In his entry to the Italian Encyclopedia, Mussolini prophesied that the XX century will be the century of Fascism. In a certain sense, his prediction bore out - Fascism, as a concrete manifestation of a political program, did squarely belonged to the twentieth century, having sprung up on the European soil, taken over a substantial portion of the continent and then disappeared, at least temporarily, as a momentous political force in the aftermath of the Second World War.How far back do we need to go in order to unearth fascism's primary causes? Was it somehow rooted in the cultural climate of Europe stretching all the way back to the late nineteenth century? Or, on the other hand, was it mostly a makeshift remedy to heal economic and social ills befalling Europe following the First World War? In other words, how structurally viable was fascism as a political alternative to liberalism, democracy, or socialism even in the absence of crises in the second half of 1920s?
In your answer try to refer to both texts assigned for this week: Eliot's "Hollow Men" as well as the aforementioned article of Mussolini.
My point is that fascism is a model of socialism but the main difference is the definition of the word race. Mussolini defined it as the words: "Race - it's a feeling, not a reality; 95% feeling". This definition could make a space, which locked up people in reality of the fascist world. The Fascist conception of the world has no borders and it is non-existent human and spiritual values. And it seems that people are in a socialist or totalitarian society would still be uniformly moved toward fascism, probably because fascism is aware of the reasons that emerged and developed the labor movement, so fascism gives the corresponding value of the corporate system which Karl Marx explained in his works. My verdict is that, in people who have the beginnings of socialism they were predetermined to understand fascism. So we can say that the reasons for the emergence of fascism were born not so long time ago. And in the end I want to say that Fascism is economically, politically and socially strong in time of war or during a crisis, but in times of peace, fascism is likely slow down the processes of society and the country, and as a consequence to society has fallen into stagnation and then collapsed
ReplyDeleteIt seems quite unlikely that fascism had been dormant until the turn of the XXth century, and I would rather say that it appeared in the wake of WWI. The temptation of fascism was enclosed in its very opposition to democracy, socialism and liberalism. Fascist leaders by a demagogical means appealed to a fresh, theretofore unseen alternative, and this very fact accounts for a momentum fascist course had gained by 1920s.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I can discern little difference between the premises of fascism and those of absolutist monarchy. Economic and political conditions being far from good, fascist leaders alleged to renounce the influence of both politics and economy: "fascism, quite apart from political considerations of the moment", "holiness and heroism, influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect", as Mussolini said. The bottom line of fascism lay in a strong appeal to heroism and sacrifice as immutable duties inherent to each and every member of society, leaving him just with a right to freely exercise these duties. The core of fascist doctrine resembled that of monarchical dictatorship: favor to the "beneficial and fruitful inequality", treatment of state as an absolute body ― all these concepts bore a subtle implication that the state will be governed by but a clique of dictators. In my opinion, when Mussolini describes fascist state as having its own will and persolnality, he most probably meant wills and personalities of those dictators.
I think, had people been on guard of themselves in distinguishing a fictitious disguise which the dictatorship of a ruling clique was wrapped with, the rapid rise of fascism would not have occured in the first place.
I think that it is important to take a look at fascism in the intellectual context of a time. I believe that fascism became possible in said period, when ideas of irrationalism, nationalism, 'Ubermensch', lust for power and etc. were introduced and gained popularity in European society. Intellectual background prepared a good soil for this idea to grow, as evidence, we can track and find elements of said concepts in fascism.
ReplyDeleteFor any synthesis there is a catalyst, and in my opinion WWI and its economical consequences played a part of a catalyst for fascism.
My answer to this question will be very personalized, but I think it is quite an appropriate way to talk about that time. I mean, that way of thinking of people era of change (I'm talking about us), quite similar to the way of thinking of the people of Europe of the 20s (this is my personal opinion, it may be mistaken, as any other personal opinion). I certainly understand that
ReplyDeletedraw the line between the First World War and the terror of the Soviet power, or
the collapse of the Soviet Union with the change of regimes in Europe of the 19th century is not entirely true, but it seems to me, under certain reservations, it is quite possible.
I feel an obvious crisis of political systems. Some criticize democracy and see it as evil, others see evil regimes in the CIS countries, etc. If we fold the view of parties, we find that the all they do not see in liberalism, democracy, socialism or classical dictatorship the ideal conditions. So, I subconsciously understand that if now appears the political idea, which is an alternative to all existing, and can actually show its effectiveness, I will vote for it, even if it is too radical. It seems to me, that that was one of the reasons of the success of fascism.
Moreover, I am reading now Mussolini, if removed from the head knowledge of what happened next, I partially share his mind, and it is possible that if I would have lived at that time, I would have come to a point where they have become to me fully close.