What is fascism?
It seems that the word has been misused to describe any authoritarian regime people don't like, and vastly different philosophies from Mussolini's to Evola's.
Ideologically and philosophically, what does fascism really stand for? What basic principles and ideas does it defend?
Mussolini wrote a book that concisely outlines all your questions called 'The Doctrine of Fascism'.
Can Mussolini be considered the "true" proponent of fascism? My confusion came from the fact that there are other authors who wrote about it, and whose ideas weren't necessarily compatible with Mussolini's.
Seems to be an ideology that has become extremely varied and loose, so to say.
Mussolini is quoted in a biography by Dennis Mack Smith as saying that Fascism is not an ideological home but "merely a means to gain power". In the early stages of Fascism Mussolini stressed that he had no clear ideological intentions and went to great lengths not to align himself with any particular party.
In fact, Mussolini's own newspaper would often waver between extreme left and right views merely for the sake of populism and shock journalism.
Despite Mussolini's attempt to create a true doctrine of Fascism, it never really came through and he followed no real clear ideology in practice.
So in a sense, he was radically pragmatic and opportunistic, whilst at the same time going to great lengths to portray himself as some sort of ideologue.
This is in great comparison to his predecessors, Marinetti and D'Annunzio, who had clear ideology and beliefs.
So, there are no basic tenants that could be said to be the foundations of fascism? At least in Mussolini's case?
>Marinetti and D'Annunzio, who had clear ideology and beliefs.
What ideas did they defend?
>Can Mussolini be considered the "true" proponent of fascism?
Is this even a question?
Futurism
Well there should at least be ''''faces'''''I think. (Or maybe my native language is now playing me parts between the '''''''')
So this ordinance
Which can be good, well thought out and valuable for the people or something else that represses them and makes them feel bad.
>Mussolini
Pfff Mussolini
Shitty dictator in the days his fascism ideas ruled the Italian waves.
Klill himself and his shitty self controlled copyright of what it would be
I made a post on /pol/ and was actually kind of impressed with myself, as well as my conclusion.
Fascism at its simplest is information control. For instance, the recent collusion of the German government with Microsoft, YouTube, Twitter and Google is essentially the German government attempting to control information through the major tech companies. It's obsession with image, propaganda, censorship and dissent all turn right back to information control, either suppression or creation.
...
>ad hominem
Please can I get some real arguments in here? Being Australian does not discredit me.
>Germany
>Fascist
Germany and the actions that it has taken is authoritarian. How is modern day Germany fascist in anyway?
If that's all it took, then News Corp, the Sun, CNBC and media companies in general would also be considered fascist. Shit, I'd even extend that to literally every transnational corporation on account of them having media departments.
IIRC, it has to be a bit more than just zealous control of information, because literally everyone does it. (Like repression of freedom of expression, religion and having a military-backed dictatorship.)
For the most part, it's not. Besides movements with clearly underlying Marxist undertones, there's little genuine fascism in the west and most people complaining about it are just first world problems.
That being said the attempt to collude with tech companies is arguably a fascist act despite not coming from a fascist government. I think in the digital age we're very sensitive when someone tries to touch our freedom of information and speech, so we're very quick to point and yell fascist.
There are fascist threats, or rather movements using fascist tactics, in fact Herbert Marcuse out and said it overtly that anything right wing should be attacked using fascist techniques so this shouldn't surprise anyone well informed. That being said, unless you're in the middle east, Africa, Belarus or north Korea, the likelihood that you've come into contact with anything resembling systematic fascism (fascism from an authority) is unlikely.
>If that's all it took, then News Corp, the Sun, CNBC and media companies in general would also be considered fascist.
Yes, that's actually what I implied. The mainstream media seems largely dominated by a single political camp that aren't shy about some extremely dishonest journalism. Again, we're lucky this isn't something pushed by a government, not really at least.
>IIRC, it has to be a bit more than just zealous control of information, because literally everyone does it
So how much of a string can you cut until it's no longer a string? Basically, where are you drawing this line?
>military-backed dictatorship
Militarism is a little too specific imo.
Part of the problem is that there's no simple definition of what fascism is. Information control is just part of it, but cannot be the sole definer. The reason why I said a military backed dictatorship is because another defining trait of fascism is political violence, usually by the state. While it can be executed by paramilitary agents, it's generally easier to use a standing army to suppress dissent. (Or a paramilitary force loyal to the state).
We'd also have to consider the economic aspect of it too. There's also nationalism that plays into this, but I'm not an expert and I'm literally running off what wikipedia is saying and from personal experience living in Singapore.
Fascism is hard to define because it's been used as an intellectually dishonest tactic to silence opposition for over 50 years, usually accompanied with Godwins law. It's lost meaning due to the word itself being abused, exactly like regret sex being called rape, it cheapens the true meaning.
Maybe crying fascist is yet another example of fascism.
>easier to use a standing army to suppress dissent
Aka, silence opponents releasing information you don't want them to! Again, right back to information control.
I think the use of a military, or rather the use of violence, is more indicative of any authoritarian force and represents authoritarianism more so than fascism.
I often forget how things are in Singapore, unfortunately we (westerners) don't talk about it enough. I've had Singaporean lecturers with stories, but nothing beyond that.
I made a lengthy explanation of fascism in another thread a few days ago so I'll do a truncated version.
Fascism is the belief that the "nation" is an organic entity in which the individual is but a minute component. As such, the individual must work entirely for the benefit of the whole, not for himself, thereby making fascism a very collectivist ideology. The notion of the "Leader," "head," etc." is derived from a number of sources, such as Plato and Hegel, in which there is a "philosopher king" directing society. The state is the manifestation of the nation. (State being the political apparatus and nation being a group of people with common culture, language, etc)
In regards to Politics between nations, a nation must assert itself through war in order to prove its existence. Economically, everything must be subordinated to the interest of the nation and state. This leads to the creation of a form of state capitalism; unlike Marxism individual enterprise is tolerated, if not encouraged, as long as it is used to the benefit of the nation.
There is more I could say but this is meant to be a drive-by outline of Fascism. It is a bit of a mess because it is an amalgamation of a number of ideologies, although their philosophical origins are the same.
Karl Popper wrote an outline/attack on the philosophical foundations of totalitarian ideologies in "The Open Society and It's Enemies," which I happen to be reading right now; you could always try reading it if you don't mind his outright hatred of Hegel.
>not for himself, thereby making fascism a very collectivist ideology
Why is Evola described as neofascist when his philosophy (from what I understand of it) is completely opposed to that statement?
Sounds like trump desu
Evola is unrelated to the Fascism of Mussolini's era. Evola was highly critical of Mussolini and his regime for still "holding back" so to speak.
The only time Evola gets involved in Fascism in any serious capacity is if we're talking about Ironmarch's take on Fascism (But then if you've not read anything from Ironmarch you don't actually know anything about Fascism so it's a moot point).
>for still "holding back"
What did he mean by that?
I'm not memeing, it's an actual question.
I'm no expert on Evola but I was under the impression that he was an advocate of reactionary traditionalism, the return to an anti-egalitarian, elitist, perhaps technocratic society. Isn't that antipodal to fascism?
He believed that society should be a hierarchy and that everyone should look beyond the "self." When I say collectivist, I mean the opposite of individualism.
"Fascism wasn't right enough".
Simply put, Mussolini was El Duce, the leader of the Italian state, which was just modernist dribble with a few trappings of reactionary thought and symbolism. He should have been Rex of Italia, or Imperator of Rome, which was more proper. The government dealt with corporations and industries instead of guilds and trades, the question of "is it morally ethical to beat people in the streets for being Soviet funded traitors and/or going against Fascismo" was on the table when a proper traditionalist would see there's absolutely nothing wrong with it and debating ethics is silly, etc, etc, etc.
I think the core component of fascism is the existence if of a very strong party apparatus that override state institutions. No party, no fascism. Trump isn't fascist or even proto fascist due to that for example.
I should probably just have summed it up as
>I was under the impression that he was an advocate of reactionary traditionalism, the return to an anti-egalitarian, elitist, perhaps technocratic society
He was. Fascism is all of those things (Except arguably a return to "traditionalism", but that's a debate over whether innovation can still be done under "tradition" and is neither here nor there). Mussolini's Fascism was a move in the right direction, but the problem was that Mussolini stopped at Fascism and didn't keep going.
It should be noted that the (Neo-)reactionary Traditionalists of today say THEY are as "far right" as possible and that Fascism is still modernist horseshit (albeit in the right direction), while the Fascists of today say THEY are as "far right" is still modernist horseshit (albeit in the right direction). I quote "far right" because the term is garbage and falls apart when discussing these groups.
>everyone should look beyond the "self."
In its context, I don't think that was advocating collectivism, wasn't it a reference to his more esoteric beliefs?
Right, so Evola wanted Mussolini to go further and simply eliminate the previous system altogether
>when a proper traditionalist would see there's absolutely nothing wrong with it
Why?
fascism means favoring one group of people over another
>Fascism is all of those things
The state being an all-powerful, all-seeing entity with the means to manipulate and suppress information and individuals doesn't really sound like the sort of society traditionalists push forward
Fascism and traditionalism seem different in regards to their view of authority
>reference to his more esoteric beliefs
Most likely, I think of messed up a bit in regards to Evola. Evola is more of an outright reactionary than a Fascist, even if Fascists may have drew upon some of his thought.
PALINGENETIC ULTRA-NATIONALISM
was evola a luddite?