Howdy

Howdy,

I want to write a paper about the connections between Fascism, Marxism and Liberalism and their foundations in the French Rev. My basic thesis will be that these three modern ideologies all share a common genealogy dating back to the french revolution and its three tenets, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, each of which correspond to Liberalism, Marxism and Fascism respectively.

Here's the problem, I am a fucking Construction Management student and I have no fucking idea how to write a research paper or do research for this project.

Any educated Veeky Forumstorians have any advice for research/writing/book recommendations?
Currently reading the Oxford VSI's for the French Rev and Marxism, Eri Hota's 1941, and some short books on Marxism and Liberalism. I will also be going to my Uni library today to check out some books.

Additionally, any commentary on my thesis is welcome.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=G0JAD7w72Wc
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>My basic thesis will be that these three modern ideologies all share a common genealogy dating back to the french revolution and its three tenets, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, each of which correspond to Liberalism, Marxism and Fascism respectively.
My suggestion is that you choose a different thesis as the premise of this one is blatantly false. Neither marxism nor fascism had their root in the French revolution while liberalism preceded and caused it.

The premise is rather odd

Liberalism predates the French Revolution
Marxists view the revolution with a bit of antagonism
Fascism was well over a century later and was a result of the liberal/marxist divide

Linking all three with the French Revolution as their direct cause seems to be a big stretch

youtube.com/watch?v=G0JAD7w72Wc

Secular Humanism was a mistake.

At most you'll be able to make a connection between marxism and liberalism, as Alfredo Rocco did in the Political Doctrine of Fascism, but that statement is at best debatable. You'd be grasping. As for fascism, it has little if any connection with the previous two. Its roots are different for Italy (modernism, remains of risorgimento nationalism and Sorel's notion of the 'political myth') and Germany (romanticism and pseudoscientific racism with a social darwinist undercurrent). These have nothing to do with the French Revolution.

>direct cause

I'm not saying that the French Rev led directly to these ideologies, all I'm saying is that we can understand these ideologies by looking at the core ideas of the French Rev.

Liberalism places a premium on liberty

Marxism, a premium on equality

and Fascism a premium on fraternity

>Marxists view the revolution with a bit of antagonism

There were "proto-marxists" in the french revolution. Look up Étienne-Gabriel Morelly and Gabriel Bonnot de Mably and there are others, but I don't have my notes.

>Fascism was well over a century later and was a result of the liberal/marxist divide

Marxism also developed much later but I'm not looking to show that the french rev "caused" these ideologies, rather, that these ideologies can be understood by looking at the ideas of the french rev

Im not looking to discuss the evolution of fascism, marxism or liberalsim, rather I want to talk about how these ideas can be understood in the context of the ideas of the french rev.

sure convinced me with those hot opinions

Neither marxism nor fascism can. Not unless you are going to mutilate them by oversimplifying them and representing them through values that they don't actually hold if you delve a little deeper.

Read The German Ideology by Marx, Reflections on the Revolution in France by Burke, and Three Faces of Fascism by Nolte.

maxism leninism was a compulsory class to take if you went to uni in a socialist country
the revolution was explained as the working class rise up against the burgoise, kinda like the herald of the red revolutions

it is a false pretense but you can use it in your thesis to show the connection or why would they like to make a connection between the 2

>Marxism
places a premium on equality over liberty and fraternity

>Fascism
places a premium on fraternity over liberty and equality

I get that this is simple, but I really don't think its to simple, I can look at the tenets of Liberalism, Marxism and Fascism and say "look here each one places a premium on Liberty or Equality or Fraternity while sacrificing the other two to some extent."

I'm not trying to write anything super in depth here. I literally go to class and learn how to pour concrete, I'm not that smart.

>Added to the list

I read reflections about a year ago

Reflections fucking sucks

>"The Chancellor of France, at the opening of the states, said, in a
tone of oratorical flourish, that all occupations were honorable. If he
meant only that no honest employment was disgraceful, he would not
have gone beyond the truth. But in asserting that anything is honorable,
we imply some distinction in its favor. The occupation of a hairdresser
or of a working tallow-chandler cannot be a matter of honor to any
person—to say nothing of a number of other more servile employments.
Such descriptions of men ought not to suffer oppression from the state;
but the state suffers oppression if such as they, either individually or
collectively, are permitted to rule. In this you think you are combating
prejudice, but you are at war with nature."

how many levels of inegalitarianism are you in right now???

>Fascism a premium on fraternity
Fascism places premium on ordnung, if something. The fraternite of French revolution was fraternite of nationalism.

Fascism can not be viewed in context of French revolution since it was modern (20th century) reaction to the values of French revolution becoming widespread. Fascism is direct contradiction of both egalite and liberte.

>I get that this is simple, but I really don't think its to simple, I can look at the tenets of Liberalism, Marxism and Fascism and say "look here each one places a premium on Liberty or Equality or Fraternity while sacrificing the other two to some extent."
You cannot represent ideologies through those 'core values'. That is what I am saying. Not because it would be "simple" but because it would be false. That way of looking at ideologies is nothing but a meme.

Marxism thinks true liberte can only be achieved through the historical progress to communism. It only sacrifices it as a mean to an end. While the "tribalistic" fraternite was transformed into universalistic comradeship.

Fascism views liberty and equality as bad.

>You cannot represent ideologies through those 'core values'

Why not? Why is it a meme?

Why can I not say "At its core, Liberalism places a premium on liberty and in doing so sacrifices fraternity and equality."

>true liberte
In common parlance, we accept that in even an ideal marxist society, we sacrifice some level of individual liberty for equality.
>universal comradeship
Point taken, but in this context I want to treat fraternity not as all encompassing "universal" but rather as a sort of exclusive position. There is the in group and the out group which is certainly a characteristic of fascism.

/thread

Anyone still replying is an idiot.

>Point taken, but in this context I want to treat fraternity not as all encompassing "universal" but rather as a sort of exclusive position
Than you are not thinking fraternite of French revolution, since it did not have had the exclusivist component.

>In common parlance, we accept that in even an ideal marxist society, we sacrifice some level of individual liberty for equality.
We do that even in ideal liberal society. "Your freedom ends where my does begin."

>Point taken, but in this context I want to treat fraternity not as all encompassing "universal" but rather as a sort of exclusive position. There is the in group and the out group which is certainly a characteristic of fascism.
But the French Revolution conceptualized fraternity as universal, not exclusionary

Actually, they didn't really care about this stuff. They wanted a French state ruled by brotherly Frenchmen.

The sharp division came later.

>since it did not have had the exclusivist component
>the French Revolution conceptualized fraternity as universal, not exclusionary
Fraternite was used in concert with nationalism to stir up anti foreign sentiments during the french rev in support of foreign wars

>We do that even in ideal liberal society.
Liberal society is not a perfect representation of liberal ideology.

>Conservatism

L E L

To expand on this point, while part of the french foreign wars during the french rev was a dubitably genuine desire to spread the revolution, another important part was a desire to expand France' "natural borders"

>Marxism thinks true liberte can only be achieved through the historical progress to communism. It only sacrifices it as a mean to an end. While the "tribalistic" fraternite was transformed into universalistic comradeship.
True.
>Fascism views liberty and equality as bad.
Well, yes and no. Fascists at their core were revolting against the weakness and decay of society, for which they blamed the liberal notions of liberty and equality. At the heart of fascism was the idea of the fascist man, defined by strength of faith (in the State and fascism), will and body. They considered, however, that the fascist man must have liberty, so they redefined it as the liberty in choosing the way to serve the State, but no liberty of going against it. As for equality, they attempted to overcome it through cooperation of unequals (class cooperation instead of classlessness). Fascism is more of an aesthetic than an ideology.
Refer to that which is above.

>Liberal society is not a perfect representation of liberal ideology.
That formulation of liberty is part of the liberal ideology.

>Fraternite was used in concert with nationalism to stir up anti foreign sentiments during the french rev in support of foreign wars
Refer to your former point. Fraternite was used as it was, but it was ideologically inclusionary.

>They considered, however, that the fascist man must have liberty, so they redefined it as the liberty in choosing the way to serve the State, but no liberty of going against it
Wouldn't the state decide what's the best way to serve it?

>Liberal society is not a perfect representation of liberal ideology.
Care to expand on that?

>Wouldn't the state decide what's the best way to serve it?
No. Just that man has no freedom to do otherwise. And the one to punish wouldn't be the State, but the squadristi.

>Care to expand on that?
On what? You have cited the way fraternity was used politically as the proof that it wasn't ideologically inclusive. I have mentioned the difference between implementation and ideology that you have cited regarding liberty (which you are using in a wrong way as the formulation of freedom while it doesn't go against others' freedom is part of the liberal ideology pretty much since its conception and has little to do with implementation.).

Can't you see why ideologies cannot be understood that way? They are completely different mindsets, not just "this value takes precedence over this value".

Stay of this subject and stick to Construction Management. You have no idea of what the science of History entails. Leave it to historians or re-educated yourself.

You are an iodiot and your analogy is bad.
Stick to shovelling cement about, fucking brickie...

t. Community College droputs

I think it's an interesting idea, OP. If you're interested in Marxist roots in the French revolution, read about Babeuf and the Conspiracy of Equals. He was one of the first guys to formalize the idea of a party vanguard leading the revolution from the top down. It's more Leninism than Marxism I suppose, but would probably be worth looking into for your paper.

Analyzing fascism through the lens of the revolution could be a bit trickier. My preliminary thoughts would be talking about how the various authoritarian regimes seized and displayed power (Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety > Directory > Napoleon's consulship > Napoleon as Emporer). I think there were definitely some proto-fascist ideas in play during this time.

Good luck, OP!

Thanks for the advice.

Sounds like de Jouvenel.

anything autoritarian does not equal fascist or proto-fascist. Nor does extreme nationalism or similar obvious surface elements, because these are not what makes fascist ideology unique and distinctive. It would be like describing modern Western democracy, or at least large groups within, as Communist, because of an underlining similarity in some sort of desire for equality, or at least equal opportunity.

OP and everyone who thinks fascism can be traced to pre-industrial ideas should look at Stanley G Payne's comparisons between fascism and other right wing ideologies. It creates a useful, fairly distinct definition based on the reality of several fascist movements.

It's a waste of your time OP. It's completely useless academically and in terms of pop-history/political science. The ideas too big and meaningless to be doable.

Any connections these ideologies have with each-other (and there are some) are as generic as any connection a political idea must share with its forebears and peers. The French Revolution is obviously and distinctly not to blame for the specifics of any of the three ideologies you have identified, and unfortunately the specifics are the most important part of them. Your connection is as useful as pointing out the influence Rome or Fuedalism has had on our political landscape. Yes, Rome gave us the Republic, no it's systems and values are distinctly not the same as ours.

The other unfortunate aspect is how obviously silly the whole thing is, it seems that you've formed the idea while paying no attention to what any of the thinkers of each ideology are actually saying, and have instead relied on meme concepts of what each is and attached it to a motto which again, does not express the specific nature of French Revolution political thought.

I know you wanted to research it, but the only conclusion I could see someone come to intelligently is that the paper is pointless. Instead, have fun learning about how each ideology emerged in it's own context.

This is my first impression too (warning though I'm a random dumbass just like op)

But maybe the whole thing with the motto isn't "the main point" just an interesting pseudo-coincidence used to sum up the underlying purpose of saying that fascism and marxism had their origins ultimately in the enlightenment. I guess that's still a platitude though because it's just saying political and social movements are based off movements that came before them. Maybe there's something unique in this case though idk.

OP here, I appreciate everybody's ideas and criticisms.

The thing I'm getting from a lot of people is that these ideologies can't be simply explained with ideas like liberty and equality, and that's where I disagree.

As far as I have seen, nobody so far has been able to explain to me why it cannot be reasonably said

"The French Revolution proceeded, for better or for worse, on the exclamation 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.' almost 200 years later, we have seen 3 predominate "progressive" ideologies come to the fore, Liberalism, Fascism and Marxism. In recent history, each one of these ideologies has adopted the battle cry of the French Revolutionaries, but each one has chosen to emphasize one ideal at the expense of the other two. Fascism extolling fraternity, Marxism, equality and Liberalism, liberty."

I get that its simple, but I really don't think its too simple.

Check out the idea os cosmopolitanisn*

OP has a point though. The French Revolution foreshadowed a lot of these three ideologies in practice. The terror and its totalitarian elements and napoleon and his attempt to sythesize authoritarian rule with republican ideas (he like fascists would hold plebiscites) had elements of fascism. The Thermidorian reaction also strongly resembled fascist counterrevolutions. The jacobins and the neojacobins of the directorate (see: gracchus babeuf) had proto-communist ideas. Liberalism as an ideology was only starting to be thought about by british politicians in the 1780s, but it was the first years of the French revolution that saw a true implementation of a flurry liberal ideas (declaration of rights of man, elimination of trade barriers, civil equality, anti-clericalism, destruction of feudal privileges).

>Fascism places premium on ordnung, if something. The fraternite of French revolution was fraternite of nationalism.
fascism had absolutely to do with nationalism

>Fascism can not be viewed in context of French revolution since it was modern
It had strong antecedents in the 19th century, though i do agree that the circumstances of the early 20th century were very important.

since it did not have had the exclusivist component.
>But the French Revolution conceptualized fraternity as universal, not exclusionary
in practice, it was the furthest thing from the truth. these pages are from a history book on the 1870 Commune, but the ideology of republicanism described here was a tradition extending back to 1792

...

...

...

>My basic thesis will be that these three modern ideologies all share a common genealogy dating back to the french revolution and its three tenets, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, each of which correspond to Liberalism, Marxism and Fascism respectively.
retarded
>I am a fucking Construction Management student
super retarded

at best you can talk about actual enlightenment thinkers but then you would need to actually learn things

See

>Any educated Veeky Forumstorians have any advice for research/writing/book recommendations?

I vaguely remember we discussed the subject of the connections between these three modern ideologies in my history master. I think I remember one of the Frankfurt School philosophers wrote about it.

I'm impressed with your scholarly interests, but I think you are jumping in the deep end here. You're trying to tackle complex comparative histories of ideas, a field riddled with obscure theoretical historiography and postmodern gibberish.

I think you can trace roots of liberalism, marxism and fascism to the french revolution (though possibly fascism more as a modern reaction against the revolution). But this idea that liberty equality and fraternity correspond each to one of the ideologies, you better put that out of your head. Socialism is as much about liberty, equality and fraternity as liberalism was. They just had different ideas about what these concepts meant.