Frequently and unfittingly placed side by side with communism, Mussolini’s fascism is characteristically both opposed to pacifism and communism. Rather than taking large strides to aim for a classless utopia, Mussolini’s fascism embraces and war, life’s everyday struggles, and rejects the notion that class conflicts are a dominant force in the metamorphosis of society, which is consistent with his notion that political equality is a myth. Judging from this document, Mussolini would argue that you need war and adversity to produce the worlds great men. Mussolini believes that fascism has already been the ideology of his era, given his observations on the human sacrifice people put forth for the state.
Mussolini’s anthropomorphizes the state–describing it with human characteristic such as a conscience, will, and personality. “…The Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality — thus it may be called the “ethic” State….”. I believe the term “ethic” here is referring to the efforts of the individual for the state, and the sacrifices one must make and willpower one must have to persevere through life’s adversities to become greater.
How do fascism, naziism, socialism, and liberalism compare and contrast to one another? What events in Mussolini’s life, or the history of Italy, combined to form this political concept?
First, be careful of some grammar errors and omitted words in the first paragraph. Second, in regards to your question, they all compare as injecting a sense of “duty” into an individual. For fascism its the state, for Nazism it was Hitler himself, socialism, the party, and liberalism, a duty to vote for the country’s own behalf. They contrast in method and motives.
This blog post has good evidence about Mussolini’s piece. I do agree with the above comment that you need to be careful with your grammar and spelling, there are multiple errors in this post. Aside from that, I do like the quote you chose and think you have good knowledge on Mussolini and what he would do.
I wonder if we might do better to concern ourselves not with the differences between these ideologies, but with the ways in which they collaborated with each other. The lesson of the twentieth century suggests a great deal of ambiguity with regard to actual motives of political figures attempting to assure stability for their peoples.