... and all fascisms are not like National Socialism. Here is a video by Ryan Chapman, which doesn't duly adress the point.
Misconceptions About Nazism
20th March 2022 | Ryan Chapman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gfYbEk6rBY
2:15 It can be considered possible that some who identify with some degree of generic fascism would make the comment in a sense meaning "while National Socialism is perhaps one fascism, it is not the definition of fascism" - which, as an Austrofascist, moderately supportive of early but not late Italian Fascism, I certainly endorse.
National Socialism is : fascism + racism + eugenicism + medical tyranny + seeing some as "untermenschen" + light ecologism and heavy feminism + anticlericalism and school compulsion.
Austrofascism never categorised anyone, Jews and handicapped included, as Untermenschen.
In other words, it may come from the same general direction as a Trotskist saying "Stalinism isn't Communism"
It so happens, in schools, people are often told moderately about Italian or Spanish fascism nearly nothing of the smaller ones and BIG about National Socialism - meaning, some could be tempted to categorise National Socialism not just as a fascism, but as The Fascism (apart from name being plagiarised from Mussolini).
And some commenting would be saying "no, fascism really and truly doesn't have to be like that!"
4:53 I heavily disagree with your definition of generic fascism, NS certainly was what you just mentioned, and Italian Fascism tended to become more of it as time went by, but I'd not put that part under the heading "fascism" but under the heading "anticlericalism and school compulsion" - same thing with Azañas attempt to school compulsion, same thing with the French original in III Republic, namely Ferry Combe school laws - they were subordinating individuals and not-the-French-state communities (Bretons, Church) under an aggressive nationalistic consciousness.
And in Italy, I would say Garibaldi was more of that than the early Mussolini, along with Cavour. In other words, I consider liberal (and socialist) régimes are perfectly capable of subordinating individuals en masse under an aggressive nationalistic consciousness. But I do not consider liberal (and socialist, at least usually) régimes to be fascist.
Canada's Residential School program was very certainly an example of subordinating individuals en masse under an aggressive nationalistic consciousness. Canada at this point was also not fascist, even if social credit economics were promoted in some state.
My definition of fascism (and I am myself one and a half of the three points), is:
- syndicalism with national solidarity opposes class struggle (both against socialism and against capitalism)
- mistrust or indifference to parliamentarian democracy compared to this
- readiness to take up violence to promote this.
All three are present in Mussolini's Sansepulcrism of 1919. On your definition, Mussolini would not yet have been a fascist, which is pretty absurd, if you ask me. It was prior to WW-I that Mussolini was not yet a fascist.
- Psychonaut Pupildiallater
- Roger Griffin's definition of fascism~ "A political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra nationalism",..
Sounds ALOT like Zionism,..... Hmmmm?
Are the Jews fascists?
Some would say yes,.....
Bet the ones that say no,.. are Zionists?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Psychonaut Pupildiallater I think there was a time when Il Duce was more decent to African Italians than some Zionists are to Palestinians and even Israeli Arabs (Palestinians of their own citizenship) today.
Zionists may from time to time have done real good in the area (defending Copts, Maronites), but they have also done more evil than is totally tolerable on the ground they primarily occupy.
It's the impression I get from Rivarol, it's the impression I get from the facts about Shireen Abu Akleh's death (outside Rivarol too). However, I have heard one little promising thing, three soldiers of the Tsahal are being investigated and have got their weapons confiscated.
@Psychonaut Pupildiallater There are possibly also some Fascists who say no, since I am into Corporatismo.
I am not against what one can call "hobby Communism" as long as the kibbutz is not on stolen land (stolen from someone actually needing it, Christiania was just stolen from a Danish army no longer using the area). But I cannot consider a consideration of sometimes ruthless capitalism with hobby communism heavily sponsored as Corporatismo.
- Psychonaut Pupildiallater
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl Every land is "stolen" from someone else at some point,.
To say what Israel has done isn't fascist to the Palestinians wouldn't fly very far,...
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Psychonaut Pupildiallater "Every land is "stolen" from someone else at some point,"
Like with me having some knowledge of history, would you mind telling me when Sweden was stolen and from whom?
"To say what Israel has done isn't fascist to the Palestinians wouldn't fly very far,..."
Because Il Duce allora ancora futuro saving companies from Commie expropriations (like 1920-22) is comparable to actual expropriations of homes? Or because Il Duce (gia tale) having penalties on abortions is comparable to pro-abortion Israelis being mean to Palestinians over their anti-abortion stance not being decmocratic?
I think you may be unfair to Il Duce (though, I don't think Israelis so far have used mustard gas, like Italians under Badoglio did in Ethiopia).
6:15 Webster's definition would exclude Dollfuss and include (at least by now) Putin.
Absurd.
It may be noted, Webster's comes from a country that was inimical both to Fascist Italy and to National Socialist Germany, and which also entered into the war after Mussolini's Fascism had "lost its innocense" if I may so put it.
What you did miss, both by Griffin and by Webster is, Corporatism, which considering you mentioned both Communism and Capitalism is a somewhat glaring omission!
Corporatism certainly was part of the régime in both NS Germany and F Italy, but so it was in the early years of posguerra Franco Spain, and in Austria. To this day, the Conservatives of Austria are Corporatists and not Capitalist.
Obviously, to some Capitalist sensibilities, Corporatism could seem like "heavy economic reglementation" but I'd reserve that phrase for Communism. Corporatism is more like light economic reglementation.
By the way, I'm dubbing Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal a "honorary Fascism ..."
7:00 You are reading Italian Fascism through the lenses of Gentile and some of Il Duce's rhetoric, rather than for instance Carta del Lavoro or Corporazioni - actual measures, back in the better days of Italian Fascism.
7:28 I consider your "playbook" is fairly miscategorising Italian Fascism, especially in its early days.
It does come to the level of an actual problem - this "playbook" - when it drives Italy to some of the measures mentioned in Non Abbiamo Bisogno.
8:34 Early on, Mussolini was in fact antiracist. Not heavily, he had racists in the administration (the guy who bungled the Ethiopia war despite Mussolini calling him back home being one), but at least clearly non-racist.
When Chesterton interviewed him, he considered racism (and eugenics and all that) a Teutonic fad. The blood part of Blut and Boden being not quite the Romance nations' cup of tea.
Let's take the date of Carta della Razza. 1937. I'd like to see this as a "best before date" for Italian Fascism, back in 36 Il Duce had defended Austria, in 38 he handed Hitler Austria on a plate.
1937 - 1922 = 15 years.
1945 - 1937 = 8 years.
By contrast, Hitler was obsessed with race before he came to power, the Nuremberg laws are from 1935.
1935 - 1933 = 2 years (or a little less)
1945 - 1935 = 10 years.
I think it is common sense to say:
Racism is a part of National Socialism
Racism is not a part of Italian Fascism per se.
In other words, NS = Fascism + Racism.
8:54 I also do not consider that the passage on the screen qualifies as "racism" - I note it is from 1928.
The part clearly visible shows Mussolini was "aware of a race problem" as some would like to put it.
The last paragraph on the screen has much blotted out, but it seems Mussolini did not believe in a kind of determinism of "demographic laws" or that state sponsored racist measures (over and above some kind of "Alltagsrazissmus" as they say now in Germany, among the citizens) were necessary to defend the white race.
In other words, he was not yet what I would call a racist.
To the point : "every goodwilled, normal, reasonable person wants to fight racism"
(Noelle Mering, video for Franciscan University of Steubenville, 9.II.2022, time sig up to 4:54)
Clearly true about things like pushing people down because they are another race or impeding marriages that are racially mixed.
And that is the definition of racism I do not see Mussolini as fulfilling in the 1928 extract.
10:22 Mussolini here is seen as using a distinction between "fascism" ("a fascist one") and "Fascism" ("which Fascism was spared"). Is this in the Italian original or is it the English editor's choice?
This is 1933, and Mussolini's comment does involve a tinge of disapproval for some NS / Hitlerian measures. Or at least regret for Germany not being spared them, so to speak.
Unfortunately, he already has a rhetoric of demo-social-liberal forces being not just wrong about some things, but the enemy, and this reflects the Leggi fascistissimi - not my favourite part even before 1937.
Though, it could be a geopolitical observation at the time.
No comments:
Post a Comment