I know what fascism is, it is basically whatever I don't like is fascist. Capitalism is fascist, racism is fascist, sexism is fascist, disagreeing with me is definitely fascist.

I know what fascism is, it is basically whatever I don't like is fascist. Capitalism is fascist, racism is fascist, sexism is fascist, disagreeing with me is definitely fascist. — Judaka

This is unironically what I hear every time someone tries to define what Fascism is without really reading anything at all. I mean, come on, it is not that hard to read 2 or 3 books of fascist authors in order to understand what Fascism is.

Alright folks, I'm pretty sure you already listened someone saying x or y about trolling. First of all, there are many people just randomly repeating some generic stuff, and, of course, some people already read some postmodern literature on trolling. What I do not see commonly is someone who actually read some real trolling philosophy, and with "trolling" I mean internet trolling... Have any of you guys read any real trolling work?

Oh, come on, why would I waste my time with this?

My thoughts exactly.

Understandable. So, summarizing, you did not read anything that I mentioned. :smile:

Have any of you guys read any real fascist work? — Bertoldo

Ah, no. Do I need to? What do you have to say? And please no question-begging arguments.

I haven't read any Italian fascism, but I did read Carl Schmidt years ago so if we're talking German fascism I might have something to contribute but I'd have to jog my memory a bit.

I tend to believe that if we wanna discuss Plato's philosophy, would be truly good to know at least some of his works. So, yep. Also, I do not want to make any specific point concerning the foundations of Fascism, but the relation that people have with it, as it is an example the question "Do I need to?".

I read "Political Theology" some time ago, but I believe that Schmitt did not synthesize the very foundations of Italian Fascism, and I think it is clear that German fascism was pretty different.

You're not able? Or not willing? There are not two or three or five basic tenets/axioms/presuppositions of Fascism you could breifly, even concisely, relay here for us?

Hello, Bertoldo!

I just read some books about Fascism's doctrine, Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile (La Douttrina del Fascismo and National Fascism Party (1922)) are examples.

I read some other books about the third position, as the Integralism's authors, like Plínio Salgado (O que é o Integralismo?) and Gustavo Barroso (Brasil, Colônia de Banqueiros).


Gustavo Barroso.

I don't think I have sufficient writing skills in order to develop some kind of summary or anything like this. But anyways, as it is not clear what exactly I should demonstrate or simply explain, maybe it would be great to determine how Fascism can not be comprehended with the right-left wings distinction, since one of the basic foundations of Fascism is based on the negation of the classical liberal thought that comprises a bourgeois and utilitarian point of view of society, and also repudiate the second political theory, i.e., socialism, because of its materialistic and ever-conflicting nature when it comes to society's organization. Fascism embraces a third political theory [PALMIERI, M., 1936. Filosofia del Fascismo], which stands for il irredentismo (an example) of Mussolini, with Filippo Corridoni (a syndicalist and radical socialist who died on WWI), Cesare Battisti, Fabio Filzi, Enrico Toti, and so forth. This third political theory also repudiates the immanentizing nature of both precedent political theories, furthermore, Fascism is an alternative that excludes both precedent political theories:

Liberalism denied the State in the interest of the particular individual; Fascism reasserts the State as the true reality of the individual. — B. Mussolini

Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history to the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in a single economic and moral reality in the State. — B. Mussolini

Also, the following work presents some key-concepts concerning these political theories, it may be very useful: La trasformazione dello Stato (1927).

Integralists from Brazil or Portugal? By the way, it is cool to know that you've read these fascist works.

I believe that Schmitt did not synthesize the very foundations of Italian Fascism, and I think it is clear that German fascism was pretty different. — Bertoldo

This is interesting. In what way do you think they were different?

I have read a lot of those text. What are you interested in talking about? It is your dime.

Hello. Germans had a profound sense of race as being inseparable of the concept of Volk, that is "The people", as well as "Nation" and "Race". Italian people do not have the same relation when it comes to their language, since there is an abysmal gap between Popolo and Razza in practice. Furthermore, German fascism was born with the concept of race as inseparable of Volk, the Italian Fascism never knew any kind of racialist thought, specially because Mussolini was very close to Corridoni, Battisti and other important irredentistas, race was not minimally important, since il popolo (the people) were synthesized in the State as an integral unity, that is surely beyond the Germam approach: it was even absurd to the Germans, as in 1939 the Manifesto della Razza (a racist manifest) had to be published by the Italians (forcibly), in order to establish the alliance between them. By the way, this is just one point, but it is decisively and fundamentally problematic for the relation between these currents.

There are Ethiopians who developed a different view but go on, quote something from these fine fellows.

@Bertoldo

Liberalism denied the State in the interest of the particular individual; Fascism reasserts the State as the true reality of the individual. — B. Mussolini

Apparently against the particular individual? All right, l'etat c'est moi! But who moi?

Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history to the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in a single economic and moral reality in the State. — B. Mussolini

I read the lie in this: how does Socialism confine?

You probably know Italo Balbo. He composed the Quadrumvirato fascista, and after a while he became the leader of African colonies; he were the first one to - publicly - repudiate the publication of the Manifesto della Razza in Italy: "[...] l’unico gerarca che si pronunciò contro la “Dichiarazione sulla razza, approvata da Gran consiglio del fascismo il 6 ottobre 1938 e pubblicata sul “Foglio d’ordine” del Partito nazionale fascista il 26 ottobre 1938, fu Italo Balbo." [Reference]

Integralists from Brazil! Integralism was created in Brazil. This doctrine transcends the Fascism in several aspects. Also, «The integralist», as said Plínio Salgado, «is the soldier of God and Homeland, the new man of Brazil, that will construct a great nation!»


Plínio Salgado speeching.

Have any of you guys read any real fascist work? — Bertoldo

oh yeah, i read the Futurist manifesto...it was batshit retarded

That is a country mile from supporting race as an essential component of collective experience. But there is nothing in the Syndicalist point of view to resist the celebration of national identity which made joining with the Nazis so easy.

I got your point, and I'm not defending the fascist philosophical foundation, I'm just exposing it in order to make some specific things clear. There are contents on the concept of "individual" to the fascists, also there are many contents relative to socialism, and if you want some, just get in touch, mate!

I'll certainly send you a message, then you can present me some works, I would appreciate it! Integralism seems quite interesting.

Lmao, Marinetti was kinda crazy, certainly, mate. Did you know that even in the PNF (Partito Nazionale Fascista) he was not taken seriously?

I read "Political Theology" some time ago, but I believe that Schmitt did not synthesize the very foundations of Italian Fascism, and I think it is clear that German fascism was pretty different. — Bertoldo

Yeah, I wouldn't have expected Schmitt to draw on Italian fascism, but interestingly in his major works - Political Theology and Concept of the Political - he doesn't push for fascism along racial lines despite being an anti-Semite personally. I'm utterly uninterested in any sort of racial justification for fascism. It's when philosophers make the case for fascism in their own abstract terms that things become interesting. You can still see echoes of some of Schmitt's thoughts, particularly the emphasis on friend/enemy distinction, in later neoconservative thinkers like Strauss.

But yeah when it comes to the Italians I'm lost. I was never assigned any of them in undergrad nor is it my cultural background.

But there is nothing in the Syndicalist point of view to resist the celebration of national identity which made joining with the Nazis so easy. — Valentinus

Mussolini lost all the Italian history by doing this, personally speaking. He wrote in Ceneri e Braci on Il Popolo d'Italia about the Italian heroism, and cited Enrico Toti, Rismondi, Decio Raggi... I am pretty sure that these Italian heroes died for a genuine Italian thought, for the true unity of our Nation, and Mussolini's subservience to the German culture and way of thinking destroyed what he himself defended for several years. The point is that Italy radically changed in order to accept the German requirements.

You can still see echoes of some of Schmitt's thoughts, particularly the emphasis on friend/enemy distinction, in later neoconservative thinkers like Strauss. — BitconnectCarlos

I will certainly try to go deeper in his works. Personally, what I consider to know of Schmitt's philosophy is kinda precarious. By the way, thank you for giving answers tracing his philosophy!
Also, the relation that I have with Italian history is kinda deep, lol; I'm a descendant of Italians, and I'm fluent with the Italian, besides the fact that I studied Fascism for several years...

I think that people's opinions about fascism are less due to lack of having learned about it and more due to people having not thought about it. The following comes just from me thinking about it for a while as I read the wikipedia entry on fascism:

The essence of fascism found in being opposed to certain threats, which evoke strong emotions and are perceived to be so dangerous that conventional morality must be set aside. It leads to a permanent state of emergency in which the state imposes militaristic regimentation on the entire society.

Fascism implies a rigid social hierarchy. In conventional fascism, ethics are based on social roles which are set by higher moral authorities. These moral authorities include the Church, which must be allied with the state. The highest moral authority is the head of state, who is a person who speaks for all of the people of the nation. This means that if a person disagrees with the leader, they are by definition doing something wrong even if they are making a valid point. Authority is more important than truth.

Stalinism is a variant of fascism in which all of these relations exist, except that additionally the overt recognition of this hierarchical moral authority is also prohibited. Thus, the hierarchical leadership still functions identically to in fascism, but portray themselves as merely the servants of the people. The people are compelled to participate in unequal power relations even as they must publicly say that these relations are equal.

The modern Antifa movement in America is actually a Stalinist movement, which ironically implies that it is also fascist. It is philosophically motivated by a misreading of Popper's Open Society and Its Enemies in which any person who says something sexist, racist, etc. is immediately branded an enemy and immediately deserving of being deplatformed, ridiculed, and subject to violent attack. Thus, the Antifa-scist sees in this enemy an existential threat to society and it goes without saying that this perception is accompanied by very strong emotions. The Antifa-scist sets aside his conventional morality to fight against this enemy -- he verbally and physically attacks the enemy, he destroys the enemy's property and interferes with the enemy's business. He would not normally do these things, but he justifies his actions because of the danger he perceives. Fortunately, so far in America, the Antifa-scists have not been able to take power, and so the full reality of their vision has not been realized.

If I make this argument to an Antifa-scist, however, they will claim "Antifa only means antifascist, so anyone who is against fascism is antifa". This obviously conflates the opinion with the organized movement. But it also shows the essence of the Stalinist ideology. Antifa certainly has its organizers and groups who inform their members where to go to protest or riot and who to deplatform. But to point this out is to be against Antifa and therefore a fascist. Thus, it is prohibited to mention the hierarchical nature of Antifa's moral authority. So my argument is almost complete.

It remains to prove exactly how these Antifa-scists would behave if they did actually take power. Personally, I'd rather not find out.