26-08-2018, 10:30 PM
I would recommend the following book that I just read on Fascism:
The Origins of Fascist Ideology 1918-1925 by Emilio Gentile
If people are going to use the epithet "Fascism" to try and explain the Trump situation, (or anything else), IMHO they should be speaking or writing in such a way as to indicate a true understanding of the word Fascism.
As I found out after struggling through the Gentile book, the reason why the word Fascism leads to so much confusion, is that (at least in Italy where it was invented) Fascism never actually existed as a unified theory.
There is a huge difference between just using the label Fascism and actually proving and/or explaining what it was or was not. The basic problem is this: under Hitler, Nazism was an actual reality which had its rules, swastika's, its theoriticians. But this state of affairs never took place in Italy under Mussolini or maybe even anywhere else.
According to the Gentile book, Fascism in Italy was more of a movement which was continually trying to figure out what it stood for. It was a collection of monarchists, syndicalists, corporatists, Catholic clericalists and conservatives.
Of course Italy held on to its monarchy until around 1945. So how could it be both Fascist and a Monarchy all at the same time?
In Italy, pure Fascism (as such) was represented by some mostly rural, limited scale right-wing death squads, somewhat like the Central American Contras of the 1980's. These death squads were more like the US KKK which never actually took over the government.
From Wikipedia:
"Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via governing industry bodies ("corporations") controlled by the Fascist party, a model in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms".
I'm not really sure whether Hitler considered himself a Fascist. He wanted an alliance with Mussolini and Mussolini was considered a Fascist. But that's not quite the same thing. I don't think that Hitler would have used the word Fascism for himself because he knew it was a fake and artificial diversion and not a real word. Hitler usually did not mince words. And using the word Fascism is mincing words.
There were, of course, anti-Nazi Fascists such as the father of JFK's brother-in-law, Prince Radziwill. But then, they were typically monarchists, militarists or clericalists.
I will stand by my belief that I always repeat--without trying to offend anyone, I will say that both Mussolini and the people of 2018 who parrot the word Fascism are consciously or unconsciously doing the same equivalent thing. That is, they are using and abusing a word that does not, nor ever did describe something that actually existed other than in the form of vague connections.
The people in Italy who called themselves Fascists were actually monarchists, syndicalists, corporatists and reactionary Catholic clericalists. The word Fascism was used and abused, but it was never anything more than a fig-leaf to cover up the much, much less popular concepts like monarchism, clericalism, syndicalism and generic reaction.
Those people who published on the concept of Fascism were just babbling disconnected words in order to cover up their real, questionable agendas. These included absolute monarchism and the wish to turn back the clock to the 16th century (and reverse the French Revolution). And the only unifying major motivation was purely anti-Bolshevism, i.e. anti-Communism.
Nothing about Trump comes close to meeting even the (faulty) dictionary definition which is presented as the definition of Fascism. At the most, Trump believes to some degree in authoritarianism. But in that, he is no different than other billionaire businessmen who surely don't allow their employees to vote on the decisions affecting their businesses. If Trump is a Fascist, then Elon Musk is a Fascist, etc. etc.
The Pope is authoritarian. The US Army is authoritarian. Many other institutions are also authoritarian. But that does not make them Fascists. Fascism may actually be just a word used to label something that, like space aliens, has never really existed in physical reality.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the above lengthy and wordy attack on Trump does exactly what the "theorists" did who worked with Mussolini back in the 1920's. They just put a bunch of buzz words down on a very long page, but hoped no one would notice that the words were not really connected in a logical way.
The Gentile book presents the bottom line criticism that was leveled against people who bandied the word Fascist in their "theoretical" writings, (with regard to those writings):
They were often called "incoherent" writings which fell short of being actual theory.
James Lateer
The Origins of Fascist Ideology 1918-1925 by Emilio Gentile
If people are going to use the epithet "Fascism" to try and explain the Trump situation, (or anything else), IMHO they should be speaking or writing in such a way as to indicate a true understanding of the word Fascism.
As I found out after struggling through the Gentile book, the reason why the word Fascism leads to so much confusion, is that (at least in Italy where it was invented) Fascism never actually existed as a unified theory.
There is a huge difference between just using the label Fascism and actually proving and/or explaining what it was or was not. The basic problem is this: under Hitler, Nazism was an actual reality which had its rules, swastika's, its theoriticians. But this state of affairs never took place in Italy under Mussolini or maybe even anywhere else.
According to the Gentile book, Fascism in Italy was more of a movement which was continually trying to figure out what it stood for. It was a collection of monarchists, syndicalists, corporatists, Catholic clericalists and conservatives.
Of course Italy held on to its monarchy until around 1945. So how could it be both Fascist and a Monarchy all at the same time?
In Italy, pure Fascism (as such) was represented by some mostly rural, limited scale right-wing death squads, somewhat like the Central American Contras of the 1980's. These death squads were more like the US KKK which never actually took over the government.
From Wikipedia:
"Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via governing industry bodies ("corporations") controlled by the Fascist party, a model in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms".
I'm not really sure whether Hitler considered himself a Fascist. He wanted an alliance with Mussolini and Mussolini was considered a Fascist. But that's not quite the same thing. I don't think that Hitler would have used the word Fascism for himself because he knew it was a fake and artificial diversion and not a real word. Hitler usually did not mince words. And using the word Fascism is mincing words.
There were, of course, anti-Nazi Fascists such as the father of JFK's brother-in-law, Prince Radziwill. But then, they were typically monarchists, militarists or clericalists.
I will stand by my belief that I always repeat--without trying to offend anyone, I will say that both Mussolini and the people of 2018 who parrot the word Fascism are consciously or unconsciously doing the same equivalent thing. That is, they are using and abusing a word that does not, nor ever did describe something that actually existed other than in the form of vague connections.
The people in Italy who called themselves Fascists were actually monarchists, syndicalists, corporatists and reactionary Catholic clericalists. The word Fascism was used and abused, but it was never anything more than a fig-leaf to cover up the much, much less popular concepts like monarchism, clericalism, syndicalism and generic reaction.
Those people who published on the concept of Fascism were just babbling disconnected words in order to cover up their real, questionable agendas. These included absolute monarchism and the wish to turn back the clock to the 16th century (and reverse the French Revolution). And the only unifying major motivation was purely anti-Bolshevism, i.e. anti-Communism.
Nothing about Trump comes close to meeting even the (faulty) dictionary definition which is presented as the definition of Fascism. At the most, Trump believes to some degree in authoritarianism. But in that, he is no different than other billionaire businessmen who surely don't allow their employees to vote on the decisions affecting their businesses. If Trump is a Fascist, then Elon Musk is a Fascist, etc. etc.
The Pope is authoritarian. The US Army is authoritarian. Many other institutions are also authoritarian. But that does not make them Fascists. Fascism may actually be just a word used to label something that, like space aliens, has never really existed in physical reality.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the above lengthy and wordy attack on Trump does exactly what the "theorists" did who worked with Mussolini back in the 1920's. They just put a bunch of buzz words down on a very long page, but hoped no one would notice that the words were not really connected in a logical way.
The Gentile book presents the bottom line criticism that was leveled against people who bandied the word Fascist in their "theoretical" writings, (with regard to those writings):
They were often called "incoherent" writings which fell short of being actual theory.
James Lateer