Revolutionary Fascism

Book review.

See this.

Spaniard Francisco Calderon writes in the prologue for the book:

…it is certain that Fascism was itself essentially revolutionary, the pseudo-Fascism of some reactionary movements, grouped by the official History in the same waste basket, as well as the Rightwing deviations of the Mussolinian regime, can mislead those who catch a first glimpse on the phenomenon.

I agree completely.  How often do we observe idiots, including some on the Far Right, who misclassify reactionary para-fascist regimes like that of Franco as “fascist?” Too often I would say, much too often.  In addition, Mr. Calderon also has the insight to recognize that Mussolini and his regime went through periods of reaction in which the revolutionary thrust of fascism was sidelined; in my view this extends from the unfortunate Lateran Treaty to the establishment of the Italian Social Republic, nearly a decade-and-a-half of ideological stagnation that had as its only bright spot attempts in the 1930s to form a Fascist International (an attempt that failed due to both Fascist Italy’s ideological defects during that period as well as Italy entering the German Nazi sphere of influence, where questions were to be solved by hegemonic military force rather than by ideological international cooperation). I note that the book itself asserts that Fascism in Italy was ideologically compromised as early as the seizure of power in 1922 (if not before), given the author’s preference for a leftist, socialist form of fascism.  I agree that he has a point, in that compromise with the King and the old elites, in order for Mussolini to take power may have doomed the regime from the start, given that there was no agenda to depose the King and the elites subsequently.  But wherever you draw the dateline of reactionary subversion of Fascism, certainly by the end of the 1920s, the ideological rot had set in. The revolutionary had become reactionary and palingenetic ultra-nationalism began to become fossilized into mere authoritarian nationalist dictatorship (the popular misconception of fascism).

The main thrust of the book focuses on the Italian Social Republic, where Mussolini returned to his socialist roots, and Italian Fascism returned to the revolutionary and corporatist direction of its earliest days. The period of fascism is typically ignored by the Far Right for a number of reasons. First, in general, the Far Right prefers to focus on the German National Socialist experience as opposed to Italian Fascism (and of course always prefers anything German to anything Italian). The Third Position folk like to focus on the Romanian experience (with justification; for me, the religion issue aside, the Romanian Legionary Movement, with its focus on The New Man, is my preferred form of fascism). 

Italian Fascism is general tends to be dismissed as a pale, attenuated, inferior form of Nazism (*), and Mussolini dismissed as a buffoonish appendage of Hitler.  Then, for those who do focus on the Italian experience, they prefer to look at Mussolini and Fascism at their peak of power, not as a post-coup puppet state of Nazi Germany – the derisive term Salo Republic manifests the disdain many hold for this period, which is not taken seriously.  Others on the Right, who are more traditionally conservative in outlook, dislike the socialist aspects of the later Italian Fascism – they prefer “right-wing” fascism to “left-wing” fascism (in some ways mirroring the disdain for Strasserite “left-wing” National Socialism).  I personally find the Italian Social Republic’s ideology and worldview, like that of the earlier revolutionary Italian Fascism, to be preferable to the more static, conservative, reactionary-“rightist” fascism of the Mussolini regime’s power peak.

There is also a section on Universal Fascism (in essence, pan-European Fascism), and the works of Gravelli promoting this; of particular interest is Gravelli’s assertion that that the Italian spirit will be an important component of this Europe-wild fascist synthesis, with Rome as its “moral center.”  Is this another reason why certain elements on the Far Right reject pan-Europeanism and “Universal Fascism” – that it is associated with Italianism?  Do we observe today a recapitulation of the 1930s-era alternative approaches of Italy vs. Germany, with today’s “Meds” promoting a sustainable pan-European cooperation between peoples and today’s “Nords” resisting that and instead promoting divisive ethnoimperialist doctrines?  The more things change the more they stay the same, eh?  The young Italian Fascists who died with “Long live Europe!” on their lips were a far superior breed than today’s “ethnonationalists” who pride themselves on their (self-described even!) “petty nationalist” division.

Unfortunately, more conservative and Catholic elements sidelined Gravelli and his more revolutionary outlook for Universal Fascism, which became more and more a “Romanized” element to further Italian national influence and counter-pose Mussolini and “Latinicity” against Hitler and German racialism. Indeed, by 1935, international fascist conferences were being disrupted by Nord vs. Med conflicts originating for the most part because of Nordicist racialism and reactions to that.  The more things change, the more they stay the same!  It is always the same problem emerging over and over again.

…I must declare in the most explicit way that we do not feel like as Italians because we are European, but that we feel like Europeans because we are Italians. This is not a subtle distinction but a fundamental one” – Benito Mussolini

The federated Europe will be built of nations, no one denies this, despite the lies of the ethnonationalists.

Criticism – perhaps we should not be surprised that a book by someone named “Erik Norling” will describe the Sicilian Giovanni Gentile as a “Florentine philosopher.”  Really? Do we need to rewrite history to hide the intellectual contributions from areas of Europe that Der Movement hates? And the writing is terrible, likely a product of a terrible translation into English.

*Related Questions: Did German National Socialism “piggyback” on Italian Fascism? Was that ultimately the true relationship between the two ideologies?

Three Faces of Authoritarian Nationalism

Clearing up misconceptions.

If there is one thing I hate (among many) it is the tendency of ignorant drooling retardates to conflate fascism – a revolutionary movement that aimed at remaking society and which functioned as a secular religion – with the varied para-fascist authoritarian conservative regimes whose aim was to fossilize in place established societal structures so as to serve the narrow interests of political, military, business, and/or religious elites.

Stanley Payne’s table is of value here in distinguishing varieties of authoritarian nationalism.

We see the fascists (which includes national socialism) – the revolutionary secular religion, wishing to remake society via a paligenetic “irrational” vitalistic movement of both individual (New Man) and collective transcendence; the nationalist radical right – the para-fascists who would sometimes ape superficial features of fascistic political theater but who were profoundly conservative and wanted no alteration of society whatsoever and who depended upon elite manipulation and not popular support; and finally the conservative nationalists – the more mainstream electoral right with moderate objectives of solidifying a right-of-center sociopolitical consensus, lacking the revolutionary objectives of fascism and also lacking the rigidly ultra-authoritarian, narrow elitist, and militaristic focus of the traditionalist far-right.

One has to be a real idiot – or at least a dishonest imbecile – to confuse these political manifestations.

On the Nature of Fascism

Palingenetic Ultra-Nationalism.

Some words on fascism.  There have been many stupidities spewed forth about fascism – that is, fascism as a political movement and not “fascism” as a pejorative – with bizarre definitions, confusion between genuine fascism and reactionary para-fascism, etc.

Now, true enough that political definitions are subjective, not objective.  One cannot define a political movement with the same definitiveness as one can define some natural phenomenon. Nevertheless, some definitions have more explanatory power than others, and it are these more powerful explanations, which do a better job illuminating reality, that deserve to become paradigmatic memes.

I reject definitions of fascism that are mere lists of alleged characteristics, lists that confuse surface manifestations with underlying core belief.  I reject definitions that do not understand the revolutionary dynamism of fascism, and I also reject those definitions that are based on obvious bias (Marxist definitions are particularly odious, non-explanatory, and self-serving). Definitions that reject obvious manifestations of fascism (such as national socialism) while including obvious non-contenders (such as Franco’s Spain) are also rejected.

Instead, I follow Roger Griffin’s simple yet incisive characterization of fascism as palingenetic ultra-nationalism.

The palingenetic component captures the revolutionary essence of fascism, it defines the spiritual core of the doctrine, and it clearly distinguishes fascism from para-fascism.  Thus, Franco’s Spain – a reactionary authoritarian regime focused on maintaining a traditional status quo – was in no way, shape, or form fascist. Franco had no overarching, palingenetic vision for Spain, he did not promote any rebirth of Spanish society, did not strive to create the New Spanish Man, did not promote any new strain of ideological current for Spain, Europe, or the West.  Instead, he was a military dictator, anti-communist, with an agenda of promoting the interests of the military, church, business, etc. The same applies to all the other “strongman” (usually military) dictatorships labeled “fascist” by the Left and by nitiwits on the moderate Right.  Without an underlying aim of national rebirth, of overturning the old order, of a futurist rather than rigidly traditionalist worldview, whatever a political movement is, it is not fascist.

The nation being defined in particularist terms as a specific people, a specific ethny, a specific culture, then the ultra-nationalism component excludes from consideration any regime, scheme, or movement that is universalist in scope, regardless of whether or not it has palingenetic aspects. Therefore, various messianic visions of the Globalist Left are not fascist – not American multiculturalist globalism, not the various permutations of Marxism (including the New Soviet Man), or schemes (including those that are Marxist) that divide based on class – class is not a nation; the proletariat is international and hence universalist and non-particularlist.  A purely religious focus cannot be fascist if the religion is, like Christianity, universalist, although it is possible to fuse ethny with religion in genuine fascism as was the case in Romania.

Having excluded false “fascisms” we now must admit that fascism is a rather protean beast, a sociopolitical philosophy that can be actualized in many manifestations.  The palingenesis can differ, and, as history shows us, the specific defintion of nation can differ, as long as the nation has a particularlist, non-universalist focus that has some sort of ethny-basis and can be defined in an “us vs. them” manner.

Thus, Italian Fascism was People-State; German National Socialism was People-Race; Romainian Legionaryism was People-Faith.  These are all different definitions of nation, but are all opposed to universalism, and also are all palingenetic in one form or another. The more radical forms of (national socialist) White Nationalism are also obviously fascist, as the Race component in People-Race is a bit expanded compared to the Hitlerian version, but still sharply particularlist, distinguishing the “White Nation” from the various non-White peoples of the Earth.

This definition of fascism has greater explanatory power than other versions, and provides a useful model for moving forward.

Franco and the Failure of Para-Fascism

Hood article.

Read here.

The fanboy call-out to the “dark enlightenment” aside, that’s a good article, and underscores the fundamental differences between real revolutionary fascism and reactionary para-fascism.

Anyone who asserts that Franco was a fascist is an unmitigated idiot.  Anyone who thinks that any of the Latin American military dictators were fascists is also an unmitigated idiot.