Mussolini and the March on Rome

[Dimentio]

One interesting thing I encountered about Mussolini, was that he hoped to invite the Socialist Party to take part in the March on Rome. Then, some of the Fasci groups attacked both members and offices of the Socialist Party without any order from him (the Fascist Party at that point was mainly directed with autonomous groups taking orders from a newspaper where Mussolini was the director).

Mussolini solved that "problem" by coming out in full support of the attack, and taking the full responsibility, thereby making any kind of alliance with the Socialist Party impossible.

He had been a star within the Italian left, but had come to support the Irredentist cause in 1914-1915, due to an analysis within Italian syndicalism which pointed out France as "progressive" and the German empires (Germany and Austria) as "reactionary".

One question is whether or not Mussolini just became a tool for a movement that early on embraced right-wing extremism, or if he was a right-wing extremist from the beginning?

[Queercommie Girl]

One interesting thing I encountered about Mussolini, was that he hoped to invite the Socialist Party to take part in the March on Rome. Then, some of the Fasci groups attacked both members and offices of the Socialist Party without any order from him (the Fascist Party at that point was mainly directed with autonomous groups taking orders from a newspaper where Mussolini was the director).

Mussolini solved that "problem" by coming out in full support of the attack, and taking the full responsibility, thereby making any kind of alliance with the Socialist Party impossible.

He had been a star within the Italian left, but had come to support the Irredentist cause in 1914-1915, due to an analysis within Italian syndicalism which pointed out France as "progressive" and the German empires (Germany and Austria) as "reactionary".

One question is whether or not Mussolini just became a tool for a movement that early on embraced right-wing extremism, or if he was a right-wing extremist from the beginning?


Ultra-leftists sometimes can transform into ultra-rightists under certain circumstances.

It's a dialectical principle. The ancient Chinese saying goes: "When a things reaches its extreme, it can turn into its very opposite."

Lenin said something similar: too much of a good thing, and it becomes a wrong line.

For this reason personally I've always been slightly wary of ultra-left extremists.

However, I don't know whether this applies to Mussolini or not.

[Dimentio]

Mussolini was not an ultra-leftist. He was a Marxist, and a member of the Socialist Party of Italy (his parents were also organised socialists). The reason why he got expelled was that he wrote up on the left-wing irredentist agenda in 1915, advocating entry into WW1 when the public opinion seemed to drift that way, thus being expelled from the party.

[gorillafuck]

Ultra-leftists sometimes can transform into ultra-rightists under certain circumstances.
If he was ultra-left he would not have come to support entry into the war, which became nationalism. His embrace of nationalism wasn't due to any sort of ultra-leftism at all. You really need to back up statements like calling early Mussolini an ultraleftist.

If he was "ultra-left", he would have opposed entry into world war 2. Maybe you should say he wasn't ultra-left enough, maybe?

[Queercommie Girl]

If he was "ultra-left", he would have opposed entry into world war 2. Maybe you should say he wasn't ultra-left enough, maybe?


The idea that "the more to the left, the better" is a ridiculously naive one.

It's not about how much to the "left" or "right" one is, it's about how correct the political line is objectively.

Marxism is a scientific tradition, not a religious dogma.

But as I said, I didn't say this applies to Mussolini specifically and in particular.

However, you should know that in Chinese Marxist theoretical discourse, there is a concept called "formally ultra-left, but in substance right". Often what appears to be "ultra-left" in form may in concrete objective reality be "right-leaning".

"Left" and "Right" often can just be semantics, and is relative to some extent. In different political cultures, the meaning of "left" and "right" are not the same. E.g. what is considered to be "right" in Stalinist cultures might actually be "left" in Western cultures.

[gorillafuck]

The idea that "the more to the left, the better" is a ridiculously naive one.
I know, but succumbing to nationalism is not "far left" enough, if you catch my drift. I was basically just saying that Mussolini wasn't ultraleft, in other words.

[Apoi_Viitor]

As has been said before, the whole left-right dichotomy is absolutely useless. Fascism has both revolutionary and reactionary traits - which makes it impossible to plot on a single line. Depending upon their idealogical tilt, some Fascists would've been more inclined to side with the socialists (ex. Goebbels), where as others would've been more inclined to side with the far-right (ex. Hitler).


But as I said, I didn't say this applies to Mussolini specifically and in particular.

Of course not, your post was completely irrelevant to the thread, and was simply an off-topic cheap jab at 'ultraleftists'.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Mussolini was not an ultra-leftist. He was a Marxist, and a member of the Socialist Party of Italy (his parents were also organised socialists). The reason why he got expelled was that he wrote up on the left-wing irredentist agenda in 1915, advocating entry into WW1 when the public opinion seemed to drift that way, thus being expelled from the party.

He was much more a syndicalist than a Marxist.

[gorillafuck]

Fascism has both revolutionary and reactionary traits - which makes it impossible to plot on a single line.
As far as socialists should be concerned, everything about fascism is far-right and reactionary, nothing in it that can advance socialism or be considered progressive. They are only "revolutionary" in the sense that some of them might believe in overthrowing their government, which would technically be a revolution.

[pranabjyoti]

However, you should know that in Chinese Marxist theoretical discourse, there is a concept called "formally ultra-left, but in substance right". Often what appears to be "ultra-left" in form may in concrete objective reality be "right-leaning".
A very good example is some threads in revleft from the "leftists(!)". You can find a good variety here, anti-Stalin is the most common, even anti-DM and anti-leadership (any kind), which in reality will throw the workers in the lap of capitalists.

[Nolan]

As has been said before, the whole left-right dichotomy is absolutely useless. Fascism has both revolutionary and reactionary traits - which makes it impossible to plot on a single line. Depending upon their idealogical tilt, some Fascists would've been more inclined to side with the socialists (ex. Goebbels), where as others would've been more inclined to side with the far-right (ex. Hitler).

Actually I've been giving this a lot of thought lately. I think instead of a line or that chart that everyone has in their signatures, a triangle would make more sense.

It would have socialist and anarchist ideologies in one corner, liberalism in another, (liberalism being everything from social democracy to libertarianism) and ultranationalist and hard-reactionary ideologies like fascism, national anarchism, and neonazism in the third.

Not only is the whole left-right thing problematic, but the authoritarian-libertarian dichotomy too.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It was a fake March on Rome, not the real deal.

[Nolan]

One interesting thing I encountered about Mussolini, was that he hoped to invite the Socialist Party to take part in the March on Rome. Then, some of the Fasci groups attacked both members and offices of the Socialist Party without any order from him (the Fascist Party at that point was mainly directed with autonomous groups taking orders from a newspaper where Mussolini was the director).

Mussolini solved that "problem" by coming out in full support of the attack, and taking the full responsibility, thereby making any kind of alliance with the Socialist Party impossible.

He had been a star within the Italian left, but had come to support the Irredentist cause in 1914-1915, due to an analysis within Italian syndicalism which pointed out France as "progressive" and the German empires (Germany and Austria) as "reactionary".

One question is whether or not Mussolini just became a tool for a movement that early on embraced right-wing extremism, or if he was a right-wing extremist from the beginning?

Source?

[Nolan]

It was a fake March on Rome, not the real deal.

?

[Apoi_Viitor]

It would have socialist and anarchist ideologies in one corner, liberalism in another, (liberalism being everything from social democracy to libertarianism) and ultranationalist and hard-reactionary ideologies like fascism, national anarchism, and neonazism in the third.

Hmm... where would the German aristocrats/junkers go? Because the Junkers and Aristocrats all hated fascism, liberalism and socialism. Or better yet, where would you plot Napoleon and where would you plot the French Monarchists?

[Queercommie Girl]

Actually I've been giving this a lot of thought lately. I think instead of a line or that chart that everyone has in their signatures, a triangle would make more sense.

It would have socialist and anarchist ideologies in one corner, liberalism in another, (liberalism being everything from social democracy to libertarianism) and ultranationalist and hard-reactionary ideologies like fascism, national anarchism, and neonazism in the third.

Not only is the whole left-right thing problematic, but the authoritarian-libertarian dichotomy too.

All models like these are merely metaphysics.

[Queercommie Girl]

As has been said before, the whole left-right dichotomy is absolutely useless. Fascism has both revolutionary and reactionary traits - which makes it impossible to plot on a single line. Depending upon their idealogical tilt, some Fascists would've been more inclined to side with the socialists (ex. Goebbels), where as others would've been more inclined to side with the far-right (ex. Hitler).


Actually what I said isn't irrelevant at all. Because this is precisely an example of the kind of "right-leaning ultra-leftism" that I oppose.

Under no circumstances would I ever ally with fascists of any form. I'd rather ally with Obama to violently and brutally crush your "revolutionary" uprising.

Anarchists may consider the "state" to be the primary enemy, but for Marxists capitalism is the main enemy, not the state. No way would I agree with the crazy political line of "overthrowing the existing state at all costs".

If it was a fascist force replacing the current US government, it's much worse than having the US government as it is.



Of course not, your post was completely irrelevant to the thread, and was simply an off-topic cheap jab at 'ultraleftists'.Fuck off, you ultra-left-ultra-right "fifth column" scum.

[Queercommie Girl]

As far as socialists should be concerned, everything about fascism is far-right and reactionary, nothing in it that can advance socialism or be considered progressive. They are only "revolutionary" in the sense that some of them might believe in overthrowing their government, which would technically be a revolution.

And this is exactly what I meant by "ultra-lefts turning to the right" and the Chinese idea of "formally ultra-left, but in substance right-leaning".

Slogans are irrelevant. It's all about your political actions on the ground. Allying with fascists in any form what-so-ever is clearly a seriously mistaken line.

Lenin and Trotsky were right to crush and purge certain "anarchist" elements in the early Soviet Union.

[Dimentio]

He was much more a syndicalist than a Marxist.

Not really.

The syndicalist connection is that the left in Italy had one crazy syndicalist who started to propagate for the "Glorious Latin Anti-Imperialist War" against Germany and Austria, and that Gabriele d'Annunzio had a vaguely syndicalist constitution for Fiume during the time when he was the Duce of Fiume in the period between the End of WW1 and the March on Rome.

Prior to 1914, he was a member of a party with Marxist rather than Syndicalist credentials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Carnaro

[Queercommie Girl]

Not really.

The syndicalist connection is that the left in Italy had one crazy syndicalist who started to propagate for the "Glorious Latin Anti-Imperialist War" against Germany and Austria, and that Gabriele d'Annunzio had a vaguely syndicalist constitution for Fiume during the time when he was the Duce of Fiume in the period between the End of WW1 and the March on Rome.

Prior to 1914, he was a member of a party with Marxist rather than Syndicalist credentials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Carnaro

Sounds fun! :cool:

[gorillafuck]

And this is exactly what I meant by "ultra-lefts turning to the right" and the Chinese idea of "formally ultra-left, but in substance right-leaning".

Slogans are irrelevant. It's all about your political actions on the ground. Allying with fascists in any form what-so-ever is clearly a seriously mistaken line.

Lenin and Trotsky were right to crush and purge certain "anarchist" elements in the early Soviet Union.
Ultraleftists don't advocate allying with fascists.

[Die Neue Zeit]

?

Over two millennia prior.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Fuck off, you ultra-left-ultra-right "fifth column" scum.

You realize that absolutely no where in my post, I indicated that I would support Fascism. In fact, learning from the Wiemar experience, it seems clear that anything/everything needs to be done to prevent the Fascists from taking power, even if it means supporting bourgeios groups like the SPD.

Secondly, I assume you are defining the term 'revolutionary' as advancing the interests of the proletariat. When I use the term revolutionary, I intend to describe any phenomena that substantially changes the power relations in a society. By my definition, Fascism fits that mold. It's not any kind of revolutionary movement I would want to advocate for, but it is revolutionary.

[Queercommie Girl]

^

Perhaps anarchists define as "revolutionary" anything that is anti-state, while Marxists define as "revolutionary" anything that advances proletarian interests.

[Queercommie Girl]

Ultraleftists don't advocate allying with fascists.

You should know the Stalin-controlled German communist party entered into tactical alliances with the German Nazis against what Stalin called the "social-fascist" German social democrats in the 1920s. This is an example of the Stalinist bureaucracy shifting to ultra-left politics tactically.

[Raúl Duke]

ultra-leftI think this is a useless term


You should know the Stalin-controlled German communist party entered into tactical alliances with the German Nazis against what Stalin called the "social-fascist" German social democrats in the 1920s. This is an example of the Stalinist bureaucracy shifting to ultra-left politics tactically. Yet, other leftists (who are/were/maybe considered ultra-left) would side with neither the Nazis or the Social Democrats.


Perhaps anarchists define as "revolutionary" anything that is anti-state, while Marxists define as "revolutionary" anything that advances proletarian interests. Perhaps you're blowing smoke out of your ass.

Modern-day anarchism has come a long way from just an "anti-state" or freedom focus. Most anarchists, particularly those from Europe, are more in line with an anti-capitalist spirit than an anti-state one. After all, you see anarchists participate in actions for the defense of NHS or whatever instead of joining in the efforts to "reform" or eliminate the NHS out of a simplistic "anti-state" position.

Going back to Mussolini, it's hard to say what he was going for. Perhaps he was focused more on retaining and maintaining power rather than purely ideological reasons. After all, initially, many fascist parties had a "left-wing" (Strasser, etc) and of course a right-wing. The left-wing of these parties want to maintain ties with leftist parties, but of course most leftist parties will not ally themselves with fascism. The right-wing, however, was ok in allying themselves with fascism and to put out their own platforms into the overall fascist one. In most (or all historical) cases, the "left-wing" of fascism gets eliminated and the true face of fascism is out. In the Spanish case, the fascists were more only organizers of right-wing resistance against leftists and leftist policy so the "modern" stuff of the Spanish phlanges program were taken out or minimalized and replaced with the policies from the traditional right-wing of that nation. For example, Italian fascism and Spanish fascism I think were initially ok or in favor of eliminating the monarchy but they didn't so to not alienate their traditional right-wing backers.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yet, other leftists (who are/were/maybe considered ultra-left) would side with neither the Nazis or the Social Democrats.


Objectively social democrats are no way as bad as Nazis. Menshevik-type parties should be allowed in principle in a genuine democratic socialist state, Nazis should be banned completely.

So even the political line that sees social democrats just as bad as the Nazis is still wrong.

Social democrats, even right-leaning ones, are still "bourgeois worker's parties", not completely bourgeois parties, let alone fascist parties.



Perhaps you're blowing smoke out of your ass.
Go and fuck yourself, you piece of shit.



Modern-day anarchism has come a long way from just an "anti-state" or freedom focus. Most anarchists, particularly those from Europe, are more in line with an anti-capitalist spirit than an anti-state one. After all, you see anarchists participate in actions for the defense of NHS or whatever instead of joining in the efforts to "reform" or eliminate the NHS out of a simplistic "anti-state" position.You don't speak for all anarchists, only for yourself, and your tendency.

I was referring to what Apoi Viitor was saying specifically, since he clearly stated that:

When I use the term revolutionary, I intend to describe any phenomena that substantially changes the power relations in a society. By my definition, Fascism fits that mold. It's not any kind of revolutionary movement I would want to advocate for, but it is revolutionary.

Which is different from what you are saying, since while fascist forces are anti-state, they do not in any way further the interests of the working class. On the contrary, fascism is fundamentally anti-working class.

To call fascism "revolutionary" is technically a mistake anyway. You might not think that, but I wasn't even talking to you, I was talking to Apoi Viitor.

Maybe you need to learn to read better, scum?

[Apoi_Viitor]

You should know the Stalin-controlled German communist party entered into tactical alliances with the German Nazis against what Stalin called the "social-fascist" German social democrats in the 1920s. This is an example of the Stalinist bureaucracy shifting to ultra-left politics tactically.

To defend Comrade Stalin, the KPD never really 'allied' itself with the Nazis (to the best of my knowledge at least), the KPD simply refused to join with the SPD and block the Nazis from attaining power. The KPD's motto was 'Hitler first, then us', because they believed 1. the Nazis weren't very different than the SPD and 2. that they were capable of seizing power without the support of other political parties.

On the other hand, I believe you can find examples of Trotskyites siding with rightist reactionaries in the USSR, and they aided each other in attempting to oust Stalin out of power.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Which is different from what you are saying, since while fascist forces are anti-state, they do not in any way further the interests of the working class. On the contrary, fascism is fundamentally anti-working class.

When I use the term revolutionary it means a significant change in the structure or relations of power. Ex. The collapse of communism in Europe was revolutionary. or Deng Xiaoping enacted revolutionary reforms which changed the characteristics of Chinese society.

[Raúl Duke]

Go and fuck yourself, you piece of shit.



Oh so touchy

:rolleyes:


So even the political line that sees social democrats just as bad as the Nazis is still wrong.I doubt the ultra-left or even the KPD saw or genuinely believed them "just as bad" as nazis since only Nazis were mostly targeted in street-fighting while no leftist group targeted any of the SPD's small paramilitary organizations.


You don't speak for all anarchists, only for yourself, and your tendency.

I was referring to what Apoi Viitor was saying specifically, since he clearly stated that:Apoi Viitor doesn't speak for all anarchists either. I also didn't say "all anarchists," instead saying "most"

Also, if you look around and ask, you'll see that I'm right.


Maybe you need to learn to read better, scum?

LOL

[Queercommie Girl]

To defend Comrade Stalin, the KPD never really 'allied' itself with the Nazis (to the best of my knowledge at least), the KPD simply refused to join with the SPD and block the Nazis from attaining power. The KPD's motto was 'Hitler first, then us', because they believed 1. the Nazis weren't very different than the SPD and 2. that they were capable of seizing power without the support of other political parties.


I guess my Trotskyist friend is right when he said that every anarchist is a little Stalinist.



On the other hand, I believe you can find examples of Trotskyites siding with rightist reactionaries in the USSR, and they aided each other in attempting to oust Stalin out of power.
I don't completely reject Stalinism, but Stalinism has some very serious flaws. So actually, sometimes what Stalinists consider as "right" is in reality "left".

Like Stalinists consider LGBT rights to be "right-wing" and "reactionary", whereas in reality they are "left-wing" and "progressive".

I'd rather ally with reformists than Stalinists to be frank. Because it isn't just about "overthrowing the state", it's about having the correct program and building up the right forces. Otherwise even if the existing state is overthrown reactionaries would still get in power, simply due to the power balance in society.

Like the Chinese capitalist revolutionary Dr. Sun Yat-sen overthrew the feudal Manchu Qing Dynasty completely, but did China become a genuine democratic capitalist republic? Not at all. Feudal warlords such as the Beijing-based Yuan Shikai took political power away from the hands of the bourgeois revolutionaries.

When progressive forces are objectively insufficient, it is often better to work within the structures of the existing state than to overthrow it "as soon as possible". Hence the Trotskyist doctrines of entryism and transitional programmes.

[Queercommie Girl]

Oh so touchy

:rolleyes:

LOL


It is you who started the personal insults. I wasn't even talking to you when I made the comments on anarchism.

Besides, you shouldn't talk to a girl like that.

[Raúl Duke]

I guess my Trotskyist friend is right when he said that every anarchist is a little Stalinist.Are you and your friends full of shit and double standards?

You tell me "hey you that's your opinion not every anarchist agrees with you, blah"

Than take Apoi's stance as if it were every anarchist's stance.

Than act all pissy about it for calling you out on it.


Besides, you shouldn't talk to a girl like that.

This is the internet, I cannot tell your gender.
Also, nothing I said is gender-specific to women

[Queercommie Girl]

Are you and your friends full of shit and double standards?

You tell me "hey you that's your opinion not every anarchist agrees with you, blah"

Than take Apoi's stance as if it were every anarchist's stance.

Than act all pissy about it for calling you out on it.

Politically, there are many elements in anarchism I don't like and reject, that's a fact.

It's nothing personal. You have to live with it. I don't hate any anarchist on a personal level.

Just like I'm partly a Maoist, but I don't get personally angry if someone has an anti-Maoist stance. (And many do) It's just politics. I would only get angry is someone is racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic.

Politics is politics. Don't take it too personally.

P.S. As an anarchist, don't you feel that it is problematic for an anarchist to start defending Stalin? If you don't like Lenin and Trotsky for their suppression of anarchists or whatever, isn't Stalin much worse? Had you lived in Stalin's Russia you probably wouldn't have long to live before the KGB catches up with you and execute you for spreading counter-revolutionary anarchist ideologies.

So this is not directed primarily at you, but his defence of Stalin is either opportunistic (because he is being anti-Trotskyist), or he isn't really a very good anarchist.

[Red Commissar]

Mussolini had been a "star" of sorts in the Italian Socialist Party. He was, for one thing, also the kind of man they wanted more in their party as opposed to Italians who were raised in middle-class environments. He was a "laborer" in his youth and later a teacher, and was able to reach out to their desired group more that way.

He was also a part of the "Maximalist" wing of the Italian Socialist Party, the part of the party that wanted to implement its socialist program in full, as opposed to the gradual, reform oriented nature of the Minimalists.

I mean for the most part in his youth he seemed to be drenched in a somewhat revolutionary, albeit nationalist-tinged, household. His name is enough- Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini. Benito being named after the Mexican revolutionary Benito Juarez, Amilcare referring to Amilcare Cipriani, an anarchist, and Andrea for Andrea Costa, an old Italian socialist.

Under his steed the party's paper, Avanti! reached its highest circulation. It's kind of odd seeing him go from the 1905 demonstrations against the Libyan wars, deeming it a vile act of Imperialism from the Italian Kingdom, to him ending up as a fascist leader of Italy continuing that occupation of Libya. I think that was a sentiment shared by many of his peers who were confused by his swing out of radical politics. I mean across Europe there were socialists who supported the War in their respective countries but remained some idiotic reformist strand, Mussolini went completely into another realm.

One relevant events between the Fascist Party and the PSI, before the March on Rome,

In 1921 a "peace treaty" was signed between the Fascist and the Socialists, as well as the General Confederation of Labor. This was in response to the violence the Fascists were carrying out against the PSI and trade unions during their violent actions in the Red Years. Mussolini had been wanting to form a sort of "National" Government, one that tried to incorporate all elements into the state framework, using sugary rhetoric about Italian nationalism and the need for all of them to stand together. This was directed against the agitation in the working class, which Mussolini had cast off as an indication of Communism's threat to Italy.

The PSI, or at least the paper Avanti!, claimed this was merely a "truce" and that the class struggle was not ending. The GCL leaders viewed it as a "moral" pact that was cleaning society of all it's corrupting influences, that in one writer's words "had infiltrated it and were threatening our very existence". Interpret that as you will, but I think this was a slam to the more radical elements in the trade unions that were threatening the old leadership.

Mussolini and his fascists in Parliament supported this move while some in his group were out straight angry about it. Political papers of groups that were opposed to Mussolini strongly seemed to think a split was possible among his supporters. It seems until the assassination of Matteotti (where again news blew out that a split was possible in the Fascist movement), Mussolini had been attempting to co-opt certain elements in the main socialist parties (by this point the PSI and the PSU)- what seemed to be the parasitic bureaucratic and careerist elements birthed out of their reformist currents- and the trade unionists into the state structure he was constructing.

I think he knew for the most part the most expedient way to win over working class elements was to pull over the leaders who were supposed to be supporting them, and using fear and nationalist rhetoric, kept them following him even if the leaders began to have second thoughts.

[Queercommie Girl]

This is the internet, I cannot tell your gender.
Also, nothing I said is gender-specific to women


Perhaps you're blowing smoke out of your ass.

Do you enjoy fetishising about my ass? :rolleyes:

[Apoi_Viitor]

I'd rather ally with reformists than Stalinists to be frank. Because it isn't just about "overthrowing the state", it's about having the correct program and building up the right forces. Otherwise even if the existing state is overthrown reactionaries would still get in power, simply due to the power balance in society.

Why do you think I disagree with this...? I didn't mention anything about overthrowing the state in my previous posts (which you've referred to an every reply to me), and I even indicated in one post that I would've gladly sided with the SPD against the Nazis. This entire time you've been posting arguments that I supposedly disagree with (when in fact I don't...), simply because I posted this:

Fascism has both revolutionary and reactionary traits - which makes it impossible to plot on a single line.

According to Wikipedia citing the Oxford English Dictionary,
Revolutionary: The general sense of "a sudden great change in affairs" was recorded in the middle of the 15th century and the express political meaning was first recorded in about 1600.


So this is not directed primarily at you, but his defence of Stalin is either opportunistic (because he is being anti-Trotskyist), or he isn't really a very good anarchist.

Maybe I don't have to be anti-Stalin 100% of the time... Or better yet, how about you read my earlier post where I critiqued the KPD for not siding with the SPD, instead of clinging to the post where I defended them from your erroneous assertion that they outright collaborated with the Nazis...

[Dimentio]

Mussolini had been a "star" of sorts in the Italian Socialist Party. He was, for one thing, also the kind of man they wanted more in their party as opposed to Italians who were raised in middle-class environments. He was a "laborer" in his youth and later a teacher, and was able to reach out to their desired group more that way.

He was also a part of the "Maximalist" wing of the Italian Socialist Party, the part of the party that wanted to implement its socialist program in full, as opposed to the gradual, reform oriented nature of the Minimalists.

I mean for the most part in his youth he seemed to be drenched in a somewhat revolutionary, albeit nationalist-tinged, household. His name is enough- Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini. Benito being named after the Mexican revolutionary Benito Juarez, Amilcare referring to Amilcare Cipriani, an anarchist, and Andrea for Andrea Costa, an old Italian socialist.

Under his steed the party's paper, Avanti! reached its highest circulation. It's kind of odd seeing him go from the 1905 demonstrations against the Libyan wars, deeming it a vile act of Imperialism from the Italian Kingdom, to him ending up as a fascist leader of Italy continuing that occupation of Libya. I think that was a sentiment shared by many of his peers who were confused by his swing out of radical politics. I mean across Europe there were socialists who supported the War in their respective countries but remained some idiotic reformist strand, Mussolini went completely into another realm.

One relevant events between the Fascist Party and the PSI, before the March on Rome,

In 1921 a "peace treaty" was signed between the Fascist and the Socialists, as well as the General Confederation of Labor. This was in response to the violence the Fascists were carrying out against the PSI and trade unions during their violent actions in the Red Years. Mussolini had been wanting to form a sort of "National" Government, one that tried to incorporate all elements into the state framework, using sugary rhetoric about Italian nationalism and the need for all of them to stand together. This was directed against the agitation in the working class, which Mussolini had cast off as an indication of Communism's threat to Italy.

The PSI, or at least the paper Avanti!, claimed this was merely a "truce" and that the class struggle was not ending. The GCL leaders viewed it as a "moral" pact that was cleaning society of all it's corrupting influences, that in one writer's words "had infiltrated it and were threatening our very existence". Interpret that as you will, but I think this was a slam to the more radical elements in the trade unions that were threatening the old leadership.

Mussolini and his fascists in Parliament supported this move while some in his group were out straight angry about it. Political papers of groups that were opposed to Mussolini strongly seemed to think a split was possible among his supporters. It seems until the assassination of Matteotti (where again news blew out that a split was possible in the Fascist movement), Mussolini had been attempting to co-opt certain elements in the main socialist parties (by this point the PSI and the PSU)- what seemed to be the parasitic bureaucratic and careerist elements birthed out of their reformist currents- and the trade unionists into the state structure he was constructing.

I think he knew for the most part the most expedient way to win over working class elements was to pull over the leaders who were supposed to be supporting them, and using fear and nationalist rhetoric, kept them following him even if the leaders began to have second thoughts.

If Matteotti had not been murdered, I deem it possible that Italy would not have developed into a dictatorship.

According to Göran Hägg, Mussolini did probably not want Matteotti killed, "just" beaten up and forced to drink ricin, but that the thugs outdid themselves.

That basically forced Mussolini to turn Italy into a full-grown dictatorship in order to keep his own power (from the Matteotti assassination, the health of Il Duce was deteriorating).

Mussolini's guiding influence seems to have been that one should follow "the spirit of the age", in short, be an opportunist without any consistent political programme, all in order to win power.

In 1938, when the Goose-steps and Race Laws were introduced, and someone complained (think it was Ciano), he said that if the Axis had been between Rome and Moscow instead, he had talked about the international proletariat and nationalised the corporations.

In that extent, I wonder whether Italian Fascism really could be seen as an archetype of a right-wing extremist regime. Göran Hägg himself mostly associates Mussolini to modern career politicians like Tony Blair.

[Queercommie Girl]

Mussolini's guiding influence seems to have been that one should follow "the spirit of the age", in short, be an opportunist without any consistent political programme, all in order to win power.


That's the fatal problem. a Marxist vanguard should never be like a Daoist sage: "The sage has no constant mind, his mind is just the mind of the people". The socialist vanguard must have a clear and principled program, and be willing to risk his or her own life if necessary, and never just be blown around by the wind of the masses like a mindless idiot or a devious opportunist.

Sometimes, the Truth is held in the hands of a minority.

But as you say, being so opportunistic probably Mussolini wasn't such a principled fascist either, unlike Hitler and the imperialists in Japan.

[Raúl Duke]

Perhaps you're blowing smoke out of your ass.

Do you enjoy fetishising about my ass? :rolleyes:

:lol: (no I'M not laughing at you, I just find the misunderstanding amusing)

I don't know how the term is used over there in England or if it even exists over there.

But in the US, it's in reference to making stuff up.

The idiom arose out of a medical practice of giving tobacco smoke enemas to people as some sort of snake-oil medical elixir for many ailments.

You can use the idioms with both males and females and it doesn't mean one is fetishizing anyone's asshole. I cannot "fetishize" an ass I haven't seen.

[Queercommie Girl]

Why do you think I disagree with this...? I didn't mention anything about overthrowing the state in my previous posts (which you've referred to an every reply to me), and I even indicated in one post that I would've gladly sided with the SPD against the Nazis. This entire time you've been posting arguments that I supposedly disagree with (when in fact I don't...), simply because I posted this:

Fascism has both revolutionary and reactionary traits - which makes it impossible to plot on a single line.

According to Wikipedia citing the Oxford English Dictionary,
Revolutionary: The general sense of "a sudden great change in affairs" was recorded in the middle of the 15th century and the express political meaning was first recorded in about 1600.

Maybe I don't have to be anti-Stalin 100% of the time... Or better yet, how about you read my earlier post where I critiqued the KPD for not siding with the SPD, instead of clinging to the post where I defended them from your erroneous assertion that they outright collaborated with the Nazis...

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/3701

How Hitler came to power

The KPD and the Stalinist international's reaction to this situation was a massive error that would help prevent united workers' action against fascism. They labelled the SPD 'social fascists', the main enemy of the working class, and directed the bulk of their campaigning against the SPD.



With many KPD members tremendously bitter at the SPD leadership's bloody role in suppressing the revolution between 1918 and 1920 they found it easy not to make a distinction between the SPD leadership and the continuing mass support the SPD enjoyed, especially amongst many older trade unionists and activists.



By Stalin's logic every other party, not just the SPD, was "fascist", including the 'Trotsky-fascists' and there would be no difference if the Nazis came to power. This led the KPD leaders to believe Hitler coming to office would be the last capitalist government, opening the way to the KPD taking power.



Not seeing the fatal implications of the Nazis' consolidation of power, this gigantic mistake was to play a major role in holding back opposition to the Nazis.


... ...


This failure was not forgotten. In 1929-33 the main social democratic workers' organisations did not take a lead. While the KPD's support was rising, its ultra-left policies limited its appeal to many older and still employed workers. Fascism, posing as an alternative to the crisis-ridden system, was able to develop into a mass movement, primarily based on the middle classes, but drawing in parts of the most ground-down layers of society as well.


... ...

However, in spite of this treacherous leadership, the SPD still retained the loyalty of millions of workers. Only through uniting with these workers, and proving themselves the best fighters against fascism and capitalism, could the KPD have been instrumental in defeating Hitler and have opened up the possibility of establishing a socialist society in Germany.


Instead the KPD criminally continued their policy of 'social fascism', holding that the SPD leadership, and not the growing Nazi party, was the main enemy.



Sometimes this even led to the KPD effectively working alongside the Nazis to attack the SPD. In mid-1931, the Nazis invoked a referendum on whether the SPD-led regional government in Prussia should be replaced. During this same period, votes for the Nazis were increasing hugely.

[Devrim]

Slogans are irrelevant. It's all about your political actions on the ground. Allying with fascists in any form what-so-ever is clearly a seriously mistaken line.

Actually those who allied with the fascists in Germany were the KPD, the followers of Lenin's line during the Ruhr crisis.

Of course, there is a direct link between these sort of actions, and the position of Lenin on the national question. When Germany became an 'oppressed nation', it was only natural for the 'leninists' to collaberate with 'national forces'.

In the past few years we have seen a similar example in our country, Turkey, with the Maoist İşci Partesi (Workers' Party) collaberating with the fascist Grey Wolves. They did all this without changing their politics at all, Just their analysis. Once they had decided that Turkey was an ' oppressed nation' the rest came naturally.

What is referred to as the 'ultra-left' has never taken up positions like this.


To defend Comrade Stalin, the KPD never really 'allied' itself with the Nazis (to the best of my knowledge at least), the KPD simply refused to join with the SPD and block the Nazis from attaining power. The KPD's motto was 'Hitler first, then us', because they believed 1. the Nazis weren't very different than the SPD and 2. that they were capable of seizing power without the support of other political parties.

The position that you refer to was the one taken up in the 'third period' in the thirties. The KPD collaborated with the German far right much earlier during the Ruhr crisis of 1923-5.


However, you should know that in Chinese Marxist theoretical discourse, there is a concept called "formally ultra-left, but in substance right". Often what appears to be "ultra-left" in form may in concrete objective reality be "right-leaning".

'Chinese Marxist theoretical discourse' is the ideology of the ruling class of a capitalist state.

Devrim

[Queercommie Girl]

'Chinese Marxist theoretical discourse' is the ideology of the ruling class of a capitalist state.


It's a Maoist line and concept actually, not one created by anyone in the post-Mao period.

But of course, according to you, probably both Lenin and Mao are capitalists.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Sometimes this even led to the KPD effectively working alongside the Nazis to attack the SPD. In mid-1931, the Nazis invoked a referendum on whether the SPD-led regional government in Prussia should be replaced. During this same period, votes for the Nazis were increasing hugely.

I don't think that qualifies as deliberate collaboration. The KPD's role in putting Hitler into power was essentially like Ralph Nader's role in putting Bush into power. Nader never wanted Bush to win, but by not collaborating with the democrats, he did.

[Apoi_Viitor]

The position that you refer to was the one taken up in the 'third period' in the thirties. The KPD collaborated with the German far right much earlier during the Ruhr crisis of 1923-5.

How so?

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't think that qualifies as deliberate collaboration. The KPD's role in putting Hitler into power was essentially like Ralph Nader's role in putting Bush into power. Nader never wanted Bush to win, but by not collaborating with the democrats, he did.

No it's not the same.

But in any case the KPD cannot take main responsibility. At this time it was effectively under the control of Stalin.

The KPD explicitly considered the SPD as the main enemy instead of the Nazis. That's a lot more than whatever Nader did.

Also, as bad as Bush is, he is still not as bad as a Nazi.

[Queercommie Girl]

According to Wikipedia citing the Oxford English Dictionary,

Revolutionary: The general sense of "a sudden great change in affairs" was recorded in the middle of the 15th century and the express political meaning was first recorded in about 1600.


I don't think socialists should just use the generic meaning of the term "revolutionary" as found in the dictionary.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I don't think socialists should just use the generic meaning of the term "revolutionary" as found in the dictionary.

Why not? This is the definition the rest of the world uses.

And the argument shouldn't be over semantics. I repeatedly re-explained my post, and my use of the term revolutionary, although you continued to type away about 'overthrowing the state' and other straw-man nonsense.

[Queercommie Girl]

Why not? This is the definition the rest of the world uses.

Marxism has its own specific meanings for terms like "revolutionary".

[Queercommie Girl]

And the argument shouldn't be over semantics. I repeatedly re-explained my post, and my use of the term revolutionary, although you continued to type away about 'overthrowing the state' and other straw-man nonsense.


Are you blind or illiterate?

I was focussing on the historical period when the Stalin-controlled German KPD allied with the Nazis against the SPD, not about anarchists solely being anti-state.

[Red Commissar]

If Matteotti had not been murdered, I deem it possible that Italy would not have developed into a dictatorship.

According to Göran Hägg, Mussolini did probably not want Matteotti killed, "just" beaten up and forced to drink ricin, but that the thugs outdid themselves.

That basically forced Mussolini to turn Italy into a full-grown dictatorship in order to keep his own power (from the Matteotti assassination, the health of Il Duce was deteriorating).

Mussolini's guiding influence seems to have been that one should follow "the spirit of the age", in short, be an opportunist without any consistent political programme, all in order to win power.

In 1938, when the Goose-steps and Race Laws were introduced, and someone complained (think it was Ciano), he said that if the Axis had been between Rome and Moscow instead, he had talked about the international proletariat and nationalised the corporations.

In that extent, I wonder whether Italian Fascism really could be seen as an archetype of a right-wing extremist regime. Göran Hägg himself mostly associates Mussolini to modern career politicians like Tony Blair.

I think Mussolini was indeed a opportunistic figure, but I think unlike other elements in his Fascist party he was well aware of the intricacies of politics.

Mussolini was, in some ways, presenting himself as a figure to the King and the Italian establishment of one who could bring order to Italy with his Fascist Party. Everything worked in his favor running up to the March on Rome- in 1919 General Election, the first to run under proportional representation, the PSI (this occurring before the major split) polled 32% and gained 156 seats (109 seats gain!). It was only by the broad coalition of the Liberal Party, the Radical Party, and the Social Democratic Party (Ivanoe Bonomi's party, formed after his expulsion from the PSI in 1912) that was able to keep the PSI from entering the government. Along with some agreements with the PPP, they managed to keep the PSI at bay. Alongside this was the chaos on the streets, the striking workers during the Red Years, to which Mussolini's blackshirts attacked and harassed with the tacit approval of the Giolitti Liberal government. In time a genuine Communist Party also emerged in 1921, adding to Mussolini's arguments of the Soviet threat.

So Marching on Rome, Mussolini sought to emphasize the strength of the Fascists and to iterate that he was the one to "save" Italy from collapse and the "Red scourge". Mussolini wanted to emphasize this by gaining the support of all elements of Italian society- to this end he gained the support of the PPP and the Liberals, and tried to toy with the Labor Unions and some Socialists- to show that he was serious about making a "unity" government.

In the early years Mussolini's government didn't seem to be much beyond a broad coalition government serving as a bulwark against Communism and protecting Italian economic structure. His camp of supporters on the ground however began to get impatient, arguing that Mussolini needed to act now rather than later. These blackshirts were continuing their intimidation and violence, as well as the protection of "Private Property" in the form of businesses and the latifundias in the south (large, medievalesque land estates). The Fascists in this group were perceiving that Mussolini was selling out his supporters and there were moves within of figures who presented themselves as an alternative, like Gabriele d'Annunzio of the Regency of Carnaro fame.

One of the things Mussolini was aware of was the fickle nature of political alliances in Italy and indeed in general, and knew that the PPP and Liberal support would be withdrawn in time (and this was true, in the summer of 1923 the PPP got split over the issue, with some members staying with Mussolini and becoming Fascists, while the rest of the PPP left altogether. Similar case with the Liberals). The Fascist Party, and Mussolini's political future with it, would risk a possible defeat early on if the continued to rely on the traditional political structure.

To this end Mussolini had the Acerbo Law passed (this being before Matteotti's assassination). The Acerbo Law essentially was a way for Mussolini to resolve the issue with the Fascist Party's then small strength. The law laid out that any party that gained the most seats in Parliament would automatically receive 2/3 majority in the Chamber of Deputies. This was fiercely opposed by all members of the opposition. The election that followed in the same year saw Mussolini achieving this (and to add insult to injury, the Fascist list had gotten at least 60% anyways, most likely through voting irregularity and intimidation), and thus the PNF got the majority in parliament with out the need for political partners.

Enter Giacomo Matteotti. Matteotti was a disciple/protege of one of the founders of the PSI, Filippio Turrati, who was expelled from the PSI in 1922 due to his reformist views, demanding the PSI form a firm alliance with bourgeois parties, as well as issues that arose in the PSI due to the United Front debates from the Comintern (that's a different story altogether). Matteotti acted as Turrati's spokesperson in the Chamber, heading the delegation of the United Socialist Party (PSU, formed by Turrati and other reformists after being expelled from the PSI).

Matteotti, like other opposition members, was fiercely critical of the Acerbo Law and the following election, as well as the violence from Blackshirts. He in turn became a victim, and after initial speculation that he had been kidnapped had been shown that he had been murdered, a PR shitstorm exploded in Mussolini's face.

Mussolini had long attempted to emphasize the difference between his fascists and the Socialists and Communists he opposed. One key difference was, in his view at least, unlike what the Reds had shown in Russia in the civil war and the Soviet Union, in unrest in Germany, in Soviet Hungary, etc that Fascists weren't "evil". Fascists didn't murder people on the streets mindlessly and causing trouble to their country, but were "protecting" Italy. Fascists were saviors, not the harbingers, of the fate of the Italian state.

Now we had the assassination of a political figure that threw all this out of whack. Mussolini tried to rectify this by taking some token measures against his security head and black shirt members, but this opened up other problems. Within his party divides were growing and he was being threatened with an internal coup that would make him lose control of the movement. On the other hand the political realm turned against him, with the Aventine Secession (recalling a moment in Roman history/legend) forming in retaliation to Matteotti's assassination and the political changes that had occurred in Italy since Mussolini's assumption of power. The Aventine Secession hosted bourgeois parties who had once supported Mussolini too, like the Liberals and the PPP, as well as the PSU, PSI, and the PCd'I, who were now attempting to convince the King to dismiss Mussolini's government.

There was speculation (and hope) that Mussolini's Fascist party was on the verge of imploding spectacularly and his movement would die out. Such was the political climate then that Mussolini truly felt threatened for the first time that the dramatic rise of Fascism might be destroyed.

By a stroke of luck and political jockeying, Mussolini resolved the crisis in his party in late 1924 and put down the threat from figures who opposed his leadership of the Fascist movement. With the Aventine Secession's inability to make anything happen, Mussolini felt more secure. He made a speech in 1925 emphasizing again his leadership of the Fascist movement, and that Fascism was here to stay.

http://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Italia_-_3_gennaio_1925,_Discorso_sul_delitto_Matteotti

A rough translation of some important parts crudely thrown through google:



Well, I declare here, in front of this House and in the presence of the Italian people, I assume, just, political responsibility, morality, history of all that has happened. If the sentences more or less crippled enough to hang a man, outside the pole and off the rope! If fascism was not to bludgeon and castor oil, and not a proud passion of the best Italian youth, to blame me! If fascism was a criminal, I am the leader of this conspiracy!

...

I deliberately wanted things to reach that particular extreme point, and rich experience of my life in these six months I have tested the Party, and like to feel the hardening of some metals should beat with a hammer, so I After the temper of some men, I saw what they are worth and why at a certain moment, when the wind is treacherous, notched a tangent.

...

In just three days this January 1925, and in one area, there have been incidents in Mestre, Pionca, Vallombrosa: fifty subversive armed with guns running around the village singing the Red Flag and explode firecrackers, in Venice, and attacked the soldier Mario Pascai wounded in Cavaso Treviso, another fascist wounded ruffle and the police station overrun by a score of rowdy women, a capomanipolo attacked and thrown into the water at the Venice Favara; fascists attacked by subversives in Mestre, Padua, fascists attacked by other subversives.

Calling your attention to this, because this is a symptom: the direct L92 stoned by subversives with broken glass; to Moduno Livenza of a capomanipolo assaulted and beaten.

You see from this situation that the sedition of the Aventine has had profound repercussions throughout the country. Then comes the moment when we say enough! When two elements are in conflict, and are irreducible, the solution is force.

There is no other solution has ever been in history and there never will be.
Now I dare say that the problem will be solved. Fascism, Government and Party are in full working order.

Gentlemen!

Have you made any illusions! You believed that fascism was over because I compress it, he was dead because I punished him and then I also had the cruelty to say so. But if I put the hundredth part of the energy that I put to compress it, to provoke it, then you would see.

There will be no need for this, because the government is strong enough to crush the sedition of the Aventine definitely in full. Italy, gentlemen, want peace, we want peace, want quiet hardworking.

We, this calm, this quiet hardworking give it to him with love, if possible, by force if necessary.


It's not the best translation, but you can get the idea of what he is saying- I am the leader of the Fascists, and if they did anything bad, I will accept responsibility of their actions. However Fascists are the force behind the survival and rebirth of Italy, and we will not stand for threats against the country. The Reds are seeking to destroy our country and doing much more harm than what the Fascists have been blamed of. The time for the new order is now, no more nice guy.

And from here Mussolini began to consolidate power. The first act he did as 1925 opened was to declare that all parties that were in the Aventine Secession had forfeited their seats. Adding on to this his accusations that they were involved in subversive activity, all parties that were involved got banned- including the PSI, PSU, liberals, and the PPP. Ironically the only group that avoided this ban was the Communist Party, having left the Aventine Secession in late 1924, viewing it as weak and rudderless.

1924-1925 was certainly a watershed moment for Fascism, one that it emerged victorious from and the start of truly constructing the new Fascist state.

In 1926, Gramsci had written a statement concerning the "Italian Situation" in a statement he was to present to the Communist Party meeting. There is one part where he reviews Fascism, and I think it is worth looking at as a contemporary analysis of what Fascism (and its confusing makeup) was doing at the time, though there's some economic stuff thrown in too. I've added in some notes where necessary:



The Two Tendencies within Fascism

On the one hand, the tendency of Federzoni, Rocco, Volpi etc [1], which wants to draw the conclusions from this whole period since the march on Rome. It wants to liquidate the Fascist Party as a political organism and to incorporate into the State apparatus the bourgeois position of strength created by Fascism in its struggles against all the other parties. This tendency is working together with the Crown and the general staff. It wants to incorporate into the central forces of the state on one hand Catholic Action (in other words, the Vatican), putting an end de facto and perhaps even formally to the rift between the House of Savoy and the Vatican [2]; and on the other hand the more moderate elements of the former Aventine opposition. It is certain that, while Fascism in its nationalist wing, given the past and the traditions of the old Italian nationalism, is working towards Catholic Action, the House of Savoy, on the other hand, is once again trying to exploit its traditions in order to attract the members of Di Cesarò and Amendola groups [3] into government spheres.

The other tendency is officially represented by Farinacci[4]. Objectively, it represents two contradictions within Fascism: (1) The contradiction between landowners and capitalists, whose interests clash, in particular, over tariffs. It is certain that today's Fascism typically represents the clear predominance of finance capital within the State: capital which seeks to subjugate all the productive forces of the country. (2) The second contradiction, which is far more important, is that between the petit bourgeoisie and capitalism. The Fascist petite bourgeoisie sees the Party as its insturment of defense, its Parliament, its democracy. It seeks to put pressure on the government through the Party, to prevent itself from being crushed by capitalism.

One factor that must be kept in mind is the state of total enslavement to America in which Italy has been placed by the Fascist government. In the liquidation of its war debts to both America and Britain, the Fascist government did not take the trouble to obtain any guarantee of negotiability of Italian obligations. The Italian stockmarket and exchequer are continually exposed to the political blackmail of the American and British governments, which can at any moement release vast quantities of Italian currency onto the market. The Morgan debt, more over, was inucrred under even worse conditions [5]. Of the hundred million dollars of this loan, the government had only thirty-three million at its disposal. The other sixty-seven million the Italian government can only make use of with the generous personal consent of Morgan- which means that Morgan is the real head of the Italian government. These factors may have the effect of lending a nationalist intonation to the petit bourgeoisie's defense of its interests through the Fascist Party: a nationalist intonation opposed to the old nationalism and the present leadership of the party, which has sacrificed national sovereignty and the political independence of the country to the intersts of a small group of plutocrats....

In General it can be said that the Farinacci tendency in the Fascist Party is lacking in unity, organization, and general principles. It is more of a widespread state of mind than a tendency properly speaking and it will not be very difficult for the government to break up its constitutive nuclei. What is important from our point of view is that the crisis, insofar as it represents the detachment of the petite bourgeoisie from the bourgeois-agrarian alliance, cannot be other than a source of military weakness for Fascism.

The general economic crisis is the fundamental factor in the political crisis. It is necessary to study the elements that make up this crisis because certain to them are inherent in the general Italian situation and will have a negative effect in the period of proletarian dictatorship as well. These principal elements can be defined as follows: of the three elements that traditionally make up the assets in the Italian balance of trade, two- remittances from emigrants and the tourist industry- have collapsed.The third element, exports, is going through a crisis. If to these two negative factors (remittances from emigrants and the tourist industry) and the third, partially negative factor (exports) is added to the need for heavy imports of grain owing to the failed harvest [6], it becomes clear that the prospects for the coming months are looking catastrophic.

It is necessary to bear these four elements in mind to understand the impotence of the government and the ruling class. Certainly, even if the governmetn an do nothing or next to nothing to increase remittances from emigrants (take account of the iniative proposed by Mr. Giuseppe Zuccoli, the expected successor to Volpi at the Ministry of Finance [7]) and to boost the tourist inudstry, something can be done to increase exports. At all events, a major policy initiative is possible in this area, which even if it did not heal the wound, would at least help stop the flow of blood. Some people are thinking in terms of a labour policy based on inflationism. Naturally this possibility cannot be absolutely ruled out, but (1) if it did come to pass its results in the economic field would be relatively minimal; (2) in the political field, on the ohter hand, its results would be catastrophic.

In reality it is necessary to bear the following factors in mind: (1) Exports represent only a part of the credit side of the Italian balance of trade, at most two-thirds; (2) To wipe out the deficit it would be necessary not only to obtain the maximum yield from the existing productive base, but also to enlarge the productive base itself by buying new machinery abroad, which would increase the trade deficit even further.; (3) Raw materials for Italian industry are imported from abroad and have to be paid for in hard currency. A large-scale increase in production would mean that an enormous mass of circulating capital would be needed for buying raw materials; (4) It must be kept in mind that Fascism as a general phenomenon has reduced the wages and salaries of the Italian working class to a minimum. Inflation makes some sense in a country with high wages, as an alternative to Fascism; it lowers the standard of living of the working classes and thus restores freedom of manoeuvre to the bourgeoisie. Inflation makes no sense at all in Italy, where standard of living of the working class is already at subsistence level.

Among the elemnts of economic crisis; the new organization of joint-stock companies with preferential voting, which is one of the sources of rupture between petite bourgeoisie and capitalism; also the imbalance which has appeared recently between the gross capital of the joint-stock companies, which is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and the gross national savings. This imbalance shows that sources of savings are drying up, since current incomes are no longer sufficient for needs.

[1]Federzoni refers to the nationalist Luigi Federzoni, Fascist Minster of Interior at that time. Federzoni, many years later in 1943, was one of the members in the Grand Council of Fascism to vote for Mussolini's removal. Rocco refers to Alfredo Rocco, a Socialist turned Fascist who helped form the groundwork of the Fascist concepts of Corporatism. Volpi refers to Giuseppe Volpi, an Italian Count (of Venice) and Fascist politician who acted as first as a governor of Italian Libya and later the Minister of Finance. He was succeeded in 1928 by Antonio Moscini. Following this until 1943, he was the head of the General Confederation of Italian Industry. In 1943 he was forced out of this position as Mussolini began to reshuffle the government shortly before his removal. By this point Volpi was suffering mental problems and his health was deteriorating. He failed twice trying to escape from Italy and was detained by SS. In ensuing proceedings against the Fascist regime, he was shown leniency due to his declining health. He also founded the Venice Film Festival.

[2]This was realized in the Lateran Treaty in 1929

[3]The first name refers to Giovanni Antonio Colonna Cesarò, a son of Italian nobility, who went from a member of the Radical Party to a member of Bonomi's Social Democratic Party. He was a Minister of Posts and Telegraphs (i.e. Mail) under the Facta liberal government in 1922, and held that role under Mussolini's government. Cesarò was a member of the Aventine Secession, but more among the "moderate" elements.

Amendola probably refers to the liberal Giovanni Amendola. Amendola was beaten to death in April of 1926 by Blackshirts, though he still had a substatial grouping among Liberals that survived his death. On an interesting note, his son Giorgio Amendola became a writer critical of Mussolini and later joined the Communist Party, staying on as a member until 1980, and was an associate (and mentor) of the current Italian president Giorgio Napolitano.

[4] Farinacci refers to Roberto Farinacci, a Fascist politician who rose to prominence in the party through the Blackshirts. Farinacci in a way represented the far-right radical faction of the Fascists, and viewed Mussolini as weak and potentially a liberal sell out. Was also very nationalistic and anti-semetic. In 1925 he was appointed the secretary of the Fascist Party, and co-opted by Mussolini to start the purge of Fascists who questioned Mussolini's policies after the Matteotti assassination. He also coordinated Blackshirt Activities After this however Mussolini had him step down as secretary in 1929 or 1930 and he practiced "law", but came back to prominence after serving with a Blackshirt regiment in the Ethiopian invasion, and later on the Spanish Civil War. He also joined the Grand Council of Fascism. In 1938 he became a minister, and gleefully enacted the anti-semetic racial segregation measures that Nazi Germany was encouraging.

Farinacci was a close ally of Nazi Germany and was an influential voice in convincing Mussolini of the advantages of an alliance with Nazi Germany. He was later sent to handle militias in fascist-occupied Albania. He was one of the few members of the Grand Council of Fascism that didn't vote against Mussolini, and fled to the Nazi-created Italian Social State. He was considered as a candidate for the leader for this state until Mussolini was freed. He was killed by partisans in 1945

[5] J.P. Morgan & Co financial bankers.

[6] The failed harvest refers to "Battle for Grain", a plan by Mussolini's government to try and act against large grain imports by growing more grain in Italy.

[7] See point 1. I'm not sure who Giuseppe Zuccoli was, but he did not in the end become Minister of Finance but rather Antonio Moscini.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally there's this other part under a different heading :

In 1919 and 1920 the military and political formations of the middle classes were represented in Italy by primitive Fascism and D’Annunzio. It is well known that in those years both the Fascist movement and D’Annunzio’s movement were prepared to go as far as allying themselves with the revolutionary proletarian forces to overthrow the Nitti government [1], which appeared to be the go-between for American capitalism’s bid to enslave Italy (Nitti was the precursor of Dawes in Europe [2]).

The second phase of Fascism – 1921 and 1922 – was clearily reactionary. From 1923, a capillary process began, in the course of which the most active elements within the middle classes moved over from the reactionary fascist camp to the camp of the Aventine opposition. This process crystallized in such a manner that might have proved fatal for Fascism in the period of the Matteotti crisis. Because of the weakness of our movement- a weakness which was in itself significant- the phenomenon was curtailed by Fascism and the middle classes were swept back into a renewed state of political fragmentation. Today, the capillary phenomenon has started up again, on a far greater scale than in the post 1923 movement; and it is being accompanied by a regrouping of revolutionary forces around our party, which means that a new crisis like the Matteotti one would be unlikely to end with a new 3 January [3].

[1] This refers to the government of the Radical Party's Francesco Nitti in June 1919 to June 1920. This was a period of great upheaval in Italy over the dissatisfaction of the minor victories Italy gained at the cost of large casualties. Italy was also burdened with wartime debt to the other allied nations, which Nitti negotiated on rather favorable terms to the Allied nations. This was also the time the Red Years went into full swing and workers attempted to occupy factories. Some of the more "radical" oriented soon to be fascists still dabbled in syndicalism and socialism, thinking their views matched with the workers, though on a "national" scale as opposed to international. Their main concern however was on the territories that Italy should have received and Italy's national sovereignty. D'Annunzio later occupied the city of Fiume and declared a Regency of Carnaro, claiming it to be part of Italy. Nitti was succeeded by the Liberal veteran Giolitti, who oversaw the rest of the Red Years and began the growth of Mussolini's Fascists in an attempt to slam down on the workers' dissent.

[2] This refers to Charles G. Dawes, a banker who worked in the US government, who ended up creating the "Dawes Plan"- a plan to structure Germany's war reparations. Like what Nitti had done in Italy, the Dawes Plan put Germany dependent on foreign markets and economies, as well as those loans.

[3] Gramsci had correctly seen the political issues in Italy 1926. He knew the outcome would not be like "3 January"- the speech Mussolini gave in January 3, 1925, during the Matteotti crisis where he began to consolidate power. However it's up to you to see whether he meant this in a good or negative way, but we all know that this "conclusion" was the arrest of the remaining opposition MPs, the banning of the Communist Party, and the jailing of many Communists, Gramsci included. I have a feeling he didn't anticipate how quickly Mussolini would consolidate power thinking he was still trying to act within the Italian state, and that the pretext of an attempted assassination was all he would need (And Hitler takes notes...)



I can also post his commentary on Fascism back in 1921 later on. It's interesting to see how many of these figures began to adjust their views on what Fascism was over time, and in some ways how some characteristics remained the same. Or how they felt that a collapse in Fascism was likely, when it never occurred.

[Queercommie Girl]

^

What do you see as the main purpose for socialists and Marxists to study Mussolini? How is it linked to political activism in the world today?

[Red Commissar]

^

What do you see as the main purpose for socialists and Marxists to study Mussolini? How is it linked to political activism in the world today?

Well, I'm not sure I'm the one to be asked this question, but to me really the main thing to see from this, beyond the historical dabble, is not so much the nature of Fascism and Mussolini, but how his group had secured support in the same terrain in a matter of years that Socialists and Marxists had long agitated within for a considerable time with questionable success. I think we still suffer from the same problems today. I think we can all relate that while we can find some acceptance of anti-Capitalist views in the population, though many flat out reject socialism either due to nationalist sentiment, some squabble about "social values" (Socialism makes people lazy! Human Nature! etc), or feeling it to be too utopian or dictatorial, and settling for soc-dem type groups. To that end I think it demonstrates an ongoing struggle we have right now to win supporters over from these smokescreens of nationalism, "social values", or the lies of soft-left groups who are operating in working class environments many times to secure short-term support during elections.

I think it also demonstrates ways popular unrest has been watered down and diluted in sates, though not through a figure like Mussolini or an ideology like Fascism, but in many cases through a coalition cabinet of conservative forces or a pseudo-left group. In the past few years we've seen a crisis in Capitalism, something that should provide strength to socialist groups, only to see it go down in flames. In many places we either have groups fanning sentiment against minorities for "breaking" the social welfare system and taking jobs, or groups who emerge to impose austerity after winning election on the belief from their voters they wouldn't. In the US all the energy from the anti-War groups and disgust with the legacy of the Bush administration was co-opted by the Democratic Party to channel into Obama's victory on the vague platform of "Change", only to deliver a heavy dose of cynicism and confusion to the supporters mere months later.

[Queercommie Girl]

^

Yes, that is a good point. See for instance the growth of the right-wing EDL in the UK, and how they have used cultural pluralism as a vehicle to gain support from white working class males.

See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/05/suzanne-moore-english-defence-league

The EDL are using a language of libertarianism, modernity and fake inclusiveness. They know what they are doing

Unfortunately among Marxists, there are some serious problems. Trotskyists have some good programs but are generally too sectarian. (You only see Trotskyist groups splitting up, never joining together) While many Stalinist-style groups are still too socially conservative, especially those based in 3rd world countries. It is interesting to note that the EDL seems to have a more progressive position (even if it's fake) on LGBT issues than the mainland China-based Chinese Maoists that I work with (I can't even tell them I'm queer!) - this kind of shit inevitably causes division.

There is also too much fetish for ex-socialist/Stalinist states and existing deformed worker's states, as if those were/are the ideal templates for a socialist society, whereas in reality they were/are all plagued with problems of bureaucratic deformation, lack of direct worker's democracy, corruption and other issues. Many Marxists seem to have lost their critical minds.

Some have just become dogmatic ideologues, who can't respond flexibly to real situations like how the right can.

[Red Commissar]

Yes, that is a good point. See for instance the growth of the right-wing EDL in the UK, and how they have used cultural pluralism as a vehicle to gain support from white working class males.

See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/05/suzanne-moore-english-defence-league

The EDL are using a language of libertarianism, modernity and fake inclusiveness. They know what they are doing

Yes, I forgot in my post about mainstream forces the growth of the far-right in many areas, pandering to working-class members of the dominant race in a given country, using fears of minorities and immigrants overloading the system, taking over the country, government inefficiency, etc.

Mussolini's fascists, in time, were able to win over some elements of the agrarian forces as well as working-class elements through their propaganda focusing on national integrity, as well as the news that was coming out of the Soviet Revolution from western presses that painted it as the coming of the apocalypse.

We're seeing this replicated by far-right groups again, helped by scapegoating immigrants (as we see in France, Germany, Scandinavia, UK etc.) or off a "despised" minority in the form of the Romani for many countries, which helped the far-right Jobbik enter into parliament in Hungary, and this somehow wins over some working-class types.

I just posted that bit before because this is a history forum, so I figured a contemporary look at the situation would be useful. But I think there are some lessons to be taken in regards to how working-class support can be diverted for the purpose of other groups, be it due to a failure of the socialist forces in a country or the repression of the state, or both.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yes, I forgot in my post about mainstream forces the growth of the far-right in many areas, pandering to working-class members of the dominant race in a given country, using fears of minorities and immigrants overloading the system, taking over the country, government inefficiency, etc.


Yes, but the EDL is a lot smarter than the old fascists were in Hitler and Mussolini's day.

Read that article, it's quite interesting.

On many issues the EDL now appears to be more progressive than those on the left.

[Dimentio]

The interesting point is the emergent nature of Fascism, which seems like it shaped itself in the early 1920's, despite being formed by a small group of people of which Mussolini was the leader (despite that Mussolini already was a known figure in Italian politics).

It seems like Mussolini, as much as being the instigator of the entire situation, also simulatenously was the victim of it.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Are you blind or illiterate?

I was focussing on the historical period when the Stalin-controlled German KPD allied with the Nazis against the SPD, not about anarchists solely being anti-state.

I would ask you the same question. The post of mine you referenced upon was referring to earlier on (completely unrelated to the debate about Stalin and the KPD), when you alleged that I was a 'fifth column' fascist and wanted to side with Mussolini.

First, I posted: Fascism has both revolutionary and reactionary traits...


Under no circumstances would I ever ally with fascists of any form. I'd rather ally with Obama to violently and brutally crush your "revolutionary" uprising.

Anarchists may consider the "state" to be the primary enemy, but for Marxists capitalism is the main enemy, not the state. No way would I agree with the crazy political line of "overthrowing the existing state at all costs".

If it was a fascist force replacing the current US government, it's much worse than having the US government as it is.

Fuck off, you ultra-left-ultra-right "fifth column" scum.

Realizing that you misunderstood my post, I repeatedly tried to explain to you what I meant by using the term revolutionary... of course, you conveniently ignored all of my posts where I re-clarified my position, and instead continued to post about how I supported Fascism...


Which is different from what you are saying, since while fascist forces are anti-state, they do not in any way further the interests of the working class. On the contrary, fascism is fundamentally anti-working class.

To call fascism "revolutionary" is technically a mistake anyway. You might not think that, but I wasn't even talking to you, I was talking to Apoi Viitor.




Perhaps anarchists define as "revolutionary" anything that is anti-state, while Marxists define as "revolutionary" anything that advances proletarian interests.

[∞]

And the fascists like to call us 'the bad guys'.
It just seems very peculiar to me that they claim to be so "honorable" yet the people who ascribe to fascism tend to be the most sadistic bastards to ever exist.

[∞]

First, I posted: Fascism has both revolutionary and reactionary traits...

Fascism is a disgusting blend of left and right wing politics (though far more right wing conventionally.)

[Red Commissar]

Yes, but the EDL is a lot smarter than the old fascists were in Hitler and Mussolini's day.

Read that article, it's quite interesting.

On many issues the EDL now appears to be more progressive than those on the left.

Yes, I read it, and I think it drives home though that how these far-right groups are able to motivate some working class types despite their horrendous views. Though some groups have taken this as a cue to join in with immigrant bashing.

Mussolini too was able to argue for wage promises, better social services, promises of land reform, cultural progression, etc.


The interesting point is the emergent nature of Fascism, which seems like it shaped itself in the early 1920's, despite being formed by a small group of people of which Mussolini was the leader (despite that Mussolini already was a known figure in Italian politics).

It seems like Mussolini, as much as being the instigator of the entire situation, also simulatenously was the victim of it.

Yeah, Mussolini nearly lost power because of the Fascists he created, but he was able to reign them in and put his foot down. But in the end they all chose to collaborate with the Allies when the boat was sinking rather than go down with him. He got the end he deserved.

This is the piece I promised from 1921:



The Two Fascisms

The crisis of fascism, on whose origins and causes so much is being written these days, can easily be explained by a serious examination of the actual development of the fascist movement.

The Fasci di combattimento emerged, in the aftermath of the War, with the petty-bourgeois character of the various war-veterans' associations which appeared in that period. Because of their character of determined opposition to the socialist movement - partly a heritage of the conflicts between the Socialist Party and the interventionist associations during the War period - the Fasci won the support of the capitalists and the authorities. The fact that their emergence coincided with the landowners' need to form a white guard against the growing power of the workers' organizations allowed the system of bands created and armed by the big landowners to adopt the same label of Fasci. With their subsequent development, these bands conferred upon that label their own characteristic feature as a white guard of capitalism against the class organs of the proletariat.

Fascism has always kept this initial flaw. Until today, the fervour of the armed offensive prevented any exacerbation of the rift between the urban petty-bourgeois nuclei, predominantly parliamentary and collaborationist, and the rural ones formed by big and medium landowners and by the farmers themselves: interested in a struggle against the poor peasants and their organizations; resolutely anti-trade union and reactionary; putting more trust in direct armed action than in the authority of the State or the efficacy of parliamentarism.

In the agricultural regions (Emilia, Tuscany, Veneto, Umbria), fascism had its greatest development and, with the financial support of the capitalists and the protection of the civil and military authorities of the State, achieved unconditional power. If, on the one hand, the ruthless offensive against the class organisms of the proletariat benefited the capitalists, who in the course of a year saw the entire machinery of struggle of the socialist trade unions break up and lose all efficacy, it is nevertheless undeniable that the worsening violence ended up by creating a widespread attitude of hostility to fascism in the middle and popular strata.

The episodes at Sarzana, Treviso, Viterbo and Roccastrada deeply shook the urban fascist nuclei personified by Mussolini, and these began to see a danger in the exclusively negative tactics of the Fasci in the agricultural regions. On the other hand, these tactics had already borne excellent fruit, since they had dragged the Socialist Party on to the terrain of flexibility and readiness to collaborate in the country and in Parliament.

From this moment, the latent rift begins to reveal itself in its full depth. The urban, collaborationist nuclei now see the objective which they set themselves accomplished: the abandonment of class intransigence by the Socialist Party. They are hastening to express their victory in words with the pacification pact. But the agrarian capitalists cannot renounce the only tactic which ensures them "free" exploitation of the peasant classes, without the nuisance of strikes and organizations. The whole polemic raging in the fascist camp between those in favour of and those opposed to pacification can be reduced to this rift, whose origins are to be sought only in the actual origins of the fascist movement.

The claims of the Italian socialists to have themselves brought about the split in the fascist movement, through their skilful policy of compromise, are nothing but a further proof of their demagogy. In reality, the fascist crisis is not new, it has always existed. Once the contingent reasons which held the anti-proletarian ranks firm ceased to operate, it was inevitable that the disagreements would reveal themselves more openly. The crisis is thus nothing other than the clarification of a pre-existing de facto situation.

Fascism will get out of the crisis by splitting. The parliamentary part headed by Mussolini, basing itself on the middle layers (white-collar workers, small shop-keepers and small manufacturers), will attempt to organize these politically and will necessarily orient itself towards collaboration with the socialists and the popolari. The intransigent part, which expresses the necessity for direct, armed defence of agrarian capitalist interests, will continue with its characteristic anti-proletarian activity. For this latter part - the most important for the working class - the "truce agreement" which the socialists are boasting of as a victory will have no validity. The "crisis" will only signal the exit from the Fasci movement of a faction of petty bourgeois who have vainly attempted to justify fascism with a general political "party" programme.

But fascism, the true variety, which the peasants and workers of Emilia, Veneto and Tuscany know through the painful experience of the past two years of white terror, will continue - though it may even change its name.

The internal disputes of the fascist bands have brought about a period of relative calm. The task of the revolutionary workers and peasants is to take advantage of this to infuse the oppressed and defenceless masses with a clear consciousness of the real situation in the class struggle, and of the means needed to defeat arrogant capitalist reaction.

L'Ordine Nuovo, 25 August 1921


Of course as we see, Gramsci falsely thought the Fascist movement would split. He did however see that Mussolini represented a strand that was interested in political powerplay rather than solely paramilitary action. Later we saw the March on Rome and the resulting "coalition" government that was close to what he predicted that Mussolini would attempt to do. I think however these divisions that Gramsci felt would cause a split were real and did indeed menace Mussolini in 1924-1925, and one which he solved by purging out these opposing groups and further centralizing the party under him. When the issue reared itself again in 1924-1925, Mussolini was able to weather to storm again. Again, I think Hitler had the same experience with the Strasser bunch and the SA that Mussolini was having with the far-right in his party and troubles with paramilitaries, and like Mussolini Hitler dealt with this issue by centralizing the party further, though in a more violent manner.


And the fascists like to call us 'the bad guys'.
It just seems very peculiar to me that they claim to be so "honorable" yet the people who ascribe to fascism tend to be the most sadistic bastards to ever exist.


Fascism is a disgusting blend of left and right wing politics (though far more right wing conventionally.)

Yeah, fascists are a peculiar bunch. I'd wager though the fascists running around today are different from the ones in the past. But they still have the same undercurrent of hate that drove the early ones.

[Devrim]

How so?

The French army occupied the Ruhr to try to make the germans pay the war reparations. Of course the fascists mobilized massively around this, as did the KPD:


The KPD's policies had been vitiated from the beginning of the Ruhr crisis by the line emanating from Karl Radek, a Polish-born revolutionary active in the Comintern leadership and at that time in Germany, who had publically praised the activities of a Freikorps partisan named Schlageter, shot by the French occupying forces for "terrorist" outrages.[29] Radek's attempt to forge an alliance with the fascist right around a nationalist program disorientated the KPD

http://links.org.au/node/2064

Devrim

[Devrim]

It's a Maoist line and concept actually, not one created by anyone in the post-Mao period.

But of course, according to you, probably both Lenin and Mao are capitalists.

I don't think that calling individuals names is really the point. The Chinese party, however, had had nothing to do with the working class since the late 1920s, and was a thoroughly bourgeois party. There was nothing even remotely socialist about the Chinese revolution.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Yes, but the EDL is a lot smarter than the old fascists were in Hitler and Mussolini's day.

Yes, that is why the EDL have taken state power in Germany and Italy, and all that Hitler and Mussolini ever managed to do was hold a demonstration with a meagre three thousand people on it in Luton.

Devrim

[Dimentio]

The EDL are thugs, but I hold it possible that for example the Sweden Democrats could become the largest party in the Swedish Riksdag in 2022.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yes, that is why the EDL have taken state power in Germany and Italy, and all that Hitler and Mussolini ever managed to do was hold a demonstration with a meagre three thousand people on it in Luton.

Devrim

I think you are missing the point. Times have changed. Old fascist tactics of Hitler wouldn't work today anymore.

Had the EDL or BNP adopted Hitler's tactics and strategy today, they wouldn't even get one thousand people together in a demonstration, let alone 3000.

[Dimentio]

I think you are missing the point. Times have changed. Old fascist tactics of Hitler wouldn't work today anymore.

Had the EDL or BNP adopted Hitler's tactics and strategy today, they wouldn't even get one thousand people together in a demonstration, let alone 3000.

Probably not.

Mussolini tried to discourage Mosley from using uniforms, songs and violence, as that would not fit into English culture.

So I don't think that if Mussolini and Hitler were born in 1983 and 1989 instead of 1883 and 1889 they would utilised the same tactics (Hitler though would probably have been politically discredited as a serial troll on the Internet though).

[Queercommie Girl]

I would ask you the same question. The post of mine you referenced upon was referring to earlier on (completely unrelated to the debate about Stalin and the KPD), when you alleged that I was a 'fifth column' fascist and wanted to side with Mussolini.

First, I posted: Fascism has both revolutionary and reactionary traits...

Realizing that you misunderstood my post, I repeatedly tried to explain to you what I meant by using the term revolutionary... of course, you conveniently ignored all of my posts where I re-clarified my position, and instead continued to post about how I supported Fascism...


Where did I say you supported fascism in any later threads?

My point was that Marxists don't just follow the conventional definition of terms (like "revolutionary") that the rest of the world seems to use, Marxism has its own definitions for them. It's a general point, unrelated to my original accusation against you regarding calling fascism "revolutionary".

I know you have your own definition of "revolutionary". I'm pointing out that is not the same as the Marxist definition, and Marxists shouldn't just utilise the "conventional" definition for such key terms. This is over and above the original dispute over fascism.

[Devrim]

I think you are missing the point. Times have changed. Old fascist tactics of Hitler wouldn't work today anymore.

Had the EDL or BNP adopted Hitler's tactics and strategy today, they wouldn't even get one thousand people together in a demonstration, let alone 3000.

But the objective circumstances are paramount. The EDL and the BNP are much smarter than the English fascists of twenty years ago, dressing up in their jackboots and waving their Swastikas. It could never have been more than a tiny marginalized thing as a key aspect of English nationalism is that it was 'anti-Nazi'.

Today they are, as you say, much more astute. They are still held back by their connections to their past though.

Devrim

[ComradeOm]

One question is whether or not Mussolini just became a tool for a movement that early on embraced right-wing extremism, or if he was a right-wing extremist from the beginning?Mussolini was always regarded as an adventurist and a self-declared man of action. His position on the left wing of the Socialists was more out of contempt for their timid parliamentarism than any real affinity with either Marxism or syndicalism. During the Great War this ideological ambivalence made it easy for him to buy into the nationalist/futurist rhetoric of the need for a national resurgence


That basically forced Mussolini to turn Italy into a full-grown dictatorship in order to keep his own powerThere was very little that was "full-grown" about Mussolini's regime. He was not Hitler. Even at the height of Fascist power in Italy, Mussolini's government rested on the support and indulgence of the royalists, military and other conservative elements. Ironically for the first self-proclaimed 'totalitarian state', Il Duce himself never wielded anything approaching absolute power. In Germany Hitler was able to slip his bonds and become master of the reactionaries who had put him in power; Mussolini, for all his propaganda, was not

[Red Commissar]

There was very little that was "full-grown" about Mussolini's regime. He was not Hitler. Even at the height of Fascist power in Italy, Mussolini's government rested on the support and indulgence of the royalists, military and other conservative elements. Ironically for the first self-proclaimed 'totalitarian state', Il Duce himself never wielded anything approaching absolute power. In Germany Hitler was able to slip his bonds and become master of the reactionaries who had put him in power; Mussolini, for all his propaganda, was not

I guess we saw as much when his party were willing to throw him to the fire as the Allied invasion of Italy went on. Once that foundation was shaken his grip on the state and his followers was less strong than he made it appear.

I don't know, many times he just seemed to blow a lot of hot air. I've read that in many of his pitches to the population he would try to emphasize his common man persona by going bare chested while he "worked" in fields or what not when they were pitching programs.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~1930s/PRINT/Life/LIFE%2038/images/July%2025%20(mussolini).jpg

Thankfully this provides us with a lot of humor to poke fun at him with.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Like his modern-day, sex-depraved incarnation? ;)

[Dimentio]

Yes. The largest party in Italy, even if it only has 15-20% of the votes, always receive 51% of the seats. That is automatically benefitting the House of Liberty and is also explaining why Berlusconi cannot be purged.

Even the Fascists have started to call Berlusconi an authoritarianist and have joined the Liberal Opposition in a call for his resignation.

[ComradeOm]

I don't know, many times he just seemed to blow a lot of hot air. I've read that in many of his pitches to the population he would try to emphasize his common man persona by going bare chested while he "worked" in fields or what not when they were pitching programs.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~1930s/PRINT/Life/LIFE%2038/images/July%2025%20(mussolini).jpg

Thankfully this provides us with a lot of humor to poke fun at him with.Funny in hindsight but this sort of stuff was taken pretty seriously at the time. Both critics (including Gramsci) and supporters of the regime placed such importance on the image/propaganda of Il Duce for good reason. It wasn't all that effective in building mass support - fascism has never been a particularly good electoral strategy - but it was critical in appealing to the petit-bourgeoisie, disaffected intellectuals and forward-looking reactionaries (hah) on whose support fascism relied on. Fascist policies have, contrary to previous statements in this thread, never had a revolutionary component, but the cultivation of such an image - tapping into that then-popular relentless modernism/futurism to repackage old reactionary tripe as a new model world - was a key element of both Fascism and Nazism

I'm reminded of the French fascist leader Doriot (who actually had a similar career trajectory to that of Mussolini) in that much was made of his broad frame and 'workers features'. The sort of face you could put on a poster beside thrusting stalks of grain. More than one fascist intellectual waxed lyrical about it. Unfortunately for Doriot's propagandists, this quickly became a liability when he became rather overweight during the war years; his corpulence coming to symbolise the decay of Vichy/Occupied France

[Red Commissar]

I guess even to this day we see a similar phenomenon, with certain politicians pitching their "common" man credentials or service in the military in right-wing circles, at least from what I see in the United States. Over here the Tea Party supporters are by and large what we may call petite bourgeois types, but drone on endlessly about how they are the "Real America", the "common" man, etc and the politicians who hope to benefit off them fall in line.

These disillusioned intellectuals that lined up behind Fascism are odd to look at too. Truth be told I wasn't aware of Futurism until I saw it as a subject of a letter between Gramsci and Trotsky over it's connection to the Fascist movement and FT Marinetti. Or ugly sides of literary figures like Ezra Pound.

I don't know, when I was younger I had a fascination with only the warfare aspect of history, but I've come to appreciate other realms of history in the past few years much more.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Fascist policies have, contrary to previous statements in this thread, never had a revolutionary component, but the cultivation of such an image - tapping into that then-popular relentless modernism/futurism to repackage old reactionary tripe as a new model world - was a key element of both Fascism and Nazism

Can you explain further?

EDIT: I saw this post moments ago in a different thread, and I'll post it here, because it basically sums up why I believe Fascism isn't "ultra-reactionary".


I'm here, and I agree with myself. I don't really see the fascism of Italy or Germany as a far right ideology, it was Hitler after all who took on the junkers in Prussia and instituted some land reform. Also, the programs of combating high unemployment via massive government spending seems a lot less like the libertarian or mises approach to economics and much more like a Keynsian nightmare. The mammoth defense spending, the public works like the autobahn or what was being planned in different cities was being built by the state and not by private corporations. One thing is certain in my opinion, the Nazis were not tools of some backroom cabal made up of business leaders. The Nazis were tools of their own leader and his ideology.

I'll add, that I think the Nazis basically rose to power on the petite-bourgeios (without really any support from the bourgeios or the aristocrats until they needed to collaborate with him after the election of 1933), although in power, the Nazis made it a policy to not piss off business that much.

[ComradeOm]

Can you explain further?Simple: fascist policies are reactionary through and through. Hitler did not "take on the Junkers", he relied heavily on them for support. Prussia was long a NSDAP electoral stronghold. He did not "institute land reforms", he waged a war of aggression in the East in order to avoid doing so. He was more than happy to increase state control of the economy because this is what the bourgeoisie was requesting (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1956775&postcount=2). In content the core of Nazi policies (and this applies to Mussolini as well) did not differ significantly from those of previous reactionary movements. Where they did so it was usually in degrees, fitting old concepts (like corporatism) to industrial society, and, of course, language

The latter is what distinguished the fascists from previous movements. They lifted the language of modernism and social change directly from the socialist movements but rendered them empty. Modernism for the fascists was simply an aesthetic designed to differentiate them from the older and more conservative reactionary movements


I'll add, that I think the Nazis basically rose to power on the petite-bourgeios (without really any support from the bourgeios or the aristocrats until they needed to collaborate with him after the election of 1933), although in power, the Nazis made it a policy to not piss off business that much.It wasn't the petit-bourgeoisie that brought Hitler to power; how could it be when this was such a weak class? No, the Nazis weren't swept into government by the petit-bourgeoisie but invited in by the influential reactionary lobby centred around von Hindenburg. This was old-skool reactionaries meeting the new breed - both were determined to dismantle the Republic but one carried the nobility and army while the other possessed a mass party. Had this desire to abolish the Republic been lacking - from both the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie - then Hitler would have gone nowhere

Its interesting to note that neither Hitler or Mussolini particularly liked the fact that they had been invited into government by the established order. Both went to lengths to rewrite history to give them a more revolutionary pedigree. In reality neither the Machtergreifung nor the March on Rome were violent confrontations

[Die Neue Zeit]

In reality neither the Machtergreifung nor the March on Rome were violent confrontations

The original March on Rome was a violent but progressive confrontation though.