The Roots of Fascism

Dearest user, I have been researching the origins of Fascist Political philosophy and have found 3 major influences from the 19th century that can be directly connected politically in terms of end goals and in rhetoric.

the first is Hegelian views concerning the relationship between the individual and the state, that having a strong effect on Italian fascism.

The second is the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, having an especially strong effect on the political philosophy and world view of Nazism. This is especially prevalent in their attitudes regarding the concept of "The Will" and the creation of a superior man by culling the weak. Though I'm sure Nietzsche would hate the Nazis, Unlike his sister.

The third is Marxism in general, as many of the early fascist movements grew out of Marxist political movements and even kept a great amount of their doctrine from socialist and national syndicalist movements. See the 25 points and Mussolini's roots at "Avante!"

My question, my dearest user, is what else might there be in regards to the roots of Fascism in the 19th century besides the above points in regards to political and philosophical theory? Would Social Darwinism have played a significant role due to it's effects on the Eugenics movement and Nietzsche's philosophy? Please, say anything you like, I would love to see some other views and opinions that may aid me in my research. Any book suggestions are welcome as well.

(pic related)

Other urls found in this thread:

pastebin.com/DhShAReV
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>The third is Marxism
No. Socialism, possibly, but not all forms of socialism are Marxist """scientific""" socialism, specially at the time. Anyway what you're looking for here is Catholic social teaching. Search for Rerum novarum. In this encyclical Pope Leo XIII sought the address the labor issue and the excesses of both capitalism and socialism, and how it would be desirable that labor unions worked, not against, but with the factory owners, and were more like the medieval guilds, organized around trades and professions, not social classes, essentially laying the foundations of fascist corporatism.

the birth of the ideology of the nation state is really the root cause, fascism is just the far extreme of the nation state
it brought national identity above aligning yourself with a royal family, and this nationalist sentiment was used to consolidate power into authoritarian governments

That sounds like the typical Frankfurt School analysis/critique of Enlightenment. It's kind of far-fetched, a bit doubtful for such scale of analysis.

i read somewhere ages ago (and im not even sure why) that there was a French author in the late 1800s who wrote a book which was the pre-text for Southern European Facism, am I right or am I getting my brief readings really mixed up

All things considered, I found in the doctrine of fascism (the pamphlet) that the values of the nation are held only within the state, that the nation holds not identity beyond the state in terms of culture. While I can agree in terms of Nazism being based around ethno-nationalist sentiments, it seems that most other regimes were in fact anti-nationalist. By nationalist I of course mean the ideology used during the 19th century to form states centered around an people's culture or regional identity.

I hold that it is Marxism since many of the precepts of socialist movements that gave rise to fascist movements in the early 20th century held Marxist worldviews (or at the very least non-utopian views) if they were not Marxists, then they were often Hegelian in worldview in terms of historical cycles and conflict.

Perhaps I should have been more specific as to what movements i was speaking of, as some fascist movements grew out of utopian socialist circles, especially in Spain and Portugal, which most definitely explains in part why Christianity was a near central aspect of some factions in Franco's circle during the Spanish civil war.

you're probably thinking of charles maurras or maurice barres

The root, central, ultimate, meta- cause of fascism?

People thinking you can win an argument by winning a fight. Fascism arrives when enough people decide that might makes right is the law of the universe, not an admittance of idiocy.

>Any book suggestions are welcome as well.
pastebin.com/DhShAReV
lots of good books on the origins of fascism in here OP

How different was Spanish and Portuguese Fascism compared to Italian's Fascism?

Drastically. Unlike communism which predicates its political stances on destroying the native cultures and religions of the nation in order to unify them -

Facism embraces and finds unity though promoting cultural morays and eccentricites; this essentially means that fascism in mexico would be inherently MASSIVELY different than fascism in sweden because the foundation and cultural base around EVERYTHING (marriage, work ethic, religion, language, agricultural development, morality, criminal punishment) would be different depending on where the fascism is currently occurring.

There is a really good book on amazon which shows this ( I cant remember the name) but it is essentially a collection of essays from Franco, Pinochet, Mosley, and Hitler and you can see while the authoritarian collective nationalism is still there; the outward manifestation of fascism in theses different nations is HUGE

I always thought fascism came from french revanchism after the franco-prussian war

Darwinism. Not Darwin himself, but the social movements that rose in reaction to his thought.

partly. Boulanger tried to harness revanchism to take power. He came to be known as general revanche and he was the the central character in a popular tune. In the end he chickened out, but the movement to elect him (which was quite successful) would go on to influence or itself produce thinkers of the french far right such as deroulede and maurras. But to say that italian and german variations of fascism came from revanchism is incomplete at best.

>what else might there be in regards to the roots of Fascism in the 19th century besides the above points in regards to political and philosophical theory?

World War one.

Italian fascism was at it's core groups of alienated young soldiers fighting on the Italian front coming home to an inglorious peace treaty and a hostile rejection by society.

I always blame Wilhelm II.
Literal limp-armed /r9k/ warmonger.

Marxism really isn't a source for fascism. But do as you want, you seem to have made up your mind already.

Read Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. Polemical but scholarly

>(((Goldberg)))

>Though I'm sure Nietzsche would hate the Nazis

Nietzsche disliked states, but he would have loved Hitler.

This.

OP is cryptolibtard like the half of Veeky Forums

Nolte argued that fascism functioned at three levels: in the world of politics as a form of opposition to Marxism, at the sociological level in opposition to bourgeois values, and in the "metapolitical" world as "resistance to transcendence" ("transcendence" in German can be translated as the "spirit of modernity").[11] Nolte defined the relationship between fascism and Marxism as:
>Fascism is anti-Marxism which seeks to destroy the enemy by the evolvement of a radically opposed and yet related ideology and by the use of almost identical and yet typically modified methods, always, however within the unyielding framework of national self-assertion and autonomy.[12]
Nolte defined "transcendence" as a "metapolitical" force comprising two types of change.[13] The first type, "practical transcendence", manifesting in material progress, technological change, political equality, and social advancement, comprises the process by which humanity liberates itself from traditional, hierarchical societies in favor of societies where all men and women are equal.[13][14] The second type is "theoretical transcendence", the striving to go beyond what exists in the world towards a new future, eliminating traditional fetters imposed on the human mind by poverty, backwardness, ignorance, and class.[14] Nolte himself defined "theoretical transcendence":
>Theoretical transcendence may be taken to mean the reaching out of the mind beyond what exists and what can exist toward an absolute whole; in a broader sense this may be applied to all that goes beyond, that releases man from the confines of the everyday world, and which, as an ‘awareness of the horizon’, makes it possible for him to experience the world as a whole.[15]

he's actually not halakhically jewish but yes )))stormfag(((

if you're implying that he's pushing some multicultural culture or globalist agenda you're wrong. the guy's a libertarian whose thesis is that american liberal democratic tradition is fascism-lite.

not really an argument desu. it's well known how that the nazis unwittingly caricatured nietzsche's ideology, so to accuse OP of being leftist is not necessarily true.

>ideology
philosophy*

Lets start again.

Step 1 You look down.

Step 2 You look up and left and right.

Step 3 You look down.


All steps together, The Jews really did this?

tl;dr

>origins of fascism
>evolution of the far right
HAHHAHAHAHAHAA
How fucking dumb.

99% of societies in world history that lasted enough to be considered as "societies" were "Far right"/"fascist", new culture and technology just changed it's appearance.
The few that weren't quickly got eaten by the war machines.

Lefties so indoctrinated in marxist thought they managed to convince themselves that "far right" is some kind new anomaly in politics.

some authoritarian junta ain't the same as fascism as a populist ideology. for most of history the common man was not politically active enough to be part of anything.

I wholeheartedly disagree.
racism, authoritarianism, elitism, chauvinism, male-domination, war-hungry, expantionist etc.

It's the same base structure.

>some authoritarian junta ain't the same as fascism as a populist ideology.

Your differentiation is pointless, you're comparing the dressing, the core is the same, with the advent of complex culture obviously it will manifest itself in slightly different form.

Depends one where you draw the line, I could argue that no western democracy today is the same, no different individuals are the same.
I also could say that all individuals are human.

See how selective attention can produce polar opposite results.

The reason I made the post is because they are treating Fascism as if it were something alien, or even better, the post that outlines the "far right" which is beyond laughable since the principal operation of a far right society was the default mode most societies.

Monarchy, fascim, authoritarianism, dictatorship etc can be measured as different things according our needs of discourse.

If we're going to treat a dictatorship as something groundbreaking, then no, I will point out, no matter the pretty neon lights, it very much is of the same bone structure.

Maybe you want to dissect and compare Fascism with other types of authoritarian systems, then it's understandable.

Typical moron trying to rationalize an organic European movement. Read Spengler sometime, and then maybe I'll read your bullshit.

you're confusing power structure with ideology. the maximum approval a peasant in a feudalist society will have for any ruling body is aproximately "eh", and no matter how hard national socialists try they won't become that power structure with their educated, generally conscripted, printing press using population. as an ideology fascism was entirely without context in a pre-modern era.

>tfw he actually tried to stop it but Moltke shut him down with "muh railroads"

Pls remember the book.

Another guy pls remember the book

does he mean a primary source collection or historical essays on the different leaders