Did Mussolini represent the more intellectual side of fascism?

He wasn't an autist, he was just a retard

Replace Mussolini with Giovanni Gentile

Fun fact: Mussolini would be recognized as racial trash by Nazi racial scientists. He had all characteristics of an "untermensch" including extremely high cephalic index.

>how you doin

>fascist
>intellectual
>>>>>>mussolini
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>intellectual
TOPKEK HAVEN'T LAUGHED LIKE THIS IN WEEKS

no fascism is the retarded side of people who dont understand socialism

fascism has no substance whatsoever and its nothing but the surface elements.

he looks like a goose

He wasnt white in any way

He was intellectual, but Gabriele d'Annunzio was a better example of a fascist intellectual.

This. Also Giovanni Gentile.

Good thing Mussolini wasn't a Nazi and thought Germans were screw ups.

The fascist futurists were intellectual as well.

This

fascism is against intellectualism, it's entire core is populism, and when fascist movements like the nazis took power, they banned stuff like abstract art just because they thought it looked bad and caused schools like Bauhaus to close down because thy thought their art was pretentious.

>fascist movements
>Nazism
Pick one.

>degenerate "art" got btfo

Sounds pretty smart to me

is it tho

>they banned stuff like abstract art just because they thought it looked bad

But it does look bad.

banning art because it makes you offended is no different to an evangelical trying to ban Dungeons and Dragons in the 80's.

It's a picture, but I'm sure you know the fine standards... like all those roleplaying roman busts. Who needs art class anyway? (even in highschool)

>banning art because it makes you offended is no different to an evangelical trying to ban Dungeons and Dragons in the 80's.
Yet modern progressive society allows mob action to ban art it disagrees with. Really makes me think.

what is italian futurism

They didn't ban all art though. They replaced it with state approved, ideologically correct art.

Im pretty sure you could paint all the degenerate art you wanted in private.

I dont see anything wrong with banning 'bad' influences in the public sphere, the problem becomes defining or deciding what is or isnt bad influences.

you probably get off to roman busts while failing to see the detail in pic-related

no it doesn't

How is a picture bad? How is something like Vincent Van Gogh offensive for people to look at? Banning something like Vincent Van Gogh is stupider than people who wanted to ban Doom and video games in the 90's, at least the latter had a connection.

Like i said the problem becomes deciding what is or isnt "bad".

There are a lot of examples of modern art that is just plain bad.

no, that was Nazism, specifically, Himmler and his cabal of autists.

Van Gogh is pretty trash though.

>I don't see any problem with banning bad art
>The problem becomes defining what is bad

Yeah no shit. That's why it is essentially wrong to ban artistic expression.

You are generalizing art based on the medium it is based in. Saying that's modern art should be banned because a lot of it bad is as a good of a statement as saying realistic art should be banned because a lot of it is bad, which is true. There's a lot of "Realistic" and stylized non-abstract art on websites like Deviantart and Tumblr that's very, very bad. Hitler's art aside from a couple of pieces ranged from mediocore to below-average, and despite all of this bad art, there isn't a serious discussion about removing realistic art in the west, because it's a stupid idea.

When you have a discussion about what is bad and isn't bad abstract art, where you do you draw the lines? If something is traditional like the Book of Kells which is a masterpiece of abstract art, should it banned because its abstract? If an artpieces says something that's a protest against the state, should it be banned? Does the ethnicity of the person who makes the art factor into the question? How do you judge the quality of abstract art, anyway?

The answer to all of these questions is, in an average fascist society, is to ban all of it, because such maters require too much thought beyond "ugh, I don't like looking at Vincent Van Gogh, just ban all of this art so my feelings can be better" It's a statement that is no better than people who wanted to ban Doom in the 90's.

>Race? It is a feeling, not a reality. Ninety-five per cent, at least. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.… National pride has no need of the delirium of race.

Fascism is fundamentally elitist you fucking idiot. Nationalism is not the same as populism. Nor is totalitarianism.

>Be Hitler
>Fucking kill myself and get my country cucked by the next half a century (half of it by the communist i hated so much)
>Be Mussolini
>Get lynched and executed by my own people
>Be Franco
>Rebuild a country from a civil war and turned it into the one of the most prosperous countries in Europe en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_miracle

No, he was a thug who took to people with a pick handle.

Kr*uts BTFO

Nope

Franco wasn't a fascist and Spain only succeeded once Franco replaced actual fascists with Opus Dei guys who actually knew what they were doing.

That's pretty much true according to most genetic studies.

There were quite a few fascist intellectuals, their eugenics policies were popular even in Britain & the US.

if Mussolini had stayed out of WW2 he'd be known as the hero who ended the mafia

Fascism was opposed to intelectualism concieved by modern standards. They saw intelectuals as people that lacked any spirit and wasted their lifes in mindless sophistry. They didn't like their elitism nor their inactivity and desu the so called intelectuals are generally just smart people with huge egos and little ideas

Dude are you taking about Evola? He wasn't a Fascist. He was a fedoralord who thought Fascism was too modern and popular a movement for him
Mussolini represented Fascism's political wing. Giovanni Gentile and Gabriele d'Annunzio were the minds behind Italian Fascism
Firstly, Franco was not a Fascist. More than anything he can be thought of as a uniting figure behind the Spanish Right. That being said, the kinda "third positionist" Falange did perform many governmental and bureaucratic tasks early in the Regime. The economic revitalization that happened under Franco was a result of gradual liberalization of the markets, the turnover of many governmental tasks to the representatives of the Clerical Right (Opus Dei) and the decline of the syndicalist policies of Rivera's Falange

Based Castillian brother teaching history to the less enlighted people

he didn't.
Mussolini sent the Prefetto Mori to "destroy the mafia", but it was only a meme, just some divide et impera to jail some famous criminals while giving power to others. it was pure propaganda. They gave power to the aristocrats landowners who used actual mafiosi to crush peasants rebellions and socialist movements.

Gentile is correct, but D'Annunzio wasn't a fascist. He considered Mussolini an illiterate. He was a proto-Mussolini in Fiume

I thought I was the only Castilian in Veeky Forums

Nah m8 I am also here to enlight people about our land

Sources?

>Giovanni Gentile
>Georges Sorel
>Ezra Pound
>Not intellectuals

>t. libshit who gets all his information about fascism from pop culture

Go look up Giovanni Gentile, Gabrielle D'Annunzio, Sir Oswald Mosley, Julius Evola (not explicitly a Fascist but he admired certain aspects of it), Raven Thompson.

I'd recommend starting with Evola's "Notes on the Third Reich" which compares National Socialism with Italian Fascism and offers an analysis of both systems from a traditionalist perspective.

Fascism is a wide spectrum. Depends what you're talking about. There was a 'pragmatic' intellectual side Gentile wrote about focusing on the praxis. Hitler also felt the same way about intellectuals who never achieved anything.

How come he wasn't a fascist?

>They gave power to the aristocrats landowners who used actual mafiosi to crush peasants rebellions and socialist movements.
You say that like it's a bad thing...

Due to the fact that there is not any concrete standard for defining fascism any debate about whether this or that leader/regime was fascism is a matter of semantics.

Nevertheless, there are a number of plausible arguments that be made in favor of the view that Franco wasn't Fascist.

The only Fascist or Fascist-like that emerged in Spain was the Phalangists under José Antonio Primo de Rivera. He was captured by the Republicans early in the war and executed. Franco apparently tried to negotiate a release although there are allegations he let him be executed to eliminate a political rival.

Once he was dead Franco appointed a friend/relative (I forget which) to head the Falange which led to it being a relatively toothless group and it was incorporated into the post-war bureaucracy and was unable to affect much political or economic changes.

Franco represented more the conservative landowners, military and clergy and not educated city-dwelling radicals like those who joined the Falange.

Franco paid lip-service to the Falange and fascist ideals while mostly transforming post-war Spain into a free-market economy run by a paternalistic conservative autocrat which is not very fascist.

There were reports of foreign volunteers for the Nationalist side becoming disillusioned because they felt they were fighting for the land-owners and exploiters instead of the people.

A genuinely Fascist Spanish government almost certainly would have instituted more economic changes and land reform instead of leaving the pre-war land-owning class in place. Francoist Spain was a borderline corporatocracy instead of a state centering around collaboration between the classes which is what Fascism is all about.

oswald mosley the book is called tomorrow we live you can find a pdf quite easily

...

...

...

...

also Mr. Raven Thomson

>intellectual
> fascism

lol, no sweetie.

i'm also seeing A LOT of unpunched nazis in this thread. gross...

>Muh anti-intellectualism
A shitty buzzword that academics spout whenever someone disagrees with them, regardless of their level of education

>He wasnt an autist like hitler.

No he was just a thug. People like to portray him as comical today but this is the man who personally beat half to death a senator who disagreed with him then bragged to the senate about it. He was the equivalent of a loan shark enforcer becoming a national leader.

>loan shark enforcer becoming a national leader.
duh, he was italian.

Well when you base your success on doing something but didn't actually do it, that is by definition failure.

Yes, you are engaging in damage control. There's a reason that many Marxist and Liberal thinkers managed to be influential outside of their ideology, yet the same can be said of basically no fascist thinkers.

Like Socialism and Communism? lmao

I never said they weren't failures.

There is no intellectual side of fascism. They kill the elite first.

I mean, when you keep in mind that DNA among humans is like 99% identical, it's not really a wrong statement.

Honestly this statement says a lot about fascism as it placed importance on the romantic ideals of feelings instead of enlightenment values.

I mean, when you keep in mind that DNA among humans and rodents is like 99% identical, it's not really a meaningful statement.

Yeah, because our dna is not the be-all end-all. If it was then Africans in America wouldn't have an IQ that's something like 15 points higher than the ones in Africa. Clearly it's a mix of both nature and nuture that determines us.

nurture*

>he was a thug
>in his youth he was a radical leftist
makes sense

you're thinking of Communism

Not surprising when you keep in mind that the fascism he set up in italy had a lot of socialist economic ideas.

>fascism is populism
kek.
who started this meme.
just because fascism was semi-popular at a few moments in time, doesn't make it populist.

My point exactly. Bringing DNA percentages is a stupid thing to do unless you base it on a limit, such as primate difference.

Interesting point, but what does Mosley offer to replace a Parliamentarian Republic if it's so corrupt, and doesn't represent the will of the people?
A radical Direct Democracy? I think anyone who has read the Apology understands how terrible the tyranny of the masses can be. (even though Socrates was an annoying faggot)
Some sort of enlightened authoritarian philosopher-kings who somehow know the soul of the people, but won't implement its vile excesses or passions.

>Some sort of enlightened authoritarian philosopher-kings who somehow know the soul of the people, but won't implement its vile excesses or passions.

i.e. Plato's Republic, which Mussolini et al largely modeled fascism on

hmm. seems a bit too aspirational for reality.

just as the user said a sort of platonic republic. the various classes that Plato mentioned are to be united under the rule of a directly elected magistrate who has the power to legislate. the various classes provide the magistrate with information as to the happiness of the people. i will admit mosley is rather vague on this point and i have yet to get to Ravens book, which may have a more detailed explanation.

as a note fascism from what i have read is basically plato's republic and Aristotle politics

It worked fine in Italy until the government got violently overthrown by the US after they made the mistake of joining Germany's war.

If they had just stuck with a few colonial ventures and dicked around a bit in the Balkans they could have probably kept their gains without it triggering a war with the allies.

It's not entirely improbable that in that scenario the fascist government could have survived to the present day. Saudi Arabia and China still have the same regimes now that they did then.

a little more

>94 / 26 / 51 / 1

...

...

China's regime after Mao's death is completely different than the one while Mao was alive.

...