-1500). Second, Mussolini was shaped by the experience revolutionary syndicalism. Between1900 and 1910 he was politically close to syndicalists like A.O. Olivetti and Sergio Panunzio.[5]  Mussolini described a person will to use what worked within a system of intellectual thought. He took from the syndicalist movements the notion of “ direct revolutionary” action as means of mobilizing the masses.[6]

 

Below has been saved as scanned, this just needs editing

 

Mussolini’s intellectuals

Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini

Fascism is a philosophy of action. Whereas, Democracy is a philosophy of integration of competing interests, and long delays in judicatory  measures. Democrats like to conduct meetings, upon meetings, and discuss the competing interests, thus slowing the process of urgent action for decisive action.

Nation-State, The contemporary vehicle of individual and group fulfillment, enjoys priority and commitment. Stage two of W. W. Rostov’s Five stages of Economic Development.

Fascism, prior to World War II:  Fascism rational was that the system was a “centralized, organized, and unitary democracy.”[7] In 1936, Mussolini maintained that Italy “was a true democracy.” In the West, the political liberals claimed at best that Fascism was “authoritarian,” but more likely, “dictatorial.” However, this is a simplification which draws into the actualities of the system veritable inaccuracies, impractical arguments, and illusion. Autocrats or dictators can take on a variety of centrist mantles. An Autocrat can be an absolutist in his own mind. Mussolini, there is no evidence to the contrary, listened and adopted many of his Italian intellectual compadres. Also, Fascism, this was not about a dictator wishing for his autocratic fulfillment. This was a totalitarian ideology predicated on benefiting economically, as was its rite, and defending it against the “outside” liberal democracies – the liberals who ran an illusion of benevolence around the globe by subjugating economically “virtual economic slavery.” It appears there was a two-edged morality: One for liberalism and one for Fascism. Each one had its own drawbacks from the other’s point of view.  The liberal democracies feared Fascist as much as the Fascist feared the liberal democracies. Both believed each other to be planning a take-over of the economic forces around the world. Within this take-over scenario, war was conceived as the only resolution to economic prosperity. One dies on the battlefield because he or she is sacrificing themselves for the economic prosperity or survival of their heritable state ( or nation, depending on your perceived definition of nation). However, most people do not go to war over this type of rational, if one calls it that. So myth became the “energizing force” to rally the people to take up arms for a conceived “tradition:” The lost lands, the heritage of Firsts, the old days of Glory, the fight of the homeland, the progenitor race. Religion was placed into an historical process, in which no war was predicated on religion in the first place.  ( See all conquests by religions in my arguments)

Resistance to Marxism and individualistic democracy appeared at the turn of the twentieth century ( see George Sorel).

Second Congress of the Italian Nationalist Association (1910-1912) the ideology of Italian nationalism significantly matures. The argument was against the Catholic Church’s position of a democratic government, born on individualist interests.

1912- 1914, Milan national congress (1914), an increasing anti-democtratic and imperialist Corradinian majority of the Nationalist Association. For Crradinians, democracy had demonstrated its inefficacy in dealing both with economic competition and armed conflict.[8] Democracy was an antithesis to unity, focus, and development, and armed conflict was the antithesis of sacrifice and duty to the “whole.” The Italian Parliamentary democracy identified itself with economic liberalism – a commitment to free markets and international competition, which had demonstrated inefficiency to gather capital to modernize. Provided the Socialist determined national welfare programs, distribution martial benefits, the anti-democratic proponents asked, where was the funds for these programs from an underdeveloped, and quite backward economy? After the victory in Tripoli, “populists,” “individualists,” and distributionistic polities would domestically undermined its capital and resources. [9]

Fietro Gorgolini

 

Fietro Gorgolini’s Fascist apologetic, written before Fascism’s accession to power and recommended by Mussolini as the best exposition of Fascist doctrine available at that time,98 indicated as much. Gorgolini alluded to Mussolini’s specifically Marxist origins and identi1ed Fascism as a logical development out of Sorelian socialisni. As such, Gorgolini rejected the identification of Fascism with specifically bourgeois or proletarian interests.’00 He characterized Fascism as the product of an exiguous minority of men who, having returned from the trenches, had committed themselves to the realization of Italy’s greatness, a concern which enjoyed moral priority over the interests of class and category.
Gorgolini’s exposition was a competent restatement of Fascist doctrine and was faithful to the position Mussolini had assumed by 1921. Gorgolini insisted that Fascism was a peculiar application of Sorelian syndicalism, an application that had substituted national development for class warfare as the functional myth of social doctrine. ( page 166 of what book?, see file: between individuals….)

 

Membership

The syncretic character of Fascism was reflected in the class and category composition of the Fascist organizations themselves, exemplified in the 1921 analysis provided by the Party Secretary of the membership of the Partito Nazionale Fascista. Of the alleged membership of 320,000, an analysis of the class and category derivation of 152,000 members was provided: 23,418 were industrial workers; 36,847 were agricultural workers; 14,989 were employees; 19,783 were students; 7,209 were civil servants or soldiers; 1,506 were merchant seamen. Only 4,269 were characterized as industrialists or employers of labor, 13,879 were merchants or self-employed artisans, and 18,186 were small landowners and/or employers of agricultural contract labor. The Party, as a consequence, had a substantial proletarian character. This general proletarian character was enhanced by the membership of the Fascist Trade Union Congress that, in June, 1922, boasted a membership of 555,000.96 The working class elements in the Fascist ranks originated, in fact, in the poorest strata of the proletariat.

 

On the other hand, Fascism attracted an inordinate number of typically middle-class university and secondary school students. These were among the most aggressive and radically nationalist and activist elements. The available statistics indicate that they constituted about fifteen per cent of the active membership of the Party, but contemporary commentators indicate that they exerted an influence far exceeding their numbers. The petty bourgeoisie further provided a significant portion of the cadre of the Fascist squads, and war veterans of diverse class origins provided much of the membership.  Mussolini himself fully exemplified the character of Fascism. His proletarian and petty-bourgeois provenience represented the most substantial constituent components of the movement. ( 166 see above uncite and fix).

Filippo Corridoni

Filippo Corridoni: argued that Italy was too underdeveloped to support the kind of revolution of which Marx spoke. He was, along with Alfredo Rocco, first to argue for nationalism in Italy, both major thinkers in the nationalist tradition,  were the principle spokesman. They outlined the principle components of what was to be Fascist ideology: nationalism and rapid economic development. Corradini argued that national sentiment was a natural product of human evolution. The sense of group belonging was critical to the psychology of human beings.

Freidrich List: argued against economic liberalism.

Freidrich List: “Theory of the productive forces.” Clearly conceived productivity to be at the center of human history.[10]

 

Georges Eugène Sorel

Developmental Nationalism and Revolutionary Syndicalism

Developmental Nationalism and Revolutionary Syndicalism: At about the time that the ANI was making its case, a group of radical Marxists, led by the French radical Georges Sorel advocated the organization of revolutionary workers' organizations (syndicats) that would transform the decadent societies of his time. Sorel held that Marx had made some errors in theory that left the European revolutionary movements without coherent guidance. He held that Marx believed in determinism and the catastrophic collapse of capitalism (catastrophism). Marx (according to Sorel) believed that the proletariat would "spontaneously" become revolutionary. Sorel believed that revolution required leadership by a moral elite (consider the argments of Giovanni Gentile) that would guide it to success. Sorel clearly had affinities with Gentile and idealism. In Italy, some of the most radical Marxists became syndicalists (including Mussolini). (Some Austrian Marxists, particularly Otto Bauer, had begun to question the "Marxist" treatment of nationalism and spoke of "communities of destiny" influencing the political posture of "proletarian" groups.) By the commencement of the First World War, the syndicalists argued that Italy was not ripe for the kind of revolution concerning which Marx had theorized. Some (Filippo Corridoni, for example) argued that Italy was too underdeveloped to support the kind of revolution of which Marx spoke. They argued that whatever revolution was forthcoming would have to involve itself in the industrial development of the peninsula--and the nation would serve as its proper vehicle. By 1910-11, Sorel had himself become a nationalist and the contacts between the syndicalists and the Italian idealists (Benedetto Croce and Gentile) became intense. The idealists served as intermediaries between the political nationalists and the syndicalists.

 

George Sorel believed that revolution required leadership by a moral elite (consider the arguments of Giovanni Gentile) that would guide it to success. Sorel clearly had affinities with Gentile and idealism.

 

Georges Eugène Sorel: One of the first intellectuals to argue for nationalism. He believed that revolution required a leadership of a moral elite.  Sorel’s ideas have an affinity with Gentile’s. he advanced the organization of revolutionary workers (syndicalism).

 

Georges Eugène Sorel (2 November 1847 – 29 August 1922) was a French philosopher and theorist of revolutionary syndicalism. Sorel was born in Cherbourg, son of a bankrupted wine merchant. He studied in the École Polytechnique in Paris. He became chief engineer with the Department of Public Works and retired in 1892. He was active on the side of Dreyfusards during the Dreyfus Affair.

 

Sorel had ties of friendship to Antonio Labriola and wrote a preface to the French translation of Labriola's Essays on the Materialist Conception of History. Although Labriola attacked Sorel's work, his books were praised by other Italian thinkers such as Vilfredo Pareto and Benedetto Croce, and he had links to the Italian nationalist-syndicalist movement from which Fascism branched. Sorel had been politically monarchist and traditionalist before embracing orthodox Marxism in the 1890s,

 

He echoed the Jacobin tradition in French society that held that the only way for change to occur was through the application of force. he had an ambivalent attitude both towards Fascism and Bolshevism. Whether Sorel is better seen as a left-wing or right-wing thinker is disputed: the Italian Fascists praised him as a forefather, but the dictatorial government they established ran contrary to his beliefs, while he was also an important touchstone for Italy's first Communists, who saw Sorel as a theorist of the proletariat. Such widely divergent interpretations arise from the theory that a moral revival of the country must take place to re-establish itself; yet whether this revival must occur by means of the middle and upper classes or the proletariat is a point in question. Georges Sorel was clearly a holder of antiscience views. He dismissed science as "a system of idealised entities: atoms, electric charges, mass, energy and the like – fictions compounded out of observed uniformities…deliberately adapted to mathematical treatment that enable men to identify some of the furniture of the universe, and to predict and…control parts of it."(wiki)

 

Freidrich List: courage to believe in a grand national future and with such a faith to march forward with irrepressible national spirit. Professor Alfredo Rocco (b. 9 September 1875, Naples) brought List’s theoretical insights to the 1913 Italian National Association, upon his accession to membership.

Giovanni Gentile Minister of Education under Mussolini

 

Giovanni Gentile  (May 30, 1875 - April 15, 1944) was an Italian neo-Hegelian Idealist philosopher, a peer of Benedetto Croce. He described himself as 'the philosopher of Fascism', and ghostwrote A Doctrine of Fascism (1932) for Benito Mussolini. He also devised his own system of philosophy, Actual Idealism. (wiki)

 

Gentile (1875-1944)  was born in Castelvetrano, Sicily. Gentile was inspired by such Italian thinkers as Mazzini, Rosmini, Gioberti and Spaventa from whom he borrowed the idea of autoctisi or self-construction, but was just as strongly influenced by the German idealist and materialist schools of thought – namely Karl Marx, Hegel, and Fichte with whom he shared the ideal of creating a Wissenschaftslehre, or theory for a structure of knowledge which makes no assumptions. Nietzsche too, played an influence on Gentile, as can be seen in an analogy between Nietzsche's Übermensch and Gentile's Uomo Fascista.

 

The Italian philosopher and politician Giovanni Gentile (1875-1944) was influential in reviving Hegelian ( neo-Hegelian)  idealism in Italy. He made significant contributions to the Italian educational system and participated in the formation of the Fascist corporate state.

Gentile was of the genus of community

It originates from the conviction you can come complete only in a community – Gentile’s proof. Since the collective, it has changed the shape of mankind; the science we understand today all comes from collective approval of the community --- that is why one is shaped by the community.  – This is/was the logic of the 20th century revolution. They all laid claim to your sacrifice, loyalty, obedience, commitment, and you to be proponent of the ecclesiastical truth – or you will be killed – to the community.

 

It matters not if this came from neo-Hegelian ( ascribed to Gentilian interpretation) or “Actual idealism,” ( his invention, to take action instead of just talking about things as liberals were accustomed to do, which he had argued wastes valuable time). What does matter was Italian Fascism, needed to act upon the outbound pressures of the imperialistic (colonialist) hegemonic liberal states, i.e. Britain, and France.  The Liberal states were carving up the world for economic hegemony, and Italy remained as a target of bourgeois exploitation. Italy ultimately had to either adopt Fascism, i.e. Communitarian political movement, or become victims as N. Africa, and the Middle East and parts of East Asia did suffer (notice the rhetoric of Islamic scholars on European hegemony of the early 20th century, as well as China’s pamphleteers of Macaw in the 1850-70s). Under this rubric, Fascism was not evil or immoral. In fact, it was fully a moral ideology.

 

Do they violate our values? I do not know, these are not moral judgment; It was what system would you like to live under.

 

Ideologist operate in any given environment. If we are living at risk, in jeopardy, the arguments sound better – these arguments are plausible, no true. Did Gentile believe all what he said? Who knows, he generally talked about community as the place that shapes the individual.

 

 

Giovanni Gentile: He argued that modern times produced the need for the appearance of totalitarianism: a system fundamentally different from authoritarianism (although some of the same properties appear to be shared) and liberal representational democracies.

Giovanni Gentile Arguments for the Processes of Fascism

(1)  create the state ( social construction)

(2)  A state must rule with firmest unity in or to accomplish the people’s goals.

(3)  The state demonstrates its power, it proper autonomy.

(4)  To protect the land, the state’s will must become the people’s will.

(5)  People are only fulfilled in the company of others, and the more intense the relationship ( a communitarian identity) the more fulfilling.

(6)  Traditional democracy was a system designed to satisfy the individual, rather than the collective community, interests -- Therefore, at best a moral, if not immoral.

(7)  Fascism is characterized as anti-intellectual, which means that it is understood that life is predicated on moral choice and that the intellectual provides instrumentalities’ that further choice.

 

Gentile Idealism, Philosophical Idealism a Part of Fascism

(1)  Fundamental reality of existence is consciousness.

(2)  Human beings, not matter, are responsible for their life circumstances.

(3)  This suggests, volunteerism, a volunteeristic conception of the world.

(4)  “Socialism in one country” is essential, a strategy for rapid industrial development, and economic expansion of a specific political community. ( who said this?)(later Stalin’s Socialism in One Country policies was a reflection of the same idealism.)

(5)  Rational low-wages.

(6)  Education of monolithic values, promoted as an ideology of impeccable truths.

(7)  Liberalism created antagonism between the state and the individual.

(8)  The state an individual are all in one piece.

(9)  Every force is a moral force—because it always addresses itself to the will.

(10)                     Gentile, “ the human individual is not an atom.” Immanent in the conception of an individual is the concept of society. For there is no ego, no real individual, who does not have within him [ or her]…and alter who is essential socius—that is to say, an object that is not a mere “thing” opposed to him as subject, but a subject like himself. [ mjm- an argument against split personality of a liberal perception, liberals often promote themselves as moral, when they operate, live, and accept their lives in an immoral environments – they deny it, but guilt plays a heavy part in final self-admitting destruction]

(11)                     Actualism, was a proactionary philosophy created by Gentile. As an activist conception of reality of life, this philosophy was deeply “preoccupied with the concrete problems… that must be confronted and resolved. To accomplish this, Gentile argued, the Italians had to give themselves over to a sense of selfless mission --- the sense would inform the collective will (of the state).

Gentile and Military Change

At the end of the Great War, Gentile called for a need of fundamental changes in moral consciousness. This was tied to what is understood in social science as “humiliation.”  This was militarism. This conscious change would adopt “new ideas and a new spirit.” These are links to the myths constructed of nationalism, with the sub-subjects of regaining the “lost lands,” volunteerism (anti-liberalism), myths of the “great mission to secure the land from predatorily liberal democratic imperialists.” Ultimately the great mission was to build of the infrastructure of Italy, develop a standing and modern military, including a Navy that could stand up against British, Danish, French Navies, and to untimely rescind this humiliation.

Humiliation brought Reactionary Nationalism

To understand this we need to understand revolutionary movement of the late 19th century. Marxist believed the masses, that is to say, the prolitariats who by now should have taken control of the modes of production, would join together and draw upon their communitarian unity to overthrow the grand bourgeois. Therefore, many socialist believed in this universalism of Europe. Marx argued that human beings, essentially, are “communal beings.” These are creatures that are social and political – the core of Marx’s social philosophy. Gentile had argued that man for Marx was in essence not an individual. Gentile did not stray away from Marx’s understanding of the importance of the community. Since the “world-wide revolution” never appeared, the reaction came from the humiliation of the states that were, according to Marx supposed to fall from power and the proletariats would take over the modes of production. What Gentile, Marx, and Lenin had saw, was that the proletariats in the United States, and in England, as well as France, their lives were getting better and they were not following Marx’s path to world revolution. Therefore, the only way to stop the imperialism of these advanced industrial bourgeois states was reactionary nationalism conditioned by the humiliation.  (mjm)

Totalitarianism ideologies

Totalitarianism ideologies provide the justification arguments in support of a type of society minimally characterized by (1) an official and ( relative to antecedent systems of political thought) highly specific ideology based upon a radical rejection of some aspects of the past and chiliastic claims for the future, (2) a unitary mass movement of solidarity, hierarchically organized as a single party under the authoritarian leadership of a charismatic (or pseudocharismatic) leader and a directive and tutelary elite, (3) a technologically conditioned near-monopoly of the means of communication and coercion, and (4) centralized direction, under bureaucratized control, of the entire economy.[11]

Giovanni Gentile: Believed that at critical times of crisis, a uniquely gifted individual (s) were capable of intuiting prevailing political sentiment. Such leaders would be those who would represent their people as heads of state.[12]

Giovanni was a cultural constructivist

The issues that are joined in this kind of discussion have not only occupied the interest of the revolutionary left; they have engaged the revolutionary right as well. During the years between the First and Second World Wars, Fascist thinkers, like MarxistLeninists, devoted their time to attacks on “positivism.” They opposed what they considered its artificial and distracted intellectualism as irremediably “abstract” and “inhumane.” Giovanni Gentile, the most prominent among them, argued that science, however science was understood, was a product of social “construction”— the product of language employments and collective thinking. He denied that “reality” was something, fixed and finished, waiting to be discovered by contemporary scientists. “Reality,” for Gentile was a product of the interaction of language, sentiment and perception. It was a social, cultural, and historic construct.

For Gentile, the conviction that science was a social or cultural fabrication inspired the members of a developing and modernizing community with the realization that they were creators of their own destiny. For a political regime for whom dedication and moral commitment were critical, the historic idealism of Gentile discharged manifest pragmatic purpose. The truths of Gentilean idealism were “contextually dependent” and were calculated to “empower” a marginal, oppressed and less-developed industrial community.[13]

Giovanni Gentile: By the end of the First World War, gentile had, by and large, completed his post-Kantian and radical reformation of the Hegelian dialectic to produce the “Actualism,” the “Philosophy of pure act,” that was to address all the issues of politics, law, ethics, and morality that were to engage Fascism.[14]

Gentile and Law

Fascism, Communism, one is governed by a law of an elite and sacred book ( a law of truth – who knows truth?) Original intent of law was to stop the abuse of others, in a community. USA, Law is to serve the purpose of developing the community. But law is pride in a communitarian society. The government can limit the kinds of information you get. In this sense, law is a constraint on your Freedom. So at a certain restraint, human recognize law, and the restraint of law is how it shapes one’s personality. This is what Gentile understood.

 

USA: Human beings are flawed human beings (perceptive), so we will always be litigating (individualism), in court (Law).

 

Gentile Morality

Sexual freedoms were not allowed in Mao’s China, Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, and this was part of the law/morality of those systems.

 

Giovanni Gentile: ( taught at Atheneum in Pisa ( by 1916)) For law—at its very origins—was necessarily and inextricably moral—and, by implication, incapably universal. Practically, the abstract individual of liberalism was introduced to the concrete, collective reality of the more expansive self of public morality. Morality entails universality—implying a “totalitarian” collectivity.[15]

Giovanni Gentile: Years before the outbreak of the First World War, Giovanni Gentile articulated an interpretation of reality and politics into which prewar nationalism and revolutionary syndicalism were subsequently to merge. BY the first years of the 1920s, Gentile’s philosophical Actualism became the vehicle of an inclusive national syndicalism that accommodated the thought of Enrico Corradini, Alfredo Rocco, and Sergio Panunzio. By the time of the March on Rome [October, 1922] brought Fascism to power, both Rocco and Panunzio had identified nationalism and syndicalism as critical constitutes of its ideological rationale. As has been indicated, both had gradually come together in the years before the Great War, until there was remarkably little doctrinal distance between them. It was clear that nationalists had early anticipated a coalescence of nationalism and syndicalism of A. O. Olivetti, Paolo Orano, and Sergio Panunzio had adopted so many of the essentials of Italian nationalism that their subsequent merger might easily have been anticipated.[16]

Gentile Ideology of Fascism.

 

Topics: Ideologies are special kinds of linguistic products. People will exploit one’s stupidity if you do not learn the methods of argument.

Ideology is like a sale pitch of a politician who makes you compliant to their ways – it is not science. Science claims contain public conference of claims or the public can refute the claim. Science is not there to say “I know it all”, but to add into the mix some sort of claim, in which future scientist can refute it or confirm it. But ultimately, a scientist understands some other scientist will come along and improve upon their claim. Scientist do not emote, “I know the truth.” They only give their body to work to the public, so the public can scrutinize it and either accept it or refute it.

 

Therefore, ideologies have a sense of persuasiveness used in arguments and as witnessed from social trends. It is different from an “attitude” which can come from public conference. As liberal democracies argue in the perceptual, these are tacitly embodied in the socialness of the adherents. The adherents ultimately accept this without public conference.  As example, “All men are created equal.” This is a precept, which is not arguable in the United States of America, it is assumed “true.” It has litigating functionalities. As another form of an ideology, it functions as formal and informal imperatives, ideas that must be accepted in order too operate, live and function within the adherental group.  – Michael J. McDonald. [ Gregor intends this, some have defined USA as an “Attitude,” not as an ideology. See Kings College and Cambridge conservative intellectuals in the early twentieth century? and Marx as narcissistic attitudes of liberal ( bourgeois) democracies]

 

The first component of ideology, as it is here understood, can be identified as a social and political philosophy, a fairly rigorous and coherent body of argued judgment concerning nature, society, and man which has normative implications. This philosophical component of ideologies has a detached and intellectual quality. It is formulated in reasoned guise and attempts to meet minimal requirements of significant discourse. Its specific distingishment trait is its normative potential.[17]

An ideology implies a way of life []. It is a conceptual frame of reference which provides criteria for choice and decision by virtue of which the major activities of an organized community are governed, Gregor intends in his work, Ideology and Fascism, The Rational of Totalitarianism (1969). When the entire prevailing ideological system is threatened, we speak of impending revolution. During the beginning of the 20th century, the overriding system of small individual autonomous states were threatened by imperialist or colonialist states.  “The Second component of ideologies is doctrine: a relatively loose constellation of assumptions, generalizations, and judgments about the general nature and the dynamics of social reality. These are conjoined with negative evaluations of the past and present which, together with some conceptions of a desired eventual state of affairs, provide a general guide to contemporary actions,” Gregor intends in Ideology and Fascism .  “The Third component of ideologies is composed of formal and informal imperatives issues as codified law or represented in group sentiment and support by formal and informal sanction. This final component of ideological systems includes legislation, precepts, and social sentiments, instituted and fostered through a variety of social and political agencies.”

Mussolini rose to power constitutionally by the invitation of King Victor Emmanuel to form a new government. With his ascendancy, he immediately called upon Giovanni Gentile to be his new Minister of Education.[18]

Gregor summarizes the difference between the two,

 

Some ideologies are procedural, that is to say they recommend some procedures or other as good or proper. Such procedures are recommended on the basis of some precepts that tend to be considered “self-evident” (i.e., “We hold these truths to be self-evident....” and provide for some self-evident behaviors). Some ideologies are clearly substantive, that is to say, some empirical claims are held to be incorrigibly true (i.e., “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”) and it is held that some sort of enjoinments follow: your “class enemies” always “exploit” you--or some such--and you should be prepared to “struggle” against them....[19]

 

The evolution of these two ideologies of the modern era Gregor summarizes them into two distinct periododic modern groups: Pre-American and French Revolutions and post revolution ideological frameworks. 

 

Most of the first revolutions of the modern era (commencing with the American and French revolutions) were preceptive/procedural; after the First World War, the revolutions were predicated on substantive convictions and fostered epistemocracies (rule by those who know impeccable truths, something like the “philosopher-kings” of Plato’s Republic) . One of the observable differences between preceptive/procedural and substantive ideologies is that the latter are generally spoken of as “theories”--there is “Marxist theory” that includes economic notions about how whole economic systems develop and decay; there is National Socialist “race theory” that includes biological notions about the psychological properties of entire classes of persons; there is Black Muslim “theory” about the origins of races and their respective and indelible character. Perceptive/procedural “ideologies” simply assert certain values; substantive ideologies at least pretend to argue them.[20]

 

Therefore,

(1) Precept/procedural ideology

(2) Substance ideology

Precept: It is a recommendation to behave, and not a fact.

If one goes to founding of the USA and peers into our written background of government belief systems set in our Constitution, our ideologies are Procedural and not substance. There is a difference in these two ideologies. Our declaration of Independence is perceptual, not procedural.

What does this mean. This is based on a precept --- a recommendation to behave, for example: “ we hold these truths to be self evidence” “that we are all created equal”—We know we are not all created equal -- -no-one is ever the same, and the founders also knew this, but this was an ideology. It means we are to treat everyone as equal, unless you have reason to treat them otherwise, “ treat everyone as equals” It is a recommendation to behave!

 

Gregor sees progress as a gradual observation of to the perceptual change in the United States of America. Black people are no better than white people, and it takes time for the these precepts to immerse themselves “as self evident” into the population. Procedural ideologies take time to fulfill its fruition. On the other hand, we will look at what happens when things tries to be solved right away, such as race relations. This discussion is connected to the substantive ideology.

 

Different ideology: to die for and to kill for called a substantive ideology. Substance? Ideology.

Two Procedural and substance

  1. Substantive ideology
    1. Thee ways to live in one.
    2. Compliance
    3. Reeducated/ rehabilitated to the system (Epstiomocracy – they have books as their religion to instruct one in rehabilitation).
    4. Killed or exhaled

 

  1. Procedural ideology
    1. Substantive prescribe behavior, perceptual and procedural ideologies do not.
    2. In crisis conditions it can be suspended, and it happens in procedural systems. This not only applies to USA during World War I and II, of certain group’s political rights, but also in the case of mass-movement crisis leading to permanent restriction of procedural ideology seen in communism, fascism and National Socialism of the twentieth century.
    3. Litigation, individual expression, non-conformity, at least under normative social safeties.

 

Precepts are advanced, then onto a procedural process ( the Constitution) to how to put the precepts into operations. This is a Procedural ideology.

How do we decide what does it mean – by a legal system, “all men have a right to be happy” If you have a complaint, through the democrat procedure, get the people on your side to vote it down?

Responding to a substantive ideology tells you precisely how to behave, once a sub-ideology comes to power no one, even leaders cannot depart form the behavioral set up.

Substantive ideology (are better described as a political religion) Comport yourself with my moral principles. Political religion,  the source of morality, these are the impeccable truths in a substantive ideological state.

A first sign of a substantive ideology is the enthusiastic acceptance of a set of truths, as witnessed in the Hitlerean German period.  The Old Testament Jews’ had their impeccable truth claim of the “chosen race.” Substantive ideologies will create ( produce, or progress) an enabling environment to suppress the set of alternative truths, or beliefs, because one is articulating impeccable truths – absolute truths.

Look at scientists; they knew their claims could be changed. Political science, and sociology is not a science, they all know they are not communicating impeccable truths. This is not to say that science has never been used as a political tool to argue impeccable truths. See postmodernistic thought on this issue. However, as a scientific claim of bending of space, the Theory of Relativity, have we, as a human race, begun a major military war over a contentious rival theory? There could be arguments over the scientific revolution, but this is for another period and topic, and not for this instruction/discussion. In normative circumstances, scientist understand others will improve or disprove their findings.

 

Mass-based Radical Movements of Solidarity

Episodic reasons are the only reason people make “mass-mobilized revolutions” – a truism. Never because of someone’s ideology.

What makes a revolution? When a society is unstable, no roles to play, comprehensible, sustainable, and must have large number of displaced people, mass-movements, an earthquakes can do this, must have the infrastructure damaged?

 

[…] In the present context all that is necessary is the indication that the mass-based radical movements of solidarity that provide the impetus for change in our time are, in a fundamental and important sense, revolutionary. They challenge the central commitments of the late nineteenth century. Against the contractualist, individualist, and permissive capitalist ideology of the last century, they oppose the tutelary, communalist, and authoritarian socialism of our time. The generic name assigned to the latter ideologies, however, they identify themselves, is totalitarianism.[21]

Synficalists said, and syndicates said, Italy cannot have a revolution until it has an economic base, an economic base as a function of a capitalist country. They witnessed a peasant revolution, a poverty revolution in Russia. They witnessed Lenin and the Bulshivicks destroy capital in the Marxist sense of fixed capital ( Institutions, buildings, churches, infrastructure), and value capital, human labor power, by killing-off people.

Immediately before the Fascist March on Rome in October 1922, Sergio Panunzio published his “Stato e sindacati,” in which he called for the creation of a “syndicalist state,” in which a state, “as idea,” would become “absolute”—the “living incarnation of the social idea.” By the time of the Fascist revolution, Panunzio identified the first period of syndicalist agitation—from the beginning of the twentieth century until about the time of the Great War—as “revolutionary,” and “critical.” The subsequent period, which he anticipated would follow the Fascist seizure of power, was conceived “synthetic” and “constructive.”[22]

By 1923, Panunzio traced revolutionary syndicalism from its origins with Geroges Sorel through the philosophical insights of Georg W. F. Hegel to the idealism of the Gentileans. Panunzio understood the “syndicalist state” he anticipated to be the constructive response of the nation to the disintegration of the antebellum liberal state.[23]

By 1913, Italian Nationalism had matured into a coherent, comprehensive, and revolutionary doctrine for a “proletarian Italy.” That sought redemption and rebirth in a world of international competition dominated by hegemonic “plutocratic powers.”[24] The most important intellectuals of Euopre shaped Fascist doctrine thought: Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano, Mosca, Gabriel Tarde, George Sorel, Gustav Le Bon and Ludwig Gumplowicz. In the next decade, Giovanni Gentile became the most prominent philosophical thinkers in Europe, and was number among the advocates’ of Fascist doctrine thought.[25]

Angelo Oliviero Olivetti:

Antionio Gramsci

Antionio Gramsci: Argued for “organic intellectuals,” an elite who had managerial functions, could transmit orders as ideas, enforce discipline or organize services ---vital importance for the study of Italian Fascism.

Enrico Corradini:

Major political figure in the Fascist regime. In his small journal Il Regno (1903-1905), Corradini argued for “imperial expansion.” This revelation remained predicated upon liberal democracies, as England, and liberal predispositions of France, and other liberally called states, were also colonizing ( i.e. imperializing the globe) in what could be called as “imperial expansion.”

Enrico Corradini (1865, near Montelupo Fiorentino—1931, Rome) was an Italian novelist, essayist, journalist, and nationalist political figure.

 

Biography

A follower of Gabriele D'Annunzio, he founded a small journal Il Regno (1903-1905), together with intellectuals Giovanni Papini, Vilfredo Pareto, and Giuseppe Prezzolini. It quickly became a staple for irredentist and radical thought that was to blend into Fascism. In 1910, was founded the Associazione Nazionale Italiana (ANI),with the participation of Corradini who was among the leaders. It made a name for itself after giving full support to Italian imperialism and the Italo-Turkish War of 1911 - Corradini wrote two political essays on the matter (Il volere d'Italia - "Italy's Desire", and L'ora di Tripoli - "Tripoli's Moment"). He expanded such bellicose theories in the weekly L'Idea Nazionale, founded by him together with Alfredo Rocco and Luigi Federzoni.

 

L'Idea Nazionale was turned into a daily with financing from natural advocates of militarism - military men and weapon manufacturers. Corradini and his paper created a generic nationalist theory after adopting Populism and Corporatism, while advocating Italy's entry into World War I - initially on the side of the Triple Alliance (the Central Powers, to which Italy had committed itself), then on that of the Triple Entente (the Allies - which promised to grant Italy all its territorial demands). The group also focused on a violent press campaign against Prime Minister Giovanni Giolitti and other supporters of neutrality.

 

Corradini developed the concept of Proletarian Nationalism in 1919:

 

“ We must start by recognizing the fact that there are proletarian nations as well as proletarian classes; that is to say, there are nations whose living conditions are subject...to the way of life of other nations, just as classes are. Once this is realized, nationalism must insist firmly on this truth: Italy is, materially and morally, a proletarian nation." (Report to the First Nationalist Congress, Florence, December 3, 1919) ”

 

After the war, ANI was led by Corradini into a merger with the Partito Nazionale Fascista (PNF). Nonetheless, Corradini made sure to detach himself from the more controversial actions of the Blackshirts, while being nominated by Benito Mussolini to the Italian Senate, and joining his government in 1928.

 

As a novelist, Corradini enjoyed success with his La patria lontana ("The Distant Fatherland"; 1910) and La guerra lontana ("The Distant War"; 1911).

 

Enrico Corradini and Alfredo Rocco, both major thinkers in the nationalist tradition. They outlined the principle components of what was to be Fascist ideology: nationalism and rapid economic development. Their primary purpose was to fashion out of a retrograde, underdeveloped community, a "Great Power." By that time, given his personal history, Benito Mussolini became increasingly committed to nationalist principles and Gentilean idealism. The question we must deal with includes an assessment of similarities and differences between and among "socialist" and "fascist" systems in the 20th century.

Ugo Spirito

Ugo Spirito (1896-?)  Professor of philosophy who wrote on parapsychology. He was born on September 9, 1896, at Arezzo, Italy, and he studied at the University of Rome (LL.B., 1918; Ph.D., 1920). He taught at the University of Pisa (1932-34), the University of Messina (1935), the University of Genoa (1936), and the University of Rome (beginning in 1937).

 

Ugo Spirito: Spirito had identified “integral: and “programmatic” corporativism—an evolving corporativism that would transform itself into a “true and effective economic government” – a form of modern socialism.[26] Spirito began a systematic methodological critique of liberal economics and positivism as a metatheory of science.[27] Like Spirito, Mussolini spoke of the twentieth century as “ the century of power and glory of labor.” He spoke of workers entering “more and more intimately into the productive process….When I say producers” he continued, “I do not only mean industrialists or employers, but I also mean workers. “ It was development, he argued, that “was imposed by logic and history itself.” He spoke of the end of liberal-capitalistic economy…and economy aiming at individual profit.” The fascist economy would be one “concerned with collective interests.” In revolutionary Italy, there could be no economic matters that were “exclusively or private or individual concern.[28] Mussolini affirmed his approval of Spirito’s assessment, documenting its fundamental doctrinal orthodoxy: Political and economic disciple through the agencies of a single party and the totalitarian state.[29] This is not autocracy, but a autocracy with an ideology of total citizen inclusiveness to that ideology. 

Sergio Panunzio:  a academically trained philosopher and social scientist, closely followed the juridical and institutional evolution of Fascist corporativism, composed exposition of Fascist Doctrine in 1930s, defined society as a collection of persons, not individuals, , engaged in activities governed by some set of explicit or implicit rules of conduct. The state—as a politico-juridical reality, minority exercises sovereignty, control, or imperium, that is to say, the faculty of issuing authoritative commands). Both Gentileans and Panunzio were statists—according philosophical and political priority to the state. As a consequence, they were all collectivists, opposing the “atomic” individualism of political and economic liberalism that reduced the function of the state to that of a night watchman commissioned to protect life and property. They were all nationalists in the sense that they conceived the nation as the contemporary vehicle of individual self-realization. They were all antiparliamentarian, holding parliaments to be, at best, ineffectual and, at worst, the source of corruption. They were all emphatic moralists, insisting that the state had the pedagogical obligation of training human beings to selfless virtue. As a consequence, Fascist rule was seen as ecclesiastic, epistemarchic, and pedagogic in essential character.6 Like religionists, philosophers and pedagogues saw the use of force justified only when in the service of virtue.7 Panunzio, like the Gentileans, conceived society as immanent at the very core of humankind.8 Actualists and non-Actualists, as Fascists, were all (Mus.intel, p.141)

Panunzio even uses the characterization of society and the  elitists in the sense that they were “epistemarchs”—advocates of rule by those most gifted, most knowlegeable, and most committed. (Mus.intel, pp.141-142)

Italian Fascism and the Development Dictatorship

Professor Alfredo Rocco published Politica, and Gentile had contributed to this. Rocco would become a major Fascist theoretician.

Professor Alfredo Rocco, argued that because Italy had reunited late, and had begun its industrial development equally late, it face special infirmities.[30] ( France, England and Germany had already achieved the developed state) As advanced developmental nations manifested themselves in “Cultural “imperialism.”” “Rocco argued that because of their relatively unique histories in a struggle against monarchal absolutism, the advanced industrial nations of Europe had committed themselves to a form of exaggerated political individualism.[31] That is to say, Rocco elaborated  that these advanced industrial nations conducted a ideology of “individuals who exclusively sought their personal well-being, to the exclusion of all else, were not equipped to defend their community or sacrifice in its enterprise. If the irreducible concerns of the individual were personal happieness and persona advantage, it was difficult to imagine that the individual might be marshaled to the defense of the collectivity in the contest with the plutocratic states—or to the arduous labor required by intensive and extensive industrial development.”[32]

Rocco, “ the theory of productive forces” ( Theorie der produktiven Kräfte). He argued that Italy was “significantly disadvantaged in the international competition with those already established. Established nations had ever reason to foster “cosmopolitan,” or free trade, orientations. Access to market supplements and investment opportunities outside the metropolitan nation were critical to the rising profit levels necessary to sustain the expanded reproductive cycles of advanced industry. “ Free trade” and free markets” served an instrumental purpose in an economic system predicated on the already accomplished extensive and intensive development of productive forces.”[33] Therefore,“ For less-developed nations, [ Freidrich] List admonished, it was necessary to generate, foster, and sustain the “courage to believe in a grand national future and with such a faith to march forward with irrepressible national spirit.” With the strength born of that courage and that faith, less-developed nations were required to bring together all the spiritual and material assets required to provide the preconditions and fashion the infrastructure necessary for rapid development and economic growth.[34]

Karl Marx entertained the notion of the role of “productive forces” in the course of human development. The central conviction of historical materialism was human history proceeded on the energy supplied by the growth of productive forces.[35] ( this is capitalism’s argument, and in Gregor’s book, he is citing this “entertained notion” by Marx, which is necessarily against his doctrine of “proletarian revolution,” in my opinion, not Gregor’s.).

Marx had argued that “the fact while the British exploited India and China for their own purposes, the also served the ultimate ends of progress. He maintained that the British “ had a double mission in India: one destructive and the other regenerating—the annihilation of old Asiatic society, and laying the material foundation of Western society in Asia.” Driven in their serch for profit, the British would advance “civilization.” Marx insisted that British imperialism had precipitated “ social revolution,” in Asia; imperialism “was the conscious tool of history.” The consequences could only be massive incentives for the rapid economic and industrial development of the subcontinent.[36]

After 1932 (&1933 )” Camillo Pellizzi, the last effective president on the institute Gentile founded, suggested a vary similar assessment of the period traversed. After 1932 and 1933, Pellizzi maintained, there was little in Fascist Italy that could pass as specifically corporative doctrinal development. Most debate turned on the institutionalization of decisions already made. Fascism had entered into a phase dominated by foreign policy concerns—ranging from the responses to the global economic crisis now identified as the Great Depression, to war in Ethiopia and Spain—to growing rapprochement with Adolf Hitler’s Germany. Domestically, the ideology of Fascism had attained those qualities that heralded its maturity. Fascism’s primary interest, after 1934, was the pursuit of its foreign policy objectives –objectives that had been largely fixed, in a generic sense, before the March on Rome.[37]

The Italian educational institute Gentile had founded in 1925 was taken over by the new party as part of a systematic “fascistizing” the nation. The effort provoked Gentile’s resistance. Gentile’s concept of education  was vastly different, in principle and spirit, from that of Achille Starace ( then national secretary of the Partito nazionale fascista, who sought to being Gentile’s institute under direct control of the party). Gentile resigned his leadership on 7 March 1937, from his own institute he had founded.[38] The Catholic Church had remained in somewhat opposition to Gentile’s Actualism. Gentile had brought religion back into the classroom, which had been taken out by liberalist movements, but this did not satisfy the institutionalized Roman Church. They objectively turned against the immanentism of philosophical Actualism – in which all reality, all ideas, all knowledge, all perceptions, all beliefs, and all sentiments found their ultimate source in consciousness – and left no room for the transcendent, personal deity of orthodox Roman Catholicism.[39] It was an effort for a “collaboration” with the Church which had been subordinated while fascism proper had existed. The Church had been on the socialist side, the passivist side and had lost its political control. This was an attempt to reestablish its convictions by theological grounds. Therefore, the Fascist argued for moderation measures. Theologically, the Church used the majority to react to the minority of Fascists “Actualists” arguing it was a form of humanistic “atheism” or a heretical pantheism – neither which could be tolerated by serious Roman Catholics.[40] Since Fascist “Actualists” were counted among the Gentile “Idealism,” both were marginalized. If consciousness was the ultimate causality of what is “real”, it starkly contrasted to material and transcendent idealism of institutional Roman Catholicism. (That is to say, Consciousness is not the causality of all human actions)  Camillo Pellizzi argued that both were compatible, and sufficiently flexible. “Gentile remained intransigently opposed to institutional Catholicism as an infringement on the inviolable, totalitarian sovereignty of the state.”[41] Since Fascism was more popular during the developing period, the clergy made no effort at opposition. Now that Fascism increased the development of industry in Italy, and ultimately more money came into Italy, they realized they had a chance to return to real political power.

Schmitt: concept of Spaces, both interpreted as physical and political spheres of influence. He went on to make cases of internationally recognized extended spaces during the “cold war.” Schmitt was suspected of ideological indifference by the SS. His views were not held to be sufficiently National Socialst. This was apparently the reason Schmitt chose to concentrate on international affairs. His concept of “extended Grossraum” was the consequence.[42]

Fascist Racism was fundamentally different from that of Hitler’s Germany. It was that difference that was to make Schmitt’s writings a matter of considerable importance.

1925 final collectivist synthesis of nationalism, syndicalism, and Actualism

There was palpable revulsion on the part of Italians everywhere on the peninsula—and the regime descended into immediate crisis. For a time it appeared that Mussolini might be compelled to resign, precipitating the restoration of the “old order.”f.59 Only on 3 January 1925 did Mussolini feel secure enough to denounce those who had called, six months before, for his dismissal and the suppression of Fascism. He announced, without equivocation, that Fascism, as a government, and as a party, was in complete and effective control of the nation. Fascism sought to give “the peace, the tranquility and the opportunity to return to labor that the people sought—with love if possible, or with force, if necessary.”f.60 Thereafter, neither Mussolini nor Fascism spoke of any accommodation with the elements of the former system. The talk, thereafter, was of the totalitarian, corporative, and ethical state— the final collectivist synthesis of nationalism, syndicalism, and Actualism. [43]

 

It was at that juncture that the Actualism of Spirito took on the special character that was to shape the subsequent history of Fascism. After 1925, it became evident that Mussolini sought to institutionalize the totalitarian and ethical state anticipated by Giovanni Gentile years before. After 1925, there was to be no further talk of an individualistic “Manchestrian” state—a limited state performing only ancillary functions for the nation. f.61

 

Mussolini had always been an astute politician. He had been a gifted tactician, a recognized “tern pista,” one who could calculate probabilities of success in given political circumstances. Throughout the preliminary stages of the revolution, those talents served him well. During that period, he had gathered around himself a collection of representatives of sometimes conflicting interests. There were syndicalists preoccupied with the well-being of their organizations; there were industrialists concerned with their individual and collective business interests; there were landowners and tenant farmers, each group pursuing its own real or conceived interests. All these groups were to be drawn into the vortex of events during the years of civil strife and revolutionary activity that preceded Fascism’s ascent to power.[44]

 

The Ideology of Totalitarianism

(1) Ideology of Unity, the Ideology of Totalitarianism (it is not authoritarianism but shares some characteristics, it is an ideology of shared volunteerism, shared sacrifice, shared hopes and dreams of not being dominated by more advanced industrial states)

(a)  Totalitarianism:

(b)  The decision as to which observables form part of the nonobservable concept (like "democracy," "dictatorship," "communist," etc.) is the responsibility of those suggesting the classification. Thus, those concerned with "totalitarianism" generally identify

(b)

(1) a one-party state;

(2) a privileged "Leader" often characterized as charismatic;

(3) a formal ideology both required and conceived impeccable;

(4) express or indirect nationalism (usually involving some measure of irredentism;

(5) extensive control of the economy;

(6) generally messianic and irredentist in terms of a national mission;

(7) militaristic;

(8) systematic organization of all associations under government control.

 

 

 

 

Dino Grandi,  graduate in law and economics at the University of Bologna in 1919 (after serving in World War I),

Dino Grandi

Dino Grandi (born. June 4, 1895—May 21, 1988), Conte (Count) di Mordano, was an Italian Fascist politician.    Result of class action on part of the threatened capitalism; dismissed fascism as an interpretation that read to be a product of “war Psychosis.” Fascism sought to salvage “liberty” of the fatherland – not only from “foreign plutocracies,” but from the “internal subversion” that threatened the very substance of private and public freedom. Found in a number of fascist accounts. (40).

Internal subversion. Three forces created Fascism: “liberty, nation, and syndicalism.”       

Socialist sought to take away personal and private freedom, by mimicking Lenin’s distributing of land – taking away of private land and giving it to the masses.          

Fascism was the product of spiritual and sentimental, intuitive and instinctive” factors.            

Fascism was a rejection of “mechanical materialism, and a commitment to a new spiritual consciousness.        Fascism was the resolution of a “great spiritual problem.” (41)

Volpe and  Ugo Spirito

 

Volpe and  Ugo Spirito:  Fascism was a “heroic and ethical movement.”(41)

A. J.Gregor: on pro-fascists

 

A. J.Gregor: on pro-fascists         (repeat on Druker) There is no single concept of “freedom” or “equality” that characterizes European history—even if we restrict our considerations ( as Druker suggests) to the Christian era.

Hegel’s concept of “Freedom” and “equality” is significantly different form that of John Stuart Mill – and Mill’s is significantly different from that of Jean Jacques Rousseau—and Rousseau’s is significantly different from that of Giovanni Genitle—and so on and so forth.          Same psychology as anti-fascists: can read a “desire for true freedom,””moral convictions,” “Ethical transcendence,””romanticism,” and recognition of the prevalence of the “spirit of the Risorginento.”                                

To say, Kohn, that “deep social unrest “gave Mussolini “ his chance,” is probably true, but trivial. “deep social unrest” can be generally understood to provide revolutionaries their “chance.” The question is not whether there was a “chance” to be had in the post-World War I environment of Italy, but rather why Mussolini was capable of exploiting it while the socialists ( of whomever stamp), or the liberals, were not. (45-46)       

Moral Crisis

The arguments that seek to explain Fascism as the result of a moral crisis are hopelessly impaired.  [ on both sides here] or stood to be causal factors that together provide compliment explanation and theoretical understanding. (45) 

Understanding Fascism as a “decline of morality,” it is a rise of barbarians. Barbarians make their image. The [mentally impaired/ [lefties, Gregor] like this “image” so suddenly, from out of the “mist” they arose to destroy “equality, responsible government, and social representation.” This is a lapse of cognitive thinking. As an empirical example, Fascism did not abandon the notions of Freedom, beauty, love, and equality, they gave their interpretations of them – like the USA, just when we said man is “equal” and USA people owned slaves. So what does the USA mean by Freedom when not everyone had freedom. The NAZI applauded “freedom”, so what is Freedom? Everyone had their own interpretation of morality.

EVERY GOVERNMENT in the 20th century called itself a DEMOCRACY – they have a different definition of it. We cannot say this country abandoned democracy, because they have not – they have a different interpretation of them.

 

We killed, Dresden, bombing of Tokyo, and the American Indians, so why do we make distinctions – because we say – this was necessary. Well so did the Fascists, Communists’, and National Socialists.

 

 

 

Whenever such accounts contain substantive proposition, such proposition reveal themselves to be, on the most superficial inspection, either trivially true, essentially unconformable, or borrowed from empirically based sociological or political studies.(45)

Gustave Le Bon

Gustave Le Bon (May 7, 1841 – December 13, 1931) was a French social psychologist, sociologist, and amateur physicist. Gustave Le Bon, “The Crowd: A stude of the Popular Mind ( New York: Vicking, 1960). Le Bon’s work first appeared in 1895.          (Gregor analysis:) The traits associated with Mass-man” are not conceived of as the summated product of many individual Oedipal dramas, but rather the unique consequence of some special series of events transpiring in society.

(Le Bon:) identified “crowd’ behavior as inflamed by an exaggeration of the sentiments,” by what is now called a “rage for unanimity, “ by an incapacity of moderation and delay,” and “absence of judgment, “and an “inability to reason.” Len Bon also first to speak of a pervasive “ thirst for obedience.”       One of the first books of this period, which remained very influential for three –quarters of a century. He was among the first to speak of such human aggregates as composed of the residue of all classes—and to draw the distinction between the rational behavior of classes, interest groups, and individuals, and the  irrationality of “amorphous crowds>”                                                     

Gregor: No proof: makes ascriptions to wholesale and unqualified ascriptions of personally traits to entire population—the nationalists, the classes and categories of an entire continent—if not the entire globe. (83)

José Ortega y Gasset

Ortega  y Gasset’s theory of Mass-men.

Jose Ortega  y Gasset. “The revolt of the masses “( Norton, 1932).

José Ortega y Gasset (May 9, 1883,  Madrid  - October 18, 1955) was a Spanish philosopher.    

Fascism, as argued by Gasset, was a form of government which exemplifies the traits of “mass-men.” It is a form of government that is  volatile, incontinent, totalitarians, violent and devoid of morality and purpose.

(Gregor) Fascism is, in this account, the product of an “inborn sense” of security and well being. Rather than the product of an irrepressible sense of Oedipal guilt and the masochistic desire to be dominated.                   Mass-men are barbarians and primitive. They re ignorant, volatile, incontinent, totalitarians, violent and devoid of morality and purpose.         “We are living in a brutal empire of the masses.” – Ortega, “ [they want] nothing less than the political domination of the masses.”

Mjm- Marx wanted the political domination of the masses.        For Ortega, “the pole child of human history.” According to his account, the Mass-men” posses an “in-born, root impression that life is easy, plentiful, without any grave limitation; consequently, each average man finds within himself a sensation of power and triumph an which invites him to stand up for himself as he is, to look upon his moral and intellectual endowment as excellent, complete.”            Paradoxical: The mass-men are “incapable to submitting to direction of any kind” - - at the same time they are willing to “ wish to follow someone.”

William Kornhauser

William Kornhauser, “Politics of Mass Society.”( Free press, 1959), p. 14.                  

Fascism is “fundamentally” a mass , rather than a class movement, as distinct from totalitarian, society.             Familiar analysis of others mentioned here: A society composed of masses is one in which large numbers of individuals are no longer insulated in “autonomous groups, and thus become “available” for “mass mobilization.” In such an atomized society the threat of mass movements is emphatic.                   

Threat development moves the groups into one mass movement. The elite isolate themselves from the masses, (108), then the intending elite make their appearance. A key factor is the masse are no longer tied to the old order ( i.e. tradition) so they need a new tradition – the elites can fulfill this need!        

Proximity relations ( e.g. proximity interests), create situations for maintaining  the status quo of individualism, i.e. families, business, hobbies, township or ward, class, church, trade, union, or “any other social group of which he is an active member.” (109).            

The mass mobilizing elites use the masses as an instrument for revolution. Revolution requires effective centralized control over vast human resources.

What comes out of a totalitarian mass movement is a totalitarian society.

 

 

Eric Hoffer

 

Eric Hoffer, “The true Believer, Thoughts on the nature of Mass Movements ( Harper & row, 1951), p. 37.             Gregor, not sophisticated and the same non-sophistication as le Bon. Hoffer’s account, then, reduced itself to a typology of personality and emotional character traits that pretend to identify the “true believer” who fills out the ranks of a mass movement – a mass movement of whatever sort. (94)            Men that commit themselves to mass movements are those who suffer “flawed lives” – and one receives the immediate impression, Gregor argues,  that his account shares kinship with those who interpret Fascism as a consequence of individual psychological impairments.    

Masses “frustrated” and “disaffected.”

Lederer’s “masses” are Hoffer “misfits.”                                     

Lederer, which interpreted Fascism to be the consequence of the “breakdown” of social institutions ( same as Hoffer’s interpretation)  and the release of “amorphous masses” into the political arena.

Working Class Fascism

 

Working Class Fascism (75),  The “authoritarian personality”

In Chapter on Reich. (75)

Roger Brown, Social Psychology ( Free Press, 1965), pp. 521-522.

Roger Brown (April 14, 1925-December 11, 1997) was an American social psychologist. He was born in Detroit.

He attended the University of Michigan.

full professor of psychology at M.I.T. in 1960.

 

In 1962, Brown accepted a professorship at Harvard, where he became the John Lindsley Professor in Memory of William ;

served on the editorial board of The Journal of Homosexuality from 1985, he did not come out publicly until 1989 James, a position he held until his retirement in 1995.                                 

Represented among those people with a minimum amount of education, a low intelligence quotient, menial jobs, and low wages.

Other anti-Semiticism, ethnocentrism, and authoritarianism ” (75)     The potential fascist responds , apparently, to “the norms of an underprivileged subculture.” (74)   Lowest ranks of the socio-economic scale 

In effect, the “potential fascist” is most frequently to be found among the working class.        

Gregor: No empirical evidence to support such a contention – “authoritarian personality “that was typical of “class” – is speculative at best.

End of Mussolini

After the March on Rome on October 28, 1922, in which the Fascists took power in Italy….

As World War II (which Grandi opposed) began to have its devastating effect on Italy after Operation Husky, Grandi and other members of the Fascist Grand Council met July 24, 1943. At this meeting, Grandi attacked Mussolini and made a motion asking King Victor Emmanuel III to resume his full constitutional authority. The resolution passed by a vote of 19 to 7, with one abstention--effectively removing Mussolini from office. The king formally removed and arrested Mussolini the next day.

 

 

 

 

Ch. 6 Fascism as a Function of a Particular Stage of Development of Economic Development

 

W. W. Rostov and the Five Stages of Economic Growth

The Process of Economic Growth (1952), and The Stages of Economic Growth ( 1960), was a “working hypothesis,” for several critically important works devoted to the interpretation of Fascism. These are only “impressionistic definitions,” in W. W. Rostov’s work. Thesis: Rostov proposed “a flexible, disaggregated theory of production,” that would “isolate empirically” the stages of growth of specific economic systems.[45]

(1)   traditional Society

(2)   A society in which the preconditions for economic “take off” manifest themselves.

(3)   The “take-off” itself

(4)   Society in which there is a sustained drive toward maturity.

(5)   A society that enjoys high mass consumption.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Each stage is characterized by a relatively specific dynamic.

 

Stage One Reorganization and Productive Community

(1)   Sector development is considered recognition that different sector development requires differential distribution of incomes.[46] Traditional societies is one in which there exists a “productivity ceiling” that requires approximately seventy-five percent of its effective workforce be occupied in agricultural pursuits. When a society has nonproductive or low productive capacity it eventually faces a change. This can come by technological invention, such as the scientific revolution, or generate systematic crisis of modern world traditional societies by intrusion of more advanced economic systems. Central to the pervasive changes wrought by such factors is the reorganization of the productive community into a national state that provides not only for the effective accumulation of capital in the service of social overhead—provisions for a general defense and public security, the construction of transportation and educational systems, and so forth—but the consequent expansion of internal and external market.[47]

 

The Second  Stage The nation-State is created First industrial in earnest

(2)   Once the preconditions for economic take0off have been met. The forces making for cumulative economic progress, which hitherto produced only limited and episodic yield, expand and begin to characterize the major part of society. These new industries are generated and expand, yielding high profit rates which are, by and large, invested in new facilities.

The Third and Fourth Stages

(3)   An economy at the stage of take-off develops around a relatively narrow complex of industry and technology. As an economy develops industrial processes expand vertically and laterally—vertically to involve the entire processes of agricultural production and the extraction of natural resources—and laterally to incorporate all the processes of commodity production, their marketing and servicing. When this process is as complete as circumstances allow, a society has reached the stage of economic maturity. The process commences with an economic system that is characteristically agrarian and nonindustrial and ends with one that is fully industrialized. Rostow estimates that the time period between the commencement and terminus of this process is approximately sixty years. At the stage of economic maturity the society gives evidence of having the productive capacity, the technological and entrepreneurial skills, as well as the institutional structure, that permits it to produce anything it chooses or, within its resource limitations, it can produce. Society has effectively applied the range of available technology to the bulk of its resources.

The Fifth Stage

(4)   The final stage, the stage of high mass consumption, is that stage in which per capita income reaches a level which makes mass consumption of durable commodities a reality. It is a period characterized by a high rate of urbanization, an increased number of “nonproductive” workers in offices, schools and distributive industries. The society allocates an increased measure of social capital to welfare programs servicing dense urban populations and to efforts designed to maintain full employment.[48]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gregor, A. James, Interpretations of Fascism, 2nd., ed. (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1974).

Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton , New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005).

Bibliography:

A. James Gregor, “Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought” (Princeton , New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005).

A. James Gregor, “ Interpretations of Fascism”, 2nd., ed. (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1974).

 

 

 

 

Preface ix
Acknowledgments xi
CHAPTER ONE: Some Issues in the Intellectual History of Fascism 1
CHAPTER TWO: The Historic Background and Enrico Corradini 18
CHAPTER THREE: Alfredo Rocco and the Elements of Fascist Doctrine 38
CHAPTER FOUR: Sergio Panunzio: From Revolutionary to National Syndicalism 61
CHAPTER FIVE: Idealism, Ugo Spirito, and the Outlines of Fascist Doctrine 85
CHAPTER SIX: Ugo Spirito and the Rationale of the Corporative State 111
CHAPTER SEVEN: Sergio Panunzio and the Maturing of Fascist Doctrine 140
CHAPTER EIGHT: Camillo Pellizzi, Carlo Costamagna, and the Final Issues 165
CHAPTER NINE: Doctrinal Interlude: The Initiatic Racism of Julius Evola 191
CHAPTER TEN: Doctrinal Continuity and the Fascist Social Republic 222
CHAPTER ELEVEN: Conclusions 246
Index 263

 

Review:

Fascism has traditionally been characterized as irrational and anti-intellectual, finding expression exclusively as a cluster of myths, emotions, instincts, and hatreds. This intellectual history of Italian Fascism--the product of four decades of work by one of the leading experts on the subject in the English-speaking world--provides an alternative account. A. James Gregor argues that Italian Fascism may have been a flawed system of belief, but it was neither more nor less irrational than other revolutionary ideologies of the twentieth century. Gregor makes this case by presenting for the first time a chronological account of the major intellectual figures of Italian Fascism, tracing how the movement's ideas evolved in response to social and political developments inside and outside of Italy.

Gregor follows Fascist thought from its beginnings in socialist ideology about the time of the First World War--when Mussolini himself was a leader of revolutionary socialism--through its evolution into a separate body of thought and to its destruction in the Second World War. Along the way, Gregor offers extended accounts of some of Italian Fascism's major thinkers, including Sergio Panunzio and Ugo Spirito, Alfredo Rocco (Mussolini's Minister of Justice), and Julius Evola, a bizarre and sinister figure who has inspired much contemporary "neofascism."

Gregor's account reveals the flaws and tensions that dogged Fascist thought from the beginning, but shows that if we want to come to grips with one of the most important political movements of the twentieth century, we nevertheless need to understand that Fascism had serious intellectual as well as visceral roots.

“One of Choice's Outstanding Academic Titles for 2005”, Princeton University Press (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005) [ available online], 2007.

A. James Gregor, “Mussolini's Intellectuals: Fascist Social and Political Thought “(Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005)

"The book succeeds admirably in convincing the reader that, far from being a doctrine based on irrationalism and violence, fascism's foundations are very sophisticated intellectual constructs."--Paul Petzschmann, Political Theory

Italy Social Domestic Conditions

Conditions for a Revolution

Italy’s Monarchy was strong because they win the war.

No defection in the military because they came back triumphant.

The middle class profited by war in large, Peasants began to buy land in the Po Valley, in the North, this was a positive for the peasant class. Why would they want to have a revolution?

A large minority of peasants now were landowners. The Italy story was radically different from Russia. What were the conditions for a  revolution.

So think of this.  You are a socialist; you are attracted to the socialist in Russia? You see Lenin’s propaganda, but believe what he says to be true. He will give all proletariats, and the poor, free land. But in Italy, the Monarchy is strong.  Peasants remain happy; the middle class strong. So the socialist tried to make a revolution and failed.  The Socialist attacked the victorious soldiers when they got back, and this backfired, and the socialist provoked them. They spit on soldiers, called them capitalists, and in once case that received notoriety, they attacked a paraplegic, threw him off a bridge.  So all the veteran organization responded and said that the Socialist “are the enemy of the Motherland.”

 

A need for a Super Hero

 

Mussolini, badly wounded from the frontlines, came back was still considered a socialists.  He saw this attack on his military brethren, and said “ we must be represented in the movements.”  Mussolini received military wound metals,  a victorious soldier in battle, and he was a prime candidate to be chosen as a superhero soldier. When he went to the Socialists, they said, “ he was paid off by the socialist.” This fact has never been proven, but is a catchall excuse of the socialist to explain history.  So he was not too admiral to them any longer for this treatments by them. What were the Socialists to do? They wanted revolution of the likes of Lenin’s Russian Revolution. So the Socialist attacked people who owned land in the north, and the socialist attacked the upward mobile peasantry, who worked hard to buy land, from proceeds of the war. So the Socialist attack a large body of armed peasants, and a small civil war erupted.

 

The socialists were defeated, because the police and the military defended the peasants. Unlike Russia, the military, the peasants, the police remained strong social entities—loved by the majority.  The Military were still viable -- not like Russia, and the Socialists were not smart enough to understand this. Then in stupidity, the Socialists ceased the factories; so the government said these are lunatics. Instead of calling on the military to evict them, the government told the military to do nothing, “let see what will come of this?,” the government said. The idea was, if the military forcibly evicts the socialists from the factories, they could damage the factories by the weapons used to oust them. However, the businessmen complained they were losing money. Still, the Government didn’t want to destroy the factors with gunfire.  Future economics could suffer.  The government just laid back to see what the socialist would do at the factories. So one week went by, then two week went by, and then onto three weeks:  no one paid them, and no one paid for food. So one dark night the socialists put on their coats and went back home. Everyone was seriously irritated by them. According to Marxism, in which historical evidence shows the socialist had no idea of his writings, or more frankly, could understand what he wrote, the Proletariats should have known how to run the factories – in all capacities of sustainability from gathering the food, to payment schedules, to running the infrastructure of the entire state. No of this was apparently considered by the Italian socialist movements. It was reactionary ignorance proved upon emotional action. No cognitive faculties were used in the precedence.

 

This was not a Marx process of history. The socialists demonstrated they knew nothing about running the factories or the economy. They wanted freedom and equality of goods – a good intention—but they knew not how to sustain the goods? In effect, this was emotionalism. They had no logical understanding how to run an economy.

 

When the March on Rome finally took place, the fascist were received in Rome with joy by a large majority, because the fascist protected the military. When the peasant soldiers came back from the war, the king accepted Mussolini. And there was it, the revolution.

 

It was a vast mobilization, they were prepared to use violence, there is no evidence that capitalist brought the Fascist to power. Every detail of the prime sources has been searched and no evidence exists that the Capitalist brought the Fascist to power. Plenty of evidence has shown that Capitalists paid Communists and socialists throughout the 20th century.

 

The intellectuals could not predict this outcome. Why had not the socialists gained the upper hand in Russia? The fact remains, that socialists had not really understood what Karl Marx had written. Most socialist only focused on emotive phraseology of the Marxist doctrine: “distribution of wealth.”

 

So how do Revolutions happen?

 

So intellectuals were not terrible good at predicting revolutions. In the 60s, in Strawberry Canyon, on the University of California, Berkeley campus, students were practicing guerilla tactics with hand grenades in the ‘60s in attempting to overthrow the government of The United States of America. On campus pamphlets were churned out for American Socialist Marxist revolution in the United States of America. No one real could come about for the conditions of a revolution were not in place. The middle class was stable, the government was stable, and the military was stable. However, the radicals at Berkeley, California, had cockamamie vision for a United States of America revolution. The ultimate lesson observed by intellectuals of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were “ do not make revolutions in a stable environment.” The students and opportunists who came to Berkeley were did not read the intellectuals of these periods, and therefore were handily put down at every opportunity along the way to an 1960s United States of America revolution.

 

What makes a revolution?

 

What makes a revolution?  When a society is unstable, no roles to play, comprehensible, sustainable, and must have large number of displaced people, mass-movements, an earthquakes can do this, it must have the infrastructure damaged?

 

No chance that the Marxist revolution would have been successful in Italy, so we saw only a “variation.”

What is Reactionary?

 

Westerners said in print during this time, “ they ( fascism) must be reactionary, they were paid off by the capitalists – in western newspaper – this was opposite to what happen, a paranoia of a socialist fantasy. It was convenient, when you have a political opponent; one calls them a fascist, because it is politically convenient. It was actually a radical movement against a conservative government. Italy’s Revolution also did not follow a Marxist model. It was again, a variation on a peasant revolution.

 

Substance, the Moralistic Issues of Fascism

Understanding Fascism as a decline of morality.

 

Understanding Fascism as a function of a “decline of morality,” the argument was, Fascism was a rise of barbarians. Barbarians make their “image.” The general political left like this “image.” So conceptually, they argue that suddenly from out of the “mist” barbarians arose to destroy “equality, responsible government, and social representation,” in Italy. This expressed their pathological psychoanalytical approach to politics – whatever cannot not be explained, results from some sort of pathology.  This, in effect, was a reactionary pattern against rationalization.

 

How can I abandoned “equality” Gregor said. What does it mean? Does this mean we should all get As, because we are equal? Are we all beautiful people?

 

NAZI applauded “freedom”, so what is Freedom, I believe in Freedom, Gregor said.

 

Fascism did not abandoned the notions of Freedom, beauty, love, and equality, they gave their interpretations of them – like the USA, just when we said man is “equal” and USA people owned slaves. So what does USA mean by Freedom when not everyone was freedom?

 

New Deal allowed Unions, because it was considered a restraint on trade.

 

 

MORALIRT ISSUE 1

 

 

EVERY GOVERNMENT in the 20th century called itself a DEMOCRACY – they have a different definition of it. We cannot say this country abandoned democracy, because they have not – they have a different interpretation of them.

Killing what is Necessary in United States of America’s policy?

 

The United States of America: We killed, in Dresden, bombing of Tokyo, and the suppression of the American Indians, so why do we make distinctions – because we say – this was necessary. Why the NAZI? It was not necessary to kill Jews, children, women and children.

Hiroshima, and Nagasaki

Citizens of people of the United States of America all breathed a sigh of relief after the nuclear weapons were dropped on two Japanese cities killing many innocent people.  The USA was in anticipation of attacking Japanese islands, a million people were predicted to die.  But the two nuclear bombs stopped this scenario by forcing the Japanese to capitulate to USA demands to end the conflict in the Pacific. It was an argument, but the NAZI had no argument to genocide the Jews. NAZI’s excuse to murder the “entire” Jewish heritage was a superficial argument. It was evil. Gregor traveled to Germany after the war and talked to the remaining NAZIs: “what we wanted to do was to get them out of Germany, and ship them off to Madagascar, NAZI told him. “but after the war started we could not get them out; we had to do something with them.”  They said to Gregor, “look what you did to the Japanese in USA.” This was a moral relative argument. This was not a moral argument, the Germans have an argument but it remained weak. Japanese were incarceration in the United States, pending a Japanese invasion of the west coast -- during the war, but they were going to survive in these camps, we were not going to gas them – they would not be killed. In Germany, the Jews were gassed, genocide, so we need to argue these things. We have to argue the case, we just cannot say it is immoral—it is not a persuasive argument.  Moral relativism cannot be suggested to act alone on expression. It needs to consist of an argument.

 

Gentile said, “we won because morality was on our side, and it was not on their side [The Socialists] .” “Fascist come to restore morality”, Gentile said. In Italy, to come to power, some fascist (400, socialist killed, 300 fascist were killed) had to kill socialist – this was an argument. It was not genocide like in the period of the NAZI regime.  This meant the killing had substance. Whereas, the genocide of the Jews, that is to say, contained no substance for an argument. It was senseless. After, the National Socialist Party took power, why would they have a need to exterminate the Jews? This had nothing to do with revolution to gain power; it was a racist genocidic program.  The Fascist in Italy did not go about systematically to eliminate the life of Socialists. After Germany learned that other nations would not allow them to transport Jews over their countries to ports in the Mediterranean to ultimately export them to Madagascar, the NAZI’s began a systematic genocidal program.  However, this had more to do with racism than fascism. Fascism was the idea of unity of protection against outside extermination of land and people. Fascism’s focus was to industrialize and modernize its lands, modernize its peoples, and modernize its military to form a strong state that could ward off imperialistic European, or even unknown imperialistic entities (states).  IT had nothing to do with exciting a mass of people to enact genocide on another group. However, implicit in this argument was the fact that leaders of these revolutions that gained control of these states were called or admitted too anti-Semitic postures. Italy’s fascism did not arise because of a need to exterminate Jews.  This has been a pathological markup of facts from the left-wing to excuse their own deficiencies in argument. Argument is not an easy mental process, it takes hard work. It is much easier to live in a fantasy world and blame others for one’s shortcomings.

The lefties ISSUE 2:  Pathology

People THAT ARE DISTURBED MAKE REVOLUTION –lefty’s claptrap.

Lefties, they wanted barbarisms, savagery, they like killing and stuff.

Polymorphic sexual activists, describes the Berkeleyean student ( often faculty)  behavior after the 1960s, in general. It means we will have sex with all orifices and with every type of way – including babies. What? This concerns the irrational argument the left has incorporated into higher learning in the United States of America – its curriculum. It is Freudish, and not a scientifically based theorem.  This irrational mentality helps the left exploit emotionalism to the highest extremes to engage in activities of non-consciousness. In essence, fantasy becomes more real than reality. The image is constraint upon an infant’s upbringing and the sexual identity it receives from its mother. The Freudian process then goes:

We our born, we are babies. We know nothing! We are first introduced into oral sex from our mothers. Babies engage in oral sex, they want to urinate and defecate, and how does the baby receive  the object of affection – by the mother. The mother gives attention to the Baby. The mother kisses the child, wipes the child, and cleans up the child, and ultimately fondles the child intimately.

And the mother makes these little jesters-things, which are made sexual by their mother – they, the child eventually lusts after their mothers. Freudism argues children are made sexual by their mother’s physical attention, as a condition of childhood. As part of the factorial, the father needs mentioning here. …And someone comes and upset the system. Daddy, Daddy takes the mother away into the room, shuts the door,  so the baby wants to kill the father. This forms their character of the child.  The father and the child fight for the mother’s attention. So what does this have to do with fascism?

 

Fascists are essentially are polymorphic sexual perverts, the left argues in confusion of irrationalness of Freudism. Oral, anal, and genital phases are process of the mommy because the child is immature.  To reach maturity, the genital phase must appear as the condition of the child who has grown up. The genital only phases mark mature people and not children. If the child does not fully complete the phases to become a genital adult, they become fascists. I know some are laughing out loud at this, but this is a real argument by major academic lefties in the world, and in the USA higher learning institutions.

 So people not fully complete with the phases of the genital become fascists. How does this come about?  They, as a child, were restricted in family environments --  they become angry and they are the ones to start totalitarianism.  This is because they were once of wanting to kill daddy, but changed their minds. Instead, they felt guilt as a grown-up and this guilt turned them from an aggressive (the leftist correct genital adult) personality  to a passive personality. In their passivity, the leftist argue, they want to kill others… The process:  so fascists feel guilty, and turn into submissive sexually frustrated groups of individuals and then the group take out their killing on others, they become dictators and they as a group support dictators – these Freudisms’ described the fascists by the wacko left-wingers, their mental handicapped explanation of how a Fascism comes to be. Apparently, millions upon millions of Italians in the same generation had no correct mother genital manipulation.

So the pathologist of the lefty will interpret the character of the individual and the group by searching out this relationship of the mother and father. This is part of the psychology of Fascism. It is a real psychological tool of the left.  Wilhelm Reich, in 1933 wrote “Mass Psychology of Fascism.” In this delusional sychodrama he deluded thousands of professors around the world into believing phantasy. He wrote on the rise of fascism, predicated on substitution. He chose to not use scientific evidence. Instead he fancied perversion with ascriptions. Gregor intends, “No scientific proof; Flawed argument. “One of the prima facie evidences of credulity and ignorance is a dependence on general and vague normative and empirical ascriptions. (p. 27 (//contemporary??)Freud never completed psychoanalysis of anyone, it was a lifetime deal, Freud said. So where is the evidence? Some say this was the beginning of psychology, but no-one accepts this interpretation that has credibility.

 

Adolf Hitler loved his mother, and disliked his father. And this fantasy made up the polymorphic sexual activist. This is the lefty treatment of the historical process. They never reached the genital stage. They are sexually frustrated, and they have guilt, become passive. ,,, blah blah..

 

If one finds NAZI party in USA you will find a psychopath. This is not explanatory, none of the psychologizing does any good in understanding this.

 

Never explain the rise of fascism with psycho-analysis, it is not credible.

 

Look at all risings of fascism, communism with a grain of salt – because we are all born into regressive families, repressive environment when we are babies  - because if this explains the rise of fascism, then that would explain the world? Our mothers and fathers are not our sexual partners or any of those sexual scenarios’ of the psycho analysis things.

 

Masses do not have convictions, they are led.

Lefty: fascism rise because they follow the mnemonic masses.?????? They arise out of the polymorphic sexual frustrations.

 

In fashion, the jeans – “everyone wants to be in the “in crowd.” These are the mass-people analogy, you are controlled by others in peer pressure, their telling you how to conform. So everyone does it. Why would you fornicate with someone form an email, because everyone does it. And if you do not have two transmitted diseases you are not with it. You are not in the crowd.

 

So only under the circumstances do the masses become fascists, Marxist, this simply is a response to one’s peers. It is a response mechanism. Because we are mimetic??, in our behavior. So try someday to look at the concert and look how they behave, these are not normal human beings they are MASS PEOPLE  - not people in their own privacy. They are performers, in such, That explains crowd behavior, but not revolution.

 

Mass man, has some plausibility in them, so we must be skeptical in what we read, hear and entertain. Read it and make judgement about it.

 

Gustave Le Bon (May 7, 1841 – December 13, 1931) was a French social psychologist, sociologist, and amateur physicist. Gustave Le Bon, “The Crowd: A stude of the Popular Mind ( New York: Vicking, 1960). Le Bon’s work first appeared in 1895. One of the first books of this period, which remained very influential for three –quarters of a century. He was among the first to speak of mass-movements. (Gregor analysis:) The traits associated with Mass-man” are not conceived of as the summated product of many individual Oedipal dramas, but rather the unique consequence of some special series of events transpiring in society. (Le Bon:) identified “crowd’ behavior as inflamed by an exaggeration of the sentiments,” by what is now called a “rage for unanimity, “ by an incapacity of moderation and delay,” and “absence of judgment, “and an “inability to reason.” Len Bon also first to speak of a pervasive “thirst for obedience.” (Le Bon:) identified “crowd’ behavior as inflamed by an exaggeration of the sentiments,” by what is now called a “rage for unanimity, “ by an incapacity of moderation and delay,” and “absence of judgment, “and an “inability to reason.” Len Bon also first to speak of a pervasive “ thirst for obedience.”

Analysis

Fascism is a form of government exemplifies the traits of “mass-men.” It is a form of government that is  volatile, incontinent, totalitarians, violent and devoid of morality and purpose.

 

(Gregor) Fascism is, in this account, the product of an “inborn sense” of security and well being. Rather than the product of an irrepressible sense of Oedipal guilt and the masochistic desire to be dominated.

Author

Ortega  y Gasset’s theory of Mass-men.

Jose Ortega  y Gasset. “ the revolt of the masses “( Norton, 1932).

José Ortega y Gasset (May 9, 1883,  Madrid  - October 18, 1955) was a Spanish philosopher.

 

Peter Druker. “ End of Economic Man” – appeared in 1939.,( prominent in English Literature). Was a consequence of moral malaise. Europe’s basic  spiritual ideas ever since the introduction of Christianity have been Freedom and equality. However, Europe had reached a point in its development where it was unable to develop these basic concepts any further in the direction in which they had been moving the last few hundred years. Marx had proved the Masses were driven to despair. (35) Druker advanced principle theses found in Benedetto Croce and Hand Khon. As a theme, revolution is fundamental and radical change in the order of values, in man’s conception of his own nature and his place in the universe and society.(34) A. J.Gregor: on Druker: pretend to be able to read the behavior traits and moral sentiments possessed by the masses – and thinks he can tells us of what they are:  Both “consciousness and unconsciousness” aware. Unrestricted and General Claims: There is no single concept of “freedom” or “equality” that characterizes European history—even if we restrict our considerations (as Druker suggests) to the Christian era.

Anti-Fascists

Fascism was unethical and immoral movement that acceded to power because of men’s moral imperfection and/or spiritual enervation that followed a long and arduous conflict of 1914-18. “war” and “Materialism” had corrupted the conception of “liberty” or men had “lost faith.” Anti-fascists can read “uncertainty,” “insecurity,” despair,” a “corruption of ideas of liberty,” a loss of faith in equality,” and a search for “heroes,” and “saviors.” (44) Middle class surrendered to “Demons,” “Irrational demons.” (42) Gregor contends, Anti-fascists:  Impaired by an unrelenting tendentiousness.  Impaired interpretations.

 

((((((((((

Socialism means distribution

Socialism means distribution – Gregor.

Questions: Socialism means different things. So socialist were mimicking Lenin’s actions, and the fascists said you will wreak our society like Lenin will wreak everyone, all the land. Cannot have disgtribution until wehave the economic base, the fascist said. The socialst wanted to do what Lenin did and distribute before the economic base, and he had wreaked the Russian country initially.

 

 

 

 

 

((((((((((((((((((((((((

Giovanni Gentile  (May 30, 1875 - April 15, 1944) was an Italian neo-Hegelian Idealist philosopher, a peer of Benedetto Croce. He described himself as 'the philosopher of Fascism', and ghostwrote A Doctrine of Fascism (1932) for Benito Mussolini. He also devised his own system of philosophy, Actual Idealism. (wiki)

 

The single imperative idea “ to which all else is subordinated,” Mussolini maintained, was the maximization of the interests of the nation. ( Mussolini, “Propgramma, in Oo, vol. 17), p. 321 in A. James Gregor, “Mussolini's Intellectuals: Fascist Social and Political Thought “(Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 89.

 

 

((((((((((((

Sergio Panunzio (July 20, 1886-October 8, 1944) was an Italian theoretician of revolutionary syndicalism. In the 1920s, he became a major theoretician of Fascism.

 

 

{{{{{{WIKI CAREFUL Syndicalism is one of the three most common ideologies of egalitarian, pre-managed economic and labour structure, together with socialism and communism. It states, on an ethical basis, that all participants in an organized trade internally share equal ownership of its production and therefore deserve equal earnings and benefits within that trade, regardless of position or duty. By contrast, socialism emphasises distributing output among trades as required by each trade, not necessarily considering how trades organize internally. Syndicalism is compatible with privatism, unlike communism. Communism rejects government-sanctioned private ownership and private earnings in favor of making all property legally public, and therefore directly and solely managed by the people themselves. In Syndicalism, unions are the basis for the future society rather than simply means of attaining that society.}}}}}}}}}

90

DEFINITION OF NATION FOR MICHAEL HERE --

Before the March on Rome, Mussolini insisted that “Fascism sees the nation before all else”—all else being subordinate to its interests.23 In the formal party program of 1921, It was insisted that while the nation was the dominate form of social organization in the contemporary world, it was by virtue of the state, as the incarnation of the nation, that individuals and associations of individuals in families, communes and corporate bodies, are enhanced, developed and defended.”24

 


By the time Fascism had organized itself into a revolutionary movement, Panunzio had accepted all those tenets. He spoke of an emerging “state syndicalism”—a union of a “powerful state,” revolutionary syndicalism, and developmental nationalism. Under the auspices of that state, retrograde Italy would become a powerful nation. The state would stimulate and sustain the development of an industrial base that would render the nation the equal of the major European powers.25 The nation, so long humbled, would finally carve out its place in the sun.


Gone was the anarchic antistate rhetoric of his youth. Equally absent was the individualistic, libertarian, self-governing syndicalism that gave substance to his thought in the years before the War of Tripoli. Now Panunzio’s syndicalism was collectivist—nationalist in content and statist in form and in structure. The state had become the hegemonic center of his political thought. It became the center of his system—its “ethical core.” In the new formulation, the state was understood to be “infinitely superior” to all its components.26


Panunzio duly identified his political thought as the modern product of an Hegelian “metaphysics of the state.”27 By the time he collected together the essays that made up his Lo stato [ascista in 1925, Panunzio had almost completed the transit from the positivism of Gumplowicz through the heretical Marxism of Sorel, the vitalism of Bergson, and the critical idealism of Immanuel Kant, to the ultimate identification of Fascism with neoHegelianism.


Among the neo-Hegelians who were to shape the ideology of Fascism was Ugo Spirito—one of the most notable students of Giovanni Gentile. Born in 1896, in Arezzo, Southern Italy, Spirito spent most of his youth in the provinces of Caserta and Chieti amid the poverty and backwardness

 

 

((((FOOTS)))))
23 Mussolini, “Fatto compiuto,” Oo, vol. 17, P. 81. “The nation before all else; the nation above all else,” “Ii manifesto della nuova direzione del partito nazionale fascista,” Oo vol. 17, p. 272. Mussolini affirmed that “the nation is that to which all else must be subordinated.” “Programma,” Oo vol. 17, p. 321.
24 Mussolini, “Programma e statuti del partito nazionale fascista,” Oo vol. 17, p. 219.
25 Sergio Panunzio, Che cos’è ii fascismo, pp. 19, 21, 23—25, 53; Panunzio, Lo stato
fascista (Bologna: Cappelli, 1925), pp. 36—37, 47, 59, 66—67.
26 Panunzio, Lo stato fascista, pp. 92, 95, 134, 165.
27 Ibid., pp. 66—67, 71, 80, 85.

 

 

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((91)))))))))))))))

[ 90… Among the Neo-Hegelian who were to shape the ideology of Fascism was Ugo Spirito – one of the most notable students of Giovanne Gentile. Born in 1986, in Arezzo, Southern Italy, Spirito spent most of his youth in the provinces of Caserta and Cheiti amid the poverty and backwardness

OUTLINES OF FASCIST DOCTRINE 91
that typified the region. In 1914, at eighteen, he began his university studies. He was born, he affirmed later, in a revolutionary epoch—.in a period in which the inherited old order was being rapidly transformed. He re— minded his readers that the dramatic changes of the period were accompaiat nied by equally dramatic changes in patterns of thought.


The “scientistic” positivism of the first years of the new century had very quickly succeeded in overwhelming virtually all philosophical speculation during a time that witnessed the first signs of sustained industrial growth and development on the peninsula. Caught up in practical concerns, everyone became, in some measure, scientistic, positivistic. He recalled that Roman Catholic modernists were as much positivists as were revolutionary Marxists. In that company, Spirito began his intellectual itinerary as much a positivist as anyone.28


Only in 1918, at the University of Rome and under the influence of  Gentile, did Spirito find himself drawn to the “new idealism” that had  gradually come to dominate Italian thought. By that time, Gentile had  already achieved notable status among Italy’s philosophical luminaries.  An associate of Benedetto Croce, he had, by the end of the First World  War, distinguished himself in his own right. By 1918, Actualism had all
but fully taken shape.


In 1914, with the outbreak of the First World War, Gentile had become  an “interventionist”—advocating Italy’s entry into the conflict against the  Central Powers. He published extensively in the political journals and  nationalist newspapers of the time,29 and his ideas were well known  among the members of the Associazione nazionalista as well as among  individual revolutionary syndicalists. By the end of the Great War, the  substance of Gentile’s philosophical and political thought was available.30


After 1918, under Gentile’s influence, Spirito covered the distance from
his initial positivism to neo-Hegelianism—in very much the same sequence as had Panunzio and Mussolini—and almost immediately thereafter entered the ranks of Fascist intellectuals.31 Years later Spirito averred

 

[ page 92 – that by 1922 he had acceded to Fascism via the Actualist thought of Gentile—and had remained an unqualified adherent – for at least a decade thereafter.

 

((FFFFFOOOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT))))))))))))))))))
28 Ugo Spirito, Memorie di Un incosciente (Milan: Rusconi, 1977), chap. 1.
29 Most of Gentile’s articles written during the First World War were collected in Guerra
e fede
(Rome: De Alberti, 1927); and Dopo la vittoria: Nuovi frammenti politici (Rome: La
Voce, 1920).
30 By the end of the First World War, some of Gentile’s major works had already been
published. They included Scuola e filosofia (Palermo: Sandron, 1908); the two volumes of
Sommario di pedagogia come scienza fllosoflca (Ban: Laterza, vol. 1 1913, and vol.2 1914);
I fondamenti della filosofia del diritto (Laterza: Ban, 1924); Teoria generale dello spirito
come atto puro
(Laterza: Ban, 1924); and Sistema di logica come teoria del conoscere, 2
vols. (Pisa: Spoerri, 1917>.
31 By 1923, after Gentile formally entered the Partito nazionale fascista, Spinito partici pate in Gentile’s intellectual and political activities that culminated in his adherence to the
Istituto nazionale fascista di cultura that both Gentile and Mussolini conceived a critical

((((((((((((((((page 98 below)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

 

sponsibilities are to be discharged.55 Implicit in such formulations is the seamless identification of the individuals of common sense with the revolutionary and developmental will of the totalitarian state.
Actualism argued that human beings achieve the fullness of self through a process of self-actualization—involving exchanges with others and against things in the course of establishing truth and fulfilling responsibilities. [ MJM – not thinking it but doing it with others] In that sense, interaction with others was an essential part of the enterprise. Nationalists and syndicalists themselves had both identified the consuming developmental responsibilities of the revolutionary state with the occasion for truth determination and the self-actualization of individuals.
It was in that context that, as early as 1920, Gentile argued that labor, in general, constituted one of those special forms of interactive spiritual activity through which human beings shaped themselves.56 It was a conviction that was to significantly influence the subsequent work of Ugo Spirito. Out of those convictions, the work of Spirito as a corporativist theorist was to take on form. It demonstrably reduced the doctrinal distance, already diminished, between Actualists, national syndicalists, and the nationalists of the Associazione nazionalista.
By the beginning of 1925, the Fascism that had acceded to power in October 1922 transformed itself into the “Regime” with which historians have identified it ever since. Its animating doctrine became specific insofar as it manifested itself in institutions.
While the program of the Partito nazionale fascista of 1921 anticipated “reducing the state to the essential functions of political and juridical order,”57 by 1925 Mussolini spoke, without qualification, of the necessity of marshaling all the forces of the nation into the overarching unity of one single state solidarity that represented the collective “totalitarian will” of Fascism.58 What had transpired in the interim is relatively easy to trace. Actualism had given the substance of its ideas to Mussolini’s Fascism. How that had come about is equally transparent.
On 10 June 1924, individual Fascists kidnapped a socialist member of the lower house of the Italian parliament who had been extremely critical of Mussolini, in particulai and of Fascists, in general. Almost immediately, it was feared that he had been murdered. Eight weeks later his body
“This was the central argument of Gentile’s pedagogical writings.

 

See the entire discussion in La Reforma dell’educazione: Discorsi ai maestri di Trieste (1920; reprint, Florence:
Sansoni, 1955).
56 Giovanni Gentile, Discorsi di religione 3rd ed. (Florence: Sansoni, 1955), p. 26.
“Programma del PNF (1921),” in Renzo De Felice, Mussolini ii fascista: La conquista del potere, 1921—1925) (Turin: Einaudi, 1966), p.756.
58 See Mussolini, “58 Riunione del Gran Consiglio del Fascismo,” and “Intransigenza assoluta,” in Oo, vol. 21, pp. 250—51, 362.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((99 below0)))))

 

was discovered. There was palpable revulsion on the part of Italians everywhere on the peninsula—and the regime descended into immediate crisis. For a time it appeared that Mussolini might be compelled to resign, precipitating the restoration of the “old order.”59
Only on 3 January 1925 did Mussolini feel secure enough to denounce those who had called, six months before, for his dismissal and the suppression of Fascism. He announced, without equivocation, that Fascism, as a government, and as a party, was in complete and effective control of the nation. Fascism sought to give “the peace, the tranquility and the opportunity to return to labor that the people sought—with love if possible, or with force, if necessary.”6° Thereafter, neither Mussolini nor Fascism spoke of any accommodation with the elements of the former system. The talk, thereafter, was of the totalitarian, corporative, and ethical state— the final collectivist synthesis of nationalism, syndicalism, and Actualism.
It was at that juncture that the Actualism of Spirito took on the special character that was to shape the subsequent history of Fascism. After 1925, it became evident that Mussolini sought to institutionalize the totalitarian and ethical state anticipated by Giovanni Gentile years before. After 1925, there was to be no further talk of an individualistic “Manchestrian” state—a limited state performing only ancillary functions for the nation.61
Mussolini had always been an astute politician. He had been a gifted tactician, a recognized “tern pista,” one who could calculate probabilities of success in given political circumstances. Throughout the preliminary stages of the revolution, those talents served him well. During that period, he had gathered around himself a collection of representatives of sometimes conflicting interests. There were syndicalists preoccupied with the well-being of their organizations; there were industrialists concerned with their individual and collective business interests; there were landowners and tenant farmers, each group pursuing its own real or conceived interests. All these groups were to be drawn into the vortex of events during the years of civil strife and revolutionary activity that preceded Fascism’s ascent to power.
In those circumstances, tactical compromise became critical to the strategy of success. Even the seizure of power had been a compromise between the Blackshirt squads, the king, his conservative counselors, intellectuals,
See the account in Dc Felice, Mussolini il fascista, La con quista del potere 1921—1925, chap. 7.
60 Mussolini, “Discorso del 3 Gennaio,” in Oo, vol. 21, p. 240.
61 In the Fascist party program of 1921, the state was to be “reduced to its essential political and juridical functions” in defense of the “autonomous values of individuals and associated individuals that are expressed in the form of collective persons (families, communes, corporations, etc.).” Renzo De Felice, “Programma del PNF (1921),” in Mussolini ii fascista, La conquista del potere, 1921—1 925, p. 756.

(((((((((((((((((((( 100 below

 

and the parliament composed of as many political democrats and liberals as anti-Fascist socialists. What distinguished Mussolini from the politicians who had practiced compromisory strategies since the establishment of the new Italian state in the nineteenth century was his continued investment in a collection of doctrinal commitments that resurfaced in his overt behavior whenever conditions permitted.
To anyone who knew anything about Mussolini, it was clear that there was very little that was conservative, liberal, or politically democratic about his most fundamental convictions. Through all the phases of his political apprenticeship, Mussolini had always been an elitist, as well as a singularly antidemocra tic revolutionary. By the beginning of 1925, the liberals, together with the advocates of political democracy, had either fallen away or reinterpreted their convictions in order to render them compatible with those given expression by Mussolini on 3 January 1925.
For a brief period of time during the mobilization of the movement and immediately after his accession to power, Mussolini advocated liberal economic policies—opposing state interference in the productive process. The advocacy of a strong state was central to Fascism’s prospective domestic political policy, but together with that advocacy was a general commitment to noninterference by the state in economic matters. In 1921, the Fascist program held that Fascist economic policy was essentially liberal—that “in economic matters, we are liberal.”62
Such a programmatic position appeared counterintuitive. One would expect a “strong” state to be prepared to intervene in the national economy whenever it chose. Why Mussolini chose such a stance can be reconstructed with a measure of confidence.
At the very core of Fascist beliefs was the certainty that Italy required rapid economic growth and industrial development if it were to survive and prevail in the twentieth century. At the same time, Mussolini became increasingly aware of the massive economic and industrial failures that stalked the Bolshevik revolution. By 1922, the world had witnessed the catastrophic collapse of the Russian economy,63 a reality that could only influence Mussolini’s judgments concerning the efficacy of state intervention in the productive process.64 He had followed the revolution in Russia with particular application and was convinced that its failures were object lessons for revolutionaries everywhere. That, together with some early influences that recommended “free enterprise” arrangements as instrumental to rapid industrial growth, led Mussolini to maintain that Fas

 

62 Mussolini, “Ii programma fascista,” in Oo vol. 17, P. 220.

 

63 Mussolini, “Quando ii mito tramonta,” in Oo vol. 17, pp. 323—25.
64 See, for example, Mussolini, “Ii fascismo nd 1921,” in Oo, vol. 16, pp. 101—3.

(((((((((((((((((((((((101 below)))))))))))))

 

cism’s developmental program anticipated a decentralized65 “Manchestrian state” for the peninsula—reducing the state’s function to the protection of its citizens through a well-organized and provisioned police force, a military for the defense against foreign aggression, and the formulation of a foreign policy that would serve the national interests.
Divested of its economic functions, the state would serve rapid economic development by maintaining discipline in the nation and order among the factors of production. “The state must maintain all imaginable possible controls,” Mussolini maintained, “but it must renounce every form of economic management.”66
The devastating consequences of the Bolshevik policy of “war communism”—with its state dominance of the economy—reinforced the liberal economic policy suggestions that were commonplace among Italian syndicalists. Before his death in the First World War, for example, Filippo Corndoni, a revolutionary syndicalist and an intimate of Mussolini, had argued that Italy was an underdeveloped nation with an economy still in its “swaddling clothes.” If Italy was to discharge its historic and revolutionary functions, he continuedit woutd have to develop its economy very rapidly to produce a requisite revolutionary proletarian majority, and an economy capable of offsetting the influence of its international “plutocratic” opponents—who saw in less-developed nations their legitimate prey. Less-developed nations that had entered late into the process of industrial and technological development would otherwise remain forever the victims of the advanced industrial powers.67
To avoid that doleful prospect, Corridoni advocated an unqualified commitment to liberal and free-trade policies: the protection of infant domestic industries, and a complete withdrawal of state influence in the productive processes of the nation.68 The rapid economic growth and development would provide those financial and military capabilities that would not only protect the nation from predation, but it would also create the preconditions for its revolutionary renewal.
The realities of the devastation state dominance of the economy had brought to Bolshevik Russia, together with the insights of Italian syndical-

 


65 Mussolini, “TI programma fascista,” in Oo vol. 17, P. 218.
66 Mussolini, “Ii fascismo nel 1921,” in Oo, vol. 16, p. 101.
67 Filippo Corridoni, Sindacalismo e repubblica (1915; reprint, Rome; Bibliotechina sociale, 1945), pp. 19, 22—23, 25, 32—33, 41, 48—49, 55—56, 82, 110—11. See the account in lyon De Begnac, L’Arcangelo sindacalista (Filippo Corridoni) (Verona: Mondadori, 1943), chap. 32; and Vito Rastelli, Filippo Corridoni: La figura storica eta dottrina politica (Rome Conquiste d’impero, 1940), chaps. 1—3.
68 Corridoni, Sindacalismo e repubblica, pp. 57, 75, 80—81, 86, 88, 91—93. For a more substantial discussion of the thought of Corridoni, see Gennaro Malgieri, “II ‘sindacalismo eroico,’ di Filippo Corridoni,” Rivista di studi corporativi 17, nos. 3—6 (September—December 1987), pp. 607—37.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((102 below))))))))))))))))))))))))

 

isis, led Mussolini initially to propose laissez-faire economic policies for a Fascist Italy. That attracted the support from those classical liberal economists who saw only calamity in the intended policies of revolutionary Marxism.
Both Vilfredo Pareto and Maffeo Pantaleoni gravitated into the orbit of Fascism because both, as essentially free-market economists, saw merit in Fascism’s opposition to socialism and Marxist economics,69 Pantaleoni argued that, in his judgment, Mussolini was among the most serious economic “Manchestrians” that had ever served in the Italian parliament.75 With the advent of Fascism to power, serving with distinction in a commission under the administration of Alberto de’Stefani—organized to reform the nation’s tax and financial system—Pantaleoni maintained that Mussolini’s anti-Marxist revolutionary intervention in the nation’s politics had saved Italy from following Bolshevik Russia into economic chaos.71
Pareto’s relationship to Fascism was very similat There is not the slightest doubt that Pareto was an advocate of the free market in the governance of a nation’s economy.72 He opposed “statism,” because interventions of the state, he maintained, tended to corrupt, dissipate incentive, reduce competition and bureaucratize enterprise.73 On the other hand, he considered “economic liberty” uniquely capable of “producing vast increments of wealth.”74 His support of Fascism (which he served as delegate to the League of Nations, and for which he wrote three articles for its theoretical journal, Gerarchia)75 was predicated on the conviction that the movement had saved Italy from a descent into anarchy and counterproductive socialism.

 

76
69 Pareto is counted among the precursors of Fascism by Werner Stark, “In Search of the True Pareto,” British Journal of Sociology 14 (1963), pp. 103—12; Ellsworrh Fans, “An Estimate of Pareto,” American Journal of Sociology 41(1936), p. 657; James W. Vander Zanden, “Pareto and Fascism Reconsidered,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 19, no. 4 (July 1960), pp. 409—11.
° Maffeo Pantaleoni, Bolshevismo italiano (Ban: Laterza, 1922), pp. 212—13.
71 See Alberto de’Stefani, La restaurazione finanziaria: I risultati ‘impossibili’ della parsimonia (Rome; Volpe, 1978), pp. vii—viii xxiii, and xxx.
See Pier Tommissen, “L’Apport dc Pareto a Ia science economique,” Nouvelle ecole 36 (July 1981), pp. 41—56.
See, for example, Vilfredo Pareto, Corso di economia politica (Turin Einaudi, 1949), vol. 2, paras. 682, 837, 998, n. I, and “Lasciate fare, lasciate passare,” Scrittipolitici (Turin:
UTET, 1974), p. 457. In this context, consult Giovanni Busino’s comments in “Introduction to Vilfredo Pareto,” I sistemi socialisti (Turin: UTET, 1974), p. 29.
‘ Pareto, “Stato etico,” in Scritti politici, vol. 1, p. 758.
See Paola Maria Atcari, Introduction to Socialismo e democrazia nel pensiero di Vilfredo Pareto (Rome: Volpe, 1966), pp. 5—35.
76 See the discussion in Luigi Montini, Vilfredo Pareto e il fascismo (Rome: Volpe, 1974), introduction and chap. 1.

 

 

(((((((((((103 below)))))))))))))

 

Neither Pareto nor Pantaleoni were Fascists per Se. They both saw merit in some of its policies. Equally clear was Pareto’s conviction that Fascism
would enjoy only a brief tenure. He conceived Mussolini’s regime as transitional, ultimately to act as an agent for one of restored individual liberty and for the market-based economy.77  A strong state would be necessary only to carry the nation through a troubled transit from the postwar period to
the subsequent liberal arrangement. Pareto had made evident his suspicions of any proposed intrusive and presumably omnicompetent state.78


We know that Mussolini had been influenced by Pareto’s thought; he was certainly familiar with his writings. He attended Pareto’s lectures in Lausanne—and he reviewed his books for socialist journals. Granted that the scope of Pareto’s reflections was so vast and inclusive, it is difficult to identify with any precision those elements that exercised most influence on the youthful Mussolini. Nonetheless, Mussolini welcomed Pareto’s support because Fascism’s immediate program found confirmation in the views of the “prince of economists.”79


Acknowledging all that, what is clear is that during the first years of Fascist mobilization, many of those intellectuals that would help shape its ideology remained uncertain as to which developmental strategies most recommended themselves. Aifredo Rocco, for example, while an advocate of a strong state, was initially convinced, nonetheless, that a liberal economic policy “undeniably fostered the maximum utilization of the forces of production.”8° Sergio Panunzio, in 1919, equally committed to the creation of a strong state for the peninsula, similarly conceived liberal economic modalities as most conducive to rapid economic growth and industrial development.


At that time, as a national syndicalist, Panunzio maintained that neither the productive system of the Italian peninsula nor the consciousness of its workers was sufficiently mature to recommend either the abolition of private property or the collective control of production.

 

81 Unprepared for the
See the informed discussion of Piet Tommissen, “Vilfredo Pareto und der italienische Faschismus,” in Ernst Forsthoof and Reinhard Hoerstel, eds., Standorte im Zeitstrom (n.p.:
Athenaeum, 1975), pp. 365—91, particularly pp. 375—79.
‘ “Beginning with state monopolies, one proceeds to the obligatory organization of labor lsindacati obbligatori] . . . Ithen] the collective organization of production .. . the destruction of every individual initiative2 the annihilation of every human dignity as well as the reduction of human beings to the level of a herd of rams.” Pareto, Corso di economia politica, para. 998 n. 1.
Mussolini, “11 pensiero di Mussolini sulla crisi ministeriale,” in Oo, vol. 18, P. 37 and “AIl’Universitâ Bocconi,” in Oo, 21, p. 100.
° Aifredo Rocco, “Ii principio economico della nazione,” Scriti e discorsi politici (Milan:
Giuffre, 1938), vol. 2, p. 718.
81 Panunzio, “Un programma d’azione,” 11 Rinnovaniento 1, no. 2 (15 March 1919), pp.
83—8 9; see his comments in Che cos’e ii fascismo, pp. 24—25.

 

 


 

[1] Gregor, A. James, Mussolini’s Intellectuals ( Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 41.

[2] Alexander De Grand, Italian Fascism, Its Origins and Development, 2nd, ed. ( University of Nebraska, 1989), 17. Alexander De Grand’s model of Italy is peculiarly a Marxist model. For example, sub-themes consist in chapter as “ “New Bourgeois Militancy:1900-1911.” He separates Italy into four distinct economic classes, a Marxist necessity.  (1) The political class (class politicia) referees to members of the Parliament and of government who manage public affairs on the highest level. And (2) Dominant interest  groups (class dirigente) are the leading representatives of organized social and economic forces—landowners and industrial associations, the military, and the Catholic Church. (3) The intermediate elite is composed of those who link the political class and the dominant interest groups with the rest of society: estate managers, industrial managers, teachers, civil servants, union officials, journalists. Socially, their members are part of the middle and lower bourgeoisie. Finally (4), the mass base has an urban sector of white-and blue- color workers, artisans, small business owners, unskilled marginal workers, and the unemployed, and the rural sector of mall farmers, renters, and sharecroppers, landless peasants, and migrant workers., pp. 3-4.

[3] Alexander De Grand, Italian Fascism, Its Origins and Development, 2nd, ed. ( University of Nebraska, 1989)pp. 17-18.

 

[4] Alexander De Grand, Italian Fascism, Its Origins and Development, 2nd, ed. ( University of Nebraska, 1989), 15.

[5] Alexander De Grand, Italian Fascism, Its Origins and Development, 2nd, ed. ( University of Nebraska, 1989)pp. 15-16.

[6] Alexander De Grand, Italian Fascism, Its Origins and Development, 2nd, ed. ( University of Nebraska, 1989)pp. 16.

[7] Mussolini, Il discorso dell’ Ascensione, Opera omina ( Florence: La fenice, 1953-65. Hereafter Oo), vol. 22, p. 389. In 1936, Mussolini maintained that Italy “was a true democracy.” Discorso di Milano,” Oo, vol. 28,p. 70. in Gregor, A. James “Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought” (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 171.

 

[8] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 31.

[9] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 41.

[10] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 46.

[11] Gregor, A. James, Ideology and Fascism, The Rational of Totalitarianism ( New York: Free Press, 1969), 7.

[12] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 87.

[13] Gregor, A. James, Metascience & Politics, An Inquiry into the Conceptual Language of Political Science, 2nd, ed. (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2003), pp.398-399.

[14] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 88.

[15] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 87.

[16] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 85.

[17] Gregor, A. James, Ideology and Fascism, The Rational of Totalitarianism ( New York: Free Press, 1969),pp. 3-4.

[18] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 88.

[19] Gregor, A. James, Precis no. 3 & 4, unpublished class material (Berkeley, University of California, Berkeley, 2007).

[20] Gregor, A. James, Precis no. 3 & 4, unpublished class material (Berkeley, University of California, Berkeley, 2007).

 

[21] Gregor, A. James, Ideology and Fascism, The Rational of Totalitarianism ( New York: Free Press, 1969), 7.

[22] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 85.

[23] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 86.

[24] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 37.

[25] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 37.

[26] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 134.

[27] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 126.

[28] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 136.

[29] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), pp. 136-137.

[30] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 43.

[31] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 43.

[32] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 43.

[33] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 45.

[34] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 45.

[35] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 46.

[36] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 47.

[37] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 165.

[38] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 166.

[39] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), pp. 167-168.

[40] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 168.

[41] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 169.

[42] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 183. See f. 38.

[43] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 99.

[44] Gregor, A. James Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005), 99.

[45] Gregor, A. James, Interpretations of Fascism, 2nd., ed. (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1974), pp.174-175.

[46] Gregor, A. James, Interpretations of Fascism, 2nd., ed. (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1974), pp.174-175.

[47] Gregor, A. James, Interpretations of Fascism, 2nd., ed. (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1974), pp. 176-177.

[48] Gregor, A. James, Interpretations of Fascism, 2nd., ed. (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1974), pp.177-179.