The Essence of the Left

[Traitorfish]

Only to those explicitly identifying as Internationalist and/or Marxist. Note that Mussolini was himself a Socialist and his transformation towards Fascism was relatively fluid.

So what? As Jacklegull says, this isn't about individual intellectual biographies, it's about fascism as a movement. Fascism was explicitly presented by and to its membership as a crusade of national salvation against the left, most especially the Marxist left, but ultimately against any who travelled with them. The British Union of Fascists, which drew its membership primarily from middle-class Loyalists, didn't have any more affection for Oswald Mosley's former comrades in the non-Marxist, non-internationalist Labour Party than they did for the Communist Party or ILP. In Ireland, it was even less ambiguous: the Blueshirts fought pitched street-battles with the IRA, an explicitly nationalist organisation. There's no indication at all that the interwar fascists took issue with socialists only for their internationalism and Marxism.

 

[Tahuti]

The attitudes of the individual leaders hardly matter. Fascism was a mass political movement that campaigned to its members as anti-communist and anti-socialist, it made a deliberate and concentrated effort to appeal to those who did have a hatred of communism/socialist and thus the movement as a whole was ideologically pitted against "the left".

Fascism was vitriolically Anti-Communist, though its Anti-Socialism was not truly pronounced. It was more of a Nationalist oriented spin-off of Socialism, as it was also made politically palatable by Socialists that renounced pacifism in the fervour of WWI.

There is in practice no parallel between Mussolini and Lenin, between fascist and communist, outside of a hostility - for different reasons - toward liberalism.

I was more thinking about Mussolini paralleling Kerensky (a Democratic Socialist) than Lenin.

So what? As Jacklegull says, this isn't about individual intellectual biographies, it's about fascism as a movement. Fascism was explicitly presented by and to its membership as a crusade of national salvation against the left, most especially the Marxist left, but ultimately against any who travelled with them. The British Union of Fascists, which drew its membership primarily from middle-class Loyalists, didn't have any more affection for Oswald Mosley's former comrades in the non-Marxist, non-internationalist Labour Party than they did for the Communist Party or ILP. In Ireland, it was even less ambiguous: the Blueshirts fought pitched street-battles with the IRA, an explicitly nationalist organisation. There's no indication at all that the interwar fascists took issue with socialists only for their internationalism and Marxism.

Oswald Mosley was also an unorthodox Labourite before explicitly identifying with Fascism. The Left was an original template for Fascism, after which modifications were made to make sure Fascism had appeal to constituencies that are traditionally Right-Wing, like the military. This made Fascists anti-Marxist, though they were still deeply indebted - intellectually - to the Old Left. Fascism nevertheless did have Right-Wing elements, such as its explicit rejection of egalitarianism, though from a direct political lineage, Fascists were simply Socialists who revised their ideology in the enthusiasm for WWI.

 

[Domen]

Fascism was explicitly presented by and to its membership as a crusade of national salvation against the left

Considering that Fascism was founded by unemployed veterans and war invalids of WW1, why would they fight against socialism?

 

[Traitorfish]

Oswald Mosley was also an unorthodox Labourite before explicitly identifying with Fascism. The Left was an original template for Fascism, after which modifications were made to make sure Fascism had appeal to constituencies that are traditionally Right-Wing, like the military. This made Fascists anti-Marxist, though they were still deeply indebted - intellectually - to the Old Left. Fascism nevertheless did have Right-Wing elements, such as its explicit rejection of egalitarianism, though from a direct political lineage, Fascists were simply Socialists who revised their ideology in the enthusiasm for WWI.

I think you massively understate the transformative experience of the First World War. The socialist who became fascists didn't simply revise their politics, they underwent a fundamental shift in political orientation. Before the war, Mussolini was a Sorelian syndicalist, like many of the first proponents of Fascismo, and he retained the preoccupation with a decadent world and the need for a spontaneous movement of the masses, lead by a revolutionary vanguard, but the terms of this story were changed fundamentally: the decadent world changed form bourgeois capitalism to bourgeois democracy, the mass movement from a nationless class to a classless nation, and the vanguard from industrial militants to military veterans. Where socialism had been the death-toll of nations, fascism was their salvation. These weren't the same politics with patriotic bunting, the whole thing was set entirely at right-angles.

Yes, there are continuities with certain strains of left-wing thought. But there are also continuities with certain strains of right-wing through and of thought which defies left/right classification. So what it comes down to is how the fascists orientated themselves in their time and place, and in that regard they were unambiguously a force of the right. They presented themselves as a force of national salvation, anti-socialist, anti-communist, anti-trade unionist and anti-feminist, the nation-state's last line of defence against the civilisational suicide of decadent liberals and levelling socialists. Only by emphasising a partial intellectual genealogy of the movement at the complete expense of its actual cultural and political history can that reality escape us.

 

[Cutlass]

Considering that Fascism was founded by unemployed veterans and war invalids of WW1, why would they fight against socialism?

"Why" is irrelevant. They did. Deal with it.

 

[Tahuti]

I think you massively understate the transformative experience of the First World War. The socialist who became fascists didn't simply revise their politics, they underwent a fundamental shift in political orientation. Before the war, Mussolini was a Sorelian syndicalist, like many of the first proponents of Fascismo, and he retained the preoccupation with a decadent world and the need for a spontaneous movement of the masses, lead by a revolutionary vanguard, but the terms of this story were changed fundamentally: the decadent world changed form bourgeois capitalism to bourgeois democracy, the mass movement from a nationless class to a classless nation, and the vanguard from industrial militants to military veterans. Where socialism had been the death-toll of nations, fascism was their salvation. These weren't the same politics with patriotic bunting, the whole thing was set entirely at right-angles.

Sorelian syndicalism was one of the main influences on Fascism. However, you maintain that converting to Fascism from Socialism was a major leap, while it may have been an entirely organic spinoff from Socialism that added Right-Wing elements to conform to its anti-egalitarian worldview. Too many Socialists went to Fascism - and in a rather fluid fashion - too maintain the former view. This is not to say I consider Fascism Left, but rather Centrist, similar to the National Bolsheviks in Post-Soviet Russia.

Yes, there are continuities with certain strains of left-wing thought. But there are also continuities with certain strains of right-wing through and of thought which defies left/right classification. So what it comes down to is how the fascists orientated themselves in their time and place, and in that regard they were unambiguously a force of the right. They presented themselves as a force of national salvation, anti-socialist, anti-communist, anti-trade unionist and anti-feminist, the nation-state's last line of defence against the civilisational suicide of decadent liberals and levelling socialists. Only by emphasising a partial image intellectual genealogy of the movement at the complete expense of its actual cultural and political history can that reality escape us.

As I mentioned earlier, Fascism wanted to be militant, in part to appeal to traditionally right-wing bastions like the Upper Classes and Upper Middle Classes. So yes, they became anti-feminist, anti-trade unionist, and other things anti- that was antithetical to traditional Socialism. However, these are still mutations in an otherwise Left-Wing movement, since Fascism did not spun off from Conservatism, though was eventually falsely seen as its radical variant due to Fascism's successfull attempts to cultivate support from otherwise traditionally Right-Wing groups, despite Fascism's Left-Wing origins.

To sum up, Fascists are just Left-Wingers who decided to move Rightwards. Their self-description as Radical Centrists is pretty accurate.

 

[Traitorfish]

Considering that Fascism was founded by unemployed veterans and war invalids of WW1, why would they fight against socialism?

Why would people who had built their entire identities around violent struggle in the cause of national strength be attracted to fascism?

Hm.

That's a toughie.

Sorelian syndicalism was one of the main influences on Fascism. However, you maintain that converting to Fascism from Socialism was a major leap, while it may have been an entirely organic spinoff from Socialism that added Right-Wing elements to conform to its anti-egalitarian worldview. Too many Socialists went to Fascism - and in a rather fluid fashion - too maintain the former view. This is not to say I consider Fascism Left, but rather Centrist, similar to the National Bolsheviks in Post-Soviet Russia.

Whyt is it not possible to maintain the former view? All you're saying is that many people who had called themselves "socialists" now called themselves "fascist", without any analysis of what those terms meant to them or what that transition looked like, or any bearing does this have on the "left", "right" or "central" orientation of the movement. It's not even argument, at that point, it's just arranging words to suit your taste.

As I mentioned earlier, Fascism wanted to be militant, in part to appeal to traditionally right-wing bastions like the Upper Classes and Upper Middle Classes. So yes, they became anti-feminist, anti-trade unionist, and other things anti- that was antithetical to traditional Socialism. However, these are still mutations in an otherwise Left-Wing movement, since Fascism did not spun off from Conservatism, though was eventually falsely seen as its radical variant due to Fascism's successfull attempts to cultivate support from otherwise traditionally Right-Wing groups, despite Fascism's Left-Wing origins.

To sum up, Fascists are just Left-Wingers who decided to move Rightwards. Their self-description as Radical Centrists is pretty accurate.

Again, this is genealogy, not history. Ideas aren't "left-wing or "right-wing" absent historical context, aren't meaningful categories outside of the divisions that people create for themselves through their political behaviour, so these appeals to evolutionary taxonomy are just entirely besides the point.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Considering that Fascism was founded by unemployed veterans and war invalids of WW1, why would they fight against socialism?

Rage at the bourgeois society that sent them to war and then abandoned them, and the working class that had jobs. A radical section of the capitalist class was willing to sacrifice another part of itself [the part that feared civil violence as a the precursor to another revolution] in order to be given a free hand to crush the working class movement which so terrified them, by using other irate proletarians as their goon squads.

EDIT: To clarify the KG and TF debate about left and right fascism, let me point out that this radical section of the capitalist class that I speak of above was radical in the sense that it wanted to further cement the rule of the capitalist class by wholly obfuscating the existence of that class to everyone else. This was not a left-wing movement that accidentally chose nationalism as the solution to its immediate problems or whatever, it was always an explicitly far-right movement that absolutely hated the proletariat, and hated it so much that it wanted to do away with the volatility of the classical capitalist system by erasing the culture of class conflict that it has previously so openly embraced. You see, early capitalists were vocally proud of their class and its superiority over the proletariat and the petit-bourgeoisie in the same way that they were vocally proud of their racial superiority over the colonized Africans and Asians. It was their radical sections that saw this as dangerous to their power, and so sought to obfuscate it completely by supposedly uniting all the classes under the superior identity and cause of The Nation-State. Only then could they cement their power not as a class which had built itself from nothing by gusto and good work ethic, but as a caste, entitled by birth to be above the unwashed masses, who did not even know or see that they were any different than they, because all belonged only to the Nation.

 

[luiz]

Rage at the bourgeois society that sent them to war and then abandoned them, and the working class that had jobs. A radical section of the capitalist class was willing to sacrifice another part of itself [the part that feared civil violence as a the precursor to another revolution] in order to be given a free hand to crush the working class movement which so terrified them, by using other irate proletarians as their goon squads.

EDIT: To clarify the KG and TF debate about left and right fascism, let me point out that this radical section of the capitalist class that I speak of above was radical in the sense that it wanted to further cement the rule of the capitalist class by wholly obfuscating the existence of that class to everyone else. This was not a left-wing movement that accidentally chose nationalism as the solution to its immediate problems or whatever, it was always an explicitly far-right movement that absolutely hated the proletariat, and hated it so much that it wanted to do away with the volatility of the classical capitalist system by erasing the culture of class conflict that it has previously so openly embraced. You see, early capitalists were vocally proud of their class and its superiority over the proletariat and the petit-bourgeoisie in the same way that they were vocally proud of their racial superiority over the colonized Africans and Asians. It was their radical sections that saw this as dangerous to their power, and so sought to obfuscate it completely by supposedly uniting all the classes under the superior identity and cause of The Nation-State. Only then could they cement their power not as a class which had built itself from nothing by gusto and good work ethic, but as a caste, entitled by birth to be above the unwashed masses, who did not even know or see that they were any different than they, because all belonged only to the Nation.

And did the Capitalist Class have its secret meeting on which they outlined this evil plan to dupe the working class on a sinister castle in Transylvannia? Did they send the memo via flying winged monkeys?

God, how can someone write so much garbage? So much straight out falsification?

Fascism was primarily working class movement, of people frustrated by liberal society and also by the pacifism and internationalism of traditional socialists. The rest are lies.

 

[jackelgull]

Fascism as a movement is hard to define because it is not ideological so much as it an emotional reaction to the political at the time. People disillusioned with the failure of democracy and the increasing violence of socialist movements (Italy's Red Two Years, the KDP) turned to fascism because it promised the answers. Talking about fascism in Italy is much different from talking about fascism in Germany is much different from talking about fascism in Spain. However, considering the common elements of fascism were fanatical nationalism and rabid militarism, which was pretty much the state of the European nations before WW1, I would call fascism a purely reactionary movement disgusted with the changes wrought by socialism and by society in general.

 

[plarq]

That reminds me of a great difference between Italian fascism and German Nazism: fascism is a populism in Italy, but the same populism in German died in the Night of Long Knives. Hitler purged out the populist wing and was in a better shape collaborating with capitalist top-dogs, and in the end, betray them again by sending NSDAP administration, and gradually subordinate private capitalism into a more planned economy. In Italy, fascism have to remain a populist force, thus the conservatives in the end betrayed Mussolini in a coup when the British and Americans are at the gates.

Edit: a bit crosspost with jackelgull. For Spanish case, it is even more obscure. Franco regime's nature is "fascistic without fascism", it is a political compromise born in the civil war. The left failed to compromise and the right wing found their lucky compromise, and concluded civil war in their victory. Thus, Franco's Falangist Party is pro-fascist, but ideologically a compromise between things too many to list: nationalists, clergy, rural landowners, monarchist, Carlists, etc. With this heterogeneity, Franco could never establish an ideologically coherent fascist state or any totalitarian state.

 

[Snorrius]

I think we are doing a very constructive debate here.

We have started from the premises that brutal mass murders is the a point where Leftism inevitably goes. During the discussion we have found interesting things:

i) The brutality of many Leftist regimes is described by the attempts to go to the Promised Land of Equality too fast. Everything unequal (according to degree of Leftism in given Leftist ideology) is being violently weeded out, mass cleansing happens etc. The result is usually what was already described by classical thinkers: collapse of society and switching to authocratic rule or more right ideology which more compatible with reality.

ii) But we have found fascinating exceptions. It does seems that there are were (and is) a handful of countries which made past (or avoided at all) the brutal equalizing phase, past authocratic phase (if it was) and made to the Holy Land.

The first example is USSR, which in 1960s-70s was radically different from Imperial period, and very different from Stalin's time. It did delivered a lot of what was promised by pre-Revolutionary socialists:

1) Heavily equalized society with main housing, education, medicine necessities and average income guaranteed almost for everyone, with little difference between an average man and higher-ups. Difference between Soviet "elites" and average Soviet citizen was miniscule comparing to difference between average modern Russian and oligarch.

2) Polite correctness

3) Multiculturalist policies

There is an even more interesting example of modern society which got to the Land of Equality without going through brutal equalizing phase by replacing it with very slow equalization for several generation. I talk about Sweden of course, that's why we called such regimes as "Sweden paradise".

Those are very interesting entities. Sweden is very close to USSR in many aspects. Not only it has three items above, but it match USSR in other ways:

1) It is a totalitarian but not authocratic state. There is a strong state ideology of Leftist variety, politicized society but authocractic tendencies are neutralized by extensive bureaucracy.

2) Dissenters are being controlled and persecuted in less brutal and much more subtle ways:

- by marginalizing: denying access to mass media, academia and good jobs
- by ideology activist which coordinate the public in organized "witch-huntings"
- USSR used psychiatry against dissenters, Sweden also make steps in this directions
- by driving undesired elements from the country.

3) Degradation of culture and elites

"Sweden paradises" also has very strange feature - at the first glance. They do not try to equalized culture, on the contrary - they plant the seeds of own destruction by pursuing multiculturalism.

 

[useless]

We have started from the premises that brutal mass murders is the a point where Leftism inevitably goes.

Which still requires evidence.

 

[Senethro]

I think we are doing a very constructive debate here.

We have started from the premises that brutal mass murders is the a point where Leftism inevitably goes. During the discussion we have found interesting things:

i) The brutality of many Leftist regimes is described by the attempts to go to the Promised Land of Equality too fast. Everything unequal (according to degree of Leftism in given Leftist ideology) is being violently weeded out, mass cleansing happens etc. The result is usually what was already described by classical thinkers: collapse of society and switching to authocratic rule or more right ideology which more compatible with reality.

ii) But we have found fascinating exceptions. It does seems that there are were (and is) a handful of countries which made past (or avoided at all) the brutal equalizing phase, past authocratic phase (if it was) and made to the Holy Land.

The first example is USSR, which in 1960s-70s was radically different from Imperial period, and very different from Stalin's time. It did delivered a lot of what was promised by pre-Revolutionary socialists:

1) Heavily equalized society with main housing, education, medicine necessities and average income guaranteed almost for everyone, with little difference between an average man and higher-ups. Difference between Soviet "elites" and average Soviet citizen was miniscule comparing to difference between average modern Russian and oligarch.

2) Polite correctness

3) Multiculturalist policies

There is an even more interesting example of modern society which got to the Land of Equality without going through brutal equalizing phase by replacing it with very slow equalization for several generation. I talk about Sweden of course, that's why we called such regimes as "Sweden paradise".

Those are very interesting entities. Sweden is very close to USSR in many aspects. Not only it has three items above, but it match USSR in other ways:

1) It is a totalitarian but not authocratic state. There is a strong state ideology of Leftist variety, politicized society but authocractic tendencies are neutralized by extensive bureaucracy.

2) Dissenters are being controlled and persecuted in less brutal and much more subtle ways:

- by marginalizing: denying access to mass media, academia and good jobs
- by ideology activist which coordinate the public in organized "witch-huntings"
- USSR used psychiatry against dissenters, Sweden also make steps in this directions
- by driving undesired elements from the country.

3) Degradation of culture and elites

"Sweden paradises" also has very strange feature - at the first glance. They do not try to equalized culture, on the contrary - they plant the seeds of own destruction by pursuing multiculturalism.

The biggest citation needed ever

 

[Tahuti]

by marginalizing: denying access to mass media, academia and good jobs

You could have basically left out everything else, this is essentially how authentically Right-Wing views are marginalised by a Media-Academic complex.

 

[Senethro]

You could have basically left out everything else, this is essentially of authentically Right-Wing views are marginalised by a Media-Academic complex.

For you right wing means monarchists. There isn't a conspiracy to suppress monarchists, its just a laughably bad form of government and everyone can see this except you. You're confusing cause and effect when you can't find great favour for monarchy in academia.

 

[useless]

If there is a conspiracy to marginalise and supress right wing monarchists then for obvious reasons, i feel no sympathy for a group whose stated aims is to rob me of my ability to participate in democracy and have us regress to a time where nobles ruled over the "peasants" or serfs.

 

[Traitorfish]

You could have basically left out everything else, this is essentially of authentically Right-Wing views are marginalised by a Media-Academic complex.

For a Jew, your political views always have a weird anti-Semitic vibe to them.

 

[Tee Kay]

You could have basically left out everything else, this is essentially of authentically Right-Wing views are marginalised by a Media-Academic complex.

Come to Australia, where all the good jobs in media, academia, and businesses go to ultraconservative medieval-fetishers.

 

[Domen]

What exactly is that "anti-Semitic vibe", Traitorfish?