Mussolini Explains Fascism...

Ardsgaine

Active Member
Modern History Sourcebook:
Benito Mussolini:
What is Fascism, 1932


(Link

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) over the course of his lifetime went from Socialism - he was editor of Avanti, a socialist newspaper - to the leadership of a new political movement called "fascism" [after "fasces", the symbol of bound sticks used a totem of power in ancient Rome].

Mussolini came to power after the "March on Rome" in 1922, and was appointed Prime Minister by King Victor Emmanuel.

In 1932 Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) and entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism.



Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

...The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after...

...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....

...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....

...[G]iven that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

...For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it.
 
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute
the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone
Does that not sound like left-wing notions? The "state" is the center of attention? You can replace "fascism" with "communism" too, and it would make sense:

The foundation of communism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Communism conceives of the State as an absolute
the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone

How one could try and put fascism on the right which advocates individual liberties boggles my mind.
 
i think that that was his point yeah....puts the definition of a nazi in a quite weird perspective...everybody calls them fascists, but i can hardly say that the nazi's wanted the deciding power to be the State....
 
The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in 'society as a whole,' i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.

Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics--or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia--or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same.

The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure--terrifying, that is, if one's motive is men's welfare.

Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly.
From: "The Monument Builders," from The Virtue of Selfishness, by Ayn Rand

Both 'socialism' and 'fascism' involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories; socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates 'the vesting of ownership and control' in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government.

Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means 'property,' without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility.
From: "The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus," from Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand

The difference between [socialism and fascism] is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open.

The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal.
Quoting Ayn Rand from: The Fascist New Frontier, pamphlet, p. 5

Fascism/Nazism:

"Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal.

"The dictionary definition of fascism is: "a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.), emphasizing an aggressive nationalism"[The American College Dictionary, New York: Random House, 1957.]

Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it--at least until the next purge. In either case, the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens.

Needless to say, under either system, the inequalities of income and standard of living are greater than anything possible under a free economy--and a man's position is determined, not by his productive ability and achievement, but by political pull and force.
Quoting Ayn Rand from: The Fascist New Frontier, pamphlet, p. 5

Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of control. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property--so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.

If "ownership" means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a formal deed, a contentless deed, which conferred no rights on its holder. Under communism, there is collective ownership of property de jure. Under Nazism, there is the same collective ownership de facto.
From: The Ominous Parallels, ch. 9, pb.18, by Dr. Leonard Peikoff

Adolf Hitler on Nazism and socialism:

"Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism--not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper."

"Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."
Adolf Hitler to Hermann Rauschning, quoted in The Ominous Parallels, by Leonard Peikoff C. 1982
 
ok, bad wording....i can hardly say that hitler wanted the state to be the deciding power..more that he wanted all that power for himself.
but that says more about hitler than about nazi's...
 
Ahhh....the duality of language....If only the 'theoretical' was even close to the 'accepted use' versions of any of the terms......And the sublime use of large bold text on "Modern History" seems a bit negated when you reach "1932".....
 
Shadowfax said:
ok, bad wording....i can hardly say that hitler wanted the state to be the deciding power..more that he wanted all that power for himself.
but that says more about hitler than about nazi's...

He was the leader of the state. He was the ultimate decision maker, and his subordinates were the representatives of the state. There was a vast bureaucracy controlled by the party, the police, the special police (Gestapo), and the military. In that respect, they were no different from the Italian fascists.
 
so please enlighten me....how do right-winged peeps want to control a country then? :retard:
last time i checked most countries have an ultimate decision maker, backed up by a senate for instance...
in the US the deciding power is the government as well, and as you put it, you're defining state as government...
 
Squiggy said:
If only the 'theoretical' was even close to the 'accepted use' versions of any of the terms

There is nothing theoretical about the hostility of fascists to liberal democracy/capitalism. It's revealed in both their speech and their practice. My point in posting Mussolini's writing was to show that fascism is not capitalism. It is opposed to capitalism and hostile to the ideals of liberal democracy that gave birth to capitalism in the 19th century.

Squiggy said:
And the sublime use of large bold text on "Modern History" seems a bit negated when you reach "1932".....

I reproduced the look of the website. Modern History Sourcebook is the title of a collection of online documents that includes the above writings of Mussolini. That's why the title is written the way it is.

As for whether the fact that it was written in 1932 makes it irrelevant, I think the year and the source make it far more relevant than the revisionist attempts of modern Marxists to toss fascism and capitalism into the same pot. Mussolini created the first fascist state, so what he says about the philosophy carries a lot of weight.
 
My point was the theories have been pretty well displaced by the way the terms are applied and used today. In theory, there can be no seperation in class in a communist state. Therefore, all of the 'Communist' regimes are not really communist. Its just a label we've thrown on them.
 
Shadowfax said:
so please enlighten me....how do right-winged peeps want to control a country then? :retard:
last time i checked most countries have an ultimate decision maker, backed up by a senate for instance...
in the US the deciding power is the government as well, and as you put it, you're defining state as government...

The power of the state has to be limited by a constitution so that individual rights are protected. When individual rights, including the right to property, are thus protected, capitalism is the result. In order to protect the rights guaranteed in the constitution, power is dispersed through different branches of government that act to keep each other in check. That's Liberal Democracy 101.

How does Fascism differ? On the theoretical level, Fascism denies that individuals have rights. As Mussolini puts it:

The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.

So individuals have privileges that are granted through the State, they do not have "inalienable rights," because the State is always free to decide which liberties are "harmful."

In practice, fascists act on this by overthrowing any institution that would act to limit their power. Democratic elections are suspended, parliaments are dissolved, constitutions shredded. All power is collected into the hands of the fascist party. The people may be left with some small scraps of freedom, but those are always dependent on how they threaten the perogatives of the State.
 
Squiggy said:
My point was the theories have been pretty well displaced by the way the terms are applied and used today.

Fascism promises power and glory for the people who follow it, but it has yet to succeed. That doesn't mean that the countries that tried it were not fascist.

Squiggy said:
In theory, there can be no seperation in class in a communist state. Therefore, all of the 'Communist' regimes are not really communist. Its just a label we've thrown on them.

It's a label they gave themselves, because they were Marxist revolutionaries who sought to implement Marxist principles. If you check into the thread I started on Marxism, you will see that the theory was criticized before it was ever put into practice on the grounds that it would simply create a new ruling class. That's precisely what it did.

Let's say someone hands me a recipe for chicken soup and tells me it's a recipe for beef stew. If I follow the recipe and end up with chicken soup, it can't be said it was because I wasn't following the recipe.

The communists advertised a stateless, classless, cooperative utopia that would be achieved by denying the concept of individual rights and placing total state power into the hands of the proletariat, represented by a revolutionary elite. Their theory has led in every case to totalitarian dictatorship. The problem isn't the people implementing it, it's the theory. (Okay, there's a symbiotic relationship there, because it's a criminal theory and it draws criminal minds to it, still-- the problem is the theory.)
 
:rofl:

I was expecting some long, thought-provoking post from you that was going to force me to tidy up my position, and instead I got "fucking yeah. :beerbang:"

:rofl3:

:beerbang:
 
Jeslek said:
Does that not sound like left-wing notions? The "state" is the center of attention? You can replace "fascism" with "communism" too, and it would make sense:



probably because facism is supposed to be more warlike in its decisions and the right wing is more likely to go to war :shrug: and facism and communism are two different things
 
Ardsgaine said:
:rofl:

I was expecting some long, thought-provoking post from you that was going to force me to tidy up my position, and instead I got "fucking yeah. :beerbang:"

:rofl3:

:beerbang:

lol. I wasn't exactly in the "long, thought-provoking" mode last night. :)
 
freako104 said:
probably because facism is supposed to be more warlike in its decisions and the right wing is more likely to go to war

It's true that fascists glorify war. Mussolini says above, "war alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it." They believe in war as an end in itself, rather than as a means of self defense.

Communists are not less warlike, though. The fascist is concerned with nations and races, and so advocates war between countries. The communist divides humanity into classes, the proletariat vs the bourgeois, and advocates revolution, which is war between the classes. With regard to wars between nations, the Communist is a pacifist, because he sees them as a struggle between the bougeoisie, using the proletariat as cannon fodder. As far as he's concerned, it's not the war he wants to fight. He would rather sit it out and let the bourgeois kill each other.

That doesn't make pacifism a principle of communism, though, it's merely a means of weakening the enemy. Communist rhetoric is full of violent imagery of the socialist revolution when the proletariat will rise up and overthrow the bourgeois. It characterizes the economic relationship between employer and employee as one of violent oppression, and advocates a violent uprising in order to throw off the 'yoke'. In exchange for starting a business and hiring people to work for him, the employer can have his property stripped from him, himself imprisoned for 're-education' and, if the re-education fails, he can be shot. Once a country has experienced such a revolution and the proletariat brought to power, pacifism regarding wars between nations disappears. Wars that protect the communist state, and wars which serve to export revolution, are necessary for the revolution.
 
Ardsgaine said:
Communists are not less warlike, though. The fascist is concerned with nations and races, and so advocates war between countries. The communist divides humanity into classes,


i thought in communism thre were no classes at all?
 
Back
Top