Is this chart accurate? I got it from /pol/

crap forgot to connect national and revolutionary syndicalism. national sydicalism came after so should be a little lower
also forgot to connect blanquists with rev soc and squadristi with suppression of agrarian socialism. also forgot to put paul maurras next to integralism.

pls no bully... what is cmap tools?

>there's no way left politics turn absolutist

next time you need to build a chart like you did, it will save you tons of time

Preddy good, I'm gonna save it.

where do I download it? I'll be improving this one over the course of this week so it will be handy

ty i appreciate it

Sure there are. But Bonapartism was not Republicanism, and existed to win over the French Right.

also keep looking at this thread I'm going to make a few tweaks that will take like 10-15 minutes if you can hold out

just google it, it's free

I'm guessing you've mostly worked from Zeev Sternhell?

Any chance you can work the Hegelians in? In my head it's basically Hegel-> ??? -> Gentile

Also, conveniently, that would link up with Marxism.

>fascism
>far-right
The far-right would either be reactionary or/and free-market fundamentalism, but since the left/right spectrum is so vague it can really be determined. We have to think it as a French Revolution-era political rule of thumb. Yet I see people using it as a kind of sacred dogma, "every idea that is in this side is bad".

Now it's nothing but an extreme vulgarization.

yeah I was going to put gentile, dont worry! I know of sternhell and I've read that some scholars disagree with a lot of his points. But I didn't read him but stanley payne, walter laquer, philip morgan and I've got more on my reading list. I also just read a 500 page book on 19th century france so I'm very much in a french history mindset right now.

but maybe I'll also add nietzsche and darwinism/herbert spenser and also linke darwinism to anarchism via kropotkin. I should also add in something about deroulede's attempted coup, the beva beccaris massacre, some strands of catholic thought linked with integralism and legitimism

fugg forgot lines, new pic btw guys

I think my chart captures plenty well the ambiguity of fascism, I added in the leftist revolutionary tradition, bonapartist synthesis, and reactionary monarchists.

cont.
also may work in bundist leagues, antisemitic writers, spanish falangism, carlists and more

Eh, Herbert Spenser/Darwin/Chamberlain, which link more into national socialism, will make this huge.

Oh, and you should probably work Friedrich List and Corporatism in there.

I was planning on making it huge, but I think i'm being too ambitious and i don't think i'm up to the task knowledge-wise.

>you should probably work Friedrich List and Corporatism in there.
I was thinking about adding it but I thought corporatism was a tenet of national syndicalism and integralism. I don't know about list either though, so I'll have to read up on him on wiki. What do you think about adding corporatism as a branch of ultraroyalism or integralism? I'm thinking that corporatism was a product of either the ultras or even the carlists of spain. Also, thinking of putting catholic corporatism as well, starting with leo xiii's rerum novarum

Can't say I know enough about the history of corporatism itself to say. If you're willing to make this a multi-week project, I could try to get my hands on some A. James Gregor stuff. He did a bunch of linking in Mussolini's Intellectuals.

yeah I think I'm up to it. I have two of Gregor's books on my list lol. If you need them they're up on bookzz or libgen for downloading

Oh shit, yeah, that would help a lot. I already read the thing, but need a reference. Can you link? I've never heard of either service.

Here's mussolini's intellectuals. just click download pdf and you're all set. i have adblock so the site looks fine to me, but if you don't just ignore the sketchy advertising, it's a legit site
bookzz.org/book/691233/d56400

the other books are on neofascism and a comparison of communism and fascism, so I don't think theyll be useful for the chart, but here they are if you're interested
bookzz.org/book/840370/7e7ff3
bookzz.org/book/877817/f721e3

If you aren't a monarchist you're a leftist

Do you nerds know how much socialism and the teachings of Georges Sorel influenced Mussolini?

This left/right dichotomy only serves to keep people in a stupid tug of war between two false notions of middle class politics. You can't accurately map them all without losing a wealth of knowledge about them and blinding your own self from actual facts.

>Do you nerds know how much socialism and the teachings of Georges Sorel influenced Mussolini?
Yes. Read the thread.

Apologies man, my post was mainly pointed to the guys who made the graphs.

>jacobinism
>republicanism
>far right

>Intellectual history is split into unique categories starting in 1778, and nobody read or reacted to anything from the other side, ever.

>1789*
Fuck.

my graph mentions sorel and marx kek
republic=/=democracy
Mussolini's puppet state was called "Italian social republic," for example.
Jacobinism is considered the spiritual predecessor of fascism, and totalitarianism in general. The member of the committee of public safety wanted to use the state to effect a moral transformation of the french people, molding them into "democrats" or at least republicans, but implicit in this argument was the necessitly of total control of the moral and social life of the citizen; much like fascism. Add in the Terror, the kangaroo courts, the suspension of civil rights and you've got all the makings of a fascist state

Oh yeah, and if you want to trace it back even farther Rosseau's "General Will" is a core concept of Fascism.

Should probably be on the graph.

yes, I was unsure to put him though. do I put him above republicanism?

another modified pic

Wrong

without tool bar...

It's becoming a beautiful crazy wall.

thanks!
I've updated it again to make explicit the influence of the revolutionary left on the "right" at various times. Napoleon was a jacobin and was friends with robepierre's brother, so I put the jacobin connection, even though it might not have had such a strong influence on him. On the other hand, Louis Napoleon's regard for fourierism is well known. The Blanquists are the most obvious because the boulanger crisis split them into those for and against boulanger. those for boulanger drifted to the far right with the dreyfus affair, and those who rejected him joined the marxists or revolutionary syndicalists

télécharge ceci
sourceforge.net/projects/ihmccmaptoolspo/

MORE ARROWS.
MORE ARROWS.

Good chart. Maybe I'm ignorant of something, but wouldn't Sorel and anarcho-syndicalists be to the left of Marxists? Their opposition to too much central authority seems to align with the original, primitive left-right divide.

I don't think you can actually keep a left-right pattern going without making the map unreadable. How would figures like Hegel, Rosseau and Mussolini, never mind "world war I" fit in that?

It wasn't my intention to divide the chart between left and right, I chose the sides on a whim. My main goal was to trace far right evolution

I suppose. Mussolini's ideas are represented in three places in the chart, reflecting (I think) his changing beliefs. Why can't other movements be as dynamic?

what do you think about the historical events in the chart? I put events that I believe were important milestones in the history of fascism/far rightwing thought what have you.

certainly, I am planning on expanding the whole thing soon, so if you have ideas just throw them out here. however:
>Sorel and anarcho-syndicalists be to the left of Marxists
I'm not in total agreement here. First, the marxists were not statist by default. Marx himself never laid out a clear path to socialism or communism for that matter. He did hope that the state would whither away though. His "successors" such as the social democrats and the bolsheviks worked within the state, but that wasn't necessarily his wish (as far as I know). As for Sorel, he definitely had ideas that could be classified as "far right" or "reactionary". He was a fervent antisemite for one. He also totally abandoned the idea of marxist economics in favor of working within liberal capitalism. In addition, Sorel had little faith in the proletariat's ability to rebel. He believed in a strong leadership. He also argued that to appeal to the uneducated masses symbolism and organization bound by a common purpose. This solidarity would be strengthened through violence, which Sorel thought was a kind of healthy, virile and purifying act which would give a sense of urgency and unity to the cause. Finally, he proposed that workers needed a myth, a noble lie which would lead them to sacrifice themselves under the leadership of an elite. For the anarchosyndicalists, the "general strike", a final, decisive strike by all workers that would shut down industry and lead to a collapse of government. Sorel didn't believed in the myth himself but, again, he used it to rally workers with an apocalyptic vision. All of this was very proto-fascist imo.

tomorrow

Bonaparte pulled a more successful version of the Oliver Cromwell routine

at the end Cromwell was the better guy. Napoleon left France exhausted from war. Several hundred thousand frenchmen had died. A huge indemnity was exacted on France and the quartering of Russian and German troops cause havoc. Cromwell at least kept the peace and won his wars.

Bonapartism was born out of Republicanism, and sought to merge characteristics of both that and monarchism.

You might as well call Stalin a far-rightist because he rolled back some of the revolution's more radical reforms and consolidated an autocratic regime. That's ridiculous though, and there's no arguing that Stalin was a leftist.

Napoleon was further right than Babeuf or Robespierre, to be sure, but he was far more leftist than any other ruler of his day.

If you want to find a far right movement during that age look at the Bourbon fanatics who tried to kill Napoleon a ton of times.