[Bridgeburner]

I've heard of Ernst Junger and Julius Evola. The former thanks to the introduction posted on Rei Murasames website, but apart from that I know very little about Fascist intellectuals.

I'm not speaking about the concepts of Mussolini or Mosley, but rather about the philosophy/sociopolitical thought that made such views possible/ inspired such politics.

[Preston Cole]

From what I remember:

• Giovanni Gentile's Actual Idealism served as the basis for Fascist doctrine materialized in the Fascist Manifesto and the Doctrine of Fascism.

• Nietzsche, Machiavelli and "The Leviathan" were inspirational for Mussolini and Gabrielle D'Annunzio (the Italian proto-fascist that wrote the anarchist/nationalist/syndicalist Constitution of Fiume).

• Charles Maurras's ideas of National Catholicism and Integral Nationalism are said to have influenced the creation of corporatism, along with George Sorel's conservative syndicalism.

• Needless to say, Marinetti's Manifesto of Futurism (1909) was extremely influential on early fascism. Today, futurism is still considered fascism's brother in Italy and elsewhere.

More information on fascism's ideological origins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideologica ... of_Fascism

[Potemkin]

Today, futurism is still considered fascism's brother in Italy and elsewhere.

It's worth pointing out that the Russian Futurists sided with the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution (and Mayakovsky had been a revolutionary activist who had been briefly imprisoned by the Tsarist regime even before 1917). They were ultra-leftists rather than ultra-rightists.

[Benjamin Noyles]

It's worth pointing out that the Russian Futurists sided with the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution (and Mayakovsky had been a revolutionary activist who had been briefly imprisoned by the Tsarist regime even before 1917). They were ultra-leftists rather than ultra-rightists.

You can hardly call the Soviet Union an infallible bastion of communist Ideology though? Was there anything in that society which did not identify with the soviet regime? Things which you could say were incompatible with the ideals of communism? Yes there are aspects of Futurism which are superficially compatible with communism, at the time it was aesthetically progressive and communism was a progressive movement. To say it is a communistic movement is only as true as it is not, at the very best. Do you not think that the fetishisation of conflict, speed, machinery, war, ect was generally opposed to a true leftist viewpoint, isn't it literally the antithesis of modern continental green left movements?

What the Soviets themselves actually thought of the futurists is another thing. I think initially it was supported cynically in the early period and then it was abandoned because it was no longer useful or realistically applicable. Most modernist movements are a bit one way and the other, but Italian futurism was basically fascist in character, as was its British equivalent Vortacism which was even more fascist.

[Fasces]

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=122199

[Potemkin]

You can hardly call the Soviet Union an infallible bastion of communist Ideology though? Was there anything in that society which did not identify with the soviet regime?

Plenty of social elements in the Soviet Union did not identify with the Communist ideology. Most of them ended up in mass graves.

Things which you could say were incompatible with the ideals of communism? Yes there are aspects of Futurism which are superficially compatible with communism, at the time it was aesthetically progressive and communism was a progressive movement. To say it is a communistic movement is only as true as it is not, at the very best. Do you not think that the fetishisation of conflict, speed, machinery, war, ect was generally opposed to a true leftist viewpoint, isn't it literally the antithesis of modern continental green left movements?

Since when did the Greens or the liberals turn Communist? And the fetishisation of conflict, speed, machinery, war, etc was very much in tune with the mood of War Communism in the Soviet Union. Have you read no Bolshevik propaganda, seen no Bolshevik posters or watched no Soviet movies?

What the Soviets themselves actually thought of the futurists is another thing. I think initially it was supported cynically in the early period and then it was abandoned because it was no longer useful or realistically applicable.

You mean just like the Italian Futurists?

Most modernist movements are a bit one way and the other, but Italian futurism was basically fascist in character, as was its British equivalent Vortacism which was even more fascist.

I think you mean 'Vorticism'. And I agree with you, but I was referring specifically to the special character of Russian Futurism.

[Benjamin Noyles]

Plenty of social elements in the Soviet Union did not identify with the Communist ideology. Most of them ended up in mass graves.

Very true, but so did alot of people many of them radical idealists the left of the party .

Since when did the Greens or the liberals turn Communist?

Wasn't the west german green party pretty much the only platform through which the radical left can organise as a popular movement? The green movement is basically communist.

And the fetishisation of conflict, speed, machinery, war, etc was very much in tune with the mood of War Communism in the Soviet Union. Have you read no Bolshevik propaganda, seen no Bolshevik posters or watched no Soviet movies?

Yes I have, but like I said I don't find the soviet union to be consistant with conceptual/artistic communism. Soviet futurism is all very early 1920's stuff which serves a direct ideological purpose, that of giving newness to the regime. So it was utilised for its destructive force to build over the old russia rather than a sincere movement. Soviet modernism which gave way to stalinist cultural populism which is even less communist both in spirit and practice.

Don't you find soviet war fetishism to be a bit odd and out of place, you must for instance be familliar with sovietstuff merchandising.
this summs it up http://verganza-de-sasuke.deviantart.com/
Cosplaying communist weaboo furfag with aspurgers. Unfortunately he has not uploaded his old work but was obsessed with struggle, compared his politics as a gay rights activist to that of an ANC guerilla, drew loads of soviet war stuff, celebrated victory day, ect. An excentric case, but in my view typical of the mentality, it just appears ideologically insincere and a little confused. Especially since the never again attitude, the values of futurism seem by that viewpoint to be part of a mental sickness and authoritarian personality disorder.

You mean just like the Italian Futurists?

That didn't actually happen though, Italian futurism died a slow natural death while soviet constractivism was stamped out by force. Fascist italy was pretty consistant in the art deco style with which it was virtually synonomous, and the Futurist movement, rather than an accessory was deeply involved in the rise of the movement. I don't know if you want to give me some examples, but fascism without futurism requires some imagination.

I think you mean 'Vorticism'. And I agree with you, but I was referring specifically to the special character of Russian Futurism.

I was making the point it is not a straight up comparison.

[Potemkin]

Very true, but so did alot of people many of them radical idealists the left of the party .

The Soviet authorities regarded the artistic avant-garde as petty-bourgeois ultra-leftists, which is basically what they were, and consequently did not trust them. As for the 'Left Opposition' of the late 1920s, their policy platform was potentially disastrous for the long-term survival of the Soviet Union, and when they failed to gain sufficient support for their group through constitutional channels, they tried to foment a popular uprising against the Soviet government in 1927. The Soviet government, not being suicidal, crushed them.

Wasn't the west german green party pretty much the only platform through which the radical left can organise as a popular movement? The green movement is basically communist.

That's strange; I always thought they were tree-hugging middle class liberals.

Yes I have, but like I said I don't find the soviet union to be consistant with conceptual/artistic communism.

There is no such thing as 'conceptual/artistic communism'. Neither Marx, Engels, nor Lenin had left any clear guidelines as to what would or would not constitute 'communist art'. This, in fact, was part of the problem faced by the Soviet authorities when they tried to create a coherent, unified artistic style for Soviet art. The solution which was finally reached by 1934 was to create an eclectic form of neo-classicism called 'socialist realism'.

Soviet futurism is all very early 1920's stuff which serves a direct ideological purpose, that of giving newness to the regime. So it was utilised for its destructive force to build over the old russia rather than a sincere movement. Soviet modernism which gave way to stalinist cultural populism which is even less communist both in spirit and practice.

Stalinist 'cultural populism' (by which I presume you mean socialist realism) was actually not intended to be populist. It was intended to elevate the Soviet masses while still being comprehensible to them. The masses were given the art which the authorities felt they should have, not what they actually wanted (which was mostly trashy novels, risque movies and jazz music). The Soviet artistic and cultural institutions had the same sort of attitude towards the popular consumption of art and culture which the BBC has.

Don't you find soviet war fetishism to be a bit odd and out of place, you must for instance be familliar with sovietstuff merchandising.
this summs it up http://verganza-de-sasuke.deviantart.com/
Cosplaying communist weaboo furfag with aspurgers. Unfortunately he has not uploaded his old work but was obsessed with struggle, compared his politics as a gay rights activist to that of an ANC guerilla, drew loads of soviet war stuff, celebrated victory day, ect. An excentric case, but in my view typical of the mentality, it just appears ideologically insincere and a little confused.

You're trying to discredit Communism by citing the example of a Red Alert commie cosplay fag who has dyed his hair pink?

Especially since the never again attitude, the values of futurism seem by that viewpoint to be part of a mental sickness and authoritarian personality disorder.

Futurism may be associated with fascism in Italy, but in Russia it is associated with Communism. The most prominent of the Futurist poets, Vladimir Mayakovsky, was posthumously canonised in the 1930s as the Poet Laureate of the Soviet Union. And neither the Italian Futurists nor the Russian Futurists would have pissed on that pink-haired cosplay fag if he was on fire.

That didn't actually happen though, Italian futurism died a slow natural death while soviet constractivism was stamped out by force. Fascist italy was pretty consistant in the art deco style with which it was virtually synonomous, and the Futurist movement, rather than an accessory was deeply involved in the rise of the movement. I don't know if you want to give me some examples, but fascism without futurism requires some imagination.

The Italian fascists, it seems to me, regarded the Italian Futurists as what Lenin famously called "useful idiots" - they made use of their support during their rise to power, but sidelined them as soon as they were no longer useful. The same can be said of the Bolsheviks' attitude towards the Russian Futurists, of course.

I think you mean 'Vorticism'. And I agree with you, but I was referring specifically to the special character of Russian Futurism.

I was making the point it is not a straight up comparison.

Indeed. I was myself contrasting the Italian Futurists with the Russian Futurists, in order to suggest that there is nothing inherently fascistic in Futurism. The Futurist aesthetic could equally well be used to support Communism, as in fact it did in Russia.

[Benjamin Noyles]

Feel free to amalgamate the next few points I make

As for the 'Left Opposition' of the late 1920s, their policy platform was potentially disastrous for the long-term survival of the Soviet Union, and when they failed to gain sufficient support for their group through constitutional channels, they tried to foment a popular uprising against the Soviet government in 1927. The Soviet government, not being suicidal, crushed them

That is very true, but were they not committed ideologues just as dedicated to the communist cause?

That's strange; I always thought they were tree-hugging middle class liberals.

That is the perception of the green movement and half the time that is true. It is like healthy food, an eccentric obsession for some middle class people, that is in Britain, and only in Britain. In western Germany and other countries like it constitutional laws (among other things like cold war sentiment, ect) basically forbid the communists from having political form, so they organise through the auspices of the green movement. even so, suppose they are not Marxist Leninists (which was not what I was suggesting) but utopian socialists, doesn't that basically make them communists?

There is no such thing as 'conceptual/artistic communism'. Neither Marx, Engels, nor Lenin had left any clear guidelines as to what would or would not constitute 'communist art'. This, in fact, was part of the problem faced by the Soviet authorities when they tried to create a coherent, unified artistic style for Soviet art. The solution which was finally reached by 1934 was to create an eclectic form of neo-classicism called 'socialist realism'.

It is hard to entirely quantify but I think they had a view of 'man'. It is in dialectical materialism; it implies that there was a time before property ownership and therefore at such a time the social conditions of man were not dictated by his economic situation, and so, presumably he lived in a state of primitive idealistic social communism, like the Christian 'garden of Eden' thing. Isn't the central basis of the Jewish question that political emancipation can only occur after economic emancipation, this word 'Emancipation' implies that man has a true nature of 'goodness' or whatever. Then you also have the end point of dialectical materialism where man changes his economic status, thereby changing what he is socially, SO communism is a process to the ultimate perfection of a new communist man. Yes it has a 'scientific basis' but in its existentialism Marxist communism is basically indistinguishable from utopian socialism which is its real basis of attraction.

Stalinist 'cultural populism' (by which I presume you mean socialist realism) was actually not intended to be populist. It was intended to elevate the Soviet masses while still being comprehensible to them. The masses were given the art which the authorities felt they should have, not what they actually wanted (which was mostly trashy novels, risque movies and jazz music). The Soviet artistic and cultural institutions had the same sort of attitude towards the popular consumption of art and culture which the BBC has.

What I was referring to was not specifically 'socialist realism', though that was part of it, I was referring to the whole culture. It was a concessionist attempt to give people what they wanted, which was not progress. You had the re-emergence of national history with a sense of historic ties to the past which were not generally acceptable until the great patriotic war in addition to a scaling back of the assault on orthodox Christianity. In architecture you have neo gothic, traditionalist, very European, even baroque styles of architecture, a radical diversion from continental modernism and the radical audacity of sleek blockish constructivism.

Obviously they call that all communism, like how the communist party now thinks Christianity is compatible with socialism and want Stalin canonised as a saint, really it is a sign of weakness, therefore, it is not communistic it is reactionary. What do you think the thoughts of most contemporary socialists are on traditional culture here in Britain? At the very best they are willing to accept pseudo historical Billy Bragg garbage, but that is as far as it goes.

You're trying to discredit Communism by citing the example of a Red Alert commie cosplay fag who has dyed his hair pink?

It’s a zee actually, 'it' is going through a sex change operation. fandom aside it is a communist. I am not saying it discredits the ideology, But I think he is symptomatic of cognitive dissonance.

Futurism may be associated with fascism in Italy, but in Russia it is associated with Communism. The most prominent of the Futurist poets, Vladimir Mayakovsky, was posthumously canonised in the 1930s as the Poet Laureate of the Soviet Union. And neither the Italian Futurists nor the Russian Futurists would have pissed on that pink-haired cosplay fag if he was on fire.

not to change the subject (returning to the original point), isn't Russian national identity itself partly defined through communism as well? The issue is was futurism ever sincerely communist or was it doing what all artists did and maintaining their commissions by making peace with the regime.

Indeed. I was myself contrasting the Italian Futurists with the Russian Futurists, in order to suggest that there is nothing inherently fascistic in Futurism. The Futurist aesthetic could equally well be used to support Communism, as in fact it did in Russia...
The Italian fascists, it seems to me, regarded the Italian Futurists as what Lenin famously called "useful idiots" - they made use of their support during their rise to power, but sidelined them as soon as they were no longer useful. The same can be said of the Bolsheviks' attitude towards the Russian Futurists, of course.

The fascists didn't need useful idiots, they provided that all by themselves, and there were certainly allot of conned losers - the futurists were not among them, they got mostly everything they wanted. What I meant was that at the founding of the fascist movement they were there at the beginning forming the bulk of the early leadership as well as membership, and their written material the face of the party, so they had an active part in the shaping and defining of the fascist movement, a position not shared by their socialist counterparts.

[Potemkin]

That is very true, but were they not committed ideologues just as dedicated to the communist cause?

Indeed they were. So what? Subjectively, they were sincere and dedicated Communists; objectively, they served the cause of counter-revolution. They were dealt with according to what they objectively were.

That is the perception of the green movement and half the time that is true. It is like healthy food, an eccentric obsession for some middle class people, that is in Britain, and only in Britain. In western Germany and other countries like it constitutional laws (among other things like cold war sentiment, ect) basically forbid the communists from having political form, so they organise through the auspices of the green movement. even so, suppose they are not Marxist Leninists (which was not what I was suggesting) but utopian socialists, doesn't that basically make them communists?

I really don't care what the German Greens may or may not be. I only know that the British Greens are a bunch of liberal middle-class wankers. They are not Communists.

There is no such thing as 'conceptual/artistic communism'. Neither Marx, Engels, nor Lenin had left any clear guidelines as to what would or would not constitute 'communist art'. This, in fact, was part of the problem faced by the Soviet authorities when they tried to create a coherent, unified artistic style for Soviet art. The solution which was finally reached by 1934 was to create an eclectic form of neo-classicism called 'socialist realism'.

It is hard to entirely quantify but I think they had a view of 'man'. It is in dialectical materialism; it implies that there was a time before property ownership and therefore at such a time the social conditions of man were not dictated by his economic situation, and so, presumably he lived in a state of primitive idealistic social communism, like the Christian 'garden of Eden' thing. Isn't the central basis of the Jewish question that political emancipation can only occur after economic emancipation, this word 'Emancipation' implies that man has a true nature of 'goodness' or whatever. Then you also have the end point of dialectical materialism where man changes his economic status, thereby changing what he is socially, SO communism is a process to the ultimate perfection of a new communist man. Yes it has a 'scientific basis' but in its existentialism Marxist communism is basically indistinguishable from utopian socialism which is its real basis of attraction.

All of this has nothing to do with whether or not there is such a thing as 'conceptual/artistic communism'. There isn't, which is why both the Futurists and the traditional realists could both claim to be creating 'Communist art'. In the end, the Soviet government created its own aesthetic methodology eclectically cobbled together out of a few scrappy quotations from the Marxist-Leninist classics, called it 'socialist realism', and imposed it on all Soviet artists in 1934.

What I was referring to was not specifically 'socialist realism', though that was part of it, I was referring to the whole culture. It was a concessionist attempt to give people what they wanted, which was not progress.

No, it wasn't. The Soviet government gave the masses ballet, opera, classic literature and Old Master art. It gave the masses the art which the Bolsheviks thought they should have, not what they actually wanted. It did not, unlike the capitalist system, simply give them 'prole-feed'.

You had the re-emergence of national history with a sense of historic ties to the past which were not generally acceptable until the great patriotic war in addition to a scaling back of the assault on orthodox Christianity. In architecture you have neo gothic, traditionalist, very European, even baroque styles of architecture, a radical diversion from continental modernism and the radical audacity of sleek blockish constructivism.

Precisely. Socialist realism was an eclectic form of neo-classicism. In no sense was it Modernist or avant-garde.

Obviously they call that all communism, like how the communist party now thinks Christianity is compatible with socialism and want Stalin canonised as a saint, really it is a sign of weakness, therefore, it is not communistic it is reactionary. What do you think the thoughts of most contemporary socialists are on traditional culture here in Britain? At the very best they are willing to accept pseudo historical Billy Bragg garbage, but that is as far as it goes.

I disagree. Back in the 1960s, the folk music revival in Britain was largely led and controlled by the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB). In fact, their grip was so strong that when Paul Simon was a struggling musician in Britain and was invited to perform at a large venue along with British folk musicians, he felt he had to refuse because the concert had been organised and partly funded by the CPGB, and he was afraid of being blacklisted back in America.

not to change the subject (returning to the original point), isn't Russian national identity itself partly defined through communism as well? The issue is was futurism ever sincerely communist or was it doing what all artists did and maintaining their commissions by making peace with the regime.

The Russian Futurists were absolutely sincere Communists. Mayakovsky once said that when the October Revolution happened, there was no question about whether or not to support it: "This was our Revolution," he said.

The fascists didn't need useful idiots, they provided that all by themselves, and there were certainly allot of conned losers - the futurists were not among them, they got mostly everything they wanted. What I meant was that at the founding of the fascist movement they were there at the beginning forming the bulk of the early leadership as well as membership, and their written material the face of the party, so they had an active part in the shaping and defining of the fascist movement, a position not shared by their socialist counterparts.

The Futurists, especially Mayakovsky, were at the forefront of Bolshevik propaganda efforts during the Civil War and the early to mid 1920s. Mayakovsky, for example, created hundreds of Communist propaganda posters for the ROSTA (Soviet telegraph office) windows. His efforts on behalf of the Bolshevik government were tireless and self-sacrificing. This is one of the reasons why Stalin posthumously canonised him as the Soviet Poet Laureate in the 1930s.

[Jackal]

Alain de Benoist seems to be the most modern radical right intellectual.

[Rei Murasame]

Absolutely! He is fantastic, yes.

I would recommend him to basically everyone.

[Jackal]

I suppose the glams would be more interested in the "classical" Fascists, though.

[Bridgeburner]

I suppose the glams would be more interested in the "classical" Fascists, though

Modern day intellectuals are preferred, because they deal with topical issues. The 1920s and 40s were a whole different set of conditions.

[starman2003]

Modern day intellectuals are preferred, because they deal with topical issues. The 1920s and 40s were a whole different set of conditions.

I'll say. There's no use harping on what so and so said or did several decades ago. If people are serious, they'll have to become focused on the present and future.