Is giovanni gentile the "karl marx" of fascism?

Is giovanni gentile the "karl marx" of fascism?

how can a man named gentile not be a jew? its impossible

Mirin' that hair volume and hairline.

How could a man with that name be a jew? The name literally means a non-jew. Also he's Italian. Perhaps gentile means something different in that language?

I don't know Italian but in most Romance languages some form of "gentil" almost always means "kind" or "gentle", wouldn't be surprised of that was its meaning.

Gentile translates literally to kind/gentle in modern italian, yes. As a surname however it most likely comes off the archaic meaning of the word, which relates more to noble birth and high-class behaviour/status. The word comes down from the latin gens afterall.

*grabs you all by the throat

STOP FUCKING TALKING ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF HIS FUCKING NAME ASSHOLES!

Did I mention that Gentile can also be taken to mean also workable or well-worked? It all goes down to the concept of personal cultivation as a standard of aristocracy.

yes

>circa 1800 italy
>goy converts to judaism
>he's nicknamed 'the gentile'
>the government requires everyone to register surnames
>he uses his nickname

So then he wouldn't really be Jewish then. Shame.

I don't remember the details, but protofascist ideas were, in fact, introduced by the Jewish thinkers.

I thought prot-fascism was french anarchist?

>be italian
>get nickname in english
>use english nickname for surname

I wonder what its like to be this dumb

el gentile*

That is some next level autism.

To answer your question, probably not. Fascism was too ideologically inconsistent to have a single defining source, as opposed to communism which had a more unitary goal

>as opposed to communism which had a more unitary goal
Marx just subjugated all socialist ideas. Before him, they were quite disorganised.

isn't he called the philosopher of fascism?

That doesn't contradict the point that communism was more ideological than the disparate "fascist" parties

Rightist movements seldom have founding figures like leftist ones do, because they are not about new ideas and approaches but about making relevant for today the traditional methods and approaches of our ancestors. For a leftist, having a brilliant theorist who elaborates the ideology is desirable (essential, even) but a rightist group is always happier to say that their ideas are immemorial and have no single expounder, but reflect rather the timeless wisdom of the ages.

>but reflect rather the timeless wisdom of the ages.

wasnt MArx doing just that with his "DUDE HISTORY IS CLASS STRUGGLE/COMMUNISM IS JUST THE NEXT STEP AFTER CAPITALISM" argument?

No? Not even close, in fact. He was reformulating history under a wholly new organizing principle. Previous ages had understood the concept of the "social war", that we might call "class conflict", but they always understood it as a symptom of some deficit in the state, Marx claimed that it was THE engine of history that shapes everything that happens, a very different understanding not rooted in any historical idea.

>oh hello my fellow white man my name is john notajewson.
he's hiding something

that's spanish
*il gentile