[Kman]

According to this incredibly interesting lecture by Ralph Raico yes it is. According to him the fascists invented the term ''third way'' as a way to describe a middle point between the extreme of classical liberalism/libertarianism with its almost non-existant state and the total all-encompassing state of communism.

[youtube]CGoBQ1vb7vs[/youtube]

Other points he brings up is that italian fascism was relatively harmless compared to Russian Communism since the number of killings of political prisoners were counted in the tens, not in the millions like they occured in the communist countries.

Another thing that was interesting was that anti-semitism was pretty non-existant in Mussolini's Italy, anti-semitic laws were only created in 1938 because Mussolini wanted to look good in Hitler's eyes (apparently Mussolini even had a jewish girlfriend at some point).

Another interesting fact he talked about was that initially Mussolini hired a free market economist as finance minister and that he was even allowed to make several economic reforms to introduce more economic freedom but that he was eventually kicked out when his policies started affecting the income of the Italian military-industrial complex.

I was pretty shocked how benign italian fascism actually was, I had expected something far more murderous, from the way Ralph Raico describes it Italian fascism was primarily a middle class movement of people trying to defend themselves against violent and murderous socialists wanting to take their houses/farms/small businesses in Italy at the time.

[Wolfman]

See, this is why you should probably try understanding the ideologies you don't like. Everything in your post was Fascism 101. Here's Fascism 102: Corporatism (the economic system that forms a major part of Fascism, especially Italian Fascism) was developed at the request of the Catholic Church (that is to say, the motherfucking Pope!) as a communitarian economic approach intended to balance out Free Market idiocy and Socialist idiocy.

Also, as I've said before, it is unfair to even try to place Fascism on a Left/Right dichotomy. Being a syncratic approach to governance as it is, makes it pretty much impossible to place.

from the way Ralph Raico describes it Italian fascism was primarily a middle class movement of people trying to defend themselves against violent and murderous socialists wanting to take their houses/farms/small businesses in Italy at the time.

You forgot to mention the free market retards that wanted to sit back and watch Italy burn to the ground because of an outdated economic ideal.

[Fasces]

Corporatism is a Catholic ideology, yes, as was most anti-Enlightenment thought at the time. Distributism is another. However, to say that the Pope requested its creation, rather than it spawned naturally out of Catholic thinking, may be putting a bit too much responsibility in the hands of a figure who had little to do with it. This is, ironically, one the incoherences in fascist thought - its traditional anticlericism, combined with its clerical roots.

But yes, you are correct Kman. Fascism, or at least popular support for fascism, was rooted in its anti-Marxist stance, which remains to this day a defining feature of the ideology. It is because of this that it is usually considered a rightist ideology, in opposition to the left. The truth, however, is much more murky. The right is typically defined by reactionism, while the left by revolutionism - and while fascism may be reactionary in some respects, it is entirely a revolutionary ideology in that it demands contemporary society be torn down and replaced from the bottom up.

[Wolfman]

However, to say that the Pope requested its creation, rather than it spawned naturally out of Catholic thinking, may be putting a bit too much responsibility in the hands of a figure who had little to do with it.

My understanding was that the Pope asked some Economist or Political Philosopher (or some such thing) to find a way to get the best of Capitalism and Socialism in such a way that still meshed with Catholic thought.

Fascism, or at least popular support for fascism, was rooted in its anti-Marxist stance, which remains to this day a defining feature of the ideology.

I think most of the popular support for Fascism I've seen has been more along the lines of an Anti-Democractic stance.

[Fasces]

Pope Leo XIII codified existing thought patterns into a coherent Catholic ideology, yes. He did not, however, invent it. There is mention of it as far back as the Bible as the basis of a Christian society - similar in some respects to Shariah Law in Islam.

I think most of the popular support for Fascism I've seen has been more along the lines of an Anti-Democractic stance.

Not necessarily anti-democratic, but certainly against what it sees as democratic corruption and rule by special interests.

[Wolfman]

I guess I shouldn't rely on wikipedia so much. Meh, I have a book on the subject on my reading list anyways.

[Fasces]

I recommend either "The Anti-Enlightenment Tradition" or "Neither Right nor Left: Fascist Ideology in France". Both are by Zeev Sternhell, who, for my money, is the senior academic on fascist ideology in the world - perhaps with only Roger Griffen as an equal.

[Wolfman]

If I could send PMs I send you my current reading list. Between books on forms of state and books on economic policy (corporatism, capitalism, etc) I have about a 110 books on my list. One of Zeevs books does appear to be on my list

[Fitzcarraldo]

I would say that, in general, Fascism and Nazism were left-wing movements and are viewed as 'right-wing' primarily due to their anti-Marxism. Right-wing movements traditionally are reactionary, monarchists, loyalists of the Ancien Régime. Fascism and Nazism, in general, is mass-based and democratic, modernist and scientific - which are pretty much traditionally left-wing. What attracted genuine reactionaries (like Jünger, or Hamsun) and right-wingers to this fundamentally left-wing movement was its anti-Bolshevisim. Nothing really else can explain how thoroughly anti-modern and traditionalists (i.e., reactionaries) could be swayed over to something so contrarian to their views as fascism.

[The Immortal Goon]

The whole fetishization of the volk community and the attempt to restore an ancient order that has been betrayed by modern liberalism is pretty reactionary - whether it's fascism or monarchy pushing for said policies.

The fascists in Greece and Spain, in particular, were tied in to ideas of monarchies - even if that wasn't the end result. The monarch, after all, had a right to rule based on something else. Generally the church of consent of the nobles, or something else. There were attempts for fascists to gain the same legitimacy.

[Preston Cole]

Other points he brings up is that italian fascism was relatively harmless compared to Russian Communism since the number of killings of political prisoners were counted in the tens, not in the millions like they occured in the communist countries.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that West-European nations like Italy and Germany (not even Nazism lived up to the size of Stalinist purges) have an inherent shyness in orchestrating massive, bloody purges like the ones in Russia. The way they're placed - the center of Europe, the hub of democracy and civilization, with the world watching them all the time - and their standards of civilization exclude overt genocidal/politicidal tendencies. Germany did reach the genocidal point, but it was pretty tolerant towards its internal enemies until the war. Italians are also a proud nation with a glorious past, their history is a pillar of European civilization. Imagine Italians performing the Great Purge.

I think the geographical and social characteristics of nations determine the behavior of their regimes. Russia being at the edge of Europe with its own culture and social outlook is perhaps relevant to why the Stalinist purges and elimination of the middle class took place.

Pope Leo XIII codified existing thought patterns into a coherent Catholic ideology, yes. He did not, however, invent it. There is mention of it as far back as the Bible as the basis of a Christian society - similar in some respects to Shariah Law in Islam.

It's interesting to note that the Vatican is still looking for a corporatist replacement of capitalism. Pope Benedict sent a letter to the G8 summit or something requesting that the leaders of the world abandon capitalism and look for an alternative.

[Wolfman]

Weren't most of the deaths during Stalin's reign related WWII, famine, or suppressing a civil war or two? Because I get the whole "Stalin personally murder 6 trillion people" thing from Libertarians, but most of what Stalin gets blamed for borders on the insane.

[starman2003]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that West-European nations like Italy and Germany (not even Nazism lived up to the size of Stalinist purges) have an inherent shyness in orchestrating massive, bloody purges like the ones in Russia. The way they're placed - the centre of Europe, the hub of democracy and civilization, with the world watching them all the time - and their standards of civilization exclude overt genocidal/politicidal tendencies.

I think Italian fascism was just wimpy.

Germany did reach the genocidal point, but it was pretty tolerant towards its internal enemies until the war.

The nazis never had a problem with mass killing in principle; it's just that, with few exceptions, like the 1934 purge, they weren't in a position to try to implement most of the program until the war.

Italians are also a proud nation with a glorious past, their history is a pillar of European civilization. Imagine Italians performing the Great Purge.

There were bloody proscriptions in Roman times.

I think the geographical and social characteristics of nations determine the behavior of their regimes. Russia being at the edge of Europe with its own culture and social outlook is perhaps relevant to why the Stalinist purges and elimination of the middle class took place.

I think modern ideology was the key factor. To my knowledge, the czars didn't attempt to kill on such a scale, whereas later, fully secular regimes, reflecting Darwinism to a degree, had less of a problem with it.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Weren't most of the deaths during Stalin's reign related WWII, famine, or suppressing a civil war or two? Because I get the whole "Stalin personally murder 6 trillion people" thing from Libertarians, but most of what Stalin gets blamed for borders on the insane.

No. Even Stalinist apologists accept the fact that the secret police had execution list numbering ~600,000, around half of which were peasants. By using the word "suppressing" you imply that the Soviet regime was somehow on the defensive in killing of ~300,000 peasants in the 1930s, when actually the Soviet regime was on the offensive calling for class annihilation and practicing it as fact. There is no excusing the killings of the 1930s except by raw murderous Bolshevism. The German National Socialist regime was certainly more benign to the peasantry than the Soviet Communist regime - if German patriots had not squashed the Bolshevik revolutionary scum in 1918-19, similar levels of deaths of the German peasantry would most likely have occured under a Spartacist dictatorship.

[Wolfman]

No. Even Stalinist apologists accept the fact that the secret police had execution list numbering ~600,000, around half of which were peasants.

Yeah, but don't people regularly claim the Stalinists killed something like 9 million people? I mean, there's a huge difference between 600,000 and 9 million people.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Yeah, but don't people regularly claim the Stalinists killed something like 9 million people? I mean, there's a huge difference between 600,000 and 9 million people.

Well, the 600,000 figure is only for the two years of the Great Terror years, there were other murderous years and actions of the Stalin era. Including the largely deliberate famine that happened in the Ukraine and surrounding areas in the 1930s, around 2 to 6 million peasants dead, certainly raises the death toll substantially. Most people would come to the conclusion that internally (at least) the Soviet Union in the 1930s was killing more people than any other country that once had a civilised government. Hitler's Germany killed at best tens of thousands directly and indirectly during the same period, Stalin's millions.

[starman2003]

Most people would come to the conclusion that internally (at least) the Soviet Union in the 1930s was killing more people than any other country that once had a civilised government. Hitler's Germany killed at best tens of thousands directly and indirectly during the same period, Stalin's millions.

Hitler is said to have regretted he didn't purge his general staff like Stalin did.
If the reich had been more successful, few slavs would still have been alive in europe by say, 1950. Stalin was certainly ruthless, often without real justification but basically his policy of modernizing the USSR and turning it into a disciplined monolith was sound. It prevented much worse catastrophes.

[Daktoria]

Yes Kman, a token glance at the Nolan chart will show you this.

The problem is fascism is centrist in the wrong way. The same goes for religious distributism. It advocates peace and prosperity through pragmatics and aesthetics rather than semantics.

[Fitzcarraldo]

If the reich had been more successful, few slavs would still have been alive in europe by say, 1950. Stalin was certainly ruthless, often without real justification but basically his policy of modernizing the USSR and turning it into a disciplined monolith was sound. It prevented much worse catastrophes.

That Stalin 'modernised' the Soviet Union is an old Bolshevik apologist line which is rather shortsighted. Tsarist Russia was modernising long before Stalin or Lenin took power (arguably, in fact, the Bolsheviks would not have been in power without the Tsar's vast rail networks*) so it is very reasonable to say the Tsar would have modernised the Soviet Union to a similar level, and probably with very little bloodshed compared to the Bolsheviks. Another Stalinist apologist line is that without Stalin's crash industralisation, the Soviet Union would have been overran by the Germans during WWII. This may be true if one is a defender of the Bolshevik revolution and a follower of a rival of Stalin (say, Bukharin), but for those of us that are anti-Bolshevik and pro-Tsar it is again reasonable to say the Germans would not have invaded the Russian Empire if not for the Bolsheviks and annihilation of the former (largely German) aristocracy.

*Symbolically when the journalist Trotsky first arrived at the front to bring discipline to Red units in the Russian Civil War ie, shooting conscripts that retreated (after years of condeming 'imperialist' war as utterly cruel and barbaric, no less) he removed the engine from his carriage signalling that he did not intend to lose any further ground. Point being, the Tsarist rail network was vitally important to the Reds in the Civil War.

[Preston Cole]

The old "Stalin's state socialism modernised a backward country" line isn't incorrect if you look the other areas that state socialism helped modernize: China, Iraq, Egypt, etc. Modernization is pretty much the only worthwhile consequence of socialism. The only problem is that state socialism employed alongside class warfare has always led to massive murders in almost all the cases that I know: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. The nationalist state socialist regimes of Saddam and Nasser weren't that brutal precisely because they lacked the incredibly idiotic concept of class supremacy. The best socialism is the Prussian one, in my opinion.