Crucifixion Eclipse : The Large Gizāh Pyramid : Nostradamus’ Birthdate at Central Axis of Giza Pyramid :
|[Contact, Search]||World History - Yahoo! - Help|
By Michael Johnathan McDonald
Communism: origins unknown; first articulated by Plato (in Laws); Thomas Moore (in Utopia); Frederick Engels and Karl Marx (in Communist Manifesto);
Socialism: origins unknown; first articulated by Aristotle with the identification of the pragmatic Persian socio-politico-economic system.
Totalitarianism: origins unknown ( disputed complex-traits); 19th cent., Origins Karl Marx (neoHegelianism); argued by Giovanni Gentile; implemented by Italian Fascism, National Socialism, Stalinism, and Maoism.
Fascism: Origins Marxism & represented in Italian Fascism (1922-1945); articulated by Giovanni Gentile (Ghost wrote Doctrine of Fascism & authored Origins and Doctrine of Fascism).
National Socialism: Origins Marxism & Darwinism (biological determinism); represented in German NAZIsm.
Understanding Basic Concepts
Understanding basic concepts of Socialism, Fascism, totalitarianism, National Socialism, and communism.
Socialism, Fascism, totalitarianism, National Socialism, and communism all are ancient conceptual models sought in the reason of human intellect in relationships to their environments. In their environments, groups that identified with certain sight, sense and specialness encountered foreign or other groups that identified with certain sight, sense and specialness. Communal identification resulted in racism, in a mundane sense, a connection felt, observed and associated too. As racial groups formed communities, and ultimately became civilizations, masses became intellectualized to social diversity. In order to retain the commonalities, a myth was established exacting as specialness to the race-community or race-civilization. In order to protect this race, usually a voted in king (under many nomenclatures) took on the role of law-giver, group protector, and authoritarian. The number one goal for each king sought group preservation. If the king did not suffice, they may be voted out or deposed by the subjects. Yet, when kingship worked, it worked well. The people did not mind being the subjects, especially if their king or dynasty adhered to the number one goal. Kingship with its many idioms has been around before records. In the Sumerian cylinder seals, translations of humankind’s earliest writings have revealed myth, politics, economics, education, and ultimately the answers to its social structures. Socialism, Fascism, totalitarianism, National Socialism, and communism all are ancient conceptual models in these writings, not by name but as concept. Socialism, as we understand it today, is an economic-political program for ways and means to distribute value (wealth). In the Sumerian myths value was connected with progenitor, and progenitor was connected to myth. Which son or daughter would receive the blessings and attainments of the parent(s) accumulated the value (wealth). Ultimately groups or humans formed cults around these progenitor – they of course are connected to a hierarchy of deities—in myth. Race bore characteristics of each deity-group. Eventually a leader had to unite the groups, in case of continual conflict threatened extinction of the mass-groups within a special setting. To mobilize the mass-groups, region specific myths rallied the groups around their leader – to defend it- to rejoice in it – to fight and die for it. As thoughts of death begot fear, the afterlife myth contained the elements of faith set for religion of unseen phenomena. Out of the unseen phenomena came social science, the search to explain and possibly to predict the outcome of signs, events and untimely interpret—and effort to organize, control, predict, and attain power or peace.
The king has his court, that is to say his advisors, his assigned office men and women and, the court created the totalitarian ideologies to fashion or binds the group as a cohesive unit. To control the masses and to protect the realm, the king has knights or what we might call an army. They could be the general army of the secret service elite to manage the realm of discontents or social unwanteds. The subjects, understood by the region-specific-myth ideologies that their role as subject (or its varying terms) remained tied to the king’s authority and his or her body of authority. When things went well, no one complained. Over time, when the masses of groups, each with their king-specific-regions, formed generations of progenitors sentiment and region myth exacted emotional connections to space, thought, and memory.
While all of these complex-concept-traits are intertwined, working or progressing together, we understand these same trait-complexes in the revolutionary phenomena that appeared in the twentieth century. The only paradigmatic characteristic that can be associated with the twentieth century is of the physical plane, the progression of technology. All the spiritual concepts that do result in physical manifestations and play out as drama on the world stage have always existed. Karl Marx did not formulate the concept of communism, nor did he articulate it as we think he has done. That knowledge was already in existence. Nor did he create these analyses of the negative affects of the market system. The only phenomenon associated with Marx’s observable imperial data remains globalization. A globalization he original argued as primitive communism, e.g. to return to primitive tribal associations – a localized communal distribution and family setting – on a global stage.
Reluctantly, Marx had to contend with mass-mobilized populations and industrialized phenomena. This could be skewed as paradigmatic. Yet, do we really want to believe that the east-west connection had never taken place before and inter-relationships between mass-groups that have not played out prior to the age of Industrialization on the world stage? A James Gregor believes, Karl Marx’s writings are rational and logical in this respect. Yet, he admits that Marx did not leave a guide to running the proletarian global revolution. How do we govern a globalized primitive culture? How do we understand selflessness, non-greed, communitarian sentiment, physical handicaps, limitations, environment, isolation, fear and happiness? If these are not answered, it would be difficult to establish the final stage of Marx’s proletariat revolution. Gregor assumes that things will work out for the better and humans will ultimately solve these dilemmas when we reach global post-industrialization and the proletariat revolution takes over the globe and thereforeall class struggle ends. For Marx, classes were group identifiers on an economic model. Untimely, Marx saw that economic categorization (branch) lead the other two political science branches, intrinsically understood, as social and political. These groups, Marx believed, originally existed in primordial communist communities. In a sense, Marx himself was injured in myth. He had held archaistic proclivities. This can describe why Marx believed that in small group’s settings, in pre-civilization, humans were selfless, sharing, giving, helping, happy and content. Marx had no proof; his constituents took him on his word, as gospel. As result, the twentieth century social phenomena describes Marx’s sentiment – to return to the primitive, mythlike communal aspects of phantasy of utopia.
Understanding this dilemma, kingship was the result of social organization. “In primitive conditions where hunting and war characterize group life, a group of warriors and hunters becomes the dominant elite. Their behavior is governed by a constellation of beliefs that establishes the rules governing approbation and disapprobation.”
As Russian legend, the Kievan princes were a result of Cheremis and Scandinavian groups proposing as Rus’ traders to become kings. In one text, 846-7 Baghdad, the Rus’ as Scandinavian traders are described controlling the spice-rout north, were Slavs, and a ruler of the Greeks took taxes from them. In a sense a dominator becomes a protector of the group of Slavic conglomerate, a result of the Huns and Turcoman splitting the Crimean peninsula along the Volga River. The group in kind can accept to socio-political-economic conditions, at least in concept of a plebiscite-like (the local tribes or clans voted for consolidation of kingship). In Greek and Latin texts, in 839, a Frankish King takes a passage and gets protection contract along the Volga River. These race federations, as kingship provide elementary needs of a large-mass community. Not unlike the revolutionary phenomena of the twentieth century, the need to thrive at the hands of outside groups created an apparent collective humiliation which creates a need to have strong elite rule and protect them --- ultimately so they can prosper and survive. The only paradigmatic differences were the physical technologies of industry. Racism affected the relationship between the Huns, Turks, the raiders of the steppe system, the westerners.
Another legend describes the Vikings: They have a king called Khagan Rus’ – they make raids against the Slavs. Eventually the strength and protection of the Khagan Rus’ won over the local tribes around the Dnieper. The Viking needed people to trade with, and destroying their potential market, that is to say the local tribes or clans, there goal would be extinguished. The kings of Rus’ became the heroes to the local people over time, with their protection from the outside forces of the world races. “The “warrior’s code” becomes a functional myth. In order to maintain the stability of the community they dominate, they foster a charter myth which traces their right of domination to the gods or to a fictive eponymic hero.” Normonist Controversy is this legend, that tells how Russian came into history, and that the Rus’ were not Slavic, but were not fully Scandinavian either, but were traders, and they developed little-type of governing polities where before there was not. Be that it may, the evidence illustrates that the Kievan Rus’ people soon accepted a comprehensive ideology of Orthodox Christianity, further strengthening them (as groups) against the tribal and other relations of the steppe and eastern lands. Religion, in this sense, acted in no difference than the political religion that was atheistic Marxism. Both had comprehensive impeccable truth arguments. Both had propositions on how to achieve success, happiness, and wellbeing. Both contained realizing the attempts at controlling mass-mobilized people. With the advent of the Boyars relationship with the Kievan princes in the eleventh century, the elite were established; a ruling elite – an earmark of a totalitarian system absent of the paradigmatic industrialization- advanced technological age. Soon after the adoption of Orthodox Christianity, from Byzantine, archaism formed an integral part of worship, social life, and concepts of sacrifice for a cause. While kingship, the forming of racial identities as mass-movements of identifiable myth-groups, the Rus’ legends are not isolated incidences. The formations of these racial groups emerge, disappear and re emerge over an historical process of earth’s history. We are lead in Gregor’s class to believe fascism, the binding of community around a small elite, with an religious political program, an ideology of impeccable truths controlled as a knowledge of the whole group, a sole leader prostrated as a deity, a small groups of elite – know-it-alls, a sense of collective humiliation ( the forming part), an army that enforces the wishes of the elite, the mass that are complacent, but sacrifice their bodies and spirit for the communitarian political movement can only apply to revolutionary movements of the twentieth century. Understandably, Gregor relies on many scholars who have called for such a solution before him. This could be understood that the intellects of the twentieth century relied on W. Hegel and then Marx’s neoHegelianisms for their understanding of history and how to argue for the world.
Ultimately we have no data for irredentism of the early Keivan princes. But does that mean it did not exist or that colonialism as concept does not exist prior t the seventieth century? Certainly not any real scholars would argue irredentism never existed before the twentieth century? If it did exist, why would it be paradigmatic to the twentieth century? Gregor calls for the “unpacking” of character traits in order to describe un observable political phenomena. When we unpack ‘Socialism in one country’, Fascism, totalitarianism characteristics, National Socialism, and communism, its form, in China, we are left with the same basic principles or character traits of the formations of Keiven Rus’ journey to kingship. The twentieth century revolutionary movements basically exhibited twentieth-century forms of kingships. The arguments for the biological scientific racial components may look sophisticated to tribal racial myth making, and the vast amount of populations exhibiting a quicker pace toward political resolve took on only qualitative time flux in response estimates, the features of the past appear the features of the present and future.
Gregor has failed to make his rationality of fascism an accepted reality among contemporary scholarship. In part, his data is sound for the twentieth century, but his arguments slip persuasion. Gregor fails his goal by treating the twentieth century as unique, a oft accepted scriptum of academic ascendancy into the catacombs of the higher learning institutions’ of the world.
When one understand the roots of capitalism in Marx’s writings, one fails to see why he did not connect the Mongol-Tatar conquest to the reality that its goal was to set up an international dominate trading empire, and be its economic beneficiaries? Bartering is no different than paper money, when it comes to concepts of capitalism. Like the Huns before them, the Mongol Tatars established an economic empire which destroyed traditional lands, traditional communities and upset the balance of primitiveness – Marx’s love and passion – where the individual met his essence of happiness. Corporatism is just a word, but as concept it establishes a collective way to foster profit in the creation of capital by a group of individuals with overseers and people whom are invested with vital interests in the corporation. There was no difference than the economic-political cities the Mongol-Tatars established with the intended goal of making money. Their social foundations were their promulgation of religious programs. This was a direct control of knowledge – be it tolerance of other religions as was the first phase or the adoption of Islam in the second stage. It was a totalitarian prescription in concept of control of the knowledge domains. The Mongol-Tatars were international phenomena, but quickly united into political groups with the characteristic traits set aside for conceptual ideologies of nationalism. Like totalitarianism, nationalism during the kingship –anti-democratic form is one and the same concept. There were symbols, a leader, the elite, an army, a police force, legislation, and overall a communitarian political spirit. If fascism was adopted by Mussolini because it described these basic nationalistic traits of “binding,” then fascism has always existed. It ceases to tell us too much, and better describes are relentless pursuit of racial identity. In General, the Rus’ did not like the Turks, and visa-versa. There were no pan-democratic processes in the Steppe Empire. There were anti-democratic communities and cities with symbols, memories, agency, and destiny. Fascism is just a conceptual word with no uniqueness other than its fallacies of origins in Hegelianism and neoHegelian Marxism.
If we are to leave Marx and understand his lasting legacy, we do not look to his critique on capitalism. Chinese dynastic histories spoke on market specifics well before Marx. What Marx articulated and proposed was the first comprehensive argument for globalization: a universal materialistic brotherhood of classless group striving for equality, freedom, and liberty – a true democracy. This explains why no group except for the Bolsheviks’ under Lenin and Trotsky sought the world government solution. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao resorted to kingship because they were nationalistic. Scholars, academics, commentarians, political scientists, and basic editorialist, most have argued variants of authoritarianism, Totalitarianism, Fascism, Socialism, dictatorship, nationalism, and absolutism to describe the various revolutionary movements of the twentieth century. They all have in common kingship as its base form. The opposing form is non-kingship – known as a democracy with it concept of the common masses at the control of economic-political-socio decision making. Therefore, the only true un observable political-economic-socio phenomena beginning at the elemental stages of the scientific process are “centralization”, and “non-centralization” of representation of the individual group. It is there, this unpacking of the specific trait-complex emerges in predictable form—a true theoretical devise.
Fascism of Marx’s Origins
Fascism at its core has been mythalized. Its essence, its origins, and its message, all have been uninterpreted, disassociated and unclassified. It became a peculiar term of dismissal, demonization, and abuse. Its cognitive functions [foundations] have been replaced by prelocutionary language which has entered normative discourse in a variety of social science fields. Instead, a suggestion that rationality replaces arbitrary stipulation [abstract theoretical devices, and emotive expression] and return to responsible conduct of normative discourse compels us to understand our human origins. In the last forty years, there has been a concerted effort to reinterpret Fascism (the Italian progenitor), and generic fascism through substantive and cognitive enquiries.
Up until recent history, the lack prime source material created difficulties in “lexical definitions’”  of revolutionary movements and revolutionary thinkers in the twentieth century. Most prime source documents form World War One and Two still have not been made public. This has retarded in-depth study of the subject. Furthermore, as professor Gregor has pointed out, only in the last half of the twentieth century has political scientists and economists began to address the theories of growth and development of states. Professor Gregor has offered the western world the first English translation(s) of the developmental program of the Italian Fascist movement by translating substantial prime source materials of the era. From the translations and the comparative empirical evidence of the many developmental revolutionary movements of the twentieth century, we now can claim with utmost certainty that Italian Fascism was argued to construct, to educate, to communicate a developmental program to emancipate the Italian economy from its backwardness. Yet, peculiarly, fascism has been uninterpreted and associated with anything that is considered hateful or extremely negative by most of the western academics, continuing till today in modern texts. It is hard to explain why?
As Gregor has attempted to formulate a constructive and rational argument of Fascism, he has continually observed in the social sciences, and particular to political science: “If the twentieth century was the history of war, mass murder, and irrationality, fascism was its sole source.” Irrationalists argue that collecting the information on fascism, categorizing it, assessing it, and analyzing it, is impossible. In substantiating their argument, humans cannot formulate a rational program and follow its reasoning to fruition. Therefore, they conclude, it makes no sense to employ reason or understanding to some horrific empirically observed phenomena of our age of modernism. They conclude, there seems to be no rational explanation. This can be explained [ It may be suggested that they argue] in that the absence of comprehensive scientific data, cognitive processes are better served with simplistic employment of normative principles to unobservable subjective phenomena to unobservable objective phenomena. The matter is weighted matter.
Therefore, the two most unobservable objective phenomena [normative descriptions] of fascist determinants by the [ social scientists that employ post-modernism, Irrationalist’s conception are “two absolute principles, violence and war[…].” Violence and war remain unobservable objective phenomena to Fascism or generic fascism. If it was observable, then Fascism or its generic form as fascism has always existed and is not paradigmatic to the twentieth century. Irrationalism, which arose in the first few decades of the twentieth century, came from a psychoanalytical denial processes. The wars of the twentieth century proceeded with furor, but all intrinsically understood that some western peoples were left behind in the world land grab, and assessing immortality, hedonisty, and multiplicity, and drew colorations to repression of reality. That reality was universal brotherhood which arose from the 1790s European emancipation movements of hierarchical relations. Idealism now contended with realism of limited recourses and strut irrationality as a psycho-measure of copability. One such umbrella term, an off-shoot, was surrealism. People had a hard time grasping mass-murder, as in world war, with rational human relationships. In colonization, land was plentiful, whereas in Europe land was becoming sparse – the masses had nowhere to migrate too – unlike the United States of America’s semi-peaceful landscape. Low income but educated Europeans feeling trapped; humans described surrealism of war and concluded its irrationality of nature. Irrationality played no part in colonial wars. Mass death, useless death, unnecessary death was associated with the European soil trench-wars; battling weeks for feet and inches. Irrationalism does not describe right-wingers, nor as rationalism describe left-wingism.
This [has given rise to treatment] which can be explained in that the non observational concepts in the subjective(s), like “democracy,” “communism,” “socialism,” and “fascism” have been employed without or little cognitive enquiry [ substance ] . The terms “right-wing,” and “left-wing” have been employed arbitrarily and serve no bases for cognitive purposes. This can be explained in that nonobservable phenomena are rationalized in the normative dominance of any said community. Understanding the flaw is in the community, either an effort to educate the entire community is in need, or the ones in control will control the normative dominance of any said community – to use to their political advantage. This ultimately explains what François Furet eludes too as doctrinal fights of the French Socialist after World War II. During the French Revolution, who overthrew the aristocracy? Was it the Bourgeoisies (right) or the Proletariats (left)? Whoever controlled the normative dominance of any said community controlled the truth claim. That claim attributed to the title of truth and liberty. That claim resulted in the connection with life and death. And whomever controlled that claim would be beholden to the claim of commitment of blood, sacrifice, commitment, heroism with perseverance – all to the awarding the control of the language domain on any said normative dominance in any said community to the media.
While it is fact, that the United States of America and some other western countries have not made available to the public all the documents from World War I or II, we do have enough ancillary information to put forth a semi-comprehensive evaluation of just what was Fascism and just what was fascism’s generic forms employed. Yet, with professor Gregor’s mentorship and constellation of graduate students focusing on issues of mass-mobilizing revolutions of the twentieth century, fascism is now being reinterpreted, and replacing older prelocutionary enquiries.
It is difficult to understand that Communism, Socialism and justice and peace are trait arguments of the leftwing and have solely came from Karl Marx and Joseph Engel’s writings. While else empirically observed phenomena, the governments of totalitarianism and Fascism came solely from Marx’s reinterpretation of Hegel. As right-wing descriptions apply to nationalism, Fascism, National Socialism, and any type of observable phenomena of centralization of authority, one can appreciative Marx’s dedication to proposing these philosophies of “man’s relation to the state.” While Lenin and Trotsky denied it, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin and Mao accepted it. Fascism, Communism, Socialism, National Socialism were all argued under the Marx umbrella of revolutionary problem solving. If the twentieth century could be defined as ideology of Marxism, it was which leaders accepted or rejected the differing Marx propositions. While professor Gregor has defined Marx’s writings as logical, the contradictions on various extremities of his conceptual schemata drew to a conclusion with over thousand differing interpretations of the same scheme. While the universal proletariat revolution was to promote universalism, and decentralization, man’s relationship to the state, Marx argued, was wholly centralized. If an ideology is argued to be part of a doctrine of impeccable truths, then these truths should not contradict (conflict) each other. If they do, and as Gregor understands they do (and do not), then his writings are “not” logical but irrational. Gregor holds Marx’s writings to be solely logical and rational. While addressing the Communist Manifesto (1948), the final outcome of the proletariat revolution leads to humans giving up all selfish ways, denying all personalcentric desires, and selflessly sacrificing themselves for the good of the community. Gregor never addresses these issues of Marx’s final period of mankind, possibly his own model would collapse. Furthermore, Marx had forty-years in which to address the government of the final stage of the proletariat revolution. Marx never did, and we can easily understand why. Marx understood as a trained philosopher that in order for people to work selflessly for the good of the whole, then we must solve and answer questions of personal happiness, fulfillment, reason, selflessness, and ultimately what is goodness. Instead of solving these issues, Marx leaves us to contend to his constructed “utopia.” Yet, Marx’s utopia is ultimately contradictory, and thus the non consensus of Marxism.
Understanding Marx is to understand that primitive communism, human’s primal stage of development, and was to be succeeded eventually after a historical process to a global proletariat dictatorship. To understand Marx is to understand that both were the same social foundations and the only progression was technological concerning the industrial revolution. Marx’s peculiar archaism illustrates illusioning the past. Marx believed, as he wrote in the Communist Manifesto, the primitive communities were pristine. At fault, was capitalism, and the goal was to return to the primitive communistic community – apparently his allusions or illusions of it. Marx had romanced the past, and placed faith in nonobservable data. There was no data to back up the primitive communities because they did not have the apparatuses to record data. Without the data, Marx simply made up a pristine fantasy that life in the primitive state of Man’s development equaled Man’s only true happy existence. Marx’s goal was to return Man to primitive communism.
Marx believed that capitalism had destroyed middle age feudalism. There were some observable data Marx had been taught at his university. However, during the middle ages, primitive communities existed, but evidence shows people wanted to better their circumstances. Marx, here, simply romanticized the past. As capitalism destroyed these middle primitive communities Marx sought to understand feudalism’s government. The Lord and Serfdom phenomena took on new characteristics after Karl Marx formed his neoHegelian ideology of “the Totality of man to the state” (origins of Totalitarianism). What was deemed as democratic in speech and doctrine form in linguistic practices of Europe in the twentieth century was in fact nondemocratic, and a high-tech elaboration of middle age feudalism. These phenomena’ are generally known as Fascism, National Socialism, Stalinism, Maoism, Castoism, PolPotism, and a continuing list of mass-mobilizing revolutionary movements that have claimed some linguistic form of the term democracy that have continued until today. Freedom to Marx was the primitive community. The Feudalistic period of the Middle Ages offered Marx the only empirical data in which he could form his conceptions. What Feudalistic governing systems share are neither arbitrary distinctions of left or right, but are observable only in their elemental form of centralizing of human’s life to the Lord’s estate. The Lord and Serfdom phenomenon remains a viable observable form in our current world today.
In primitive communism, somewhere of the origins of mankind, Marx fantasized that humans were pacifists, gentile, selfless individuals who collectivized in political communitarian communities. Life was neither boring nor unhappy. In these communities people shared, cared for each other, and somehow were the same (except for the homeless crowd, in which Marx detested, see Communist Manifesto (1848)). In these communities people found real happiness, real fulfillment, and real liberation of their selves. By phantasizing Marx believed it was capitalism that divided the collectivization, and more importantly made it impossible to achieve collectivization. In a sense, capitalism to Marx equaled the source of conflict, the struggle of the classes. The primitive communistic community existed under Feudalism, the only solution for Marx was to destroy the class of the Lords (does Marx talk about the class of the knights? No, it would confuse his conceptual model).
As invertible in the twentieth century, Marx had observed protests of humans wanting to return to the primitive lifestyle. Yet, in contention, more people began to see the benefits of capitalism on their lives. It made their living easier. In fact, Marx had to admit that capitalism had revolutionized the world and created some form of good ( a higher standard of living). But Marx sided with the protesters who sought uncomplicated, unsacrificial lives. During the industrial revolution, people were seen as sacrificial beings, providing their tried bodies to better their next generation.
Applicable Revolution Methodologies
Anthony James Gregor (b. 1929), Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, has argued a lose sequence and an organization of characteristics, and perhaps suggests some heuristic method, will assist in identifying revolutionary movements of the twentieth century. As operational definition, Gregor suggests a“[R]evolutionary program is intended to transfer constitutional [constructional] power from one entity to another entity.” Political Science 173a, Fall 2007, at the University of California, Berkeley, is about mass-mobilized revolutionary movements of the twentieth century. There are the positive and negative learning strategies associated with Political Science, 137a. The professor has decided that the topic is contentious; therefore students will participate and engage in unique learning strategies.
The professor does not use visuospatial or the auditory –verbal techniques, as a strategy for learning. In regards to visuospatial, the professor does not believe that his teachings on his subject matter can have a definition. I intend, part of this reason is the realization that some of the critical criteria of totalitarianism remains tans-epoch. He believes subject matter to be in the informal logic (as opposed to the school of thought of the Critical Thinking Movement) area of knowledge. Since the subject matter lay in the realm of discursive communication, conceptual formations (or networks) of information on the subject matter is excluded from the learning strategy. If ask, he would possibly say it would be useless to map out concepts, since there are disputed definitions and interpretations (as well as disputed concepts). Therefore, none of his books, class handouts, or lectures contain conceptual- mapping as a methodology for teaching students about revolutions in the twentieth century. Although, Joseph D. Novak's concept mapping techniques could work in this class in my opinion, the professor chooses to leave the learning to rot-memorization techniques. Most of the rot-memorization techniques apply to suggested conceptual schemata, there appears no consensus for a model.
In regards to auditory –verbal techniques, the professor uses some strategies of the auditory - verbal technique in the classroom. The goal of the auditory - verbal technique in this class is to change student’s attitudes on how we can interpret revolutionary movements in the twentieth century. One strategy is selective discourse in lecture. The student can map-out the audio and verbal techniques of the professor’s learning strategies – the interpretation techniques (semantics and discourse analysis) he uses to justify his claims, in lecture. He also uses film as an auditory - verbal technique in the classroom. But each student is disallowed to represent or repeat this material covered in the classroom on an exam. There is neither any homework to utilize this technique, nor out of class essays in which a student can actively represent the learning strategy the professor utilizes.
What is suggested by the professor for the undergraduate student to achieve the corrective learning strategy, he has aimed for in his class, is to memorize his texts. This strategy allows the student to demonstrate an achievement in rot-memorization technique on the exams. In this way, the professor can add a value judgment to how intelligent the student is, the measure is, and finale outcome is, offering them a standard evaluation measure on their transcript. This could be explained by the professor having decided that the topic is too contentious. It is therefore, not in the best interest of his students to utilize techniques he believes will not achieve an affective outcome to learning effectively the political science behind the twentieth century revolutionary movements. Instead the student’s aim is to come out of the class with the tools to argue discursive repetition on topics related to twentieth century revolutionary movements, as they appear in the professor’s writings. This can be explained that the role of the undergraduate is to follow orders and understand they have no position in the University – therefore they have no say in anything – they have not won the right to voice an opinion. To do so is considered treasonous, Robin Lakoff would say.
Professor’s earliest writings are not persuasive. That is to say to the point of changing normative convictions. However, his lecture was for me, a very convincing and oft emotional plea for relativism. That is to say, Communism and Fascism do share an abundance of similar traits. And yet, the subjective(s) are transposed to right and left identifications. I have observed many out in the bloggosphere do not accept Gregor’s organizational ideas. This could be explained that as a scholar, if more than three people understand one’s work, you have made a mistake ( Ref. Robin Lakoff). The university needs to envelop in mystery – it is part of its survival mechanism.
I will explain the ideas, loose concepts and suggestions of Professor Gregor, but I will also add into the mix my ideas and points. For a further delineation of scriptural documentation please refer to the footnotes of the professor and read his work.
There are two ways at looking at mass-mobilizing developmental dictatorships that encompassed the revolutionary movements of the twentieth century. One is from the perspective of the revolutionaries’. In this paper the four main groups would be the Italian Fascists, The National Socialists, the Soviet Experiment and the Communist Chinese. The other in form is from the Liberal democracies, mainly that of England, France, and the United States of America. As general concept, the liberal democracies viewed the four as an evil conscription of the masses by a select elite leadership. On the other side of the perspective, the four viewed the liberal democracies as an evil conception of hegemonic prescription. Further complicating this perspective, then amounts to the fact that on both sides of the perspective this entailed individuals who commented on the dislike of their home governments. That is to say, anti-liberal democrats living in liberal democracies admired and yearned for living in socialistic anti-democratic states, such as the Soviet Union. Some admired the National Socialists. Still further, in the French communist sectors of group movements, the idealism of the Leninist-Marxist program gave into disillusionment, and a return to yearning for liberal democracy. Apparently a bland dissatisfaction of homeland government marked the period in question. This can be explained in that there appear to be more than one type of individual and their preference to living standards. However, this complicates the homogenous efforts at a monolithic, but comprehensive solution for socio-economic-political life. Jesus stated that the Father has many rooms in his mansion. Why would Jesus say this? Jesus points out some people need privacy. If Marx’s communal and organist relationship of the individual was all encompassing collusion, then Mao’s communal barracks in the agricultural districts remains unconvincing solution if we take Jesus’ observation as fact. What Jesus’ implies is non- controversial. Some people need part of the day or even days, alone in seclusion. Not all people are social animals as some philosophers intend. What this convinces us of is that people will react to forced intentions of homogenous socio-economic-politico solutions. This helps explain the social dichotomies on both sides of the perspective line. Not everyone was predisposed to socialism in Stalinist Russia, and not everyone was predisposed to liberalism in the United States of America or Britain. If this can resolve to a truism, can you think of a solution? Whatever the case may be the labeling of right verses wrong permeates of social discourse. In this paper one will see both sides of the perspective. Gregor ties to communicate this line of thinking as well, yet my critique is more intense against the liberal democracies’ role in casing the reactiveness of these revolutionaries and the revolutionary movements of the twentieth century. Only doing so can a complete picture, a complete understanding, and complete rationalization meter our proposal for future solutions?
What is the meaning of totalitarianism? Professor Gregor suggests, “[T]he property of “developmental dictatorship” takes on the features of “totalitarianism” and suggests why totalitarianism is more regularly found in developmental regimes in less-developed economic environments.” As genus, totalitarianism can be suggested to be nominally classified with “properties associated with "developmental dictatorship" more frequently “found in developmental regimes in less-developed economic environments” that arouse in the twentieth century.
Totalitarianism was a coined word understood by Giovanni Gentle to have its origins from Karl Marx’s philosophies of mankind’s role to the state. Mussolini employed the word in discourse and therefore made it popular in textual format. The conceptual origins are neoHegelian, by Karl Marx, and textualized by Karl Marx as the totality of man to the state. Marx needed the apparatus of totalitarianism to form his theories (conceptual schemata) for the final stage of communism. In essence, Marxism, it was antidemocractic, religious and, Marx was the undeclared deity. In essence, Fascism, it was antidemocractic, religious, and Duce was the undeclared deity. In essence, National Socialism, it was antidemocractic, religious, and Führer was the undeclared deity. In essence, “Socialism in once country,” it was antidemocractic, religious, and Stalin was the undeclared deity. In essence, Communism, it was antidemocractic, religious, and Mao was the undeclared deity.
In 1969, Gregor defined an ideology of totalitarian as “[…] a collection of reasoned vindications in support of a type of society minimally characterized by a mass-movement of solidarity animated by a relatively specific Weltanschauung, rule by a single party hierarchically organized under a charismatic or pseudocharismatic rule of a leader in an institutional system that provides for state monopoly of communication, coercion, and economic control.” Totalitarianism, as part of its trait-complex, a total control of culture and social life, as in NAZI’s Gleichschaltung, represented everything Stalin represented. Music, Entertainment, societies, youth groups, propaganda, control of all media information described a totality of life. For NAZIs the term, the goal was set as Volksgemeinschaft ("people's community"). In Stalinist Russia, “Socialism in one country” described the peculiar form of Communism promulgated. While the idea comes directly from Marx’s neoHegelianism, the Italian Fascist first employed the concept in a paradigmatic sense in the twentieth century. This does not mean that these concepts of “total” control are foreign to civilizations or primitive communities throughout history – there not. What remains peculiar were the empirical quantity and technological quality of its manifestations in the twentieth century.
The “species” all differentiate in some form, but we can use a lexical definition of totalitarianism to suggest that generic traits share political phenomena with the species—all were “mass-mobilizing movements under single party auspices.” Each of these mass-mobilized revolutionary movements exhibited traits as collective humiliation, resulting in some form of militarization, display of masculine protests, “programs of sacrifice,” extreme sensitivity to verbal affronts, archaism, some form of reactive nationalism adjoined often with irredentism. Because of the need for rapid development, some type of ideology accompanies “deprived national communities.”
Totalitarianism, as the “genus,” of a peculiar socio-economic-political proposition that arose in the twentieth century as contemporary nationalist totalitarianism identified with its “subspecies,” ‘fascism,” and “communism,” was first cognitively formulated under broad empirical generalizations and serves a heuristic process [ purpose] in which we may anticipate things in the future. There is not enough data to form a critical list of comprehensive operational definitions and therefore totalitarianism remains a pretheoretical device that serves didactic and research purposes, Gregor intends.
Gregor intends, “Fascism was the first, and remains perhaps the only, fully matured ideological rational for the totalitarian systems of the twentieth century.” As concept, we can suggest a classification of properties of the term “totalitarianism” as a “genus” if we chose to classify a set of “political phenomena unique to the twentieth century” by using taxonomy. “Those properties include charismatic leadership, unitary parties, anti-democratic formal ideologies, messianic goals, orchestrated participation, as well as disciplined control of the economy and of pubic information.” As taxonomic suggestion, these minimal complex-traits can been classified as a “genus” to political phenomena that we can classify under “species” – such as Italian Fascism, National Socialism, Mao’s China, and Stalinism, all of which share traits of exhibiting a “crisis,” “modernizing,” or as “developmental regimes” to totalitarianism. These “species” all differentiate in some form. As example, Hitler’s Germany differed in its unique theory of biological determinism, predicated upon an ideology of Nordic superiority.
If we are going to employ generic fascism responsibly, we must use paradigmatic Fascism and treat it as critical criteria. As generic fascism, we can suggest a classification of properties of the term as a paradigmatic reactive and national rehabilitation, through a revolutionary movement that “conceives themselves as being oppressed by international ‘plutocracy,’ or ‘imperialism,’ and are prepared to embark on a program of forced economic growth and industrialization in the effort to find collective ‘fulfillment.’” It has characteristics of nondemocratic, mass-mobilizing developmental program, usually in a form of an articulated ideology, autarchic, archaistic, militant, irredentist, all with an emphasis to restore “national dignity.”
Totalitarianism in concept was advanced by Marx’s ““normic” model of man.”  as part of his logical and ethical supposition for the “supreme end” for man. It serves “to appeal to theoretical fruitfulness, empirical confirmation, and descriptive parsimony,” and it “is recognized that the model serves more than theoretical and descriptive purposes.” One contemporary Marxist had identified the descriptions of freedom and fulfillment, as moral judgments in Marx’s work, the transition to normative definitional domains provided the “prescriptive” ideal of “human society.”
The prescriptive ideal of human society [ have conceptual origins in ] in Hegel’s work the Philosophical Right and , German philosopher Moses Hess and can be found in Marx’s work Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. As Gregor intends, Marx framed his argument as an analytic model, a conceptual schemata, that was “recognizable as a Hegelian inheritance.” Hess, a mentor for Engels and Marx, imparted the common heritage of “humanism” of Left Wing Hegelians, in which Marx adopted the totality view of man’s relationship to his society. Hess, recognized then as a modern German philosopher, identified a conceptual model that indicated “is the species, the totality, humanity…” “Marx contended, as Gregor points out, “is the human world, a state, society [...]?” “[T]he human essence, for Marx, was understood to be no more than “the ensemble of social relations.”” Persuasively, Marx wrote in Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts man is more than “a social animal, but an animal which can develop into an individual only in society.” “By identifying the individual with a “totality” ( whether it be society or the state) one can, by a series of not too complicated substitutions, demonstrate that without society the individual is not truly an individual, not truly human; and further, that the interests of the “totality” and the individual must ultimately collide. Thus the justificatory arguments for normative judgments succeed in taking on a quasi-demonstrative character and have implications for social and political conduct” To Marx, “the relationship between the individual and ““social-being” was regularly reduced to one of identity.” The foundation for totalitarianism, was first a presented as a “model of man that supported normative conclusions as well as discharging scientific or purely descriptive functions.”
Contemporary National Totalitarianism
Contemporary national Totalitarianism, as the “genus,” has some constellation of empirical observational characteristics. For the “contemporary national totalitarianism, its statism, volunteerism, and elitism, finds its most consistent rational in the argument of paradigmatic Fascism.”
( for example, Bolshevism’s original protestations of perfervid internationalism)
as conceptual schemata for a proletarian society, predicated on propositions that argued ultimate happiness, contentment, and fulfillment of the individual, and proletarians met this condition by their involvement and inclusion within the greater community. As ideology, Bolshevism’s original protestations of perfervid internationalism was explicitly totalitarian.
In 1969, Gregor defined totalitarian as “[…] There is an ideology of totalitarianism, a collection of reasoned vindications in support of a type of society minimally characterized by a mass-movement of solidarity animated by a relatively specific Weltanschauung, rule by a single party hierarchically organized under a charismatic or pseudocharismatic rule of a leader in an institutional system that provides for state monopoly of communication, coercion, and economic control.”
“As an ideology, it cannot be effectively reduced to a rationalization of the interests of any specific class or strata or cotemporary society.” 
Italian Fascism, the Progenitor of the Term
As Gregor suggest defining Fascism, “it will be suggested that the first Fascism be understood to exemplify a modernizing (i.e., an industrializing), mass-mobilizing, reactive nationalist, and anti-democratic movement that manifested itself in a late-emerging, underdeveloped (largely traditional, i.e., agrarian) nation-state forced to contend with a collection of well-developed political democracies that largely controlled the politics of the globe. In order to attempt to "understand" what transpired in Europe between the two world wars, it is instructive to outline what Fascism considered to be the problems that beset the Italic peninsula. The nation had only recently emerged from a history of small communities, papal states and foreign occupation. With the disappointments that followed the "Great War," Fascism rose to domestic prominence and was inspired and vindicated itself with an ideology that addressed those issues that the movement held to be central to Italy's modern concerns. The first component was nationalism. Its principal spokesmen were 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.”
Fascism should be primarily used to identify the Italian socio-economic-political programs that shaped Italy’s course from 1922 to 1945. However, fascism, as a generic typology ( including neofascism) has taken on a peculiar characteristic since its inception. It has become an abusive label (description) for everything a group or individual does not like. Under prelocutionary language and emotive normative discourse, these abuses range from all sects of society and in all countries. In more recent years, the description of “islamofascism” has become a rally cry for some groups (not all) who identify with the War on Terrorism against militant-radical Islamists. In general, after 1945, the Third International had classified fascism as [[ quote here] as rudimentary, a capitalist tool. In the twentieth century Leon Trotsky, for example, maintained that “ Stalinism and Fascism, in spite of a deep difference in social foundations, are symmetrical phenomena. In many of their features they show a deadly similarity.”” As ideology, Bolshevism’s original protestations of perfervid internationalism was explicitly totalitarian.
A general historic process, it has been empirically observed, fascism was an articulated socio-economic-political program. Giovanni Gentile, whose ‘Actualism’ philosophy was adopted by Mussolini and appears in the “Origins and Doctrine of Fascism,” has its origins in the early stages of the twentieth century. Fascism is therefore paradigmatic to the twentieth century. Hitler had adopted some of the prescriptions of Italian Fascism, and wrote his own variant (including an addition with “race-theory,” not found in the original “Origins and Doctrine of Fascism”) Trotsky, had written, and observed, that Stalin, despite the social foundations, had adopted ‘fascism” ( generic in this case) from Hitler ( someone claimed). “Similarly, for Trotsky, Fascism was “a plebian movement in origin,” but one directed and financed by big capitalist powers.” However, both capitalism and a plebiscite entered Stalin’s totalitarian program, to a much lesser degree than Stalinist Russia. . This we know. Yet, they wrote about “totalitarianism.” This constellation of trait-concepts also having origins from the Italian intellects who were writing about fascism’s determinable characteristics, regarded totalitarianism as a “genus” of the sub-species of generic “fascism.” Totalitarianism’s main objective was to facilitate a total conceptual state-schema with the sole purposes to industrialize (or modernize in the less articulate sense – but since it happened during a paradigm of the industrial era—it makes sense to view in this way). Its traits manifested in articulate discourse which argued fundamentally for antidemocratic, anti-liberal, anti-individualist prescriptions for the society, the economy and the government. Totalitarian’s constellation of traits envisioned a total control of society, as “opposed to parliamentary democracy,” and shared many affinities between fascism and variant Marxist communism.
Mao admired J. Stalin, and adopted his “totalitarian” ideology and doctrine. Mao sought the same goal of industrializing China. This we know. But he did not articulate a substantial text arguing prescriptions and conditions for a system. Stalin argued totalitarian traits under his rubric of “socialism in once country;” his government system controlled 95% of the economy and only 5% of it was free-market. The constellation of empirical observational characteristics is an elaborate set of argued truth claims, and is no way affiliated with rhetoric coming from radical militant- Islamicist (Usama bin laden’s) speeches or writings. Some groups identifying with the War on Terror call Islamist radicals associated with Al Qaeda, Islamofascists. It makes no sense. It is more like a “retributionary” movement. i.e., “ you killed our women in your wars, so we will kill yours.” ( Usama bin Laden, date unknown). Egypt, itself tried to industrialize in the twentieth century, but failed.
In general, Islam has not articulated a modernization/ industrialization program of the likes of aforementioned treaties by these individuals I just discussed. Therefore, it cannot be called fascism. “Islamofascism” is an abusive term.
Racism comes from group identification, usually in the guise of and by sight, by sense and by special relations. Hatred of group identification comes from fear of being dominated or imposed upon by something perceived exotic to the visual, feeling and surroundings. Ultimately after 1850s an increase in global population scattered different identified groups across earth adjunct capitalism and/or progress and group identification became group identifications. As antiquity, group identifications formed societies out of archaistic-myth, created myth or established myth. A myth could have a truth value such as the role of the individual to the group. Yet the population explosion associated with industrialization amasses large group identifiers with region specific-myth and catapulted the conceptual model of mass-man (humans). Intellects sought to understand how minority groups organized their strategies to control these mass-humans.
In discussion ‘masses’ [of people in socio-economic-political groups] and ‘myth’ and how they go together Gregor intends Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838—1909) theoretical device proposes that minority groups ultimately have the power over the masses. Gumplowicz states:
“The masses always lack unity and organization as the result partly of their great bulk, partly of indolence. Since the result of the social struggle depends on discipline, the minority has the advantage because it is small.”
Therefore “[S]ociety is a system of ordered relations between heterogeneous social elements. Order is sustained by sanctions administered by the state. Each constituent element of society is maintained by a self-regarding group disposition [Foucault’s disciplinary action].”  We can imagine Plato’s nocturnal council, in the Laws, playing the same minority role as in the genus, totalitarian. As group identification is not securely placed in the conceptual model of a society, we can further understand ethnocentric movements.
“Ethnocentrism refers to the disposition on the part of any community to conceive its shared traits and interests as the initial standard of reference in establishing a hierarchy of comparative values. The individual, through a process characterized as “socialization,” identifies with his group. In its habits, customs, and usages he finds the criteria for orienting himself in the macrosocial world of individual and group contacts. Ethnocentrism is the generic term referring to the general disposition on the part of individuals to identify with a myth, the normative system of their community.”  Ethnocentrism resulted in the selective domination of a specific group identifier.
An Italian veteran of World War One, Evola claimed to posses throughout his life a secret-science knowledge, of “permanent and unalterable “Truth,” a classification of “mysteriosophic notions,” that had begun from transcendental experiences in the Italian mountains at the age nineteen and onward – and his life was finalized with his creation of a race theory that many argue was the original foundations for neofascism. He became a radical Traditionalist, and a epistemological sophist who sought to change the world by ascripting topical-esoterically subjects “into” Fascism and National Socialism with phantasy of a bizarre “mysterious, primordial Olympian and solar Hyperborean race,” whose origins came from Atlantis, legendary Thule, and fabulous Mu.” Although, he personally argues that he did not intend to infuse his work into league with the race theoreticians of National Socialism, his works increasingly took on a venomous tone against Jews, in which was already predisposed in National Socialist race theoreticians. He exuded anti-nationalist, anti-materialist, sentiments throughout his life, and he infused this sentiment into his non committal-fascist editorials. He believed that National Socialism and Fascism needed perfection. After a brief excursion into Italian politics, he joined up with notorious anti-Semites [ that would shape the NAZI party], Giovanni Preziosi and Robert Farinacci, who Evola believed would never be “orthodox” fascists. Evola would create a “bizarre ideologist belief system,” predicated on the notion that National Socialism and Fascism were only placeholders for an “authentic right.” In cultural relevance, Evola has been accredited with the founding philosophy of neofascism with a substantial formulation of a bizarre hypothetical or fanciful “race theory.” ( including “pure race,” “organic harmony,”). He argued that “anti-Traditional defects of the Christian churches, such as their humanistic sentimentality and much of the “collectivism” subversive of Nordic-Aryan individualism—all of which fed into the cult of equality, Marxism, capitalism, revolutionary communism, and Bolshevism itself, and all or which were inimical to Tradition – were all traced to the influence of generic “Semites.””
At the beginning of the 1930s, Evola sought a different audience for his ideas. At this time the Germans begun to translate some of his works, beginning with Imperialismo pagano into German. This provided Evola with contacts and a new course in his career.  While anti-Semitism was a minor issue in Imperialismo pagano, Evola’s work in Rivolta contro il mondo moderno (Milan: Editore Ulrico Hoepli, 1934) presented the Jews as the central concern. “Semitics and Jews are portrayed as millennial opponents of sacred science and Traditional Society.” In is formulation of race theory, his work in Sintesi di dottrina della razza (Milan: Editore Ulrico Hoepli, 1941) constituted a “venomous and all-pervasive” anti-Semitism. Jews were not part of the Hyperborean race, and held no qualities of heroic or sublime properties associated with the “spiritual” qualifications Evola had argued.
His race theory had nothing to do with Fascism or National Socialism of its operational definition. After publishing in Sintesi di dottrina della razza, Evola was assailed by the Italian intellects in print. They argued in oppositions to this thesis that Semitics and Jews (or blacks) held no Hyperborean traits. In addition, Evola who held the convictions that he had rejected some of the traits that characterized fascism: plebian politics, nationalistic ideology of any sort, political party intrigues, as well as any form of socialism, whatever it trappings…”
Gregor intends “ Evola’s racism was neither Fascist nor National Socialist.” This could be explained by his indictment by the post-Fascist regime, when he attempted to found a movement but was accused of “glorifying Fascism.” In fact, he had never joined the Fascist Party. Evola was accused by Himmler’s staff of being a utopianist and “pseudoscientific” who sought a creation of an aristocrat movement overthrow of the modern world. In 1951, he sought to make his attempt to found the “authentic right” movement he conceived. Since he wanted to prefect Fascism, he had spoken during his trial about his objections to Mussolini’s modernization program embodied in the ideology and doctrine of fascism. Evola, not being an apologist of Fascism, was exonerated of all accusations by the post-Fascist government. What this explains was the complexities of the race theorists association with the modernizing attempts that made Fascism its unique operational definition. Evola’s magical delusions of “superior races and inferior races,” was never accepted by the Italian fascists. What this explains is that Evola was not a fascist thinker, and was not concerned with Fascism in so far that he wanted the Italian Fascist system overthrown because its main agenda was to industrialize, with was his argent fear of getting back to the spiritual side of “Tradition.”
Gregor intends that “ It seems that Anglo-American commentators chose to identify and body of thought that is, in any sense, antidemocractic, racist, anticommunist, or antifeminist as “neofascist.” This appears to be more emphatically so if something “mystic,” occult,” or mythical” can be found somewhere among its doctrines.” As Gregor insists, “unless such terms as “mystical” and “anti-intellectual” are defined with some precision, they can be deceptive and employed to serve only prejudicial purpose.” The Dottrina del fascismo – written by Giovanni Gentile—contained no “transcendental magic idealism,” and its “spiritualism” was “ideological rational.”
The reason is clear. Gregor argues that academics who treat fascism as Cavalier and irresponsible are accountable to not reading the prime source material in which they consider reprehensible – and thus take their claims form others who have also not read the prime source material. Instead, as Gregor reaffirms, American academics treat “Marxism, or Marxist-Leninist, ideas” with tolerance, while holding fascism to be “an unmitigated evil.” The result is all so predictable. “The nonfascist thought on an occultist such as Evola is conceived fascist, while ideas having unmistakable fascist properties often fail to be so considered.”
It is apropos to say “Islamofascism? Mussolini, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, all articulated substantial arguments for their political-religious systems. All were concerned with industrializing/modernizing. Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin and Stalin ( not Mao,) articulated their government- political religious systems—substantially in texts (or treaties). Contemporary Islamist radicals associated with Usama bin Laden’s group, Al Qa’eda, and other radical Islamist groups have not demonstrated an effort at articulating an industrialization program for Islam.
Mussolini, who had asked Giovanni Gentile to help compose a doctrine of fascism (Dottrina del fascismo: Idee fondamentali. Milan: Hoepli, 1935), set forth arguments for economic-socio-political a program to modernize Italy. As fascism developed over time, one such economic-socio-political program materialized into the creation of the industrial policy. In 1931 the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (IRI) was formed to control and advance the economy. By 1935, the agency changed its focus to developing the Italian military. Yet, the military was an arm of these economic controls, with goals for international business. The Italian Fascists articulated elaborate economic-socio-political programs to industrialize.
Lenin wrote substantially on “reformulation of classical Marxism.” Classical Marxism was a formula for a universal ethic and moral sentiment in regards to a modern socio-economic system with substantive arguments. Hitler had adopted some of the fascist ideologies already composed in literature and constructed his own unique collection of ideas in National Socialism throughout his life. In his first attempt, in Mein Kempf, Hitler sought to provide a “philosophy with a natural, historic foundation.” While Germany was an already industrialized state, an effort at formulizing a set of argued beliefs to fashion a revolutionary consciousness to increase modernization sought prime importance. Stalin, too, had written substantive arguments on socio-political systems. (sentence proof). Yet, contemporary Islamist radical movements such as Al Qa’eda with its alleged leader Usama bin Laden, appears to be a “retributionary” movement, i.e. “You have killed our women in your wars, so we will kill yours.” (Usama bin Laden, date unknown) Al Qa’eda has not produced substantial arguments for a developmental socio-political-economic system for Islam. All twentieth century leaders mentioned argued for modernization and written texts and treaties that sustained their ideological conscriptions. Modern radical Islamists do not argue an doctrine or ideology for industrialization/modernization. It makes no sense to label these groups fascist. Therefore, Islamofascism is an abusive term.
Democratic Socialism: This overused international political science phrase/term defies a universal meaning. Each state or nation differs in interpretation which does not allow for consistent definable characteristics, associated with the intersubjective meanings. We must remember that after the events of 1798, each state or nation (whatever the case) increasingly used the word democracy in their discourse, and each state or nation used the word democracy to explain a different governmental ideology or belief system in the subjective part of speech (including its inter-subjective relationship to economic and social systems employed). Each state or nation interpreted democracy in their own way. After 1890s, and Marxism became internationally known and debated, the term socialism was (re)introduced to lexicology and taxonomy of a state or national discourse and classification. Yet, again, each state or nation had their own interpretation of the term. After 1945, the phrase/term Democratic Socialism defined a synthesis of the two competing and variable terms. One must remember that the Soviet Union used both these terms as meanings for liberating the people, as well as Communist China, almost every country in the European Union, and currently Middle Eastern states, such as Iran. Each state or nation has their own defining characteristics of what the terms democracy and socialism imply or the meaning of the combination of terms which makes up this phrase. The importance is that each term or as a phrase can be applied generically or specifically, but is never fully agreed upon by political scientists. One should read their texts carefully to specify the denotative/or/connotative meaning of each term or the phrase in relation to each state or nation which employed them. Understanding the denotative/or/connotative meaning will assist in uncovering the economic and social policies of a said state or nation – which of course applies to an important metalanguage in international studies.
The subjective difficulties in political normative discourse present inter-relative language domain difficulties. In order to construct a theory with presentational and reliable speculation, a definition or set of definitions must remain consistent. Nostradamus corrected this inconsistency by adjusting the subjective for unobservable phenomenon in order to sustain a reliable classification of subjective observable properties. For example, if a religious institution centralized its power over some observable entity/property, the subjective would be labeled centralization, for classification purposes. These unobservable phenomena would be observational in the objective and demonstrate a change in course of a subjective prior trajectory. This is to say, the linguistic discourse was arbitrary in so much that the consistency of the unobservable conditions remained consistent with observational phenomena or properties of the objective. In this way, Nostradamus was able to first form a reliable conceptual schema, and then purse a working theory by integrating these phenomena into his three fold method of prediction.
To apply his method and solve political science inconsistencies, we look to take an example(s) and analyses the subjective difficulties in normative discourse. In The Search for NeoFascism, the Use of Abuse of Social Science (2006), A. James Gregor reveals a great deal about the general character and the putative content of contemporary analysis of Neofascism in the Middle East in the twentieth century. When arguing about the constellation of totalitarian (or species fascism) generic characteristics of Kwame Nkrumah and Gamel Abdel Nasser’s revolutionary purposes, the demonstration of the inter-subjective inconsistencies appeared in normative discourse. “[…] both Nkrumah and Nasser advocated a political system governed by a single-party state, a “true democracy” that could succeed in its pursuit of “freedom” only when “directed according to the principles of the Revolution.” Many historians, humanitarians, social scientists, history commentators and political scientists have made known the arbitrariness of the diction and lingual use of the term democracy in international political literature and rhetoric. This is well known. What is not understood is how to solve such a dilemma of arbitrariness so from restricting a political scientists from accurate prediction or at least speculation. What are at issue are not the two conflicting subjects, but the relationship to the sentence.
Political Scientists have not contended the inter-subjective dilemma to solve the simplistic grammatical relationship. By dividing the two subjects, the result is null/or/negative. If by classifying one as the subject by identifying its variable with one of the three major genesis of Political Science, one can transfer the relationship of the other subjective to the descriptive properties of an objective. Therefore, the division can take place. If “democracy,” the numerator is divided by “single state party,” the denominator, then the ( this produces an additive inverse, by the sub-interger’s relationship to the natural number) It is arbitrary that the equivalence to a fraction either contains a negative numerator and a positive denominator or a negative denominator and a positive numerator. The quotient of two numbers with unlike signs is negative. The answer, therefore, is in the objective/negative. A single state party is observed, but Democracy is not. Since individuals define non-centralization if we are to say that one leader or a small group are centralized, then we can substitute non-centralization for Democracy and substitute centralization for a “single state party,” which allows us to apply a positive and a negative – in this case the centralization remains negative and thereforewith the answer comes up as negative. As Methodology, Nostradamus would classify this government system as centralization.
Democracy’s premises were composed of anti-centralization of power, into the hands of the few. A one party state, is defined quantitatively as containing only a few members (during the periods of history we have covered). In Classical Athenian times, the oligarchy represented a power grab and a rule by the few over the whole. This was a change in trajectory, a centralization change. Therefore, by algebra, Nostradamus could compare an arbitrary definition, which served further classification purposes for a set definition, that could eventually be consistent for a construction of a theory.
While this system appears elementary, its reliability is assured for definitional construction for theorems. If, as political scientists, we classify this numerator
as authoritarian or totalitarian in structure, we come into specific variable problems. As subjective, the single party state, as a generic genus defined under either authoritarian or totalitarian in structure does not imply or classify any observational phenomena that can be further classified. However, under the Nostradamus system, the unobservable phenomena can be further classified with quantitative principles. Once the quantitative principles have been identified and classified, then a comparable time structures can be processed for further classification as repetitive observational historic phenomena.
The difficulties in the informal sciences require rigorous discipline in developing a conceptual schema for classification purposes. Since “totalitarianism” was used in literature by only three states in the twentieth century, constructing a theory would be impossible. There does not appear to be enough reliable or quantifiable data to distinguish a sample field of socio-political-economic properties. What we are left with is a set of classifications that serve heuristic and possibly other pretheoretical applications. A. James Gregor intends, “The concept of “Totalitarianism” is a teaching and pretheoretical device that serves “didactic” and “research” purposes. It servers classificatory purposes (like the zoological classifications of animals into families, genera, species, and sub species).”
Fundamental difference between the general “belief systems”
The fundamental difference between the general “belief systems” that sustain democracies, as we understand “democracy” to be late eighteenth century revolutionary movements which promulgated philosophies (ideas) of certain interpretations and notions of liberty, freedom, equality, individual representation, fraternity and universality – resulted in the procedural systems of the British parliamentary system and the procedural systems of The Untied States of America political system, to name a few – was the role of the individual to the state. These procedural systems allowed individuals to have certain autonomous rights’ to the state. These notions of individual rights in relations to contracts with the state, in a Lockean and Humean (David Hume) sense, were born out of these late eighteenth century revolutionary philosophies of the American Revolution and the French Revolution. However, when Karl Marx and Frederick Engels’ writings were taken seriously as Giovanni Gentile had observed to have taken place in the later years of the nineteenth century, these philosophies for anticipating and activating revolutionary movements had changed and taken on a different character. These liberalist notions of liberty, freedom and individualism, were observed empirically to be predatory in nature, both economically and physically. England, the United States of America, France, and other European liberal states had physically and economically dominated various regions of the earth to their economic advantage. A certain realization that underdeveloped nations would also be targets can help explain this change in revolutionary ideologies. Understandably, intellects that identified with under developed nations or nations that had been humiliated in war or by disadvantaged treaties -- by advanced militaries of these powerful liberal states -- offered solutions of practical philosophies which meant a redefining the individual’s role to the state, a countercurrent trend understood as anti-democratic, understood by some European intellectuals and European revolutionaries. To the underdeveloped or humiliated states, notions of liberty and freedom took on a different concept.
Italian Fascism can be said to be born out of the urgent need to liberate Italian citizens from the potential threat of predatory plutocracies. Giovanni Gentile (1875 - 1944), credited with much of the formation of the ideology of Italian Fascism, in his book “Origins and Doctrine of Fascism” (1921), described Italians attitudes changing -- a need to liberate and free themselves. He described Italy passing through a transitional period, a period he described as tenuous with multiple interest groups vying for influence in politics. The Risorgimento had briefly, before its exhaustion, Gentile says, brought a spirit of national identity which quenched the liberty which had dominated Italy for some time. For a brief fifteen year period beginning form 1861, the Right ruled in Italian Politics. The Right gave its priority to the state. The Left had given the individual priority over the state (more succinctly, the left believed the commoners, the working class, had the “right” of priority over socio-political decisions, whereas the right believed the educated could direct the community in better decision making processes.). Gentile describes Italy as contending with two currents of belief systems. He further explained that Italians had grown tired of the political Left and the complications it brought with indecisive action. This made Italians desire to “return to its origins, to the ideas, the high aspirations, and the great moral forces that had given Italy birth.” Part of this could be explained in the development of the psychology of many Italian citizens. Psychological currents played a prominent role in Italian decisions to centralize their political character after the Great War. In the Treaty of London of April 26, 1915, Britain had promised market access to Italy in N. Africa and parts of the Middle East for their military support in the Great War. England’s retraction of their promise after the war had caused a moral crisis among the Italian masses. Collectively Italians felt ashamed and humiliated by the more advanced industrial countries. These circumstances can help explain the redefining of conceptual political philosophies set down by Fascist intellectuals.
“Gentile's “Origins and Doctrine” [Origins and Doctrine of Fascism] as one unfamiliar with modern Italian history, it is still possible to understand the fundamental sense of his account (remembering always that this is one person's vindication of a political system). Throughout the exposition one receives a decided impression that Gentile advocates a "philosophy of life" that is sacrificial--committed to a "mission" that is demanding and arduous.”
National becomes the vehicle of survival in the 20th century.
In order to do this, this took a cultural constructionist, of the likes of Gentile’s Idealism.
“The beginning of the 20th century featured war and revolution. The Great War (1914-1918) was the most devastating war in history until that time. The revolutions that followed (the Bolshevik , the Fascist  and the National Socialist ) gave the specific character to the century.” In Origins and Doctrine of Fascism (1929?), Giovanni Gentile explained that Italy’s involvement in World War I resulted in a profound spiritual crisis. He explained there had been two distinct currents; these two currents had been fighting for two decades, which had always ended in threats for regional war. The interventionalists and those who chose non-involvement – Gentile was referring to what he called the tortured history of Italian neutrality – to understand that there were not simply two political opinions or two historical conceptions that found themselves opposed, but two souls, each with its own fundamental orientation and its own general and dominant exigency.
Promises of an Italian a frontier on the Brenner Pass in the Northeast, annexation of Trieste and the Istrian Peninsula ( but not Fiume), part of Dalmation coast in what is now Yugoslavia, a dominate position in Albania, and unspecified colonial concessions, was not the only particular end to be taken into account for entering the war. In order to end these decades of factionalism, Gentile argued that entering the war would finally unite the nation through the shedding of blood. 
“ The war was seen as a way to cement the nation as only war can, creating a single thought for all citizens, a single feeling, a single passion, and a common hope, an anxiety lived by all, day by day – with the hope that the life of the individual might be seen and felt as connected, obscurely or vividly, with the life that is common to all—but which transcends the particular interests of any.
Centuries of foregoing political and military intervention in Italy by Spanish, Austrian-German, and French forces resulted in these two currents crystallizing in the late 19th century. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Ottoman Empire had been called the “sick man” of Europe. Prior to the eighteenth century, the Ottoman Empire was militarily strong but held in check by France and Spanish treaties with Italy. Italy had been occupied for much of its history after the Italian renaissance period with the understanding of its inherent neutrality. With Spain and France out of Italy by the nineteenth century, the political picture for Italy had changed from a fractional state with various foreign influences to a possible autonomous state intent on fomenting its own agency. Italy had long been a neutral state in international affairs, but it also was a state that begun the Renaissance that eventually swept Europe and sparked the “Age of Enlightenment.” Italy’s identity was grounded in a historical process. Italy had its own historic identity, and its pride emerge with this new found autonomy. Since Marxism was universally upheld by the socialist and intellects in Europe at this time, Gentile’s argument pertained to the neutrality of many of the Italian citizens and this new found “freedom” by the interventionists, who had duel purposes of finally uniting Italy, and attending to Irredentism. As Gregor points out, and Gentile confirmed, war at this juncture of Italy’s history brought unsuspected Totalitarian prescriptions.
In 1911, The War in Tripoli (1911), Italy became involved in a war with the Caliphate in Turkey. The war prompted an outpouring of nationalist sentiment in Italy, and many intellectuals were surprised by the response of the workers and peasants to the War in Tripoli (they were supposed to oppose all "capitalist" wars). Many syndicalists supported the war because of that unexpected reality and found themselves on the same side as the nationalists (although some, like Mussolini, opposed the war). The response of the "working class" to the war caused many (like Mussolini) the rethink the official socialist position. The issue of nationalism became a critical issue among revolutionary Marxists (both in Italy and throughout Europe).
What lands and who wanted what lands and where. All of these countries had an aspiration to restore all these “lost lands.” Nationalist irredentism – that was typical of totalitarianism. Since Gentile’s ideas of Fascism stem from a totalitarian premises, more toward indirect nationalism than irredentism, Italy was able to guides its state development at a sustained rapid pace. “Mussolini switched from a position of neutrality to one of intervention in World War I separated him forever from the socialist movement.”
In a pre-Paradigmatic (Before the theory of Khunian (1950s-60s) incommensurable, “between two paradigms, no common language,” but applicable here in understanding ( or it this confusing?)) approach, Italian intellects understood that its industrial and economic base did not fit the Marxist preconditions for a classical Marxist revolution. If the Bolsheviks took the proletariat revolutionary rout, Italy was concerned with emblematic fallout of the peasant revolution observed in Russia. Dino Grandi (1895-1988), a World War I veteran and graduate in law and economics at the University of Bologna in 1919, had written that Italian 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. ( page 40-41? What book?))) Like Gentile, Grandi argued that Fascism was a rejection of “mechanical materialism,” and a commitment to a new spiritual consciousness. ( page 40-41? What book?))) As a Cultural Constructionist, Gentile attacked “positivism” and “artificial and distracted, intellectualism.” Sentiment, it was argued, was connected to the actual influence of science. Since the advanced industrial nations used their science for their “economic profit,” “hegemonic,” and “global dominance,” against the inferior industrial nations, post-modernism (would later be created and argued, but already existed in different language, as concept) was infused with “impressive political radicalism.” In this case – Gentile constructed a totalitarian state predicated not on material, but on spirit of consciousness – incommensurable by the account that the Italians denied the internationalism of Marxism with Fascist ( as the connotative infinitive “to bind”) conceptual nationalism. As spirit, it did not dialectically oppose consciousness. Materialism actually did oppose fascist spirit of consciousness, in the context between the construction of nationality and the deconstruction of nationality – Marx’s post-capitalist, the final phase of a construct of Marxist teleological journey, world communism. In effect, the Gentilian “spirit of consciousness” demanded centralization; and Gentile had constructed the “spirit of consciousness” around a variety of centralizing arguments. Therefore, Fascism was conceived as a totalitarian ideology. The centralization of the Fascist ideology conceived, as a contained myth, of one omnipotent and earthly-deity, Il Duce, a central figure around a centralized party of elites. As myth, the central figure contained “impeccable truths.”
Continuing in ideology of Italian Fascism, substantive ideologies on myth also included the romancing of “lost lands,” “lost Roman heritage”, and ultimately “lost dominance.” Italian intellects arguing the physical past of Italy conceived the center of the universe, so to speak, the myth of bringing back ancient Rome, to be a fostered sentiment central to Gentile’s construction of “Actualism” (or is it idealism).
“Focus on the morality of the community and you could gauge its behavior – Gentile would argue. If you want to reconstruct the new humanity, in order to do that one has to educate the people. No one has taught you morality. So Gentile proposed this action. No morality is taught because there is no consistent morality in advanced industrial nations. One must have some consistence teachings at each level of institutions. That is the reform of education (Gentile). But the moral principle you will learn through the party membership. He argues for the Totalitarian state (everyone is educated the same, everyone is implicit in the term Totalitarianism).
You are living in a developing state, you must live like this. This was a rational in Italy. The fascist gave a rational, it may have been flawed, but it was a rational. In Soviet union, they gave no rational. They just did this or that. That is why fascism was coherent.”
Gentile’s political philosophy can be described in his creation of what is known as “Actualism.” This philosophy, while it conjoins his Idealism philosophy in which he had adopted some of these ideas from Giuseppe Mazzini, predicates its conception of life to actively confronting problems and resolving issues that must immediately be attended too. This can be explained in Gentile’s anti-intellectual arguments laid out in his “Reform of Education.” Gentile was not against intellectuals, per say, he argued that Intellectualism produced abstract theories. Intellectuals, he argued that pursued these abstract theories, wasted valuable time and accomplished little insightful or useful knowledge. What Italy needed during the crucial period of its development was an activist conception of life. To understand this, individualists in the liberal democracies had traditions of debate, legislating, meetings and more meetings, which slowed the process of decisive social and political action. Italy needed its infrastructure built. In order to accomplish this feat, Italy needed a communitarian set of objectives. Thomas Jefferson proposed in his writings to give priority to individuals, predicated on agrarian interests, his ideal society. The United States of America modernized itself while allowing for individuals to have priority over the state. However, it was understood that the United States of America’s process for modernization under its procedural and individualist system had taken over a century to actualize. For Gentile and many other Italians, this was not realistic and at least not pragmatic for a prescription of government.
The real and apparent threat of economic and physical imperialism by France or England gave way to an understanding that Italy needed to modernize quickly and create a defense for the state. In the section on the Fascist Doctrine of the State, of “Origins and Doctrine of Fascism,” Gentile argues that the state must rule with force both domestically and externally. Gentile wrote “With respect to its external or international relations—war, in the last instance—tests and guarantees the sovereignty of the single State within the system of history, in which all States compete. In war, the State demonstrates its power, which is to say, its proper autonomy.” Therefore, militaristic pursuits took on a high priority for Italy. To Gentile, an ethical state was a military state that could protect its citizens from foreign exploitation. In this way, it can be argued that freedom and liberty was emancipating the state from potential foreign hegemony.
Italy was an under developed state. Italy also needed modern roads, modern highways, modern factories, all the necessities of a modernized civilization. To accomplish this, Italians had to give themselves over to a sense of selfless mission, Gentile argued. In this sense, selfless sacrifice of the individual would inform the collective will of the state. Gentile argued for a communitarian state, under the typology of “totalitarianism,” understood then as a philosophy (not a theory) of Fascism. As a statist, Gentile understood the priority of the community should be to the state. Liberalism, Gentile argued, was antagonism between the individual and state. Therefore, emphatically, Gentile wrote “The general interest is always to be given priority against any particular interest—to thereby absolutely and irresistibly endow the life of the people and value.” The Liberating of Italy was seen as a collective interest, not individual interest, with practical applications to modernize a state and create a viable military to defend the state from predatory plutocracies. This could explain Mussolini’s adoption of Gentile’s philosophies which argued for a communitarian political movement. Marx believed the collective community interest to be the relationship of the individual to a universal and single party. In a sense, Italy had a similar attitude but, the difference was a principle of an anti-universal notion.
For Italians, it was practical to move away from Marxist ideas of universality and to grasp the conception of nationalism – their interpretation of it – anti-democratic and anti-universal. The Marx conceptual schemata for a universal revolution, in which many European intellectuals anticipated, would not arrive in Italy. Many Italian intellectuals understood Italy to be absent of the preconditions for a classical Marxist revolution. Both Benito Mussolini and Enrico Corradini had understood this in their young adulthood studying Marx in school and Marxist clubs. Many other intellectuals in the Italian social and political sphere did as well. Intellectuals, who had understood Marxism theory of the predatory liberalist states, believed eventually Italy could become a target of exploitation by these predatory plutocracies. In A. James Gregor’s book “Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social And Political Thought” (2005), the U.C. Berkeley professor argues that Italian intellectuals had understood Engel’s and Marx’s historical dynamic of predatory liberal states ( i.e. United States of America, France, the British Empire), these plutocracies, and therefore understood as a dynamic of agency, solutions for survival were contingent on the acquiescence of technology and the acquiescence of raw material as the key to state self-preservation. The reason why the United States of America dominated Mexico was the availability of vast resources in conjunction to the development of advanced technology. France was able to modernize because of its understanding of dominating the regions of the world which would allow them access to cheap raw material. France was able to rule in Algiers because of its advanced technology of building navy ships, and England’s vast shipping capabilities inspired the domination of the globe. This revelation came from understanding Marx’s various writings on what he perceived as the underlying causes. [While Lenin, as a mediocre-intellectual, focus not on the causes but on the effects of Marxism.] As early as 1916 Corradini published a work that argued Italy’s foremost goal should be “husbanding of natural and human resources in the service and expansion and modernization of production,” therefore this described a new political structure. Professor Alfredo Rocco (b. 1875), in the 1913 Italian National Association, proposed a theoretical insight from Freidrich List that argued it took “courage to believe in a grand national future and with such a faith to march forward with irrepressible national spirit.” Freidrich List’s work “theory of the productive forces” he clearly “conceived productivity to be at the center of human history.” List argued against economic liberalism. This understanding could be explained that Rocco and List understood Italy was dependant on foreign imports of raw materials by foreign plutocracies. Therefore, the argument of Italian nationalism was predicated on notions of overcoming a fear to be dominated, economically, by the predatory plutocracies. As A. James Gregor intends, theses fears were already “implicit and explicit in thought as early as the founding fascist meetings.” By 1914, Gregor intends, Rocco had formed one of the principle ideologies of the new nationalism. These principles, Rocco argued, contained two ideas. First, Italy was to oppose the socialistic notion of distribution and to accept a principle on production. Second, Italy was to accept a principle of a national economic system in an international context that eventually the Italian people would champion from noticing a higher standard of living.
Nationalism was first introduced conceptually to Italy by Sorel, a French philosopher. Georges Sorel (1847-1922) resisted individualist interests and created Sorelian syndicalism or a.k.a. national syndicalism. Sorel represented addressing problems in a “concrete” matter, that is to say, a practical solution for Italy’s need to develop an infrastructure. He was the first to promote nationalism in Italy, conjoined with the notion of the “rule by elite.” In this way, the gifted intellectuals could demonstrate pragmatic solutions. Sorel was initially trained in Marxist theory. However, he had held anti-scientific views. Unlike Marx, he did not believe materialism as the force of destiny for human lives. He had understood that “ideas” played a large part in society and politics. He argued, in order for a nation to revive itself, it needed “ideas.” One of these ideas was of a moral national revival, predicated upon reestablishing ideas of Italy’s past. For Sorel, Corradini and Rocco, the priority of the individual should organize themselves around a state.
As part of the construction of the state, myth played a large part in Fascism’s synthesis to tie the material ideas and spiritual ideas together in a cohesive unity under an interpretation of nationalism. Since liberal democracies represented socially and politically fragmented interest groups, what was needed to motivate the masses of people was an all encompassing sentiment that would act like a myth and would tie both the mental forces and the material forces together to act as one. In chapter eight of Gregor’s book, “Italian Fascism and Developmental Dictatorship”(1979), the social policies of Fascism not only focused on implementing ideologies based upon ideas, sentiment, faith of men, but also on urgent concrete interests. “For both nationalists and national syndic lists, Italy was an underdeveloped nation.” Gregor intends, this would explain why Mussolini had spoken in 1919 of mass-mobilization and government in essentially the same manner as Sergio Panunzio (1886-1944), Angelo Oliviero Olivetti, and Orana had observed. As a consequence of social and political action, they had argued, political and social action was a “consequence of the confluence of material and ideal interests.” “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.”” For Italy and Mussolini by 1922, freedom, and liberty was seen as anti-universal, as self-preservationist, as both spiritually and materially motivated, and as seen thought the individuals’ selfless devotion to the state.
Italy had allowed limited capitalism, in order to help spur on the Italian economy, at the beginning period of Italian fascism. However, Ugo Spirito argued, Gregor intends, through empirical observations, business failed to help the state in its aims toward modernization. Spirito had observed that “stockholders pursued narrow private interests. Administrators were preoccupied with special concerns. Workers were occupied almost exclusively with their own welfare.” Spirito suggested as a solution, Italians would form ““corporative property” -- a gradual fusion of capital and labor in the unitary process of national production.” A system of corporate property, Spirito argued, according to Gregor, had accompanied the doctrine of “totalitarianism.” When fascism was first founded in 1919, Mussolini had spoken of “capitalism” only beginning its “dogged defense of individuality, and making a recourse to the “Manchestrian state” of restricted function.” Marx had argued that all underdeveloped nations ( or states) had to acquire capital somewhere, from either foreign investment or forcing humans to labor at subsistent wages. Capital did not create itself.
In 1919, the Italian intellects understood that Italy was devoid of proper capital in which to modernize. The fascists sought to allow private business a limited autonomy, which would offset financial costs of a central government welfare program to fund the Italian individual worker. They had to decide to force people into labor, in which they had observed the Russian murders of individuals who had resisted Lenin’s reclamation of private ownership program, or to allow private capitalism with enough freedom to employ sectors of Italian workers and therefore escape mass genocide of Italians. For the first decade they decided to allow limited privatization of business. However, the government decided to change this course of action, leading to a Marxist conception of abolishment of individualism in relations to individualist commerce.
Yet, by the 1930s, the Great Depression, the lack of controlling vital raw material because of an absence strong military, Italian intellectual’s understood that the proper course may be taking the Marxist-Leninist view of deprivatizing personal ownership which became real and apparent. What was apparent to many Italian intellects was, no matter what politico-social system the Italians used, called themselves, the failure was not the system but, the realization that modernizing in the nineteenth century as the United States, France and England had done was not possible under the freedom of the individual. These liberal democracies or liberal states controlled access to the resources in the world necessary for building militaries and empires, Italy was caught in time without the necessities for fostering economic productivity. Italian intellects eventually had to embrace their understanding of Marxism to achieve a progression in Italian modernization.
Marx was an Hegelianist, who sought a logical requirement of the individual’s role was the individual’s reliance to a centralized morality. For Hegel, morality was the state’s role. For Marx this was the proletariat’s moral role to a unified world community. Whatever the case may be, the ideas of Hegel were predicated on the fundamental interest of any individual, an individual’s role to a central union of beliefs. Whatever the union be, it was compliant with notions of nationalism. Since nationalism was inherently moral, the fundamentalism was reverently intertwined with nationalism as the center of existence. Marx just qualified the fundamental existence of humankind as a unity of a single class. Fascists argued no differently. In fact Marxism and Fascism was a single concept of a single class ideology. Marxist contend that the difference between the two is that the proletarian class “magically” is “selfless” and cares for the common good of the people. Ultimate, the reason we have no words by Marx for the proletarian economic system was his secret understanding of incompatibility of human nature upon the conditions of a philosophy of “goodness” and “selflessness.” Marx did not know how to explain that humankind would suddenly give up its individual selfishness and work unselfishly for the common good of the whole community. If Marx knew the secret, he had forty years in which he had time to write it down for future generations. Therefore, it could be argued that Marx was absent of this knowledge. Since Marx was absent of this knowledge, the only solution for Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot and Castro, to name a few who operated under Marxism, was to change Marxism into fascism’s notion of violence that would remake the people into the communal body of the state in order to perform the will of the state selflessly. This ultimately explains why all these governments turned to violence against its own citizens, something that Marx had claimed could come about by voting instead of violence. The forcing the citizens to give up their personal private property took violence. Marx believed this could take place voluntarily, if the proletariat realized that it had control of all the sentiments of its class throughout the world, and that throughout the world the workers would already be in control of the advance industrialized nations. This included institutions’ that had the ability to pass laws. However, Italy, Russia and many other nations in the twentieth century were backward nations. The poor and the working classes controlled no apparatus’ of the judiciary institutions’, nor the factories – there were few if none in these countries which exemplified the preconditions. Therefore, it was (1) impossible as the preconditions of the Marx conceptual schemata did not exist in Italy, and (2) the class consciousness of revolutionary proletarians was only predicated on controlling the modes of production, in which in Italy was nearly non- existent. It was impossible for the Italians to realize that a voluntary emancipation of private ownership and capitalism was feasible without violence and force by understanding Marx’s preconditions.
To explain to the Italian citizen what was happening to their lives at this time, in a language the literate classes could comprehend, various forms of Gentile’s Actualism was laid down to print to describe solutions to the Marx problems of liberal-predatory plutocracies. This was in a sense a neo-Hegelian explanation and a neo-Marxist justification for self-state-defense. “In 1932, as acknowledgement of that conviction, Mussolini requested that Giovanni Gentile write the first part, the neo-Hegelian “Fundamental Ideas,” of the official Doctrine of Fascism – and the totalitarian Actualist argument became the formal part of Fascist’ rational.”
Instead of fascism being a capitalist tool, as many western polemicists would fantasize in order to call all United States of American citizens who affiliated themselves with USA nationalism as United States of American fascists, the elimination of Italian private ownership evolved into anti-economic liberalism. In fact, the notion of a Marxist proscription of an elimination of private ownership, now took on logical recommendations by one of the leaders in the Italian fascist movement. Gradually, Italian intellects argued, Gregor intends, was that “[W]orkers would thus earn a return on enterprise profit and also occupy seats in an administration council for enterprise to collaborate directly in management. The traditional distinction between entrepreneurs and workers would gradually disappear. The reality of the community would rest on the collective [(communal)] interests, collective effort, and collective rewards.” These were “ideas about integral corporatism” which would finally end with fascism at the conclusion of World War II. Gregor explains, Ugo Spirito spoke of Italy attending to “domestic economic changes” in the form of removing private property as a “privileged position in Italy.” Since this decision was seen as a communitarian political decision, it is not far fetched to understand this was Marxism at its base understanding. The argument that Marxism is predicated on decentralization is false. Marx called for the centralizing of each proletariat movement in each nation before they evolved into a centralized world movement. Only after their said victory over the bourgeois, then would a decentralization be realized as a political reality. Understanding Marx is crucial to understanding Fascism and Marxism shared similarly characteristics in contrast to liberal democracies. Corporatism was one of the “ideological convictions concerning population management.” Fascist welfare programs, like the Democratic Party of the United States of America today, were clearly instrumental for forging political support for the regime. As Gregor intends, Fascist programs of welfare were clearly instrumental for forging “political support for the regime.” National healthcare, proposed by Hillary Rodman Clinton, in 1994, was clearly a program adjunct to centralization around the Democratic Party platform. None the less, this was a centralization, no more or no less either Marxist or fascist in concept. The role of the private medical establishment would lose its “individualism” and be prescribed to its dependant status upon the will of the state. In effect, this was anti-freedom, anti-democratic and anti-individualist. Like Marx, its motives are renounced as “good intentions.” However, at multi-multi- ($14.7?) trillion dollars, an estimate of Hillary’s 1994 figures, the national healthcare program lay in want of pragmatics. In fact, this was like the idealist thought behind the understanding a corporation of like Italy’s welfare program during fascism. Just as Spirito observed for Italy, we can also say this was an attempt at “domestic economic changes,” and seen as a centralization of the forces of government’s control over the individual’s freedoms.
In fact, totalitarianism is a centralized government agenda of argued beliefs of justice for all. This can be described an ideology. The ideology of the contemporary Democratic Party Platform in America is associated with Marxist ideas of materialism’s social equality. This idea also understood as distributionist can only be realized in a wealthy socio-political environment. Since Marx believed that his world revolution would take place only after the proletarians had taken over the modes of production, thus controlling the position of distribution of material (capital- in this sense money), the same concept applies to the Democratic Party’s platform.
Marx claimed that this distribution could come about without violence if the proletarians had control of the judiciary institutions’. That is why the Democrats campaign under the notion of material distribution. They argue if the common people cannot understand the ideas of liberalism, that is freedom of speech, freedom of thinking and freedom of economic destiny, they can acquire the control of judiciary means to implement the distribution of resources and at the same time consolidating their political power. To achieve this goal, as with the fascist, the same ideology is demonstrated: (1) Individualism is bad for the common good; (2) The will of the individual should be for the promotion of the state’s party; n this sense, the Democratic Party of distribution; and (3), a sense of communal good retards individualist competition. Here, we understand fascist ideology of the right of the state to control the destiny of the individual is not similar but exactly comparable with the Democratic Party platform. Therefore, we can argue fascism, Marxism, and the contemporary Democratic Party platform hold the same truism—the individual’s role is dependant on the will of the state.
Gregor argues that definitions of “right” and “left” may be arbitrary in understanding the role of fascism and the administrations of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro and many other twentieth century revolutionary movements. For four decades, his works on these comparisons illustrate that only some variables of socio-political realities can be defined as “right” or “left” in view of how they were understood in different intellectual circles at the beginning of the twentieth century. A distinction I proposed could be, does a label of the “left” indicate a policy of abolishing private ownership and capitalism? Certainly many intellectuals of Italy and many Marxist saw it that way, as Gregor has observed in his translations of their works ( And other academic translators) . However, this would leave-out the variable of the concept of the role of the individual to the state as the primary thesis of the fascist distinction, the Marxist distinction and the Democratic Party platform distinction. The role of the individual to the state is arbitrary to any law permissible to private ownership and capitalism or the abolishment of private ownership and capitalism. Both variables can be present in a state ideology of anti-individualism or a perceptual ideology of pro-individualism. Both variables can be present in a democracy or a communist system of government. If the populous or the judiciary does vote in whatever system they comprise to be legal, can abolish private ownership and capitalism in a democratic society. This is very much a reality. And yet, during the first decade of Italian Fascism, private property and capitalism were permissible. In National Socialism these variables were also permissible. In both systems the role of the individual to the state was compulsory. Therefore, we must ask, what are the similarities to fascism, Marxism, and the contemporary Democratic Party platform?
The similarities are striking, to say the least. They revolve around the notion of the role of the individual is predicated upon the will of the state. In the founding of the United States of America, the founders argued over state’s rights. That is their autonomous judiciary systems not tied to federalism. Each state could forge their destinies of permissible individualist “rights.” It can be argued that progressively, state rights are eroding, thus individualist rights are eroding. When individualist rights are eroding, we look toward a definition to our system of government. In this manner we are moving away from the liberalist notion of democracy and toward the fascist or Marxist notion of communal political party of federalism. As the federal government increases its demands upon individualist rights in the United States of America, we see that a pragmatic definition of fascism is more adept to understanding the course of our eroding democratization of individual autonomy.
Marx had sought to end class struggles by distributing “material” equally to all individuals who lived in a communal space that could be described as a single-world state. Yet, our ethnic differences have not allowed up to inspire this “common good intention.” Therefore, activists, intellectuals and common citizens argue that we should follow Marx and try to organize a proletarian movement “first” in each of our nations. This is what is happening with the Democratic Party. The proposition of ridding the individual of all private ownership and capitalism has not reached a conclusion, due to various obstacles’ in each nation. However, the Democratic Party platform is very much inspired by federalism’s priority to distribute materialism. That is wealth in this sense. Their arguments are benevolent. We have poor among us who do not have the same opportunities many other have. We have achieved an advanced industrial society on the backs of human slavery. We should have reparations as a form of thanks, given to the families of African Americans who helped pay-off capital investment from Britain to the Colonies in the United States of America, and who had also helped in financing modernization of the United States of America by freeing up individuals to pursue management of construction of its infrastructure. As with Italian fascism, the Democratic Party proposes that a universal welfare program dedicated to better life of each of the nations citizens be compulsory to the federal level. This can be seen as progressive taxation in the form of funding science, medicine, social welfare, and maintaining the infrastructure of each state in the nation. These are all benevolent claims, and all are fashioned in the non-dynamic of the definition of fascism and Marxism – the role of the individual to the state? If federal tax is compulsory, then it is centralized at the federal level, and therefore it matches the defined characteristic of the definition of fascism and Marxism. It inspired non-individualist commitment, a quality of fascist character defined. In this sense and argued ideology of compulsory volunteerism (albeit an oxymoron, but argued nonetheless).
How did Fascism Become Termed Right Wing
One the problems facing the construction of what was “left” and what was “right” politically, determined by non-existence of information from the Stalinist Soviet Union. Stalin’s regime became increasingly secretive, which explains why Roosevelt and United States of American diplomats on a mission during World War II described the leader as honest and unworthy, and good person to the Russian people. [[ here we need the minuets of that meeting]]. This was the furthest from the truth. What is interesting was that if people met with Stalin and could gain no information access to how the “left” was participating in genocide for the cause of totalitarians, then neither could the French and European intellects. Understanding that the left believed Russia was forging a perfect society predicated on Marxist doctrines of equality and the propaganda of Stalin to show the world that Russia was modernizing in a frenzied pace, only furthered the “illusion” of the utopian dream society, what sixteenth century seer Nostradamus would call, the “ seduction” of communism in Thomas Moore “Utopia.” The west and also western Europeans were seduced at the concepts of new revolution that proved the eighteenth century liberal revolutionaries were wrong. Communism gained a victory in the eyes of its proponents, regardless of their factual knowledge of the events taking place under Stalin. In this manner, French protractors of fascism turned their polemics toward Germany and called it “right-wing,” absent of the similarities between Stalin’s rule and Hitler’s rule of totalitarianism (fascism). The only explanation given contains the understanding – “they did not know.”
I contend that French reactionism toward Germany’s heterogeneous centralization under Hitler relied on French complacency, French apathy and most notably French guilt. This would explain the absence of discourse in their polemics upon conditions of predatory plutocracies in French tracts against German fascism, as it was understood at that time by most mediocre French intellectuals. Marxist composure of the ills of liberal democracies cause and effects upon the world for economic markets remained absent from their explanations of German fascism. Since France introduced (that is re introduced to the world) liberalism to Europe, they took it upon their soldiers to fight for its “religious” purity – it would never contain a sin, a blemish, a social in equality. It was epistemologically fostered as ‘French Perfection.’ Therefore, real understanding of its liberal nature would revel or introduce “guilt” into the unconsciousness, and therefore create French self-hatred. Not being aware of their ignorance, many French intellects began addressing how to garner national and international support against Germany if they did modernize and threaten their boarders again? It was cheaper to write epistemic tablature and create a myth than to garner the people into military consciousness to ready for another war. This partially explains the reason behind the creation of the myth that Fascism is a “right-wing” political system. Yet, more circumstantial suppression of true feelings weighted the argument of guilt.
France had sustained docile military composure after its Napoleonic world conquest period. In order to fight-off impending repetition of irredentism, French schools of thought rallied around the concept of peace and composure, but ignored the reality economic imperialism. If they did, it would be self-defeatist. Therefore, French intellectuals no longer possessed the spirit of European dominance it once had, but continued to dominate a weaker adversary in other regions of the world. In order to fend off guilt of their past and present sins, they needed to construct an irrational motive of the Hitler regime to explain away their continual support of economic imperialism. This construction needed to be based on an irrational notion of “us” as the “good,” and “them” as the bad. In this sense, by demonizing Germany it took focus off its own sins of dominating Germany by abusing the Versailles Treaty for their economic advantage and economic colonization N. Africa and other regions economically – as was the fear Italy expressed toward French “New Imperialism.” The French forced Germany to ship coal to France as part of the reparations of the Great War warranted by the Versailles Treaty, in order for Germany not to modernize, a threat to peace if Germany was to rebuild its infrastructure, as argued at the meeting. What France intellectuals understood and tried to suppress in their emotions (in the mind) was that German’s were starving, as a result of their inhuman French government actions. The French government had forced German miners to, mine then load coal onto trains for free without considering their lively hoods. The Versailles Treaty was not the cause; it was the abuse of the treaty by the French which led to this guilt. The question turned to how to justify liberalism with its precepts of equality and justice for all. Since the French did not understand what was happening in Stalin’s Russia, the could formulate a “left” is pristine argument and use it to suppresses their own guilt feelings at their own governments exploitation, and in direct policies of starvation against human beings. This led to extreme guild and the reaction to demonize was a psychological consequence for French self sanity.
To demonize the National Socialism regime as right-wing, would legitimize France’s role in the events of 1789 as the harbinger of all the was “good” and “true,” because the left was seen as the common people, a noticeable semiotic of Parliamentary seating in the 1700s. The seats to the right of the Speaker were stationed for the aristocracy in the French Parliament of the 1700s, and the seats to the left of the Speaker were stationed for the seats of the commoners. The Speakers position was the sacred place of honor as well as the dividing line of the what would later in the twentieth century be determined as the ‘good’ verses the ‘bad’. Since the aristocracy was finally overthrown in 1789 by the commoner’s writ, the semiotics of the Parliament seating defined and constructed the “right-wing,” and the “left-wing” symbology. Using reverse psychology before it was institutionalized in a social science created useful tools to demonize Germany without addressing the causes behind Germany’s centralization and heterogeneous body-politic, and German self-preservation of what it feared as England’s and France’s ultimate plan of starving the German peoples. The German National Socialist Party became framed by French intellectuals as the nouveau aristocracy. French socialist described the rise of National Socialism’s fascism, as a bourgeois power grab and end of the semi-liberal government system that accentuated its recent past. The French were living in their own surrealism of self-importance to promote Francophone revolutionary movements that shaped humankind. For Marx, the bourgeois were the commoners who overthrew the aristocracy in the French Revolution. That is to say, the commoner were the bourgeois class, the working middle class of free market promoters. The French intellectuals did not understand this association. This can explain the disassociation with reality, which would finally result in a turn away from rational modes of thinking to irrational modes of thinking.
To “understand what Vincent Descombes has called “ the French disarray of 1938,”” as Furet describes, a move away from honesty to understand the “fragility” of France’s political composure – unsophisticated—the death of surrealism of the French watchword of liberal revolution. From the 1930s and continuing in earnest after World War II, the French intellects sought how to oppose Hitler. The beginning of a new obsession of Germany in French thought reveals radical new trends of associating Hegel, Nietzsche and Freud, that Furet intends “sprung from the ruins of academic positivism.” As Furet intends, Marx’s Hegelean foundation consisted of comparable themes of “shame of humanity, the modern society over which he [the individual] reigns consists of individuals enslaved by the standard of money and therefore strangers to discrimination and passions, especially the prime passion, sexuality.” Since the National Socialist party moved away from democratic notions to totalitarian notions, the only explanation to differentiate French imperialism with German imperialism was to create a demonizing myth to remain ideologically consistent that French thought, culture and political methodology was “pristine,” “sacred,” “honorable,” and ultimately “just,” while fascism represented all that was malevolence, secular, unworthy, and unjust ( all bad adjectives here).
In order to accomplish this construction of myth, social science needed reinventing predicated on false empirical data. At the same time, it needed to be presented to the public as scientifically proven, incorruptible, compulsory in education and forwarded as propaganda.
A. James Gregor in chapter three of his book, “Interpretations of Fascism” (1997 2nd., ed.), intends that a tradition to identify Fascist traits and/or its distinctions, more or less, tended to popular interpretations under the scientific genre of psychoanalytical analysis beginning less than a decade after the facis Marched on Rome, in 1922. The interpretations that tended to cede to psychoanalytical enquiry resulted from a phenomena of mass-mobilized people which was a direct result of a population explosion in Europe begun around the 1850s due to multiple ongoing factors including agricultural innovations, the abetment of the middle aged plagues, the scientific revolution, and the industrial revolution. These factors increased the life expectancy, and improved life in general of the European populations. The phenomena of mass-mobilized peoples reached into the normative discourse of social scientists, general philosophers, intellects, and lay observers. Serious efforts to try to classify their behaviors first appeared under Karl Marx and Frederick Engels published works. (Communist system) The individual better interpreted under a scientific model of simplified classification, according to Marx, arranged mass groups of people into distinct and logical classifications: The bourgeoisies, the people who controlled the modes of production, and the proletariat, the urban and wage workers, and the peasants. Marx and Engels provided the world with a scientific, simplified, logical and sophisticated predictive tool of what these classified groups would accomplish. An important factor of predication to Marx and Engels’ work was the emphatic notion that one group was deemed morally superior than the rest. Therefore, the first interpretations of judgmental attributes of a mass movement reverberated throughout the intellectual world and trickled down to the lay observer. By the late nineteenth century, the world of intellectuals watched for the rise of the moral superior mass. The Proletariat was deemed a moral and rational consequence of history, as a mass movement. Anything that opposed the proposition of this moral classification of people, needed to be explained in the irrational. As a consequence the political sides were drawn.
Works by Wilhelm Reich, “Mass Psychology of Fascism” (1933), Peter Nathan’s “The Psychology of Fascism” (1943), and Erich Fromm’s “Escape from Freedom” ( 1965), paved the way for identifying Fascism and National Socialism and its mass mobilizing revolutionary movements to that of Freudian analyses, Gregor points on in his work “ Interpretation of Fascism” (1997). Sigmund Freud’s (1856-1939) psychoanalytic approach to social determination founded a science predicated on theories of the unconscious mind which sought to explain our adult relationships in socio-political circumstances, developed upon what could be called the family drama. These theories of Freud and to some extent these theories of Marx formed a synthesis to explain the mass-consciousness of these anti-democratic mass movements in the twentieth century. Since Marx determined Capitalists’, bourgeois class, to be that of immoral and anti-democratic proclivities, the linkage of any group opposed to democratic-morality of the proletariat resulted in an identification of Freud’s underdeveloped ( this is confusing, maybe take, but read) heterosexual human. Fromm’s Freudian-Marxist interpretation maintained that human nature in its growth from the Renaissance period to the current period strove for truth and justice and explicably desired freedom and condemned all oppression. For Marx, this supposed “truth” facilitated the end of the feudal period of primitive community and moved into a new period of individualism, materialism and masses. In essence for Marx, an epochal change had destroyed the traditional family structure and replaced the spiritual and communal priority to family in insolated national communities to individualistic priority of material wealth into international urban and metropolitan cities ( antithesis of isolated communal traditions). The result was mass-men, or mass-populations moved away from their traditions, and therefore easily prey for physiological manipulation by the controllers of materialism -- bourgeoisies.
Fromm understanding of Marx, entailed The Scientific Revolution, then The Industrial Revolution gave rise to the individual who became more isolated and imbued with feelings of insignificance and powerlessness, the basis of Fromm’s analysis. Once, the individual was a servant to their communities during the primitive community period, now found themselves longing for the same attachments. This is similar rhetoric found in Marx’s Communist Manifesto. Continuing from a Marx standpoint of epochal change, Fromm argues, the individual now “feels himself to be a commodity.” Fromm projects his arguments toward the lower middle classes association to fascism, which is the working classes, Gregor points out. The industrial revolution which spurred on capitalism gave rise to loneliness, isolation, bewilderment and personal insignificance to the lower and middle classes at the hands of capitalist competition. Of course, Fromm was reliant on the materialistic theory of Marx. “According to Fromm,” as Gregor intends, “the striving for justice and truth is an inherent trend of human nature,” as is “ the tendency to grow,” which in turn makes “ the desire for freedom and the hatred against oppression” natural to man.” As Gregor illustrates, Fromm’s notion of progress of economic forces ( at least from the Reformation era) conflicts man’s psychological nature and predisposes him (or her) to fascist tendencies that will arise with a break from traditional religion and the emergence of Lutheranism and Calvinism, in conjunct with mercantile capitalism and individual competition.
Against this background of “necessary” and “ inherent human qualities” we are given an account of a process of “individuation” that involved the individual in a process of “ severing the umbilical cord which fastens him to the outside world” am to his “primary community.” In the course of human history the individual begins to enjoy “freedom from” nature and the traditionally structured social order. This freedom is a consequence of maturing economic forces. The development of the economic forces of society progressively have liberated man form material want. Economic forces further provide the precondition for the dissolution of “primary ties,” ties to a traditionally organized and stable social order. Changes in the economic base of society alter not only its potential to satisfy material needs, but the nature of interpersonal relations as well. What this produces in the individual is an increasing sense of selfhood, but at the same time a growing awareness of isolation, or “aloneness,” of powerlessness and insignificance. Only if the individual develops, in the course of this process, an “inner strength” that permits a new kind of “relatedness” to nature and the world of men can he avoid the impulse of “escape” from this new freedom into some kind of association that promises relief from a growing sense of insignificance and loneliness.
“For Europeans, according to Fromm,” Gregor points out, “this has been a central issue since the Reformation. He provides a stenograghic account of the development of merchant capitalism and the first appearance of industrial capitalism—and suggests that the influence of capital, the impersonal exchanges of the market, and increased individual competition, accelerated the process of individualism and dissolved the ties that had medieval society together.” This is merely an elaboration of Marx’s ideas in the Communist Manifesto. How Fromm differs from Marx’s take on the individual losing his (or hers) social and family traditions at the hands of the rise of capitalism is the development of various religious movements, “among them Lutheranism and Calvinism, that typify a “flight from freedom,” Gregor intends. Here, Fromm interjects Freud’s family drama into the fascist equation. “Luther, as a case in point, exemplified what Fromm is calls the “authoritarian personality” who seeks to escape the new freedom that economic forces bring in their train. Because Luther had suffered an “unusually severe father” he had not been able to develop “spontaneously”—his expansiveness” had been thwarted. ” Apparently, Luther remained in phase two, or the Anal Sadistic-Phase development and therefore, was caught between passive feelings and aggressive feelings, in which controlled his life. Yet, Fromm takes the Lutheran movement, in this case and point, and subjects Luther’s character development onto the entire society that had followed him. And, continuing to follow a Marxist model, he identified the middle classes, they, that would develop and exhibit most strongly these Anal Sadistic-Phase traits outlined by Freud. In this way Fromm could follow Marx’s model of the bourgeois capitalist as the primary class that would adhere to fascist tendencies and link it to sexual suppression of the love of the mother and hatred of the father -- the Freudian analysis.
As a consequence, Gregor points out; Framm’s thesis claims the individualist tends to seek a recourse in an “escape” from freedom, as Gregor points out: something that the normal person is not aware of, which can materialize into “compensatory feelings of eminence and perfection -- a Freudian narcissism. Subsequently, “He [ lower and middle classes] becomes submissive in order to find security—or, alternatively, he seeks power to relive his pervasive sense of isolation. He becomes a masochist, or a sadist.” This could explain for Framm the “German lower-middle class [ note freedom may not be the shining example here] typified the “authoritarian character,” and provided the psychological foundation for the recruitment success of National Socialism. It also explained the Italian middle classes’ sadomasochistic character that typified the rise of fascism. In this sense, a generic form of empirical claims, as Fromm argued, synthesized with Freud and Marx theories. It is hard to understand that entire classes, categories, and populations over four centuries could suddenly materialize into in mass- sadomasochistic movements, explained only as limited to two regions of Europe -- and no-where else on the planet. Gregor intends, this is not a matter of empirical data for Fromm. He classified the lower-middle and middle classes to offend the proletariat, peasant character traits of correct human development, never relying on empirical data of “definable social backgrounds, “intermediate age and sex, levels of education and socioeconomic circumstances.” In this way, Gregor intends, Fromm could lump all middle and lower-middle classes into a dynamic of underdeveloped humans, in a Freudian sense, and remain consistent to a classification of the immoral class—the bourgeoisies—to all that described a generic fascism.
Sigismund Schlomo Freud (May 6, 1856 – September 23, 1939) was an Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist who founded the psychoanalytic school of psychology. Absent of producing scientific methodology, Freud’s analyses of various human behaviors, under which a study consisted of a limited number of humans, developed a theory of child psychosexual development which would explain mechanisms of repression and redefine adult sexual desires as the primary motivation of adult association. Oral Phase, the Anal-Sadistic Phase, and the Genital Phase defined his work on human socio-political association. In short, the child at the age from 0-2 is unconsciously seduced by their mother’s attendance upon the child, and more specifically the suckling phase produces sexual attraction to the mother in which child falls in love. That is the first stage defines the sense of love and sexuality. In consequence the child desires its mother’s physical and emotional attendance. As the child grows, it enters phase two, or the Anal-Sadistic Phase (roughly 2-4 years of age). In this phase the child becomes aware of its own creation ( and consciousness) and understands the pleasure of its own limb manipulations. When the child defecates, it understands it is creating something unique to him or her. It explores the anal orifice, probes with its fingers and understands it can manipulate with its hand. It gazes on its other hand, and understand one the hand that manipulated the anal orifice was the aggressive impulse of mastery (creation) , while his other hand remained passive (impulse to scopophilia, a love of gazing). This cruel stage, as Freud implies is a development of the child to a symptom stage of physiological passive-aggressive behavior. This stage has been linked to a love of the mother and hatred of the father, the fascists, and to homosexuality by psychological intellects (such as Peter Nathan) later discussed. The final stage, the Genital Phase is deemed the "Normal" heterosexuality. Its goal is perpetuate normal intercourse and insure the survival of the human species. The gentile phase is the last phase that emancipates human from the oral and anal fixation and subordinates them to the manipulation of the gentile. This is the phase of intercourse, as opposed to the second phase of homosexuality. This phase represents normal people, and the last psychosexual development stage that causes one to reach adulthood, function normally, and produce children for the survival of the human race.
The “Little Beast of the Bed,” theory of the origins of fascism, Gregor introduces Peter Nathan’s book “ The Psychology of Fascism” ( Faber, 1943), helps to explain the psychodynamics of individual development in the Freudian family drama sense. “Nathan’s account begins” Gregor relates, “with the conviction that if “ we consider the development of [the] little beast in the bed [that is to say, the average infant], we will learn all there is of importance about government.” Since fascism is a form of government, it follows that if we wish to learn “all there is of importance” about fascism, we must learn something of the development of the “little beast in the bed.” Nathan sets up two claims before arguing that somehow we as adults, associate rulers with parents’. “We are told that the psychodynamics of individual development produce an identification in the conscious or unconscious mind of the child between rulers and parents. Then we are told that “our attitude to government is influenced by our attitude to our parents.”
Nathan describes how the child feels animosity towards the father’s attentions to his mother. The child feels that the daddy is denying sexual pleasure of the child from mommy’s constant sexual manipulation – the mother fondles the child, manipulates its privates, and allows it to suckle on her breast. The father enters the picture in the relationship between the mother and the child becomes a competition in the child’s psyche. The father could take the mother away into the next room, and the child feels that the father had gone to kill the mother. Unconsciously, the child wants to kill the father, but cannot and becomes ambiguous about the situation – which suppresses the violent feelings in the Anal-Sadistic Phase. It is here that the entire 60,000,000 German citizens were denied their mother’s sexual manipulation of their gentiles, and therefore remained in the passive-aggressive stage that dictated why either citizen would follow Hitler and be passive or join his violent death squads in a sadistic manner. Gregor entails a concise detail of Nathan’s psychoanalyst account of fascist development.
According to Nathan’s account of the family drama, the child wishes to monopolize its mother as its love object and the child’s father constitutes a major source of competition. As a consequence, the child entertains ambivalent feelings toward his father. If the ambivalence becomes difficult to bear, the child seeks resolution by repressing his hatred and resentment. We are told that all children suffer these intrapsychic tensions.5 For example, if the child entertains death wishes concerning his father (the rival for the mother’s love and attention), his resultant guilt feelings may force him to repress the wishes—but, we are told, not only the buried feelings but the repressed guilt remains. The individual, as a consequence, may become suicidal to atone for his hateful (even if repressed) sentiments. However, “the usual result is that he identifies himself with his father; he becomes conservative . . . . He upholds all that he imagines his father would uphold, he takes root in the past, he stands for tradition . . . . He is opposed to any change, for a change would not agree with these fixed standards; he also cannot tolerate anything new . “ Worse than that, since the standards the child has introjected are the standards his father inculcated and not the actual standards his father employed, “the conservative members of the present generation model themselves largely on their grandparents.” What such an individual does is to identify “with any established authority and support it strenuously.” There are, we are told, “many” such people. “They are terrified of anything revolutionary, anything antiauthoritarian, anything unusual.” We are then provided a seriatim list of conditions that produce these “conservative,” “antirevolutionary” individuals who “welcome tyranny.” The causal antecedents include “an abnormally strong attachment to the mother . . .“; or circumstances where one’s father appears to be “a ruthless rival”; or a household possessed of “a very mild and unaggressive father”; or a history in which one’s father suffers some “mishap . . . for which the child feels responsible”; or an “upbringing [that] stresses being good and putting the child on his honor”; or, finally, an environment in which the individual suffers an “education which helps [him] to uphold external authority.” People who have lived under the influence “of some or all of these factors will have a tendency to enjoy tyranny.” These people suffer “fear,” “feelings of inferiority” that generate “rebellion, envy of the feared object [the father, a strong lust for power, a desire to strike fear into the breasts of others, an admiration of authority and force.” In other words such persons are “protofascists.” Unhappily, these “emotions are probably all necessary parts of our culture . . . [and] these attributes arising out of fear for the father [and associated guilt feelings] are taken over unwittingly towards the government.”
Suffering the family drama can thus make one an arch conservative and a “fascist” who is rebellious, but also one who enjoys tyranny and does not question authority. Such individuals lust for power while being in awe of government; they seek to dominate or be dominated; they strive for positions of authority while working to maintain people in their “predestined” places. Since the individual who suffers the family drama is disposed to act in such fashion—and we all suffer the family drama—it is difficult to know what such an account explains.
We Are All Fascists
Wilhelm Reich, “Mass Psychology of Fascism” (1933), Peter Nathan’s “The Psychology of Fascism” (1943), proposed early conventions that fascism was “the consequence of psychological disabilities” Gregor intends in his work “Interpretations of Fascism” (1997 2nd., ed.) these popular interpretations framed under the scientific genre of psychoanalytical analysis helped to fantasize a National Socialist and Italian Fascist myth that persists till this day in common discourse.
Wilhelm Reich, a Jewish psychoanalyst and orthodox Marxist, was condemned by the International Psychoanalytic Society (IPS) for his first edition of “Mass Psychology of Fascism” (1933), but was revered for his demonizing of the fascist movements of the twentieth century by political opponents of Germany, Russia, and Italy. His works remained popular for half a century, and as a result with the pro-French redefining what was “left-wing,” and what was “right-wing,” this addendum of what Gregor intends as “ fascism as the consequence of psychological disabilities” helped to create the National Socialist and Italian Fascist myth that persists till this day in common discourse.
Reich agreed with Freud that sexual development was the fundamental origin of mental disorder. Together, they advocated the following positions: that most psychological activity was ruled by subconscious processes; that children quickly develop an active sexuality; that children’s sexual energy is the cause of most psychological developments; that infant sexuality is subsequently repressed and that this has major consequences for mental health; that morality does not derive from any supernatural being or set of rules, but that it is the product of imposed repressions against the sexuality of individuals as they progress in age from a child, to a teenager and finally to an adult.
Wilhelm Reich, “Mass Psychology of Fascism” (1933), used Freud’s unscientific work to define an entire nation predicated on love of the mother and violent hatred of the father at the roughly 2-4 years of age of the psychological stage of child development [[note was no Peter Nathan mentioned in Reich’s third edition?]]. His irrational tract intended that since Hitler’s father was strict and beat him, and Hitler loved his mother, he remained in the Anal-Sadistic Phase. It sought to define “right-wing” with repressive symptoms of homosexuality, violent hatred that resulted from passive and aggressive psychological imbalance and sought to demonize entire masses of German people. What remains interesting was no empirical data was given to back up any of Reiche’s claims. However, the work was praised as a scientific breakthrough by imperialist leaning French intellectuals. While France could repress, subjugate, and economically exploit N. African people in numerous regions, they could now irrationalize the German as barbarians that needed to be perfectly subdued because they sought to do the same. There was no talk of French and English methods of repression, starvation and economic exploitation in Reich’s work that would possibly explain why predatory plutocracies believed their ideologies were “pure” and they had a right to human suppression and the German’s had no right. The French and English plan was not to follow the Treaty of Versailles, but to exploit it and never allow Germany to modernize—but to keep it perpetually in economic limbo. To off-set the guilt of association, the French bought into this pseudo-science and furthered the myth of “right-wing.” The German’s latched upon Freud’s Jewish ancestry and considered his work part of Jewish epistemic conquest upon Germans. The scientific method was flawed but promoted as authoritative by those who contained the guilt feelings of causal plutocratic exploitation associations. While the rich French played the African Slave prayed. In this sense, I contend that the symptom of repressing French guilt formed the need to draw upon a confused mentality of instinctual morality. By labeling the National Socialist as “right-wing” the moral relevance was opposed by the left-wing morality of French surrealism. Liberalism was the ultimate achievement of mankind, it never exploited anyone by force, it never imperialized any lands by force, and it never subjugated humans economically by force. At least Stalin’s 1939 imperialist plans (of dividing Poland/Hitler-Stalin pact) were held in deep secret from the rest of the world ( Reiche’s first edition 1933 would not have known this!). Only the right-wing could have imperialist intentions in history, because Freud had unraveled the scientific model in which to explain primal human motivating factor or force behind human actions; and Reich had solved the puzzle.
Reich intends it was Jesus’ fault that his Christian religion (patriarchal aspect of it) had resulted in humans not reaching the Freud’s gentile phase, and therefore, fascists could not escape their homosexuality. Homosexuality was a function of a symptom of passiveness and could at times result in extreme aggressiveness. As Freud intends, "A symptom is a sign of, and a substitute for, an instinctual satisfaction which has remained in abeyance; it is a consequence of the process of repression." Since fascist apparently loved their mothers and hated their fathers, that is to say “repressed their hatred of their fathers” and outwardly acted in ambivalence to the world, they were not satisfied as human beings. Reich explains how the family model was overlaid with the Christian trinity to explain that fascists hated God, he taking the place of the father, and therefore broken families resulted in sexual perversion. “Fascism is based on that religiosity which stems from sexual perversion,” Reich explains. Although, Reich later admits that Fascists were antichristian, the very understanding of fascist dynamics was religious in concept.[ place the cites] This would explain the religious connection for a Marx contention to universal atheism, as Reich needed to convey his work toward a Marxist supporter. Furthermore, it provided a rational (irrational in actuality) explanation for mass-mobilized revolutionary movements which tended toward the followers of fascism. As Reich insists, “These non-genital sexual impulses which it partly created, partly brought to flowering, determine the mass psychology of the followers: moral—and often definitely physical—masochism and passive submission. Religion derives its power from the suppression of genital sexuality which, secondarily, produces passive and masochistic homosexuality.”
In Gregor’s work “Interpretations of Fascism” (1997), under subsection “A “sex-Economic” Analysis of the Rise of Fascism,” he argues that “Reich had dismissed available interpretations of fascism. He explicitly rejected, for example, the “economistic” interpretation of “orthodox” Marxist theoreticians. What he offered instead was a “sex-economic analysis,” an analysis based in part, on Freud and, in part, on Marx.”
Reich’s arguments of the powerful financial apparatus of the Russian Orthodox Church illustrate little historical knowledge of Russian history. Reich argues the economic power of the Russian Church held sway over the last few Tsars by legal decree of the tsar’s representation of the figure of God on earth. Reich intends, “[T]he church, on the other hand, enjoys the support of the state power and bases its mass-psychological influence on the most powerful emotion, sexual anxiety and sexual repression.” Yet, Reich did not address that the position of the Tsar as autocrat and God’s representative on earth was conveyed in the sources since the Muscovite era, and even further back in history to the Keivan princes beginning the ninth century. Reich points out, “[B]ased on this economic power, the church exerted its ideological power. It goes without saying that all schools were under the immediate control of the church. Article I of the Constitution stated, "The Tsar of all the Russians is the autonomous and absolute monarch, and God himself orders voluntary submission to his reign." We know what is represented by "God," on what infantile emotions such presumptions of power are based.” Russian Historian, Edward Keenan of Harvard University and Russian historians Richard Hellie (Chicago University), and Russian historians Nancy and Jack Kollmann (Stanford University) would conclude that the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the tsars were a complex set of circumstances. The role of the mother of God in the Orthodox Church played a larger role in its ideology of Christendom than the priority toward masculine saints of western ecclesiasticism. Simplifying Russian Orthodox practices in the manner of Reich’s representation of religiosity in “Mass Psychology of Fascism” suggests he associated with no scholarly authority on the subject. The complexity of the Rus’ theocratic tradition, somewhat based upon Nancy Kollmann’s façade of autocracy argument dates back to Muscovite sixteenth century and possibly even earlier ( as far as I know). The role of the Church and tsar in tandem to economically control and suppress the Russian citizens actually tells us little of actual Russian history. This could be explained that Reich did not have access to vital translated prime source material when he wrote his work, but relied on economic data and intersubjected religious insinuations to form a psychoanalyst interpretation of the now familiarly Freud “family drama.” Reich points out that “[M]ysticism continues to keep the masses of people blind and dumb.” That is to say that Reich argues fascism results from adhering to mysticism and unreality of sexual freedom – human’s liberating force of nature—and humankind must return to the true love of the child for its mother. This could be understood that the Church influence on the state represented the masculine entity, and the mother was suppressed as a result. Reich states, “The church, on the other hand, enjoys the support of the state power and bases its mass-psychological influence on the most powerful emotion, sexual anxiety and sexual repression.” As Gregor points out, Reich had a motive to link the patriarchal social order with the current sexual suppression of mankind and “authoritarian family,” and had argued that under the matriarchal societies “(according to Reich’s ethnological speculations) – approximately six thousand years ago” mankind “did not suffer infantile or adolescent sexual suppression, to be fascist.” What we can suggest is that Reich offers too much information, Gregor intends, to make a clear analysis of what determines fascism. In patriarchal societies suggest fascist tendencies, we can assume according to Reich’s work that the Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, the first and second wave of Islam, the South American indigenous empires, the middle age European societies, the Asian societies of past to present and many other groups and movements of the past not mentioned here all form characteristics of fascist societies and/or movements. A more frightening generalization, and Gregor calls this generalization into question too, is Reich’s belief that 6000 years ago, since the patriarchal era, we all have characteristics of fascism. “In all social strata” […] “sexual suppression affects every single child of every social stratum. This makes the social sphere of attack enormous.” Reich’s proactive stance to rid all humanity of fascism, by returning matriarchal hierarchy, and liberating sexual suppression of us all, is an interesting concept. What then Reich implies, is we all are fascists on some level. If we are to believe Reich, then we may suggest that “right-wing,” and “left-wing,” monikers remain political arbitrary, and possibly useless in our interpretations of revolutionary movements of the twentieth century.
Catholic Church Identity with the Left
This new definition of what was termed “right” and “left” was not only framed by the French Intellectuals, but in the late nineteenth century the Catholic left, of the Latin Church’s compromise with Italian Marxist-socialist who agreed upon dialogue of Marxism. What resulted, as Furet explains, was a romanticism with the simplicity of the past – the middle ages—reconstructed to appear “pristine” and more real than the current nihilistic feelings of uncertainty. This social critique based upon Marx’s work against capitalism, liberal democracies (as right-wing) was argued that “modern commercial society to be subverted by bourgeois individualism and thus incapable of founding a true social order.” Socialist thinkers sought to rebuild the past associations of people around the common good, look toward the future as an ideology of certain messianic interpretations (this being the Church’s input-compromise with the atheist socialists’; Marxist-socialists were thought to conform to atheism, but not proven if this was a normative custom or understanding) and emerge as a generation of new men in opposition of the 1789 bourgeois individualism. The Catholic Left reserved the right to agree with the Marxist – Socialist in passivism, submission to the predatory plutocracies, and to engage in activities to keep nationalism, state-self protection from fomenting in Italy. In this sense, the twain embraced nihilism predicated on irrationality to the outside world around them. This would explain why Mussolini, Gentile and other fascist isolated the Church from political involvement in Italian politics at the beginning of the Italian Fascist regime period. However, what is important to understand was the definition of what was “left-wing” was not compatible with how the French defined “left-wing” as the commoner revolution of 1798 that spawned the bourgeois to political power and fostered the liberal democracies. The understanding was confusion to what was “left” and what was “right” in European politics of the twentieth century. To French intellectuals, the left-wing was the bourgeois triumph understood in the Marx model, but the French also defined the bourgeois’ of the National Socialist to be the Hitler’s party and defined as “right-wing.” This makes no sense at all, when the French socialist believed it was left-wing, and therefore compatible with the proletariat party, the working class, defined contemporarily as the commoners who were not related to the commoners during the 1700s-1800s, who were at the same time the commoners of the French Revolution who ended aristocracy parties. This could be explained as French and European confusion to understanding how to direct consistency with their political arguments. This explains why Gregor feels it to be arbitrary to use these defining political terms in the twentieth century revolutionary movements. The standard of consistency remains broken in history, and can explain the confusion, the mean-spirited application of demonizing one side or the other – it didn’t matter-- both sides were in reality confused by its defining consistency, the terminology, the universal definition, as to what was what politically! Therefore, what remains is the question of what is right and what is left in politics in history if we have to demonstrate which characteristic defined which term? During the surrealism movement, French intellectuals fostered the belief they were the engines of destiny, the argument laid at the foundation of the commoner emancipation from the aristocracy in 1798. But, they could not understand effectively that Marx had marked the commoners of 1798 as the despised retches of humanity – the hated bourgeoisies. It can be argued that this confusion led to an inconsistency in determining what was “right-wing” and what was termed “left-wing,” politically for French academia. This explains why many have deemed “right-wing” as the result of the commoner’s victory in 1798.
Since the National Socialist was anti-democratic, anti-liberal, it makes no sense to mark their political movement as “right-wing” if we explain that the events of 1798 were “right wing.” In order to solve this problem ( dialectical problem) the French turned away from academic reason and toward an irrational psychological definition of National Socialism, predicated upon a “right-wing” definition, which still harbored the in consistency of their arguments – not acknowledged by them or understood by them – but still attempted, none the less. As Sorel introduced the concepts of Nationalism to Italy, the national myth was a natural addition to the totalitarian ideas of Italy.
In the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin sought to liberate workers from oppression. Marx saw liberation of the individuals in traditional liberal democracies as a bourgeois fiction. In chapter three of “Contemporary Radical Ideologies” (1968) A. James Gregor intends this fiction was argued by the Leninists that returned to a political philosophy of Hegal of the priority of the social individual. The Leninists observed “the new type of individuality distinguishes itself from the old specifically in that it does not find itself in conflict with the collective whole.” As totalitarian in concept, part of this notion that the priority of the individual was liberated in the collective whole of the community had a practical purpose for the Leninists. By arguing this stance, the Leninists could promulgate this ideology of collectivism in order to accomplish their modernizing goals under an involution of Marxism. Allowing the individual to pursue their own interests in the work place would lead to competition, effectively allowing the Russian citizen to continue to identify themselves with the bourgeoisie class. Marx identified the bourgeois class to have distinctive characteristics of individualism, narcissism, which lead to civil unrest – that is to say, the individualist would have liberty to form groups to which would compete for priority to the state and would lead to civil unrest. Therefore, to Leninist-Marxist, the elimination of private property and capitalists would be practical. By applying Marx’s liberating theory, that is to say the proposition of the elimination of private ownership and of free-market system, the theory would demonstrate a liberation of the state and uplift man to true freedom. Eventually, Lenin realized that in order to modernize Russia from its economic backwardness, the policies of eliminating private ownership and eliminating all capitalism from the Russian realm created more problems than they solved. This could be explained that after Lenin’s passing, Soviet Russia’s belief systems had changed and, Russia took on characteristics of fascism which characterized a communitarian political movement—which could be described conjoined with many totalitarian characteristics.
This belief system of the national myth was adopted during the Second Bolshevik era, chosen at Stalin’s command. In the period of Stalin’s reign, François Furet points out in his book “ The Passing of an Illusion, The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century” (1999) that during the “second Bolshevikism,” the myth of the great Soviet leader was promulgated to draw upon the totalitarian notions that Hitleran Germany had passed on to Stalin. Although, Stalin did not use the word nationalism, he used the connotative word Patriotism as a nationalizing force, the myth that Stalin was the possessor of impeccable truths remained central to the adopted idea of a Soviet national myth. What makes François Furet’s work interesting was the real notion of the individual’s role to the Leninist-Marxist state.
Lenin had to reinvent the Marxist theoretical system to replace the non-preconditions existing in Russia for a classical Marx revolution. The result, as Furet intends, differentiated revolution through illusionary methods. Instead, Lenin created a vanguard party that could be described as a developmental dictatorship. Stalin’s main contentions with Leninists were the allowance of these different political groups into the party platform. In a sense, individual’s relationship to the state was represented by various party interests. The Bolshevik party had experienced a crisis in Russia with the accession of Stalin. Boris Souvarine, a French Marxist, slavophile, and author who voluntarily joined the French wing of the Bolshevik party in Russia, had recorded events when he was involved with the party. He wrote about how Stalin had to steer Russia away from multi-interest groups within the Leninist party platform to unite it under a “totalitarian” ideology. “Souvarine’s section of the work, La Russie nue, signaled the start of his long career as a chronicler of the Soviet disaster. Furet elucidates that, “As always with Souvarine, the prose has no literary pretensions, and his narrative is organized in a rather scholarly fashion, from the economic to the political. But from his accumulation of data and facts emerge a portrait of a society that was impoverished both in the cities and in the countryside, and that had not yet returned to its 1913 level.” Souvarine’s writings are important because his source represents a pro-communist who had recorded reliable data and observation. La Russie nue paints a picture of Stalinist Russia as “totalitarian.”
Souvarine recognized that Lenin’s party exemplified a dictatorship, ruled by terror with a distain for the law. It had confused the party with the state, dictatorship of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the party. Lenin’s party, for Souvarine turned out to represent an idea of a party that was aristocratic. This was not Marxist communitarian ideology. Lenin had allowed sectarian casts of ideological debating, and discussion was permissible to an extent within the party. Yet, for Souvarine, Stalin represented something different. Stalin invented the “totalitarian” party. “This forced unity, inseparable from Communist ideology, paralyzed all opposition and manufactured a leader.”  This could explain why in 1928, Stalin had cracked down on both left-wing old-Bolsheviks, and the right-wing bourgeois in Russia.
Similarly to Gentile’s philosophical Actualism (the philosophy Ugo Spirito had vigorously promoted, and was Gentile’s foremost philosopher heir), Stalin took an activist and anti-intellectual approach. Stalin moved the party away from abstract intellectualism. Stalin moved the communist party away from Leninist-Marxist ideology -- from a multiple party representation -- to a description which could be better described as fascism. Stalin, thereby, replaced the Marxist idea of universalism, with anti-universalism, and centralized the party around himself. One of these fascist descriptions was the myth of the leader with impeccable truths. As religiously deified, Stalin represented a transcendental leader who offered morality as a prescription for nationalism. In a sense, a unified patriotism under the auspices of urgency to unite the Soviet people under a common ideology. This would better describe the Soviet leader’s motives. Stalin played on the sentiments of patriotism, installing a fear in the Soviet people that the bourgeois capitalist countries were about to invade Russia. This fear of predatory plutocracies was similar to what the Italian Fascist had argued. In this way, the belief system of the individual to the state took on characteristics more of fascism than Marxism. For Soviet Russia, the notion of liberty and freedom was patriotism, to defend its boarders, cultures and traditions.
François Furet, in his work The Passing of an Illusion, The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century (1999), argued that immediately members in the west of the media and influentials’ bought into the media propaganda of the Bolshevik plea for communism is peace, and the plight of the proletariat masses has resulted in the victory against the warring nations. ( Good quote here/ revolution)
Initially intended the Bolsheviks has promised a distribution of resources, the final result of the last steps in a Marxist revolution. The result of this intention gave way to a realization that is to say, no matter how much the Bolsheviks wished they could ignite a proper Marxist revolution, they could not work around the facts that Russia’s modernity and Marx’s preliminary conditions for a revolution did not coalesce. What turned out to be a Soviet communist propagandist-media machine, in fact, as we have learned, turned out to be more characteristic of the principles and similarities to fascist theory. This could be explained by the characteristics of the Soviet period known as the “Cult of Stalin.” In essence Fascism doctrine was inbred (for better terms) with that of neo-Marxism [ and left under the etymological guise of perfect Democratism] . Therefore, classical Marxism marks no characteristics of the Soviet system and its relations to proper communism. Yet, as Gregor explains, a curious consciousness has survived or emerged.
This could be explained from a nostalgic response to modernity, or even, so to speak, of a return to romanticism of the failed communist systems predicated on Marxist theoretical systems – wanting the past in place of the present. The morality of Marxism was predicated upon distribution – a type of “materialistic equality.” Not an United States of American precept, “all men are created equal,” but a concept of ‘material is created equal for all.’ The implementation of this “alleged” religious truism for Marx was “revolution,” implying change, and the take-over of the modes of production by the communists known as proletariats. Proper religion, i.e. the Catholic Church and then the off-shoots of the Protestant revolution were initially the “distributors of goods,” now became extinct on a “secular level” of rationality which was replaced by a new religion – [Democracy-mjm, then Marxism]Marxism. During the feudal period, the Latin Church had controlled the purse strings of production. Eventually, for Marx, this step in the historical process would evidentially extinguish itself.
Furet explains that Democracy in Europe originated with the French Revolution had yet to reveal all of its revolutionary “consequences.” Since traditions had been overcome by the emancipation of the self in the French Revolution, but not all the principles of that revolution answered all the questions for a perfect society, Lenin placed Marx theory into a democratic messing of theories to form a hybrid theory, to which in fact replaced religion. “After centuries of [religious and economic] dependence, the late eighteenth-century French had been the heroes of that reappropriation of the self; the Bolshevik had picked up from where the French had left off.” This way Lenin could add the centuries of science, drawn from Marx’s Capital. The revolutionaries thus managed to repossess for ideological arsenal the substitute for religion that was so sorely lacking in late eighteenth century France. By combining these two supremely modern elixirs with the contempt for logic, the revolutionaries of 1917 had finally concocted a brew sufficiently potent to inebriate the masses for generations to come.” If effect, Furet implies, that tradition, one form which could explain the Church’s role in the middle ages, were replaced by the Bolsheviks’ veritable interpretation of the Marxist proletariat world theme, the new distributors of goods.
The “new distributors of goods” now became the “modern communist system,” with its prophet anointed at its head as Karl Marx (1818-1883) and his disciple Frederick Engels (1820-1895). If the Latin Church, then the Church of England and the many breakaway denominations of varies sects could not come to a consensus of Biblical facts, terminology, historical processes, an events, neither could the communists come to a consensus on Marx and Engels’ work. That did not stop a secularist revolution. This could explain what has become sometype of secular, but still religiositic, mass consensus: a twisted Gentilian form of individualistic “want” to connect to a “unified consciousness.” Although Gregor does not promote this exact speculation of the “new distributors of goods,” explicatory, it does coincide to his argument of the “curious” consensus.
“A curious” consensus: has emerged among the disappointed neo-Marxists of the West, Gregor explains, in his book Giovanni Gentile: philosopher of fascism (2001). They have chosen to identify Fascism, and generic fascism, with any form of real or potential violence: thuggery at soccer matches, skinhead obscenities, immigrant bashing, vandalism in graveyards, anti-feminism, homophobia, and “hate-speech.” Furthermore, Gregor illustrates, “Fascism” is seen embodied in fundamental Christian beliefs, in anti-communist sentiments, in tax protests, in libertarianism, in sexism, in ‘anti-environmentalism,” in the difference to the abuse of children and animals—in effect, in anything deplored by prevailing “ political correctness.” There are “neofascists,” cryptofascists,” parafascists,” and quasifascists” everywhere. “Fascism,” we are told, is pandemic.” In essence, Gregor explains, everything that is hated is deemed a descriptive of fascism.
This can be explained, Gregor intends, because most of us use what is known as common discourse. In common discourse, we do not use the cognitive facilities intended for clear communication. In Chalmers Johnson's book on Revolutionary Change, The term "revolution" (like all terms in social science) is poorly or idiosyncratically defined. When we meet people on the street to have informal conversations with, this consists of usually ill-intended and uninformed definitions of terms. The quick sound-byte on the evening news is one example of this type of common discourse in the media. There remain no time requisites to elaborate and/or set up definitional boundaries on the evening news. In a 20-30 second evening news sound-byte, how can someone explain the word “communist” or “anti-communist” and how it pertains to someone’s sentiments?
So and so was pro-communist during the 1920s, and this explained why he spied on the United States of America and was substantially influential in communist spy circles of the 1930s in Paris and Miami (as a hypothetical newsbyte example).
What would this mean? Communism has meant different things to different people, different ideological state theories, and different political parties, leaders and committees. Modern communism, absent of Thomas Moor’s book of Utopia, is regarded almost unanimously as the modern theoretical conscript for the 20th and 21st centuries Marxist/communist movements. Gregor illustrates that no major mass-mobilizing “revolution” in the 20th century took on all the characteristics of a Marxist revolution. In fact, Marxist theoretical derivatives existed in the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 (1920- 1921, Furet’s heroic founding period) as well as the National Socialist revolution in 1933, Germany. Gregor contends that Lenin's revolution had very little to do with Marxism as an ideology. “Actually, 1917 was characterized by a number of revolutionary preconditions, none of them specifically Marxist: (1) an alienated elite (the military and the nobility who blamed the Czar for Russia's defeat); (2) alienated intellectuals who supplied a suitable ideology for (3) mobilizable masses--who were mobilizable because many young men had been removed from their traditional and stable environments (away from system reinforcing institutions like the family, the schools, and the church).” Within Russia, the preconditions for a classical Marxist revolution could not produce a Communist-Marxist revolution under the Marxist rubric. As Furet intends, it was not important to Lenin to understand the Marxist theoretical system. Lenin had to reinvent a system to replace the non-preconditions existing in Russia and force a differentiated revolution through illusionary methods. Since Classical Marxism intended that capitalism must reach its apex, the proletariat must finally have victory over the bourgeoisie, and finally all the proletariats take over the factories and the modes of production, Lenin understood it was impossible to have a communist revolution predicated on Marxist principles. Therefore, how could we call this a Communist Revolution in the media? Russia was a backward economic country, which furthermore was exasperated by the conflicts of World War I. Revolutionary characteristics were present, but none of a semblance of a communist/Marxist characterizes were present.
It is hard to call the October Revolution (1917) and the subsequent Furet (1920- 1921) heroic founding period for the Soviets a communist revolution. “V. I. Lenin, who came to power through a peasant revolution, died waiting for the "saving" Marxist revolution in the West. Leon Trotsky, perhaps as responsible for the revolution as Lenin, declared that Stalin had abandoned all semblance of Marxism and had introduced "fascism" in what had been Bolshevik Russia.” Marx had claimed that it was impossible for a peasant to take over the controls of the modes of production. Since Lenin was so adamantly awaiting a Marxist revolution, he decided to begin it by eradicating the bourgeoisie in Russia, the intellectuals, who knew how to run the factories. In addition, since Lenin had to use peasants in the revolution, we could and might as well call this a Fascist revolution. The similarities between mobilizing the masses in Italy, and the mobilizing of the peasant masses in Russia, the characteristics remain similar to that of a Fascist revolution described in Italy in 1922.
Since, Lenin could not adhere to the Marxist preconditions; he had to formulate a nationalistic imperative. To do this, he played-off the old notion of Rus’ fears’ of the western intervention into their political and physical world. The west had periodically invaded and intervened in Rus’ political landscape. The Time of Troubles (l598 or l604 to l613 or 1618) amounted to a nationalistic movement to remove Sweden, Poland and other foreign forces from Rus’ political centers in the 17th century. Sweden had sought to dominate Rus’ prior and during the Petrine period. Lenin had no trouble to initiate an hybrid belief of the imperial capitalist and irredentist fear onto the Russian people. He argued that they needed to change course, and organize themselves around an “elite vanguard.” Couched around a Marxist ideology of the proletariat of the masses, Lenin construed a revolution inspired upon nationalistic imperatives. “In effect, a "Marxist" revolution in a primitive economic environment makes little, if any, theoretical sense.”
The Bolshevik party had also experienced a crisis in Russia. Souvarine had first understood that instead of a authoritarian dictatorship the crisis that beset the Soviet communists after Lenin’s death reveled not only a psychological conviction of despondency to the real objectives to modernize, but that Stalin had to steer Russia from multi-interest groups from within the Leninist party platform and unite it under a “totalitarian” ideology. “Souvarine’s section of the work, La Russie nue, signaled the start of his long career as a chronicler of the Soviet disaster. Furet elucidates that, “As always with Souvarine, the prose has no literary pretensions, and his narrative is organized in a rather scholarly fashion, from the economic to the political. But from his accumulation of data and facts emerge a portrait of a society that was impoverished both in the cities and in the countryside, and that had not yet returned to its 1913 level.” Souvarine’s writings are important because the recorder of early communist Russia was an advent socialist-Marxist throughout his life, even after exile from Soviet office. Furet’s use of his source represents a pro-communist who had recorded reliable data and observation. “ Had this poverty resulted merely from the legacy of the past combined with exceptional difficult circumstances, it would have been less significant. But Souvarine interpreted it differently: he incriminated the regime’s role in this kind of involution of a society constantly beaten down by bureaucratic authoritarianism [Lenin’s period till the transition of Stalin who finally crystallized its nationalistic-terror], corruption, ideological obscurantism, and the dictatorship of a Party that had merged with the National Police.”
Souvarine’s present and knowledge of the past helped him, Furet intends, to understand the element he had seen as counterrevolution by Stalin. [ In Souvarine’s section of the work] La Russie nue paints a picture of what later would be called “ totalitarian” Russia. This was the observance of a form of state capitalism. Even thought these three volumes were published anonymously in the Soviet press, especially Pravda, the readership at the time was quite limited. Furet determined it was a “case of sour grapes—a classic suspicion that was to play into the hands of the Soviet Communism throughout the twentieth century, since the real history would be written essentially by former Communists.” Furet facilitates the understanding of the need of the communists in Russia to believe they lived under classical Marxist principles. In 1917, the Bolshivicks seized power with promises and socialist sloganry that Russia would be tendered “ the land for the peasants.” But by the “war Communist” period ( civil war) terrorist policy of forceful appropriating of agricultural products for the cities, alienated the entire rural population and destroyed agrarian culture production. This was Marx’s point of the end of History. The peasants were to be freed from Capitalist domination. Now, they were dominated by an militant aristocratic elite. This, furthermore, was predicated upon fancy, “feel good” sloganry, and of rhetoric and symbolism of ‘the future will be better.’ These former Communists who wrote the first histories from inside the boarders of Soviet Russia saw not Marxist Communism, in any shape or form, but saw something that reveled something radically different. As Furet proclaimed one of the major problems was “sweeping condemnation” of anyone that wrote anything negative about left-wing Soviet politics. As fervor toward religious convictions’, we intend to understand Furet addressing the religiosity apparent in totalitarian systems. Lenin was a demi-gog, and Stalin even more revered in a transcendental form of deity worship. The centralization of the state by Stalin, the reinvestment of [ Rus’] chauvinism, and an invented tradition of a party system in combination of ideocracy and terrorist policies predicated a nationalization or as Furet explains a “ Russification,”  from a Georgian willing to retract Marxist ideo-competition – within now a single unified national party. The Jews proclaimed themselves in desperation as the chosen people, but the new Soviet Russian proclaimed themselves as the “chosen nation.” Lenin’s scientific theory of action disappeared under Stalin. Scholarly discussions prevalent under Lenin’s party-apparatus were halted by Stalin. As a tactician, Stalin allowed the deifying of the founder of the Soviet Communism to exist in religious-like worship, often given oratories toward specific platitudes toward the passed leader.
The Lenin passing drew the two parties into conflict, and Stalin understanding that the old-Bolshevism, the left-wing was not constructive to modernize Russia. At the same time, Stalin still suppressed the right-wing bourgeois. What represented itself as political-social scientific level was arbitrary. “ Such was the new guise of “ socialism in one country.” It emphasized a new element of “Leninist” psychology—the belief that volition, given power, can accomplish anything—and added a new element, conceled beneath the call to activism and manipulated so adroitly by Stalin that no one could reproach him for disloyalty to Lenin: the Great-Russian national passion. Just like the French Jacobins, the late Bulshivicks were entrapped by the “chosen nation” idea, of which they were developing a new versions, if a more primitive one. Stalin’s formula allowed them to reinvest the traditional chauvinism of the dominant nation in their membership in a totalitarian party.”
Souvarine recognized that Lenin’s party exemplified a dictatorship, ruled by terror with a distain for the law. It had confused the party with the state, dictatorship of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the party. Lenin’s party, for Souvarine turned out to represent an idea of a party that was aristocratic. This was not Marxism communitarian ideology. However, Lenin had allowed sectarian casts of ideological debating, and discussion was possible within the party. But for Souvarine, Stalin represented something different. Stalin invented the “totalitarian” party. “ This forced unity, inseparable from Communist ideology, paralyzed all opposition and manufactured a leader. The Revolution was dead. Nothing testifies to this more, Furet points out, pitilessly than the literary triptych Vers l’autre flame, published in Paris in 1929 by the francophone Romanian writer Panaït Istrati, along with Victor Serge and Boris Souvarine.” Victor Serge, the brother in law of Perrie Pascal, like him, had long nourished doubts about the terms of events—a man much too loyal to the anarchist notion of “neither God nor master” to find the postrevolutionary glaciation the lest bit palatable. Indeed, Furet writes, “his analysis was radical: the democracy of the Soviets was a lie, and the only reality of the regime was the dictatorship of a corrupt Party, peopled by cynical go-getters who had replaced the militants of the October generation.” Hardly anyone thought that the Soviet discourse was entirely false, this was the best kept secret, a secret too sad, moreover to be pursued insistently.” In 1928, Stalin had cracked down on both left-wing old-Bolsheviks, and the right-wing bourgeois in Russia. As dictator, plural distributionism, poor peasant equality and proletariat plurality cancelled out the plural competition of the bourgeoisies, Darwinian constitutionalism, and might is right, but regulated by law, Stalin assumed a position outside the normative discourse of political wingism (a sense of what is politically left or politically right). The conscriptions of left and right no longer applied. Like William Jefferson Clinton, Gerhardt Schroeder, and Tony Blair concluded a new ideological “third way,” this conceptualization helped to reidentify a new classification-structure of political identification non-inherent of difficulties of terminological political wingism. Some have concerned this inherent contradiction as “centrism;” however the political science veritable(s) apply less to identification than to expression. It is possible to conclude a cognitive understanding that two sides cancel out all points of politically descriptive reference. In essence, as Gentile would argue that some intellectualism stood outside of ‘life,” therefore determining disjudgment onto it, the intellectualism (as a false intellectual) remained outside of the [ conscripts] conscious group and therefore could not make rational judgments. Regardless of positives of the war machine created at Stalin’s behest, the vindication of the populous’ support remains suspect of his reign: Stalin’s socio-economic policy, one individual singularity representing a mass-mobilized populous, tempted total disaster economically. Russia remained a backward country regardless of secret police efforts at Stalin’s control to motivate them. Stalin replacing the Deity ( the one that stands outside of the conscious group, Gentile), created the scholastic notion of a period term referent as “The Cult of Stalin.” The religio-celebritism fuels the leader toward centralism (that is further centralizes and crystallizes he leader himself outside of the system, then actually transcendental resurrection symbolically but pcychologically), by its congregational-fan-base who approve the ascendancy by the ideological propagation of myth by the demi-gog. The deity falls in total infatuation within him/herself, promoting him or her self as perfection. Explicative to history, Stalin had stated that the Soviet Russia under him had reached the apex of state perfection in history. We would later learn by the opening of the Russian archives after the 1990s, that this would become demystification. Stalin isolationism, removal from the group-fold of ideological participation, as Souvarine emoted, led to a classic distinction of one determinable of totalitarianism. Rosa Luxemburg warned of the authoritarianism pretensions from Lenin’s mediocre interpretation of Marxism, but Stalin had forgone all discussion of it, which led to its abandonment in party discourse. As Furet illustrated Souvarine’s contention with Stalin’s objection with sectarian party interests, Giovanni Gentile’s objection to traditional Marxism, as Gregor illustrates, was its similar emphasis on class interests (causing a fragmentation of the community), to the exclusion of overarching national concerns. In this designation of distinction of classism and its concerns for modernization, what Stalin had addressed as the problem with multi-Marxist discourse, was its timely disunity of progress. This could be explained by Stalin’s real fears that capitalists were going to invade and dominate Russia, a Leninist neo-Marxist interpretation, understood to be “imperialist nations” were the more advanced bourgeois nations. In order to modernize, Russia, according to Stalin needed a focalization. Representing the proletariats as a proper multi-faceted constituent meant sectarian interests slowed the process of industrialization for Russia and this in conclusion slowed the militarization needed to ward off an all-out affront on Soviet sovereignty. When Gentile classified Fascism as anti-intellectual, Stalin already an anti-intellectual, was able to formulate a similar principle of nationalism which had shown descriptions of Gentile Fascism, predicated on similarities of Gentile’s philosophical Actualism. As religiously deified, the transcendental leader offered morality as a prescription for nationalism. In a sense, a unified patriotism under the auspices of urgency (the fear of the bourgeois west dominators ( never used the word Nationalism), Stalin classified Russia less than communism and more than symbolic Fascism. The Gentilean ‘spirit” of sacrifice and/or volunteerism, had predicated Stalin’s ideology toward Soviet militarism. Grandi could associate this with Fascism by its defining structure. Like Enrico Corradini and Alfredo Rocco spokesmen for the benefits of nationalism, Stalin had reinvented the October revolution to be something closer to a counterrevolution, as Furet had pointed out -- the former communists had observed, recorded in their writings. Stalin distant the new party from the old-Bolshevik attendance to world internationalism and Marx attendancey, to nationalism and the unification under a militaristic program to ward of the other major world powers.
Georges Sorel resistance to individualistic interests would later be reflected and mimicked by the Stalinist proclamation: One party, one State, one goal (to militarize), under a national banner of Russian patriotism, and all individualism was attained by identifying with a unified spirit of commodore. Stalin’s intent of formulating a national identity had been earlier reflected in Corradini’s theory of “group belonging.” Similar to Corradini’s distressing political nationalism to "restore the nation's greatness," Stalin created an ideology that Russia needed to “restore its greatness of Russianism” in order to defy physically the Capitalist-Imperialists. Stalin had come to realize that the Leninist secularism in party interests must be disallowed by a new ideology of promoting an ideology of group unity, predicated on similarities related to Fascist principles which could only receive the results attributed to modernization of a backward nation. The Fascist bound its individuals to a group consciousness. These similarities appear exactly as Stalin’s system of binding the Russian groups into a cohesive unity under a totalitarian authority. “Fascism emphasizes the state as the executive control agency of the nation. The community (as nation) and as collective will (as the state) precedes the individual and shapes him/her (as Aristotle and Plato affirmed).”
If there was no Marxist Revolution in Russia as observed by these communists who witness, worked, lived, breathed and recorded its beginnings until the ascension of Stalin, then what was it? Assuredly it can perceive a moment in time, where conditions had created an opportunity for a peasant revolution then the ascension of a classical, but modified version of a dynasty. In this case, its name applied under the dynastic rubric of communism. However, we question ourselves to understand that little if no observable Marxist-Communist distinction tells us cognitively that this was such the case? The Germanic understanding that this was not the case provided a separate case in point that Hitlerian Germany adopted the Stalinist Totalitarian model.
Note: Connecting capitalism to Stalinist Russia replete with associations of U.S. corporations lobbying the United States of America’s government to ease restriction substituted for success to the rise of industrialization for Stalinist Russia. This paper, at the moment does not substitute a chronology of implication, but one can find this information in the Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, ed. Joseph L. Wieczynski, (Gulf Breeze, Florida: Academic International Press, 1982). See Stalin and Soviet Economy under Stalinism.
In order for Joseph Stalin to implicate Soviet Russia to the concepts of advanced industrialization, he did have to understand the Marx’s concept of acquiring capitalism. If one does not have capital, it must be acquired from somewhere! If no international banks would fund a Russians industrial revolution, or Stalin would refuse the offer, then the state would have to force its individuals to be the value of capital. That is to say, the individual was to take the place of capital, predicated upon their participatory relationship to the state. Capitalism can be acquired with cheap labor. By industrialization, a state needs an infrastructure in which to operate the web of factories that comprise the state industrial system. Since Russia had virtually a non- existent infrastructure, but had a plethora of raw material, and could not get loans from other countries and chose not too, the only way to make capital was to force the people to work for free or for little capital ( wages, in this sense). This is what Stalin program of repression conspired too.
Beginning in the 1930s until 1937, Stalin, in what has been called the Great Purge, eliminated his enemies and consolidated a single Soviet party around himself. He eliminated potential threats to power of anyone who became popular – that would potentially threaten his authority. First he began to eliminate the military supporters of the old Bolsheviks. He eliminated intellectuals who could promote authoritative arguments against his repressions, persecutions and executions. His goal was to modernize Russia, in what contemporaries believed was his fear that western liberal democracies or western predatory plutocracies were committed too -- an annexing of Russia and turning the Russian people into global economic slaves. Stalin’s belief that this was real, created ideas in his head to force the Russian “individual” to be dependant on the state’s will. That is contemporaries argued Stalin was the state. Stalin’s Russia was anti-individualist, anti-democratic and anti-freedom. This suggests that Stalin was a fascist in every sense of the term. He sought to “bind” Russians into a communal political understanding that its pride was achieved through “strength,” to not be dominated by any other nation in the world. This explains why he used the word patriotism in the base sense of the word; the notion of nationalism was not illusionary.
Since Russia had no capitalism, the following could be explained. In the Soviet Union, many citizens spoke of a reign of terror under Stalin, being afraid of speaking their minds, and suppressing their hatred over politics that made no sense to them. Many people were placed in slave camps, and worked to death. Between 1932 and 1934 Stalin killed kulaks (well-off peasants) that resisted voluntarily to give up their private property, and to give their lives over to the state. Ukraine, Kazakhstan and North Caucasus were cut off from basic state supplies and their grain was confiscated. What resulted were cannibalism, starvation and extinction of millions and millions of families. This could be explained by the resistance of the individual to give themselves over to the will of the state. This was a fascist principle in action. The totalitarian belief of communal goals of modernization was the priority of the state. Since the role of the individual was dependant on the will of the state, we see similarly the platform of the Democratic Party onto the freedom’s of its individual’s role to the state -- here in the United States of America. Hate speech, progressive federal tax plans, centralized healthcare, are all similarly notions of a certain kind of modernization. The Democratic Party argues that freedom of privatized medicine is anti-modern – not progressive. Since privatized medicine is predicated on the individualism, the role of the individual is “not” dependant on the state; the Democratic Party sees this as anti-modern, in this sense. In essence the Democratic Party argues against liberal democracy. Stalin argued against liberal democracy. It was not the path to modernization he believed. Stalin allowed little choice for individualism in his party. The Democratic Party sees the same moral claim in modernization.
If individualism leads to unsatisfactory morality, such as everyone’s right to healthcare, then taking the individual’s rights away from him or her is deemed permissible if it satisfies morality. Stalin deemed taking the rights of private property away from individuals as a morality, as also a permissible right of the state. Marx declared the same right of the proletariat, its version on morality. So did the Italian fascists. Taking the individual rights away from individuals was deemed a moral “good.” Therefore, the similarities to Marxism, fascism and Italian Fascism, Germany’s National Socialism, Lenin, Stalin, all comprised the same understanding and practice on morality. The taking away from the individual the basic rights and force that belief onto the role of the individual to the will of the state remains unarguable. In this manner, I suggest the argument of what is “left,’ and what is “right,” become emancipated from dogma of morality. In this manner fascism is only a word to which construction had taken place. A fasces etymological origin in the Roman Empire, as conceived as an elemental description to the Italian fascists, was nothing less than amoral. The defining of the role of the individual to the state was a construction by the Italian fascist that gave weight to fasces, the term. A constellation of concepts applied constructed the word, in which one concept was morality
Understanding Fascism’s Myth under Stalin and Russia
As Furet explains, “[W]orld war, having been involuntary accomplice of Communism, had by mid-century become a weapon for its development.” The redistribution of resources lay at the heart of what we might consider the propaganda machine to define the ‘good’ verses the ‘bad.’ Stalin took the rhetoric of anti-Fascist, while claiming Hitler’s fascism was a bourgeois’ affair, and at the same time Hitler understood Stalin’s pact was indeed a community of fascism – both together fighting the western liberal plutocracies.
Framing the argument under communism as morally good and fascism as morally bad does not excuse that Stalin played into the role and rhetoric of Russia as a fascist state, in that Stalin had adopted an imperialistic stance against Poland with the Hitler-Stalin Pact, which sought to conquer and divide Polish land and to reap the rewards of raw materials that land contained. From ( this date to this date Stalin called his movement facists)))As Furet understood, “Stalin had attacked the polish state as “Fascist” and therefore not worthy of existence—an incoherent attack, since it came after his declaration that the distinction between “Fascist” and democratic made no sense, and was accompanied by an agreement with Hitler on the division of Poland.” Furet emphasizes that “[We] should bear in mind that from 1939 on, the period when he [Stalin] was renouncing “anti-fascism,” he still had laid claim to it for one objective—the Soviet Union’s absorption of an independent state. I this sense, his statement on 7 September 1939 was a milestone: following the hidden nationalism of “socialism in one country,” he inaugurated the half-revealed nationalism of the “progress of the socialist system” by means of Soviet expansion.” The Germany-Russian Pact had changed the communist parties all around the world. Instead of passive and anti-imperialist understanding of the “evil” bourgeois western liberal plutocracies, the communists now hooked up with the fascists to imperialize themselves. As Furet explains, many communist parties turned against imperialism of the proletariat international movement because they saw, as many westerners had seen, Stalin was in fact a dictator, and not a true communist leader. What Stalin had achieved was in fact what was despised from communist points of view against Hitler’s regime. The confusion lay in that of personal duplicity. The Proletariat world revolutionaries wanted world revolution, but they predicated their reasons on the notion that bourgeois’ evildoers were imperialists—so they wanted to be the opposite —and yet, this is exactly what Stalin proclaimed as the cause for his conquest of Poland. Hitler and Stalin’s pact was a partnership to colonize Europe and even the world – in the same manner as England and France had done. As Furet intends, “Anti-fascism had lent Communism a Western veneer, and anti-Communism had given Nazism a certificate of civilization.” Before Hitler had planned to invade Russia, he saw that conquering England would come easily. The capitalist countries, which were all viewed as imperialist, were now against Fascism and communism, spoken of in those terms, vied for raw material dominance across the globe. It is useless, I contend to call one side good while the other side as bad. They all appeared to have the same objective, but using different subjective titles to create a façade of representing different outlooks on world politics – foreign affairs. In fact, winning one’s home team’s support remained a crucial reason the propaganda machine churned out its deifying rhetoric; the confusion of rhetoric and the ill mannered definitions defined such historical periods. Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini all represented humiliated countries, while the liberal plutocracies complained they were the good people of the earth; while at the same time the liberal plutocracies were economically imperializing, as well as physically imperializing the world for their profits. Sense Stalin had changed the rhetoric to a universal socialist revolution, this had created an illusion that communists were indeed acting benevolently toward physical expansion, while opposing the liberal states in print, and remained committed to Stalin’s notion of communism, while they did not understand that he was acting in a fascist or plutocratic manner by drawing up his own plans to carve up the world. Since communism was “marked” as good and capitalism was “market” as bad, the “right-wing” and the “left-wing” demarcations seemed to go hand in hand with the illusion of the times. Yet, Stalin’s about face, Furet explains, did have an impact on the communist movement around the world. Both Stalin and Hitler were responsible for World War II. “Even the idea of an anti-Fascist war had ceased to exist since Stalin and Hitler joined hands,” Furet exclaims. Until Hitler surprised Stalin and invaded Russia, the Soviet leader understood he was on the fascist side against the liberal plutocracies. From 1939 to 1941, Stalin knew his actions were that of fascism, as he had understood it. Anti-Fascism did not revive its sentiments in speech until Hitler surprised a shocked Stalin, who had not heeded warnings—possibly due to good intentions and trust of Hitler’s contract with him. Whatever the case may be, the idea that communism’s forced imperialism was seen in the west as a dictatorial regime, with little to none socialistic qualities – to the west, Stalin was no different than Hitler. The communist parties around the world were perplexed, and needed to psychologically justify Stalin’s actions. In their justification, violence against sovereign states was deemed a necessity for furthering the Marxist proletariat revolution – regardless of a non-existent preconditions set by Karl Marx. Anti-Fascists, Fascists, Communists, Socialists, liberal democracies, liberal states all acted in the same manner as each other and therefore identifying one as “left-wing” and the other as “right-wing” became confused issue within the communist parties.
France Goes Socialist Left and Denies Self Protection
The Socialist Left denied France its self protection which ultimately led to the German ease of conquest. The need to demonize the intruder (the very essence of French intrusion since Napoleon) took victim hood to rhetorical heights. By arguing that the French Revolution was fought between the working classes and the aristocracy, it denied the middle-class definition of Liberalism. This way, they could point to Hitler’s Germany as a bourgeois construction. Hitler was put into power by the middle class votes. While complex, others French socialist created a myth that German fascism was given to aristocracy origins. In this way, the Left’s passivism could be justified as peaceful and the past reinvented to fit appease the Left’s guilt of staying semi-nationalistic. French nineteenth century domination of others led to a twentieth century movement described as reactionary Marxism and predicated its policy on welfare and not self-defense. The French Front Populaire “never lived up to the public enthusiasm it had generated [ neither did the Russian Peasants under Lenin!] Neither its economic policies nor its military or foreign politics really responded to the needs of the day, and it is best remembered for its politics on social welfare. In the end, the victory of a united Left in 1936 and the first socialist-led government in French history stood out from the humdrum routine of French politics, and not least because it changed the moral and material situation of the nation’s workers.” 
“In this respect, 1936 constituted a key date in the psychological history of the French Left and in the history of the French Communist Party within the Left.” Furet tells us that the French Communists supported the USSR, and the social victorious support made the French forget about USSR’s horrors. The support for communism in France became “seductive,” and for a quarter of a century, the communist that came from Russia’s program of world revolution created a need to suppress the travesties of the USSR horrors. The French Left, by choosing to adopt the terminology of “communism” denied their own agency to worker’s rights and adopted political terminology that was flawed in human rights. Furet explains that the Left simply adopted the terminology of the Left-Communism while purposely ignoring the horrors of the USSR. This way fascism would take on the moniker of Fascist-Right as the contradictory political equivalence. The myth required the suppression of the horrors of the Ukrainian-Jews were rounded up by Stalin and shipped to the Gulags to be liquidated. As Furet intends, “The communist Party had sweetened the Soviet Revolution. Social progress and totalitarian dictatorship,” as it was related to the French Left in political rhetoric “were wrapped up in the same workers’ mythology as were in accordions of the Front populaire and the assassins of the secret police.” The Soviet Revolution was about creating a world myth about its benevolence as well as expanding its influence into other states. Unlike Stalinist Communism, Furet explains, French Communism took root in democratic elections and protest strikes. The Communists understood themselves to be democratic, anti-fascist and pro-Leninist. The mixing of terminology precluded the decisive definition of what was traditionally French Democracy. In this way, French Communist could abrogate a terminology of the 1798 revolution and usurp it with the 1917 revolution terminology and perceive it as a revolutionary victory for liberty of humankind. Yet, at the same time, the understanding that France lost in the ideological struggle to dominate economically and militarily Europe and world would lead to archaism many decades later. After the United States of America liberated France in World War II, the French although timidly grateful, felt ashamed. They understood they lost the pride they once owned in being the premier state in the world, and being feared by other states. Many had longed for the return of the Napoleonic dominance it once exhibited—which brought it the supreme era of culture of the 1830s-1980s in Paris. In a Public Broadcast Station PBS documentary (date here aired 2007), many French interviewed on the state of their nation have conflicting attitudes to their present day national importance. Many longed for the past, that France had been the dominate player in the world, controlled the popular culture and was not forced economically around by other plutocratic states. They blame the narcissisms of USA public, its dominate US military force in the world, and at the same time long for a return of militarily dominate French forces under Napoleon – without expressibly admitting so. What this tells us is a deep psychological need for France to return to what the Left passivists did not want – a militaristic state. Yet, the French passivist’s deplored the German occupation and called upon the west to free them. While the passavists called themselves the Left, they called upon the right-wing United States of America’s military to emancipate them from right-wing fascist German military – as we understand the argument. This fact has not helped define the true categorization of the political wings in regards to agency. What was the purpose of the Left in France if it could not protect itself? The answer lays in the victim hood, and placing blame on the militaristic state – the state that saved France from occupation. This also helps explain why the right-wing, with all of its fragmented political views, sees a need to reemerge as a French military state, in the same ideas floated by the Italian and German Fascists a century earlier. What is important to keep in mind, was the French left, who saw social progression as their main cause adopted USSR terminology and ideology of communism, with ignoring the negative sides of the horrors of Lenin and Stalin. This way, the Left remained all good, while the right remained bad. Were these proletarians truly liberal or were these bourgeoisies truly liberal? The amphiboly illustrates the confusion in honest appraisal of history, a form of anti-science, and adopted in modern academia – but no less argued and understood by the first Comintern as an ideological struggle.
World War II
World War II had made the United States of America the bourgeois giant. Prior to the war, the United States of America military was ranked number sixteenth in the world. After the war effort by the United States of America, and its physics progress in fashioning the usable atomic weaponry, that ranking changed to become the premier military power in the world, launching the United States into the perennial superpower position with bargaining advantages in the economic-political global sphere. Russia on the other hand couched their political rhetoric on proletarianism. From Moscow, the ideological struggle changed from fascism as a race theory to fascism as the puppet of capitalism. After 1945 and the public films of Auschwitz, Fascism as an enemy of race passed into the historical background and a new ideology of struggle (re)emerged. Fascism as a race movement had been stamped out in the world. The Nuremberg trials (November 1945-October 1946) did not prosecute the Russian crimes committed in World War II. His genocides of Katyn and Gulags were not well known at the time. In addition, Stalin sided with the allies after Hitler decided to break his pact with Stalin and invade Russia. What was left remained more important in the ideological struggle of political internationalism. Anti-fascism now made its global appearance as a growing ideology of anti-capitalists. Anti-fascism became the continuance of the original motivation of the Comintern [insert quote from source] ( founded in March 1919 by the Lenin-Marxists). Anti-fascism appeared in French communist circles, and spear headed the new socialist political movements of Europe and eventually the new socio-political movement’s world wide. Stalin continued genocide and under a Slavophile framework. The western allies by not prosecuting Stalin, as General Patton had understood a need too, allowed the ideology of communism to be previewed in a benevolent light internationally. Stalin used this fate of good fortune to continue to repress people he sought did not fit into Russian nationalism/fascism model of the Soviet Union. Adding to the illusion was the admiration by Mao Zedong, who modeled his policies on Stalin’s policies of nationalism—with the rhetoric of proletariatism. In 1956, Khrushchev denounced Stalin as a tyrant in a speech in which the Soviet communist party and the people of Russia became shocked at the revelations. Khrushchev explained that Stalin who oppressed the Soviet people in order to achieve his ends. Mao Zedong did not believe this or chose not to believe this. The shock of the disclosure became a debate for further inquiry. It was deemed necessary to repress this speech, and allow time and silence to act as a shield from memory this painful revelation and period. Under this revelation that Mao had admired the Stalin regime, the Soviet began to call Mao’s government a fascist government. Each side began to call each other puppets of the bourgeois capitalist, in China’s case the labeling of Russia’s government or puppets of the bourgeois capitalists, and in Russia’s case the labeling of China’s Communist Party as the government of the bourgeois class. As fascism was now understood to be bourgeois in characteristic after the fall of race theory of fascism of World War II, it made sense to both sides – both sides that were anti-capitalist in ideology—the Marxist theological conscription of world unity became increasingly complex. What now ensured the collapse of Marxist proletarian universalism were threats by the two amphibological ideologies would face off in a major war. Each side was fascist in ideology, but couched in Marxist terminology, and each sought to militarize and industrialize for nationalistic self defense. Since this was contrary to the Marxist universalism of the proletarian revolution, collaboration on Marx’s proposition to unify parties of each nation, political relations collapsed.
The scientific method of analysis the French Revolution took on a constellation of separate theories retrospective of Marx’s classes. The question became who would control the information or rhetoric of the class that overthrew the French aristocracy? Was it the proletarians or the bourgeoisies? For Karl Marx, it was the bourgeoisies. For the neo-Marxist, it changed perspective into the proletarians. Therefore, it was anti-science which had made its theoretical debut. By denying the prime sources of the French Revolution, the anti-science theories could explain that the workers (as the proletariats here), as the commoners—as one monolithic working class—had overthrown the bourgeois class who had somehow been the aristocracy. Although, this made little sense, the motivation of sense making was not a priority. What was the priority was stopping fascism’s rational from contributing to nationalistic agency, the drive to modernize, and the freedom of the individuals to overcome suppression by other states that claimed they were in possession of true government values.
Understanding Marx Religion
Marxists argued, as Plato had alluded too in his Laws, if the individual was free, then they could disrupt society. Yet, at the same time, true freedom of the individual was its liberation of individualism in the community. Anti-individualism was seen as a freedom more precious than individual freedom. The liberation of man was through his and her association to the whole: a type of transcendentalism, where the individual reaches a higher level of individualism. By destroying the communal aspects of the doctrine of organized religion, Marx had replaced his secular religion onto the framework of society. While the Church forced its doctrine of community onto its constituency, so did Marx force his doctrine of community onto the Marxist constituency. For Marx, the role of the individual was not free to do how they pleased, but to conform, as a church speaks about conformity. Marx’s complaints of capitalism that it destroys traditional foundations ( i.e. family-unit, traditional social networks, etc..), in the Middle Ages, the Church regulated freedom to some extent. The Church was the gatekeeper of traditional society. Yet in the Northern Renaissance, individuals sought to destroy tradition. In view of this revelation, we understand that Marx was reacting to the secularization movement of the Protestant Reformation that gave adjudicated warrant for capitalistic proclivities. If Marx wanted to save the family-unit from exposure to disunity, how capitalism often is framed under Marxism, he had to understand that the Church in the middle ages acted as the agent of family tradition. By destroying the notion of allowing organized religion under the protestant conceptual schemata, Marx had to replace that religion with his own version of a secular religion, to make his point of preserving the family-unit through force. It is understood that the Church, while not having an army in the Middle Ages, controlled the kings and queens through archival retrieval methods, and used its influence to force people to continue in traditional family-units. This is exactly the complaint in the Communist Manifesto. Yet, Marx did not frame his argument well or wanted to hide it from others – for various reasons. Or miss-understood what he was trying to say to his constituency. In a sense, the nocturnal council in the Laws of Plato is the night-watchmen who force the classless citizens to communitize – to ultimately retain their family-units and couch in an ideology of true liberation of the individual.
When Marxism replaced organized religion, the New Marx Church and State were wed, the savior became a human and, the disciples were to worship at the alter of violence and fear in the name of peace. “Communism in one country” could now, after 1945, be exported, under the ideology of “war-Communism.” A brave new world, where the imperfection of free-market, universalism was replaced by the perfected anti-capitalist-nationalism bloc, the walled heaven, and social control by the “elite,” the ones who know. Colonialism from the Oriental (or Eurasian) now impeded upon the west. “Everywhere else, the golden rule of unconditional solidarity with the U.S.S.R. continued to be applied to militants who had become heads of government, the majority who had spent the war years in Moscow.” Former territories of Austro-Hungary Empire, Poland, half of Germany, were conquered by anti-fascists in rhetoric, but in model were just the same as fascists. Now the popular democracies were in direct conflict with a new fascist regime, that was framed under the ideology of Soviet “protector” against the imperialist west. Such contradictions tell us little of imperilism ’s motive, but tell us too much about the secrecy, the rhetorical wars, and propaganda machines that fed the world with “frilly phrasisms” and illusions of meanings.
The sermons preached peace and prosperity and the pathway to salvation and perfection, the “Comintern [propaganda] were still indispensable to the Cominform policy ten to twenty years later.” The golden rule was so “fundamental and so internalized that it served as a universally accepted criterion in all the purges and as the principle accusation in all trials.” Subordination to the Church’s ideology and leader (to Moscow) became dogma. Religion that was despised as the restrainer on Man’s liberation and Freedom, as Marx had written so well, was now implemented as theocracy in Moscow. The inquisition reached world precedence. The Priest, Ministers, or whomever a title is associated in ecclesiastical matters, became the international police—to be the arm of the iron grip of the savior. The purges of the unfaithful were applied with a mighty force – a theological philosophy, a “perfect symbol” that whose monotheistic universalism was raw “force.”
The liberal democracies were still forging a separation between church and state, and they embraced a free-market. But it was that embrace and that separation that caused the reaction to the Soviet to adopt the novelty religion.
During the 1930s, Spain had remained “Catholic, aristocratic, and poor.” Civil war began with an alignment of London and the Front Populaire government, which relied on passivism of the Left. British democrats were anti-Fascist and pro-Communist, while the British Conservatives were anti-Communist and “leaned toward the fascist.” Furet intends the British Conservatives were entirely misguided in their anti-Communism.” “[T]he British leaned toward the Fascist powers because they were anti-Communist. More precisely, for they were little given to ideological debate, they wanted to show Stalin that they would not let themselves be dragged into a confrontation with Hitler, and to show Hitler that his true enemy lay to the east. Unable to judge which of their enemies was the worse, they hoped to see them annihilate each other.”
Spain was also a target of Russian envoys for a world revolution. Furet explains, “Spain in 1936 was one of the least appropriate European countries for an analysis in terms of Fascism/anti-fascism. The July 1936 insurrection was an army revolt supported by the Catholic Church, monarchists, landowners, and all the most traditional powers in Spain. The only strictly, “Fascist” element were the remains of José Antonia Primo de Rivera’s Falange and his social program; that Francoist “Left,” however, would rapidly be stripped of power along with the legitimist Right.” The republican party, Furet explains was left-wing that served union interests, and poplar worker parties. These anarchists, of the armed militia of the Spanish revolutionary syndicalists, accelerated “peasant self-rule” over domains. The multi-faceted political movements in Spain represented struggles to achieve a single vision for Spain, and a compromise of social views. “The Right was oriented toward the center” and the Left was “looking to Bolshevism.” The Spanish Communist Party, weak in voters and in terms of activism were directed from envoys from Moscow. Franco’s rise in the Fascist dictatorship, as Furet provides the impetus of the importance of the “left” and “right” ideological struggle, “was tantamount to a confirmation of the strange telescoping of twentieth-century European passions with nineteenth century Spain.” “The Europeans had just been through the years during which the two regimes had filled the democratic nations’ political life with their rivalry and reciprocal insults, sometimes even involving bloody confrontation, as in Spain.”
Violence of Fascism
Fascism is argued under the rubric of morality. As stated, so were Leninists, Stalinists, the Marxists, and National Socialists conscriptions on morality, to name a few examples. To understand how morality plays into the role of the individual and the state with judiciary models in the United States of America, the disciplinary measures are comparable to fascism. A better understanding of this can be derived from Michael Foucault’s work on power/knowledge. The role of the individual to the state is predicated upon disciplinary action. That is to say, our behavior is constructed by the community. Foucault derived much of his founding principles from the Socratic construction of the individual. The individual was the product of his environment ( however, Socrates believe class construction to be a “noble myth” see Plato’s social comparative metal argument) . That is to say the community shaped the individual into a perfection, not the other way around. Foucault intended that if the individual did not conform to the state, the individual would be punished. This concept was no different to the founding ideology and doctrine of fascism. Gentile argued that there was a difference between violence and violence. That is to say, the difference was not arbitrary but disciplined. If the individual did not conform to the state’s will, the individual could predict violence as a result of their actions. The same idea is understood in liberal democracies. That is to understand that freedom does not exist. Foucault did not believe freedom “really” existed in a state structure. We are disciplined to understand we should behave accordingly with laws, communal and/or institutional programs. If we chose freedom, and did not conform, we were punished. In essence the individual never knew “true” freedom when they live in a state, nation, society, or community. For Foucault morality did not play into the understanding, it was the idea of force or as he called it power/knowledge. That is to say, the power of the state to enforce its citizens to behave in certain ways produced knowledge to how to anticipate behavior of each individual. Violence in Italian fascism was predicated on behavior of the individual to the state. In a Foucaultean sense, the state possessed the power and the individual acquired the knowledge to behave. Therefore, violence was not arbitrary but disciplined. In this sense, we understand violence of Italian fascism was anti-liberal, which is anti-individualist freedom. This is essentially how Gentile argued how violence operated under the conscripts of fascist doctrine.
Contemporary citizens of the United States of America are disciplined if they behave in a manner construed to appear as a “hate crime.” In this sense, this is anti-liberal in its essence and therefore fascist in construction. This discipline is legally “binding” (fascism means to bind). The individual is conforming to the state’s authority of what is permissible and what is not. The role of the individual, in this sense, is dependant on the state’s will. Since fascism compares its role of individual and state with behavior, we understand that forcing individuals upon threats of discipline in the either financial penalties or confinement, and even capital punishment, we are subject to fascism in the United States of America. The only difference between Stalin’s adjudicating measures and the United States of America procedural system of juridical measures remains a timeframe and certain individual rights of representation to admittance. However, the discipline of behavior remains the same in both liberal systems and totalitarian or fascist systems. Understanding this element of what is freedom and what is anti-freedom, we understand that in United States of America judiciary system fascism exists in principle. The state proclaims that the individual is not liberal and cannot proceed to freedom of certain scripted definitions of hate crimes. In this sense, labels of “left” or “right” make little sense in defining United States of American freedom of the individual’s inherent right of action in regards to its position of living under the community of the state, in which they live.
Fascism is Paradigmatic
Argued as a constellation of beliefs, A. James Gregor, an University of California, Berkeley professor of Political Science, has spent four decades investigating prime source material of European intellects’ understanding of fascism in the twentieth century. In a Kahnean sense, fascism contains a set of distinct characteristics reliant on a paradigm of the rise of mass-mobilized populations, irredentism of predatory plutocracies and their advanced technological militaries, and consciousness of Marx’s world proletarian revolution. All these symbols understandably appeared at the end of the nineteenth century. As an ideology of unifying characteristics, fascism can be better understood as an Ideology of Totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is not authoritarianism, but shares some characteristics: The role of the individual is to an “elite” or a single leader. [[it is an ideology of shared volunteerism, shared sacrifice, shared hopes and dreams of not being dominated by more advanced industrial states.]] Authoritarianism is distinct in that a leader may not express an ideology of communal beliefs. That is to say, Authoritarian can make up laws arbitrary of a set program to develop a nation that is under developed. What fascism thus is defined paradigmatically for Gregor is that all the nations or states that used this system in the twentieth century all sought to modernize in defense of the predatory plutocracies. All of them contained a mass-populous of varied interest groups which needed a leader or an “elite” to “bind” them (facses) to an ideology of volunteerism predicated on state-preservation. All these nations or states were under developed, in need of harnessing raw materials, and creating defensive militaries. Authoritarianism, in this sense, means that a coup revolution could take over a state that already possesses these characteristics. Therefore, Totalitarians as defined first by Italian Fascists can generally be identified as: (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.
William Kornhauser, “Politics of Mass Society.”( Free press, 1959) argues that fascism is “fundamentally” a mass, rather than a class movement, as distinct from totalitarian, society, Gregor intends. A key factor is the masses are no longer tied to the old order (i.e. tradition) so they need a new tradition – the elites can fulfill this need! However, under Stalin there was no need to rely on removing masses from their tradition. Instead, Stalin used the eight characteristics shown above in formulating a cohesive totalitarian system. This could be explained that Kornhauser used the Bolshevik revolution as one of his defining arguments. Kornhauser describes how the Russian soldiers were away from their families, homes, churches, and traditions while on the battlefield during the Great War. When they chose to end fighting for a cause they believed would gain Russia little or nothing, they came home disaffected and removed from a conscious memory of their tradition. Therefore, when Lenin came upon the Russian scene, he promised the masses “no longer tied to the old order” the choice of beginning a “new tradition,” understood as offering the soldiers land and work in place of the old landlords, the Old Russian oppressors. Yet this lone characteristic informs little of Italian fascism’s ideology or doctrine. The Italian soldiers coming back victorious from the Great War were in fact “ removed” for years from their traditions. Yet I qualify that England’s betrayal to Italy in promised concessions of N. Africa and parts of the Middle East (raw material and trade markets) was as much a part of forming fascism, and the threat of liberal predatory plutocracies, and played the major role in the decision to modernize in opposition to the socialist distributionists. What remains clear in the Italian prime sources is the socialists in Italy at this time, deplored war, and did not believe that Italy was in danger of predatory plutocracies. In fact, they showed little knowledge in current world events. Many were illiterate and acted upon sentiment of agrarian interests of the communities they came from. The literate socialist were awaiting the Marx proletarian revolution, but apparently could not understand that for it to happen, the nation or world needed the preconditions resolved before the event could happen. Italy had little industry, and most of its geography was characteristic of agrarian society. For Italian fascists, farms would not stop an exploitation of its people by France, England, Spain, or United States of America. Italians saw Africans being exploited by many European nations and states and feared the same result if they did not modernize and develop a military. It is this distinction that totalitarian is understood in its fascist paradigm, and is not authoritarian in composure and character.
Enrico Corradini (1865, near Montelupo Fiorentino—1931, Rome) was an Italian novelist, essayist, journalist, and nationalist political figure. He became a major political figure in the Fascist regime. In his small journal Il Regno (1903-1905), Corradini argued for “imperial expansion.” Corradini argued Italy needed to conquer localities around the earth to ascertain raw materials – a necessity for modernization. Russia had no lack of raw materials, but they lacked capital to acquire them ( see Stalin’s argument here). The United States of America had beaten back the Native American in order to ascertain raw material deposits and to colonize those localities for extraction – all in order to modernize. Netherlands, Sweden, Petrine Russia, Prussia, Ottomans, Abbasids, Umayyad, Roman Empire as well as France, England, and Dutch all expanded for these purposes. Understood in this light, imperialism was seen as an emancipation of slavery, repression and potential and real exploitation.
To understand this evolution, we look to the United States of America to see if its origins appear to have fascist characteristics that I have essentially argued. That is the role of the individual was to the state. The Constitutional procedural system and the Declaration of Independence prescriptive license were predicated upon humans of physical characteristics. African Americans, in this manner, are seen as the capital that created currency for paying back Great Britain’s loans to modernize the United States of America. The United States of America’s path to modernization was not wholly liberal individualism. The African American’s role of individualism was dependants upon each state’s will that authorized or conscripted slavery. In this sense, fascism’s underlying definition of binding revealed its nature in colonial America’s and the Untied States of American history.
National Socialism, Germany
Germany, while it remained an industrialized developed nation, during the Great War the state infrastructure was devastated by the allied forces. Germany sought to modernize itself the in the same manner of a communitarian political movement. Like Italian Fascism, capitalism and private ownership were not abolished as they were by the Leninist Bolsheviks. Yet, a peculiar state priority was predicated on biological determinism. The individual’s relationship to the German state under Adolf Hitler was contingent upon “race theory.” Germans decided to construct a socio-political theory of Nordic and/or Aryan superiority. Anyone living under the auspices of the German domain was restricted to qualifications of the physical characteristics that described Nordic and/or Aryan features, in a Darwinian evolutionary sense. Although this policy was never fully enforced, and remained tactical. In this manner, the belief systems differed from that of Leninists, Stalinists, and Italian Fascists. The individual priority to the state relied on physical characterizes. The similarities with totalitarianism, was the charismatic leader who embodied impeccable truths, a communitarian political movement, anti-democratic, notions of restoring the past, and a concept of nationalism.
Even though Hitler had militarily attack communist political parties, Stalinized Bolshevism and National Socialism had similar belief system that appear more toward the descriptions of totalitarianism than what they have been traditionally described, as Furet explains. What further demonstrates a relationship between all three mass-mobilized revolutionary movements described in this paper are a deprivation of multiple-party interest groups to permissible representation of individualist interests to the state, and all are subjected to a “total” power of an ideological Party and its leader. What they all seem to have in common can be described as a real or pretended fear of being humiliated and dominated by the more advanced traditional liberal democracies. By understanding that underdeveloped nations, or threatened nations will likely (not always) resolve to constructing a state ideology prefaced on the individual’s selfless role or forced role to its goals of modernizing, we can better understand our future -- in regards to under developed nations in our world. In a sense, all their systems of beliefs resolved to the single notion of a communitarian political movement. All attended to modernizing or remodernizing efforts for self defense purposes, and by understanding that the quickest way to achieve this was through a centralized communitarian political movement, with certain characteristics of a totalitarian system. Ultimately this could explain why each resolved to a political ideology of the individual’s will was dependent upon the state’s will.
Neo Fascism Section
Gregor informs his readers on the subject of Jihad, in regards to how it was defined or reinterpreted under the later nineteenth century Muslim intellects, as Sayyid Qutb, that the purpose of Jihad is to prepare for Jihad, the destruction of all non-Muslim societies. ( Neo Islamofascism: Fascism in the Middle East)
“The logic sustaining such a notion is singularly Hegelian. Since God is both good [ in Old Testament he is also evil, wrathful, revengeful etc..] as well as the author of all things, living in obedience to his laws could only benefit humankind. A fully rational human being, understanding that, would comprehend that obeying God’s laws, as they find expression in shar’iah, would be in his or her interest.” How can Hegel’s logic sustain such a notion, when the logic is empirically associated with the first one-hundred years of Islam, when the doctrine of Islam was still in codification? Did Hegel study the “protected” minority laws of Islam, or the concepts of jahili communities and provided the sustaining logic to Qutb? Almost all, if not all, serious Muslim scholars would refute this association. The Hegel arguments and the original Islamic arguments can have analogues meanings that are disassociated as historical processes. Such as unconscious or intuitive synchronicity can possible explain. But the logic sustaining Sayyid Qutb’s logic is not from Hegel.
What Gregor intends is an analogues between Hegel, Qutb’s promotion of fundamental Isalm, Marxist, and Fascist philosophy – how they are related to “laws,” “presumably fashioned by God, or History, or philosophical insights” and have “provided by some higher agency or greater wisdom” which needs to “be deciphered in order to serve any mundane purpose – and” according to Gregor, “there does not seem to be any objective criteria that can certify that any iman, emir, khilafa, vozhd, Massimo lider, duce, or führer has correctly interpreted cosmic, historic, or moral law.” Instead, Gregor intends, “[W]e are simply expected to obey without resistance.” [ mjm—this is child reasoning – it is emotive and irrational] Hasan al-Banna ( 1906-49), a religious scholar, founded the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (March 1928) after exploited workers by foreigners sought to sought out a leader who would give them , a “status of dignity” which was brought on by “humiliation and restriction” by foreigners who used them for economic advantage by employing them as cheap labor to create capital and profit for themselves. “Its members,” as Gregor interpreted the events, “took an oath to pursue the establishment of a truly Islamic state, restore the caliphate, redeem the Muslim ummah, and reanimate the community of believers. Members were enjoined to be prepared to act, to sacrifice, and to be obedient in the service of Islam – and to be forever prepared to respond to the call of jihad. Al-Banna was convinced that only a return to authentic Islam would bring Muslims the political and economic power requisite to their survival and prevalence in the contemporary world.” What is interesting is not what Gregor tells us, but what he leaves out of the discussion. This notion of restoring the caliphate had taken debate in every decade in history, even during the traditional periods of the caliphate by dissenters not happy with the current caliphate. At this time in the Middle East, the French, England, Italians, Germans, and many other European nations, were either meddling in N. African economics and politics or directly meddling in the same circumstances in the Middle East. It was natural for a reaction to the exploitation of the European nations who had sought cheaper and more local work force, then for instance, the East Indian Company, who at this time was struggling in the continuance of subduing South Asian cheap labor-force.
The creed of the brotherhood, Gregor tells us, was “ God [Allah] is our objective, the Qur’an our constitution, the Prophet our leader; struggle our way.” But “by the early 1930s, Hassan al Banna had begun to lay the foundation of the belief system of jihadist-salafists of our time.” In light of this understanding of desperation, Gregor argues that “ because of the undercurrent of violence implicit in its doctrines, the Muslim Brotherhood was, at the time, sometimes characterized as “fascists,” but since the ascription was not supported by anything other than the fact that its membership anticipated violence as a political necessity the attribution seemed hardly sufficient to so characterize the Brotherhood.” Gregor used this information to show the link to fascist violence, as analogously related to the Brotherhood’s doctrine of anticipating violence, yet he makes the assertion of non commitment to show treatment for non-bias scholarship. What Gregor then justifies, in a historical observance, is that “ Almost every revolutionary party, whatever its political persuasion, anticipated at the time, and anticipates today, that violence may well be necessary in the course of seizing state power. Certainly this not only applies to Fascists, Marxists-Leninists, or ever American Patriots (pre-USA), its seems it has been a case observed throughout history. Therefore, I contend the apology or bias is not necessary in regards to the doctrine of violence. It appears that all revolutionary parties employ the same measure of reasoning. Therefore, one side or the other is not bad or worse then the other side.
Gregor leads this discussion to the origins of Muslim Brotherhood’s interpretation of the role of the Jihadists to contemporaries of al-Banna, Sayyid Abul A’la Mawdudi ( 1903-79) and Sayyid Qutb (1906-66). Gregor point is too link the significance to important Muslim leaders of the twentieth century, such as Khomeini’s ideas to return to interpreting the Islamic doctrine toward traditional and fundamental laws. What Gregor does not point out is that Muslim had seen western juridical laws creep into N. Africa, Anatolia, and the Middle East. Many Muslims, even as the many other archaism that arouse in every culture known, facilitated the solutions to all the contemporary problems. What was not understood, what the after the Ottoman Empire collapse, this second wave of Islam – that inevitable pride—was the last vanguard of power once feared by the west. Now the west was prancing on Muslim territory, which is in the Middle East, and demanding advantageous trade with puppet leaders. What Mawdudi, Qutb,and what al-Banna had became aware of by the suppressed Muslim workers, were their own agency was now lost, and a feeling of abandonment to their traditions created unnecessary feelings of unknowingness of the future. What can be explained is that often humans need to know what is going to happening in the near future to have a sense of security in their lives. What was happening in the Middle East was uncertainty to the traditional inhabitants, or the inhabitants that had been living there for centuries. Instead, Gregor fashions the argument with connections to fascist principles which would validate this movements with fascist origins in Gentile’s writings – while at the same time not making it clear why the movement(s) are formulizing in the Middle East at this time, in any substantial context. When Gregor does come to the economic argument, he steers toward the right path and argues that these movements had an economic agenda to modernize of the likes of the advanced industrial nations. But what Gregor leaves out, was the purposeful exploitation by the European powers, in a substantive argument.
When Gregor goes into the discussion of the economics of Islam and the theological aspects of it, he argues that the Qur’an and the “hadith and sunnah, written hundreds of years ago, there is very little counsel to be found therein that might serve a development program.” This tells us little of Gregor’s expertise in Islamic history. In western civilization, there was neither any council to be found in western literature on Industrial revolution. Therefore, there was no need to compare or contrast this concept of history. Instead, Gregor, again tries to link the rational of fascism to address this modernizing issue, when in fact the hadith and sunnah were written over eight-hundred years before the industrial revolution. It makes little sense to compare and contrast at such far distances in time to make an equivocation argument. What Gregor fails to understand is that Islam is not a religion, but a formalized theocracy. At this understanding, it is where Allah’s commandments are law—and procedural interpretation must be accompanied by new technology and new thinking processes. Fascism was anti-religious, and fully secular. The same can be said of the industrial revolution doctrine. The religions aspects of industry were independent of religion at state junctures. It is under this view; we see industrialization in the most fundamentalist state of Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the solution to understanding Mawdudi, Qutb and al-Banna arguments on anticipating violence has little to do with Islamic refusal to industrialize. When Iran overthrew the Shaw, Khomeini sought to take back the rightful revenue of the British control of petroleum on Iranian soil – even though the British had funded and built the industry. The Iranians were not reaping any substantial benefits from the British and western control of the oil. Therefore, it was useless for Iranians to allow the west to take their raw material at such a “steal.” Most, if not all, serious Muslim scholars will tell one that modernization is not against Allah’s laws. Gregor tries to link a natural cause of “humiliation” and “inefficacy” that was surly also determinants in Italy, to the Muslim movements to regain their agency. But what is not said by Gregor is a mystery. Almost all societies have gone through a period of humiliation and inefficacy, and have fought back anticipating violence to rise again in history to forge their rightful and “prideful” cultures. It has little to do with linking it to fascist doctrine. As part of Gregor’s lexical definition of generic fascism, humiliation and inefficacy are common traits observed. What can be explained here is that Gregor tries too hard to link these natural characteristics of revolutionary movements, and to argue that it is not necessary to identify “left-wing” or “right-wing” markers into contemporary political landscapes. Gregor is on the path to articulating this concept of political- wingism’s confusion, but his arguments’ sometimes fall short due to miss-understanding or not attending too rigor comparative historical sources. Were not the American colonialist takings on traits of humiliation and inefficacy as a generic consequence of British overlordship? While Gregor reminds us that Italian fascism grew out of certain principles of humiliation and inefficacy, the main factor was the emancipating from hegemonic plutocratic systems. Were not the American colonists emancipating from a hegemonic plutocratic system? Much of the text, “The Search for Neo Fascism,” relies on secondary sources and only provides topical assertions. What appears too simplified, is rather characterized as a most substantive comparison and treatment of the emotional traits that are associated with reactions.
Fascism, we can say, is nowhere near as articulated as Islamic cannon – or ever will be in content. Trying to compare any characteristics between the two would be futile, and not well respected by both sides of the scholarly line. What Gregor should argue is/was that Islamic people have a need to industrialize, and that western interests in the Middle East, including the relationship with the “elite” rulers of the region by contracts, have slowed down industrialization of the Middle Eastern region “significantly.” When President Bush ( Currently serving) decided to invade Iraq, it was solely on the premise of disarming and removing its leader. However, after the ideology changed to servicing the people of Iraq, while fighting terrorism inside its boarders. What the Bush administration was trying to do was foster political representation between the many sects, and deliver some sort of modernization to the region. Instead, financial matters, troop deaths and reaction from the other main political United States of America party is not concerned with the Iraqis or the people in the Middle East at all, and would rather spend the money on domestic issues.
In “Post Maoist China”, in The Search for NeoFascism, Gregor constructs the social fascism argument of a particular period of Mao’s rule. “In the early 1970s, three years before Mao’s death on 9 September 1976, young Chinese intellectuals [actually university students] in Beijing affixed “big character posters” to what had spontaneously become the city’s “Democracy Wall.” Those posters gave voice to the complaint that socialism in China was no more than a mockery of what had been promised. Rather than liberty and equality, Maoism had brought with it an entrenched and privileged stratum of false revolutions who arrogated to themselves control over their lives of all Chinese.”
Legitimized by the pretense that all property had become the possession of the Chinese people in its collectivity, the members of an “emergent new class” assumed the right to its control and administration. What followed, the argument proceeded, was exploitation of those who were not entitled members of the “proletariat dictatorship.” Some of the Red Guards – who had fought so assiduously against the “capitalist roaders” for “socialism” –[ during Mao’s Glorious Proletarian Cultural Revolution] suddenly realized that for which they had sacrificed themselves gave every evidence of being a form of “social fascism.”
“They spoke of such a fascism as the product of a system that “sanctified” a “ bureaucratic-military machine” that in turn succeeded in maintaining hegemonic control over an oppressed and exploited population, with every enormity concealed “from view by a screen of socialist verbiage.” It was said that under the banner of “proletarian dictatorship,” those possessed of both “political leadership and economic control” bang the “drums of narrow-minded patriotism and nationalism” in order to make of what had been Chinese Communism a “fascist dictatorship.”
The United States of America had less than 100,000,000 people until the 20th century. The population was miniscule during its initial industrial development. In other countries that have larger populations in relation to geography, the amount of people squished into the land creates certain dilemmas’. When developing countries begin from a country from a zero base they must “accumulate capital.” As “Mass mobilizing industrial revolutions,” Gregor intends, we are talking about a stage of a condensed period in a trajectory of life, and there are stages: we have garnered the awards of having gone through the early trajectory – so there is a reason that we complain, and speak. When the liberal democratic constituents saw China and their efforts at quick industrialization, they saw only the forced compliance of the Communist police forces that suppressed dissenters of the development. What was not added into the common discourse, the normative conviction, remained the difficulty of raising the Sino population out of primitive existence. While during the Sino-Japanese War, the United State’s government sold at exorbitant profit military hardware to the Chinese. Part of the United States of American economy lay predicated at fostering unmoralitic capitalism. As Marx complained, capitalist have no such loyalty and trepidate the world as their commerce market. The Chinese government, at that time trying to form a republican revolution, their version and interpretation of that term, fell into extreme debt, and forced conscription on the Chinese peasants. In affect, the liberal democracies were functioning as stalwarts to facilitate governmental change. Mao as a nationalist, took refuge in the Boxer mythology, an archaistic notion of Chinese determination of race, and formed groups that held similar sentiments to overthrow the forces which sought liberal and western government structures. Yet, Mao took the understanding of industrialization as a modern conception for China and promised a Marxist solution, still a western solution, to overthrow the western proto-Chinese government. This explains that Mao did not hold to promises of a Chinese universal revolution, but ascended into office understanding his own power of dictatorship without representation.
Dislocated masses from the Sino-Japanese War allowed Mao to seize the moment for revolution. Dissention over conscription, the removal from tradition, the non-family populous could be molded into a revolutionary movement. “How can one argue communism that relatively contained the same concepts as fascist characteristics described in Italian Fascism.” Gregor explains, “most people do not treat Mao Zedong with any critical thought. For whatever Mao is seen as, the progression of Chinese people, they Paid with an incredible cost.” Gregor explains the results of the same objective observable phenomena but as a different unobservable subjective phenomenon. Mao’s mantra was “serve the people.” However, the objective observable phenomena took on characteristics of a totalitarian conceptual schema. As with Gregor’s paradigmatic fascist argument, the Chinese related their own program of reactive nationalism, humiliation and collective feelings of inadequacy – which resulted in a masculine protest and self-preservational agency. The unobservable subjective phenomenon was termed as Communism. Yet the prescriptions, the proscriptions and the ascriptions obviously determined the objective observable phenomena of totalitarianism. China no-less functioned relatively like fascist Italy, its developmental goal, its nationalism, with a stipulating of racist Sinoism spearheaded by Mao himself, and exhibiting the psychological symbolism of masculine protesting.
Mao’s rate of growth was less then 3% rate of growth. That was almost an economic collapse. Mao’s development of China was a failure, and this was addressed in the communist party after the Chairman died, by the Communist high-ranking party members. As characteristic of totalitarianism, Mao, as a charismatic leader, was so worshipped by the populist that no intellectual could stand up and voice their opinion or risk sever to morbid punishment by the Red Guard. Even the party members could not keep Mao out of forced retirement.
Why he invited Nixon? Mao saw The Soviet Army on his boarder, and was terrified on an impending Russian invasion. This could be explained by his ethnocentricism. The communist party members were desperate to save China from invasion, so Mao succumbed too making overtures to the United States to help China. After Mao’s passing, Xiaoping started China on a very rapid rate of growth beginning with a plan of five liberal economic zones on the east coast of China.
v. jan 5th, 2008
*Michael Johnathan McDonald, undergraduate, University of California, Berkeley, Fall 2007.
added 14 Feb. 2010 below:
Put in explanation to Totalitarianism! Why left and right demarcations?
Racism, some one said on News, that Collectivism, as with Hitler, was left-wing, and individualism, was liberalism. The reason that Nazism became associated with right-wing, was the Stalin and Hitler’s pact 1939 demarcated a treaties identifier, meaning Hitler took the right symbol and Stalin the left symbol – however both were racists, as well F.D.R. Hitler, had his gang, and Stalin had his gang. The same gang scenario was explemplified in European discourse during the Golden Age. England had its gang, and so did France, Italay, Spain and Germany (Netherlands, + Holy Roman Empire)
corrections and technical inquiries to
Please direct news submissions to Here