Fascism is National Syndicalism.....

[JudeObscure84]

Sorry Levee you still are not explaining the situation right. You're going into assertions of what you think YOUR meaning of a syndicalist revolution is and holding it up to Mussolini's Fascist party and saying...sorry doesnt fit. Look at the facts my friend.

No. The National Syndicalist Movement is convinced that it has found the right way out: neither capitalist nor communist. Faced by the individualist economy of the bourgeoisie, the socialist one arose, which handed over the fruits of production to the State, enslaving the individual. Neither of them have resolved the tragedy of the producer.

http://feastofhateandfear.com/archives/falangist.html

Fascism was the heir of a long intellectual tradition that found its origins in the ambiguous legacy left to revolutionaries in the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Fascism was, in a clear and significant sense, a Marxist heresy.

http://users.ju.edu/jclarke/wizzm2.html < section C

We're talking about a heresy within the same school. Like Stalinism, Maoism and Bolshevism.

"The fascist party had conceived the fascist state. One could not think of a "corporate state" or a "syndicalist state" without thinking of the fascist party. Fascism was inseparable from corporativism or syndicalism. If one removed the one concept, he necessarily removed the others. The fascist party, not the state, was the guardian of the fascist ideals, especially including syndicalism and the corporate organization of the state. The orthodoxy of syndicalist ideas was safeguarded in the fascist party. Hence, the highest value in the fascist state was syndicalism-corporativism."

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p--5_Whisker.html

The fundamental idea both of guild socialism and of corporativism is that every branch of business forms a monopolistic body, the guild or corporazione.[2] This entity enjoys full autonomy; it is free to settle all its internal affairs without interference of external factors and of people who are not themselves members of the guild.

http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap33sec4.asp

Syndicalism, as used by the partisans of Georges Sorel, means special revolutionary tactics to be resorted to for the realization of socialism. Labor unions, it implies, should not waste their strength in the task of improving the conditions of wage earners within the frame of capitalism. They should adopt action directe, unflinching violence to destroy all the institutions of capitalism. They should never cease to fight--in the genuine sense of the term--for their ultimate goal, socialism. The proletarians must not let themselves be fooled by the catchwords of the bourgeoisie, such as liberty, democracy, representative government. They must seek their salvation in the class struggle, in bloody revolutionary upheavals and in the pitiless annihilation of the bourgeois

.

http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap33sec1.asp

I am not saying that Anarchists and Fascists are to fundementally agree on everything. You're getting to defensive. What I am saying is that if there were a University of Marxism, then Fascism would be a school within it. Thats all. Its NOT "right wing" or "capitalistic".

[JudeObscure84]

What is vital to anarchism is a society in which the people can participate in decisions affecting their everyday lives, and Fascism was not that.

Exactly. Which is why Fascists were NOT anarchists. Im not saying that they ended up at the same conclusion, but began with the same roots; syndicalism. thats all i am talking about. You are aruging with me about the one subject which split the syndicalist camp in the first place. Im not aruging this but the fact that they have the same roots and are in the same school. Get it?

Argue the facts Levee. Argue the doctrines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_manifesto < How can you argue and say that they didnt want to do anything for the working class?

The Constiution of Fiume( written by two former anarcho-syndicalists) Gabreille D'Annunzio and Alceste de Ambris, utterly influenced the Fascist movement.

And how exactly was it that Fascists or National Socialists sought to improve the living conditions of the population? By extensive military spending? Sending them off to die in war? It's a bit of a stretch to say that nationalism was a mere rhetorical gimmick when the states in question actively sought to pour their material resources [down the drain] into quests of supremacy against other peoples.

Sorry Levee, but this is a weak arguement. You cannot say that by your own standards, that they were not performing a revolution which they deemed syndicalist or a workers struggle. The Anarchists or Marxists dont hold a monopoly on workers solidarity. Their whole essense was nationalism. The state was thier proletariat union. They had to defend it, just like the Commies in the Soviet Union did likewise. And the extensive military spending was to be the safeguard of the Fascist ideals and the union. It wasnt the other way around. The Fascist party didnt safeguard the state!

Just because you hate the Fascists doesnt give you the right to explain thier doctrines in the context that fits your denial of them being anywhere near your school of thought. I am not saying that Anarchists hold any responsiblity for the actions of their crazed syndicalist cousins, but that people have to acknowledge that it came from a similar school or branch. That is all.

[Levee_En_Masse]

What I can agree with you on is the fact that the Fascists were as far away from the original ideas of Karl Marx as the self-styled "Marxists" who claimed to uphold his ideas.
You say that the Nazis and Fascists sought to improve the living conditions of the working class. Yes, it does seem evident from the primary sources you provide, but again, what is that rhetoric worth when you put it up against actual historical experience? Pretty much every political ideology uses rhetoric about "lifting up the nation" and whatnot (to different degrees), but when and if they seize state power the results are quite different. And you don't seem to account for the importance of rhetorical deception as being key to the growth of National Socialism and Fascism. You have to account for the disparity between the Utopian currents of the ideology and its practice. I'm sure some of today's rank-and-file neocons really do think that they are bringing democracy to the Middle East and that their magnificent leaders are delivering economic growth through policies which are disastrous in the long term, but the reality is different. As with Stalinism and such ideologies, the rank and file are fed rhetoric, as in some of the sources you mentioned which really were syndicalist, but the leadership most likely believe very little of this propaganda. Don't take rhetoric at face value when it is possible that the ideologies using it will simply use it as a stepping stone to asserting their own power, not intending to follow through on the populist rhetoric (something mentioned in the Wikipedia source on the Fascist Manifesto).
Finally, I think you're being overly simplistic pinning the roots of Fascism on syndicalist thought. You're not totally wrong, and you make a good argument, but you're way too fixated on this connection. It seems obvious that there are other connection to be made. What about the importance of Macciavelli and Hobbes' "Leviathan"? It seems clear that Fascism takes heavily from that very conservative and reactionary school of thought, but not a mention in this board. Fascism in general appealed to tradition, part of which was political absolutism (think of Louis XIV as a prime example). It's not totally off to say that Fascism is absolutism with a loudspeaker. After all, there are similar themes of noblesse oblige, privilege, and social order, aside from the ability to mobilize the less privileged against the "Other". Fascism ironically also seems to borrow from bourgeois tendencies such as Jacobinism and perhaps even Utopianism. So, you're argument would be much more valid if you had mentioned this rather than casually making the assertion (trendy among many conservative academics) that Fascism was simply a Marxist heresy and part of the legacy of the working class movement, and in a way which seems to undermine the idea of a radical working class movement in a way which is not straightforward. It would be just as well (more appropriate even) to say that Fascism was a Hobbesian heresy, or an absolutist heresy and so on...

[Guest]

Leevee, I will continue to shred your broad and overtly misuse of fascist ideology. You are still fixated on the idea that it was tyranical, simply because it was so. However, you fail to account that like all other Marxist revision movments it is a failure, thus resulting in its oppressive manner. I will deconstruct your arguments ONE more time, in the hopes that you finally get it and will not resort to posting another ill concieved post that further lapses you into denial....

You say that the Nazis and Fascists sought to improve the living conditions of the working class. Yes, it does seem evident from the primary sources you provide, but again, what is that rhetoric worth when you put it up against actual historical experience?

And so did Stalin, Mao, Sandanistas, Castro, Pol Pot and NK's Kim Jong Il. There is always a difference in rhetoric and practice. Did it ever occur to you that maybe these practices are so flawed, that it requires everyone to submit and eliminate opposition in order to forge thier utopian vision? This is such a bad argument Leevee because we're not arguing what they did after thier rhetoric was exposed to be a rouse, but what thier rhetoric was. If we were to go by that than even the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain would be subject to this same conclusion. I have already cited some of the bloody attocities of the CNT and the Spanish Anarchists in the civil war against the nationalists.

And you don't seem to account for the importance of rhetorical deception as being key to the growth of National Socialism and Fascism.

Yes I do, Leevee. I believe thier rhetorical deception WAS the extreme nationalism.

I'm sure some of today's rank-and-file neocons really do think that they are bringing democracy to the Middle East and that their magnificent leaders are delivering economic growth through policies which are disastrous in the long term, but the reality is different.

You just had to throw in the Bushies didnt you? Anyways, I guess this could be an example, but you still prove my point. That Marx is utterly flawed and any other revision movement after it failed even more in its steps. You cannot just say that thier movement is utterly deceptive when you have no ground basis for proof.

As with Stalinism and such ideologies, the rank and file are fed rhetoric, as in some of the sources you mentioned which really were syndicalist, but the leadership most likely believe very little of this propaganda.

Thats highly arrogant of you to assume that the Socialism in National Socialism was just a "deceptive" ploy. Hitler even said it himself that they were revising socialism to its purest and truest form. Why are they not allowed to call themselves socialists? Because YOU say so, because the socialist party says so? You and the IWW dont hold the monopoly on socialist or syndicalist values, especially when the Nazis were socialistic in alot of aspects.

Don't take rhetoric at face value when it is possible that the ideologies using it will simply use it as a stepping stone to asserting their own power, not intending to follow through on the populist rhetoric (something mentioned in the Wikipedia source on the Fascist Manifesto).

I dont take any Marxist or Marxist heresy at face value to begin with. Its always proven to never be right as thier doctrine dicatates. Fascists were just one in the many string of failed ideologies.

Finally, I think you're being overly simplistic pinning the roots of Fascism on syndicalist thought. You're not totally wrong, and you make a good argument, but you're way too fixated on this connection.

Without it, Fascist ideology would make no sense. Fascism is not ONLY about governement control, and the mild interpretation you keep giving it. It is about trade unions, guilds and corporatives using capital flow to provide for the social benefit of the nation.

Possinlby, but again thats from YOUR interpretation. You cant just say that it copied from this and this and it is so. The Fascists hardly mentioned much about Hobbes. Giovanni Gentile and the architechts ofFascism exstensivley quote syndicalist George Sorel and the guild socialists on England.

So, you're argument would be much more valid if you had mentioned this rather than casually making the assertion (trendy among many conservative academics) that Fascism was simply a Marxist heresy and part of the legacy of the working class movement, and in a way which seems to undermine the idea of a radical working class movement in a way which is not straightforward. It would be just as well (more appropriate even) to say that Fascism was a Hobbesian heresy, or an absolutist heresy and so on...

Oh boy, it undermined opposition to the union. again you're not proving anything. you dont use facts, you dont even use any fascist writing at all. you just assume that everything they've ever said was just false, a lie and a grab for power. While everything that the CNT, Anarchists or Communists say is a legit response for workers solidarity.How utterly vile and arrogant!

[JudeObscure84]

Lets see what thier rhetoric is shall we....

What is the difference between Fascism and Capitalism, since both admit the system of private enterprise ?
In brief definition, Capitalism is the system by which capital uses the Nation for its own purposes. Fascism is the system by which the Nation uses capital for its own purposes. Private enterprise is permitted and encouraged so long as it coincides with the national interests. Private enterprise is not permitted when it conflicts with national interests. Under Fascism private enterprise may serve but not exploit. This is secured by the Corporative System, which lays down the limits within which industry may operate, and those limits are the welfare of the Nation.

- Oswald Mosley on Fascism

How are you going to break down the barriers of class ?
By establishment of the principle of no reward without service, and the consequent elimination of the parasite who creates the barrier of social class. Functional differences will exist according to difference of function, but differences of social classes will be eliminated. They arise from the fact that in present society the few can live in idleness as a master class upon the production of the many. Under Fascism all will serve in varying manner and degree the nation to which all are responsible.

http://www.oswaldmosley.com/buf/100questions.htm

We National Socialists contend that a measure of workers' control in industry is essential to the solution of that twofold problem. Workers' control can be exercised only through workers' organisation, therefore, it is frankly ridiculous to suggest that we desire to smash the unions. On the contrary we want to improve the unions to make them fitting instruments of control and then to invest them with the statutory authority which will enable them to exercise that control.

http://www.oswaldmosley.com/buf/strike_action.htm < Tell me how this differs from the trade unionism of any other syndicalist movement.



QUESTION 2: Thinking in terms of geopolitics, what primary strategic mistakes did Adolf Hitler make in the Second World War?

ANSWER: First, we must dispense with the simplistic, black-and-white approach that views communism and national socialism as being at opposite poles from each other. They were competitors far more than they were enemies. This is why the totally unexpected German-Soviet treaty in the summer 1939, for the first time, put the pawns in their right places on the chessboard.

True fascism is definitely not right wing. (Cf. the analyses of Zeev Stemhell, the Israeli historian.) The "leftist" roots of national socialism are numerous. After leaving prison, I managed to meet and interview the last surviving Strasser brother, Otto. Around 1962, my press brought out two personal interviews with Otto Strasser. The SA (brownshirts) were sometimes nicknamed the "Beefsteaks." In fact, most of the SA were communists who had gone over to Hitler. Brown on the outside, but red inside. In East Germany, about 1950, many of these became red on the outside once again.

- interview with Jean-Francois Thiriart , question 2

http://www.oswaldmosley.com/people/jeanthiriarte.html

http://www.oswaldmosley.com/people/sorel.html < Sorelian Syndicalism

[JudeObscure84]

Syndicalisme is a French word meaning "trade unionism".

The local unit, the syndicat, would communicate with other syndicats through the bourse de travail (labour exchange). The bourse would handle management and the transfer of commodities

.

This contrasts socialism's emphasis on the distribution of output from all different trades to one another as required by each trade, not necessarily considering how those trades organize themselves internally. Both these systems of pre-organized economic structure can theoretically include variations on privatism, unlike the third such pre-arranged egalitarian strand, namely communism.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalis ... ndicalists

Read the list of syndicalists too. with the exception of the Spanish syndicalists, all others became Fascists.

Unionism is a movement based on the ideal of syndicalism and support for the trade union movement, but which exists within the framework of an open capitalist society as an independent participatory private entity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unionism

4. Syndicalism stands for Workers' Control of Industry. The term "worker" covers managers, technicians and operatives, these expressions indicating functions and not social position. It is from the ranks of these workers that chairmen, directors and other executives will be elected by the Assemblies, as against, under capitalism, by the shareholders.

- http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=58696

Is this too broad for ya Leevee? Am I still coming up with generalizations?

[Levee_En_Masse]

Leevee, I will continue to shred your broad and overtly misuse of fascist ideology. You are still fixated on the idea that it was tyranical, simply because it was so. However, you fail to account that like all other Marxist revision movments it is a failure

Yeah, asshole, I say it's tyrannical because it was tyrannical! And i'm fixated on this because that is the historical reality! Is that a problem for you? And I never said that Fascism wasn't a failure, nor did I say that other Marxists revision movements were successes. This is apparently a delusion of yours, because i'm certainly not an apologist for Stalinists and so on, and I am an anarchist who happens to be influenced by Karl Marx.

And so did Stalin, Mao, Sandanistas, Castro, Pol Pot and NK's Kim Jong Il. There is always a difference in rhetoric and practice. Did it ever occur to you that maybe these practices are so flawed, that it requires everyone to submit and eliminate opposition in order to forge thier utopian vision? This is such a bad argument Leevee because we're not arguing what they did after thier rhetoric was exposed to be a rouse, but what thier rhetoric was. If we were to go by that than even the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain would be subject to this same conclusion. I have already cited some of the bloody attocities of the CNT and the Spanish Anarchists in the civil war against the nationalists.

Oh, so we're really not arguing about those precious "facts" you accuse me of not having? Btw, Doctrines are not facts. After all, historical experience is fact. You seem to casually ignore my argument that most political ideologies use rhetoric to appeal to the population regardless of their actual plans, especially when such a group is based on the power of an elite. Fascist rhetoric has syndicalist and demagogic undertones, but that doesn't mean that Hitler et. al were simply misguided, starry-eyed syndicalists who wanted to lift up the population through a police state. The gap between rhetoric and practice is almost-always greater proportional to what degree the group employing the rhetoric simply wants to establish their authority in a coercive manner. And the anarchist "atrocities" you quote in this thread are nowhere near the atrocities of Fascism. I pity you if you think not being able to smoke is comparable to death camps.

Yes I do, Leevee. I believe thier rhetorical deception WAS the extreme nationalism.

But you say elsewhere: "what would the nazis be if they werent nationalists? internazis?". So nationalism was simultaneously everything and nothing to them?? It was a gimmick, yet you seem to say that nationalism was essential to their existence. You're good at linking to Fascist documents, but you seem to ignore history aside from that. Both Italy and Germany had strong councilist movements in the 20s, so is it any surprise that they appropriated Sorelian rhetoric to come to power? Fascism as such did not exist before these councilist movements, not even in Italy. Counter-revolutionary forces throughout modern history have attempted to coopt revolutionary movements to project their own power or otherwise defend the existing state of things. This happened as late as 37 yrs. ago, when the Authoritarian Left served as the most powerful counter-revolutonary force in the May 68' uprising in Paris.

You just had to throw in the Bushies didnt you? Anyways, I guess this could be an example, but you still prove my point. That Marx is utterly flawed and any other revision movement after it failed even more in its steps. You cannot just say that thier movement is utterly deceptive when you have no ground basis for proof.

Really? Are you sure about that? I don't know, I somehow doubt that there was an International Jewish conspiracy conspiring with the "Reds" to destroy and enslave Germany, as much Nazi propaganda asserted. Oh, and Joseph Goebbels, the NAZI, was the one who pioneered the concept of the "Big Lie" in modern politics. This isn't different than most Authoritarian Commie practice, but it seems to shatter your point about Fascists not using deception in any case. And your initial assertion was made 10 times more bogus when you quoted that Fascism was part of the legacy left by Marx and Engels, so don't be surprised that people get so defensive. I defend against bogus reasoning.

Thats highly arrogant of you to assume that the Socialism in National Socialism was just a "deceptive" ploy. Hitler even said it himself that they were revising socialism to its purest and truest form. Why are they not allowed to call themselves socialists? Because YOU say so, because the socialist party says so? You and the IWW dont hold the monopoly on socialist or syndicalist values, especially when the Nazis were socialistic in alot of aspects.

Hey, they can call themselves whatever they want. But it's even more ridiculous for you to say that any group in power is socialist simply because they claim to represent "pure" or "true" socialism, regardless of what it ACTUALLY does while in power and what policies it pursues. Alot of government supervision and spending does not equal socialism. Fascist notions of workers' control are hollow when the State always has the final say. It's a little suspicious that a group clings to the socialist label while mowing down workers in the name of the proletariat. I guess there must be NO other explanation for that at all except that they were pious Marxist heretics ( )

I dont take any Marxist or Marxist heresy at face value to begin with. Its always proven to never be right as thier doctrine dicatates. Fascists were just one in the many string of failed ideologies.

ALL ideologies are failures, including the one which causes you to equate the attempts of the proletariat at self-emancipation with the brutality of Fascism. No, revolutionary movements aren't perfect, but it's one thing not to be perfect, and another to be moving in the wrong direction altogether (i'm talking about Fascism here). The proletariat has no ideology, "no ready made utopias to realize" in Marx's words. It has radical theory, which is directed towards collective self-realization, not lynch mobism and State power.

Without it, Fascist ideology would make no sense. Fascism is not ONLY about governement control, and the mild interpretation you keep giving it. It is about trade unions, guilds and corporatives using capital flow to provide for the social benefit of the nation.

Yet the State, dominated by Fascism, determines what the social benefit of the nation is, make no mistake about it. It's even worse than democratic centralism, which is pretty bad as it is. The arbitrary and bureaucratic nature of Fascist power will cause the Fascist state to resort to being a partner of big business rather than risk firms fleeing to capitalist countries, that is, assuming that Fascism doesn't seek to do this (or is even revolutionary) in the first place. Fascism does not really care whether the worker is alienated or exploited by his work and by the hierarchy enforced in his everyday life, it cares about keeping the war machine going, without which it has no power. Fascists will stomp on workers seeking to improve their material conditions because as a partner of big business, Fascism must ensure that its interests are upheld (and this is done under the guise of defending the "national interest"). Even if corporatives and trade unions and guilds have authority, it does not automatically mean that this is for the purpose of improving the conditions of the proletariat.

The Fascists hardly mentioned much about Hobbes. Giovanni Gentile and the architechts ofFascism exstensivley quote syndicalist George Sorel and the guild socialists on England.

The Fascists hardly mentioned much about Hobbes or Macciavelli, or the ideologues of political absolutism, but the content exists in the practice of the Fascists. A single strong ruler that uses manipulation to stay in power, trading liberty and freedom for "stability" and "security", the idea that humans are animals without overarching authority, the idea that authority can be legitimate without the consent of the governed, and so on are all undeniably found in Fascism. Do you think they would come right out and call themselves Hobbesian and absolutist when Europe had already passed that phase of history, and when the Fascists were faced with movements that opposed these reactionary principles I just mentioned?? Quote all you want, but you certainly don't sound coherent when you're ignorant of these basic realities.

Oh boy, it undermined opposition to the union. again you're not proving anything. you dont use facts, you dont even use any fascist writing at all. you just assume that everything they've ever said was just false, a lie and a grab for power. While everything that the CNT, Anarchists or Communists say is a legit response for workers solidarity.How utterly vile and arrogant!

And you assume that the Fascist ideologues spent all their time reading Sorel and daydreaming about how to help the people. So they weren't cold and calculating? They didn't use lies to come to power? Give me a fucking break! Nothing is half as vile and arrogant as your pathetic attempt to rewrite history for what seems to be the sole purpose of preventing the majority of humanity from improving their lives in a meaningful way! Go, use all the quotes you want and pretend they're facts! Ignore history and pretend that questioning capitalist hierarchy leads to a mob state! But don't expect people to keep quiet about it.

[JudeObscure84]

Yeah, asshole, I say it's tyrannical because it was tyrannical! And i'm fixated on this because that is the historical reality! Is that a problem for you?

But this is not the point. The point is that it wasnt just tyrannical because it wanted to be. It was tyranical for the sake of its doctrine. Its doctrine was not some concept Mussolini came up with over night to gain power.

and I am an anarchist who happens to be influenced by Karl Marx.

I dont know too many anarchists who are influened by Marx. I know a dozen influenced by Bakunin, Toltstoy, Goldman and Kroptkin.

Oh, so we're really not arguing about those precious "facts" you accuse me of not having? Btw, Doctrines are not facts.

They certainly are a prelude about whats in store for the people of the nation. Hitler did EVERYTHING that he said he was going to do in Mein Kampf, until the allies stoped him. Mussolini did everything he was going to do until the bulk of his doctrine failed and he resorted to just ontrolling everything.

After all, historical experience is fact.

Um, ask any histroy major and they will tell you that not all historical interpreations are fact.

Fascist rhetoric has syndicalist and demagogic undertones, but that doesn't mean that Hitler et. al were simply misguided, starry-eyed syndicalists who wanted to lift up the population through a police state.

Why not? Because you say so? Oh I'm sorry. "historical expierence". Tell that to ALL the left wing ideologies out there that came in the name of social justice!

The gap between rhetoric and practice is almost-always greater proportional to what degree the group employing the rhetoric simply wants to establish their authority in a coercive manner.

I will address the point of rhetoric and practice and how it coincides in Mussolini's Italy, and you will see how historical expierence matches up to doctrine.

And the anarchist "atrocities" you quote in this thread are nowhere near the atrocities of Fascism. I pity you if you think not being able to smoke is comparable to death camps.

HA! That was only a droplet compared to the buckets of blood the anarchists spilled in Spain. The CNT set up little commitees that mirrored the Fascist states. You couldn't be a Catholic for miles without being hanged. It WAS Anarchy! So for you to sit there and say that one outplayed the other in brutatily is just plain sick.

So nationalism was simultaneously everything and nothing to them??

Again, Read George Sorel. It was a rouse but a valuable rouse that they were willing to live with. Fascism was a rejection of rationality, and they romantisized thier doctrine. They needed something to stir the workers to unite and they were successful. Mussolini's nationalism was a rouse, but Nazi Germanys was legit. I mean read Mein Kampf.

Both Italy and Germany had strong councilist movements in the 20s, so is it any surprise that they appropriated Sorelian rhetoric to come to power? Fascism as such did not exist before these councilist movements, not even in Italy. Counter-revolutionary forces throughout modern history have attempted to coopt revolutionary movements to project their own power or otherwise defend the existing state of things. This happened as late as 37 yrs. ago, when the Authoritarian Left served as the most powerful counter-revolutonary force in the May 68' uprising in Paris.

Dont try and impress me with your knowledge of leftist rhetoric. This response should be easy and I want to let Mussolini answer it for me....

In 1851 Napoleon III carried out his unliberal coup d'etat and ruled over France until 1870, when he was dethroned by a popular revolt, but as a consequence of a military defeat which ranks among the most resounding that history can relate. The victor was Bismarck, who never knew the home of the religion of liberty or who were its prophets. It is symptomatic that a people of high culture like the Germans should have been completely ignorant of the religion of liberty during the whole of the nineteenth century. It was, there, no more than a parenthesis, represented by what has been called the "ridiculous Parliament of Frankfort" which lasted only a season. Germany has achieved her national unity outside the doctrines of Liberalism, against Liberalism, a doctrine which seems foreign to the German soul, a soul essentially monarchical, whilst Liberalism is the historical and logical beginning of anarchism.

- Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism, Ch.2 #8
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/fascism.htm

He wanted to return the Enlightment away from Liberalism, which gave birth to both socialism and capitalism.

Really? Are you sure about that? I don't know, I somehow doubt that there was an International Jewish conspiracy conspiring with the "Reds" to destroy and enslave Germany, as much Nazi propaganda asserted. Oh, and Joseph Goebbels, the NAZI, was the one who pioneered the concept of the "Big Lie" in modern politics.

The point was that they believed this to be true. International capitalism and international communism were both inventions by the Jew. Atleast this is whats written in countless nazi and fascist propaganda. This affected thier doctrine very much and shaped thier cause. Again this is historical experience.

This isn't different than most Authoritarian Commie practice, but it seems to shatter your point about Fascists not using deception in any case. And your initial assertion was made 10 times more bogus when you quoted that Fascism was part of the legacy left by Marx and Engels, so don't be surprised that people get so defensive. I defend against bogus reasoning

.

Um buddy, if you havent kept up yet, Fascism was invented by Mussolini not Hitler. Hitlers philosophy based him as the savior of socialism, away from Jewish hands. Even then it was still effected by Marx. If he wanted to be anti-communist, he might as well have been a capitalist, but he thought they were jew too. But then again I am speaking strictly of Italian Fascism.

Hey, they can call themselves whatever they want. But it's even more ridiculous for you to say that any group in power is socialist simply because they claim to represent "pure" or "true" socialism, regardless of what it ACTUALLY does while in power and what policies it pursues. Alot of government supervision and spending does not equal socialism. Fascist notions of workers' control are hollow when the State always has the final say. It's a little suspicious that a group clings to the socialist label while mowing down workers in the name of the proletariat. I guess there must be NO other explanation for that at all except that they were pious Marxist heretics ( )

Again, they were guild socialists. Mussolini said he wanted a corporative state, which is the same as saying guild socialist. Its trade unionism. Syndicalists thougt it was TRUE socialism, and they abided by their doctrine.

ALL ideologies are failures, including the one which causes you to equate the attempts of the proletariat at self-emancipation with the brutality of Fascism. No, revolutionary movements aren't perfect, but it's one thing not to be perfect, and another to be moving in the wrong direction altogether (i'm talking about Fascism here). The proletariat has no ideology, "no ready made utopias to realize" in Marx's words. It has radical theory, which is directed towards collective self-realization, not lynch mobism and State power.

Thats great for Marx, but the syndicalists reject marx as a science. They opt for direct action, which is what made the Fascists reactionary. What made the anarchists go beserk in Catalonia. The brutality is what formed Fascism's social form, not its economics which is what I am arguing here. For the tenth time, this is not about brutatlity but about doctrine, practice, and history. It doesnt matter if the workers were treated well or what ever. You're not convincing anyone that it didnt take root in sorelian syndicalist thought, and that it wasn't brutally honest about it.

Do you think they would come right out and call themselves Hobbesian and absolutist when Europe had already passed that phase of history, and when the Fascists were faced with movements that opposed these reactionary principles I just mentioned??

Historical expierence says the people did. The Fascists wanted to turn the clock back to 1788 philosophically back to the corporatist practices of the Roman catholic church and guild socialism of midevel Europe. Away from liberalism and socialism. the people agreed it was a better option than communism or capitalism.

Quote all you want, but you certainly don't sound coherent when you're ignorant of these basic realities.

You mean the basic reality that Germany loved Hitler and Italy loved Mussolini? that Japan loved Hirohito? that they accepted without question the totalitarian doctrine of the Fascists, that they openly yelled at the top of thier lungs at every meeting?

And you assume that the Fascist ideologues spent all their time reading Sorel and daydreaming about how to help the people. So they weren't cold and calculating? They didn't use lies to come to power? Give me a fucking break!

Why not? They didnt hate the Italian, German, Spanish, Japanese people. They hated the opposition! They hated commies, cappies and pacifists that wouldnt benefit the national interest. Power is involved but dont think that only Fascists didnt believe thier own rheotiric. Do you think that Mussolini spent all that time in his youth writing for socialist mags like Avanti, and was a staunch Marxist, just to wake up one day and say he wanted to rule and have no means of how to? the Fascist ideologues were all schooled in syndicalism for a reason; to apply it one day. They werent just menacing tyrants in sheeps clothing. They were evil men that wanted to be gods with thier ideas of salvation.

Nothing is half as vile and arrogant as your pathetic attempt to rewrite history for what seems to be the sole purpose of preventing the majority of humanity from improving their lives in a meaningful way! Go, use all the quotes you want and pretend they're facts! Ignore history and pretend that questioning capitalist hierarchy leads to a mob state! But don't expect people to keep quiet about it.

What do yo get by telling me that I am foolish for questioning YOU on your ideology? It is phony. Fascism is rehashed syndicalism with a nationalist twist. I provided facts and quotes from the Fascists themselves, and you ignore it because of "historical expierence" that YOU keep interpreting. Face it the Fascists carried out nearly everything they said they would and it ended up in disaster, thats why it was tyrannical, because its doctrine was tyrannical, not because it was right wing, or some just crazed excuse for power.

[JudeObscure84]

"Fascism has taken up an attitude of complete opposition to the doctrines of Liberalism, both in the political field and in the field of economics".



Also in the Doctrine of Fascism, ch.2 #8


QUOTE
"Laissez faire is out of date"



Apparently he hated capitalism as well. So what was he? A right wing socialist?

- Greene, N. (1968) Fascism: An anthology. N.Y.: Crowell.


QUOTE
It is opposed to classical Liberalism,



- The Doctrine of Fascism #7, http://library.flawlesslogic.com/fascism.htm


QUOTE
"After the war, in 1919, Socialism was already dead as a doctrine: It existed only as a hatred".



Well he wasn't a parlimentary socialist either. So what was he?


QUOTE
..even the echoes of the terminology are now spent; whilst in the great river of Fascism are to be found the streams which had their source in Sorel, Peguy, in the Lagardelle of the Mouvement Socialiste and the groups of Italian Syndicalists, who between 1904 and 1914 brought a note of novelty into Italian Socialism, which by that time had been devitalized and drugged by fornication with Giolitti, in Pagine Libere of Olivetti, La Lupa of Orano and Divenire Sociale of Enrico Leone.



He was a syndicalist pure and simple. A guild socialist.

- Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism, Ch. 2 # 1 http://library.flawlesslogic.com/fascism.htm


I dare you to find ONE thing in this doctrince that the Fascists did NOT do while in power. From thier very doctrine it was tyranical. And people ate this up! DO you think ordinary joe workers knew about Sorel, and the other syndicalists? they knew the nationalism would and the myth of nation would make a nation rise!

[jacobhaller]

Sorel was no syndicalist. Sorel was an anti-revisionist authoritarian leftist who used the syndicalist critique against revisionist authoritarian leftists. Sorel contributed nothing to the development of syndicalism. Look up actual syndicalist works and count the citations of Sorel. Usually there are none; sometimes there are some critical ones.

Sorelian thought rests on 'violence.' It is easy to see how this love of violence becomes the love of the state.

Syndicalist thought builds on economics. It is easy to see how this 'economism' becomes shut-down anarchism and often pacifist anarchism.

The substitution of nationalism for internationalism, seeking violence for avoiding violence, and strengthening authoritarianism for dismantling authoritarianism are not minor surface changes. These are the complete replacement of one belief-system and value-system for its opposite belief-system and value-system.

[Levee_En_Masse]

It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the "Right," a Fascist century. If the nineteenth was the century of the individual (Liberalism means individualism) it may be expected that this one may be the century of "collectivism" and therefore the century of the State.

So, what does Mussolini mean by "Right"? I'm sure he doesn't mean it as in Bill of Rights, but as in the political Right (wing). And how is it that Fascists are not concerned with defending the State when the state is held up as the highest form of expression, the Alpha and Omega? Clearly they go beyond the view held by various self-styled Marxists.

It is the State which, transcending the brief limit of individual lives, represents the immanent conscience of the nation. The forms in which States express themselves change, but the necessity of the State remains. It is the State which educates citizens for civic virtue, makes them conscious of their mission, calls them to unity; harmonizes their interests in justice

So, there should be some explaining for you to do here. If the State is an end as well as a means, then clearly this is a departure from syndicalism understood as collective self-management. Even authoritarian lefties at least hold the instrumentalist view, even if they don't follow it. Fascism, on the other hand, seems to uphold the idea of the state, in direct contradiction to Marx's views on the state (I bring this up because of your earlier argument that Fascism was an "heir" to Marx's views). Marx saw the state as a form of alienation, an alienated public power political in its character used as a tool for class oppression. Mussolini does not intend to get rid of it in any sense, he lauds it with a mystical awe. As for syndicalism, you say the goal is workers solidarity, and I can't totally disagree with that. Yet, workers solidarity cannot exist without the goal of abolishing class domination, and as Marx says "when class domination ends, there will be no state in the present political sense of the word". How then is workers solidarity compatible with Fascist doctrines? And how can Fascism actually represent syndicalism when it holds the State, a tool of class domination and a result of alienation, above all else including class struggle (in fact, as a tool for taming class struggle)? The view of the State as an independent, organic entity does not at all go with the collective self-management of the proletariat. After all, the State is totalitarian.

[JudeObscure84]

Yes, they werent anarcho syndicalists. but you cannot say that they werent syndicalists at all. i mean do you think that the intellectuals in fascism simply just made up thier doctrine on a false premise that they were syndicalist? that they conjured up so much rhetoric that it couldnt possibly be true that they were honest about thier economic stance?

[Levee_En_Masse]

Well, the answer is that yes, Fascism incorporates syndicalism. But the doctrine of Fascism is paradoxical by nature: "Hey, we're syndicalists, we're all for workers solidarity, but we ardently support the very institutions which undermine it". And this isn't because every revolution seeking to abolish classes will end up like that, it's because they were really concerned with establishing the state as an absolute social power. And I read the document you linked by Mussolini, and it seems that the emancipation of the proletariat wasn't the goal, but rather the goal was mass conformity and cohesion to create social order. The idealism behind this is clear, but can hardly be seen in the context of collective self-management. Not to mention, that like any other authoritarian movement, the Fascists had their vanguard, which like any other seeks to manipulate popular support within a framework of elitist dogmatism.

[JudeObscure84]

So, what does Mussolini mean by "Right"? I'm sure he doesn't mean it as in Bill of Rights, but as in the political Right (wing). And how is it that Fascists are not concerned with defending the State when the state is held up as the highest form of expression, the Alpha and Omega? Clearly they go beyond the instrumentalist view held by various self-styled Marxists.

He means authoritarianism. The state was the essense of the unity of the people. He doesnt mean the state is in and of itself. They are not going to protect a state that is NOT Fascist. Let me explain....

The Fascist State is wide awake and has a will of its own. For this reason it can be described as " ethical ".

The State guarantees the internal and external safety of the country, but it also safeguards and transmits the spirit of the people, elaborated down the ages in its language, its customs, its faith.

The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims

.

The concepts of the Fascist state are "ethical" and the people are to coincide with these ethics, because they preserve the unity of the people. You're thinking about "any" state as it highest priority. No, the Fascist state, the union of the people as the conception of what makes the state vital.

So, there should be some explaining for you to do here. If the State is an end as well as a means, then clearly this is a departure from syndicalism understood as collective self-management.

No because they werent anarchists. there is a difference between anarcho-syndicalism and syndicalism. let me explain.....

To address this issue let us erect the synicalist economy, which neither absorbs the individual personality into the State, nor turns the worker into a dehumanized cog in the machinery of bourgeois production. The national syndicalist solution is the one which promises to bear the most fruit. It will do away once and for all with political go-betweens and parasites. It will free production from the financial burdens with which finance capital overwhelms it. It will overcome the anarchy it causes by putting order into it. It will prevent speculation with commodities, guaranteeing a profitable price. And, above all, it will pass on the surplus value not to the capitalist, not to the State, but to the producer as a member of his trade union.

-National Syndicalist philosophy, Spanish Flange 1935

Fascism, on the other hand, seems to uphold the idea of the state, in direct contradiction to Marx's views on the state (I bring this up because of your earlier argument that Fascism was an "heir" to Marx's views).

woah, i said he was a heretic, not an hier. Yet, only to the extent where Marx was wrong, was he trying to fix his "mistakes". My point, guys, is this. He didnt start from capitalism on in, he began from Marxism on in and threw out the principles he thought were wrong due to historical expierence, and tried to tweek the rest. His main fight was with the communists because the capitalists were already proven wrong in the depression. He never even saw it as any debate to have. capitalism lost, and now it was a fight between the fascists and communist. the nationalist and the anarchist.

As for syndicalism, you say the goal is workers solidarity, and I can't totally disagree with that. Yet, workers solidarity cannot exist without the goal of abolishing class domination, and as Marx says "when class domination ends, there will be no state in the present political sense of the word". How then is workers solidarity compatible with Fascist doctrines?

Im glad you are asking such critical questions. The difference is functional rather than social, which is what marx expouses. lets go to Oswald Mosely for the answer.

Class war will be eliminated by permanent machinery of government for reconciling the clash of class interests in an equitable distribution of the proceeds of industry. Wage questions will not be left to the dog-fight of class war, but will be settled by the impartial arbitration of State machinery; existing organisations such as trade unions and employers' federations will be woven into the fabric of the Corporate State, and will there find with official standing not a lesser but a greater sphere of activity. Instead of being the general staff of opposing armies, they will be joint directors of national enterprises under the general guidance of corporative government.

- Oswald Mosely, the Corporative State http://www.oswaldmosley.com/buf/corporate_state.html < I advise you to read this, to understand it better.

Mussolini taunted socialists for creating the magna carta of class warfare, when they didnt understand the essense of it.

And how can Fascism actually represent syndicalism when it holds the State, a tool of class domination and a result of alienation, above all else including class struggle (in fact, as a tool for taming class struggle)? The view of the State as an independent, organic entity does not at all go with the collective self-management of the proletariat. After all, the State is totalitarian.

The sense of the state grows within the consciousness of Italians, for they feel that the state alone is the irreplaceable safeguard of their unity and independence; that the state alone represents continuity into the future of their stock and their history.

- Benito Mussolini(Message on the VIIth all anniversary, October 25, 1929, Discorsi del 1929, Milano, Alpes, 1930, p. 3oo).

Because its not soley syndialist. You are thinking like an anarchist again. They changed thier reasoning from believing what YOU(anarchists) say the state is , to corporative syndicalism, in which the state has the right to intervene if the guilds come to no conclusion. Its reserves the right to intervene, therefore it is supreme in that sense. You can have all the self-management you wanted as long as it does not affect the national interest, which the state reserves the right to preserve. Crazy, I know, but I am NOT defending Fascist ideology, simply explaining it. I cannot help if its inconsistent. Your questions simply prove the point of why anarcho syndicalists broke away from this doctrine. Why was there was a fight between the Fascists and the anarchists? Well, this is it. Nationalism.

[JudeObscure84]

But the doctrine of Fascism is paradoxical by nature: "Hey, we're syndicalists, we're all for workers solidarity, but we ardently support the very institutions which undermine it".

It percieves reality in a different sense than the anarchist or the socialist. Even anarchists and commies have differences in perception. Well why cant the fascist? Why is he only bogged down by the rules that which both liberal and socialists created as firm ground? This is why he rejected both right and left. Yet his stance began from the left on in, and formulated more of an attack on liberal values. Hence....

This explains why all the political experiments of our day are anti-liberal, and it is supremely ridiculous to endeavor on this account to put them outside the pale of history, as though history were a preserve set aside for liberalism and its adepts; as though liberalism were the last word in civilization beyond which no one can go.

Because most, if not all, movements are anti-liberal, he finds it arrogant that liberals would exhault themeselves as being the end all, be all. So there was no way that he could've started on the "right" economically and philosophically, which in essense disolves the state more so than exhaulting it. And uses it more as a means of protection. While people may explain Fascism to be on the other side of the political spectrum than Marxism, its more of less like a circle, that goes back to the first point. Both sides of the same coin. But anyways it didnt disagree with the anarcho syndicalist movement simply by rhetoric of the state alone, it argued with it because of practice. How is anarchism going to work? There is no unity. That is their debate and thier split. Thier means of achieving their goals. The Fascist was simply brutally honest.