Monthly Archives: October 2013

Mussolini’s Fascism

Posted on by

In “What is Fascism” Benito Mussolini states his beliefs in the benefits of a fascist government, and argues why it would be fitting for Italy. Fascism, he argues, is quite different from democracy because it emphasizes sacrifice and struggle, and acknowledges that mankind is naturally unequal.  Fascism does not follow the opinions of the majority, but promotes authoritarian leadership. Mussolini then argued that Italy was more in need of an authoritarian figure than ever before, and that fascism would provide the stability that had been lacking throughout the early 1900s.

While Mussolini argued that Italian society should perceive life as a struggle to give back to the country, the majority did not have any control over human society.  It seems as though ruling with an iron fist was the only way that Mussolini felt that that Italy would regain balance, even if it meant sacrificing the contentment of society. He argues, “The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual,” however, he goes on to state that much of the freedom that individuals could potentially have would be “harmful.” In this way, Mussolini portrays a lack of freedom as ultimately beneficial to the state, even if it meant the exact opposite.

How do Mussolini’s ideas about Italian society making sacrifices for the state relate to the eugenics movement?

Spanish Children Refugees…Future of the Soviet Union?

Posted on by

In the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939, Prats-de-Mollo_Children's_HomeStalin and the Soviet Union played an important role in supporting the Spanish Republic. Most directly, Stalin supported the relocation of 3,000 Spaniard children to the Soviet Union. Although this was a move to support the Spanish Republic, Stalin also did this for the benefit of the Soviet Union. By placing these children in the care of members of the Soviet Union, Soviet values were instilled in them, while still maintaining a veneer of their Spanish culture.

When Spain was in turmoil, children were not able to study in Spain so their parents sent them to the Soviet Union. There are not many sources on this subject; if there are, they are oral which can be unreliable sources. Some sources say people in Leningrad greeted them nicely, while others had negative experiences. Many children recall their experience being one of stripping them of their belongings, the only things that they had from home. One woman recalls being stripped of her dress from home and dressed as everyone else in the Soviet Union. Another woman recalls her bible being thrown out, symbolizing how her past religion would not be a part of her new life in the Soviet Union.

Children’s values and ideas are not concrete, they are easily transformed; their minds are like sponges, absorbing all they hear. This is why these children were such great additions to the Soviet Union. They were “specimens of socialist internationalism in practice.” The children had high discipline in their schooling, but that discipline never led to violence. The State believed that positive role models were the only way children would learn Soviet values. Although teachers taught students of their Spanish heritage, Soviet values were the main focus. The Spanish teachers were often seen as less serious, shedding better light on the Soviet teachers, thus shedding better light on the State. This “hybridity” of Soviet-Spanish cultures further reinforces the concept of “nation in form, socialist in content” that we have discussed as a theme in class.

Fascism by Benito Mussolini

Posted on by

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?

Sovietization of Spanish Niños

Posted on by

During the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939, Stalin decided to test the influence of the Soviet state by providing some “assistance” to the warring nation. He did this in several military and political ways, but the focus of our class reading this week was on the nearly 3,000 Spanish children that the Soviet Union took in as refugees from the war.

There was an ulterior motive, however, that wasn’t too surprising given the Stalin’s history. While promoting Communist ideals in Spain itself via propaganda, Stalin saw these child refugees as tools. The state would educate them in Soviet ways and make them into the perfect hybrid of Spanish-Soviet culture. The children’s acceptance of communist ideology would prove its universal appeal while symbolizing the selfless and altruistic nature of Soviet society. It was a win-win.

The niños were taught camaraderie, respect for authority, independence and discipline in addition to their academic undertakings. This was done by adult role models that perfectly embodied Soviet ideals. If the designated teachers were later deemed “politically illiterate,” meaning they did not embody and teach Soviet values with enough conviction, they were removed from their posts (usually under the guise of some other complaint against them.) Although these subpar instructors were not labeled “political enemies” of the Soviet state, the process did help identify them as weaker members of Soviet society and the government preferred to keep tabs on such citizens.

The refugee program for the Spanish children is yet another example of the creative and guileful policies of the Soviet Union. You would be hard-pressed to find a political leader as detail-oriented, goal-driven and determined as Stalin. His desire to transform the Soviet Union into the perfect communist state knew no bounds.

“…if men remained loyal to the ideals of their youth?”

Posted on by

In Bread and Wine, author Ignazio Silone recounts the tale of Pietro Spina, an Italian youth whose work as a revolutionary caused him to be exiled from his home by the prevailing Fascist state in the interwar period.  Beginning in media res, the first sixteen chapters of Bread and Wine find Spina having infiltrated his homeland once again several years later, concealing himself with a cosmetic agent that makes him appear much older than his years.  With the reluctant aid of his boyhood friend Nunzio, Spina assumes the false identity “Don Paolo” and returns to his peasant home region, Abruzzi, under the guise of a traveling priest.  While there, however, Spina’s revolutionary spirit cannot help but show through; “Don Paolo” begins to use his incendiary intellect and misappropriated messianic reputation amongst the locals to urge his new community of cafoni to believe in the possibility of what he perceives to be true liberty: freedom from fascist rule.

One of the most prominent themes addressed in these opening chapters is the value of youth.  The varied perceptions of this subject are expressed most pithily in the exchange between Don Paolo and a number of local officials and men of stature in the Abruzzi community in chapter fifteen.  In discussing the desire for a “second revolution,” Don Paolo is assured that such sentiments are expressed only by young people. (Silone, 144, 151)  This Zabaglione attributes to the fact that the youth are “taking theories literally,” saying that “the greatest of evils is when the young start taking seriously what they read in books.” (Silone, 145)  Given his ideals, Don Paolo takes caution in concealing his disagreement, asking only “what would happen if men remained loyal to the ideals of their youth?” (Silone, 146)  Dismissing this scenario as unthinkable, Don Luigi allegorically explains that when in the throes of “poetry,” young people feel the need to eschew the “bread and wine” of their native culture and ideology in order to seek that which exists “at the crossroads of the great highways.” (Silone, 146)  Conversely, it is only when people mature to the phase of “prose” that their thoughts begin to bear any semblance of rationality. (Silone,146)

Do you feel that remaining loyal to the ideals of one’s youth indicates dedication to one’s beliefs or simply close-minded inflexibility?

 

Mussolini, “What is Fascism”

Posted on by

Benito Mussolini’s “What is Fascism” (1932) outlines that basic principles and guiding ideals of Fascism as he perceived and created this political ideology. He maintains throughout this piece that Fascism and Marxism (specifically Marxian Socialism) are “complete opposite[s].” In many ways this is true. These two ideologies have opposing beliefs and ideals, but each is underlined by many of the same opinions as well.

The Foundation Pit by Andrei Platonov is a novel based in the USSR during the early 1920s. This book centers on a construction project that was meant to assist in the country’s industrial aspirations. Throughout much of the novel, the protagonist and other characters are consumed by the idea of finding the true meaning of communism. They want to become the best citizens, the best workers and the best communists. Throughout the novel, the characters work tirelessly for the benefit of the state so that they may prove their loyalty and commitment to the communist cause.

While the goals of communism and Fascism are different: one strives for the party and the ideology; the other strives for the state and the country; each places a duty on the people to work tirelessly towards this goal. In working for the party and communist ideology, Soviet citizens bettered the state. By sacrificing for the state, Italians improved the power of Fascist ideology. The rhetoric in each movement and culture reads very similarly: “[the Fascist] rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others—those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after…” This sentiment is very similar to the way in which propaganda promoted working for communism in the USSR, especially in the use of the Stakanovite figure.

There are similarities in how Fascism and communism were presented and understood during this period. How does democratic, Nazi and other political rhetoric follow similar patterns?

Ex Convicts Running in Elections?

Posted on by

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/ex-convicts-regain-right-to-run-in-elections/487696.htm

Today I found this interesting article in the Moscow Times.  Apparently, on Thursday, Russia’s Constitutional Court ruled that ex-convicts have the right to fun for offices, including the office of president. This ruling was a direct response to the ban Vladimir Putin placed last year on ex-convicts running for office (which just happened to outlaw the leader of the opposition party from running in the future).

According to the new law, only people who are sentenced to a life in prison are banned from running for office.

I wasn’t sure what America’s policy on criminals running for office was, so I did some research. Most of the information I came across merely said candidates had to 1) be born in the US 2) be at least 35 and 3) have lived in the US for 14 years.

The only other information I could find was on Wikipedia (so I’m not guaranteeing accuracy). Wikipedia had the first three qualifications, as well as these other three: 1) cannot have already served 2 presidential terms 2) if impeached from office, the Senate can decide whether they are eligible to run 3) cannot have previously turned their back on their country after swearing an oath of allegiance (but this ban can be lifted from a Congressional vote).  So yes, Charles Manson can run for US president, but not my best friend who was adopted from Russia but lived her life as a US citizen.

I’m not sure which is scarier, that Charles Manson can legally run for US president, or that I think Russia has the right idea of banning those sentenced to a life in prison from running for office.

 

The Madness From Within

Posted on by

The main purpose of the documentary The Madness From Within is to explain why the civil war started in Ireland and what were the consequences of it. As a documentary the movie uses a wide range of sources to discuss, and present the Civil war: people who have witnessed the event, historians, professors, and documentary footages from the event.

For me it was interesting that the documentary involved opinions of both people who are anti-treaty and pro-treaty proponents, which in my view makes the movie politically unbiased. What I also found interesting are the stories, which people who have witnessed the event told in the documentary. For example, Joseph Duhig recalls a sad event from the civil war. He tells us how he witnessed the death of the two young soldiers, who were wounded in a machinegun ambush. It is a personal story which shows the dark side of the civil war- the death, and the destruction. The discussion in the documentary about the death penalty, which was used by the Free State in order to fight the anti-treaty forces, and the civil war, was also something interesting. It was controversial and even people of that time like Joseph Duhig, who was supporter of the treaty, did not approve it. Still it was efficient enough to affect the war, and even to contribute towards its ending. It was an extreme, brutal decision, but it also probably saved the lives of thousands of soldiers, if the civil war was to continue. Another interesting aspect of the documentary The Madness From Within is its end. It informs us about the influence of the civil war on contemporary Ireland, specifically the two parties that were formed after the war, the proponents and the opponents of the treaty.

The movie left me with few questions. Why did the treaty opponents kill Michael Collins? What do you think would have happened if Michael Collins was not killed?

The Menace From Within and the Art of Obfuscation

Posted on by

I found the Madness from Within deeply misleading. The documentary begins with the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which ended the Irish War of Independence, created the Irish Free State, and gave Northern Ireland the permission to remain under British rule. At first, this may seem reasonable, considering the high concentration of Ulster Unionist Protestants in Northeastern Ireland. We must consider this event’s relation to the spirit of the times, reflected by the redistribution of territory halfway around the globe, in the Balkans and the Middle East.

As we saw in Mazower, the aftermath of the First World War saw the creation of numerous artificial borders and states. The League of Nations did not exist solely to prevent the resurgence of widespread armed conflict; it also served the interests of the former Allied powers, notably England and France, who, believing themselves to have “won” the First World War, wished to dictate the conditions of the world’s newfound peace. This process would form the basis of the modern Middle East, which continues to wrestle with the consequences of the Ottoman Empire’s fragmentation. The French began by dividing Syria into smaller parts. These included modern-day Lebanon, Alexandretta, Alawi states in the north, and some Druze states in the south, while Damascus and Aleppo acquired the status of city-states.[1] Lebanon’s Christian majority, who insisted on remaining independent from the rest of Syria, facilitated France’s endeavor. Meanwhile, a seemingly constant stream of Arab nationalist revolt plagued the rest of French Syria.

The British adopted a much more favorable, if inconsistent, stance in regards to Arab nationalism.  At first, they allied themselves with the Hashemite family of Jordan –then headed by Hussein bin Ali- who ruled over the independent Hejaz region. However, when bin Ali claimed to be the caliph of Islam, the British Foreign Office felt threatened and allowed the Saudis to take over the Hijaz in 1924.[2]  When British Iraq needed to contend with an Arab insurrection in 1920, they installed Faisal I in power to restore order.[3]

As I noted earlier, the creation of a British-ruled Northern Ireland might appear quite reasonable, considering its high proportion of Protestants. However, we must not forget the many Catholic inhabitants of Northern Ireland or the desire of imperial powers like Britain to maintain control of their subjects, even if that meant redrawing borders and playing religions and ethnicities against one another. To deny the Catholics the right to their own nation for the sake of a regional Protestant majority that remained a national minority constitutes an act of imperialistic aggression. Of course, one can argue that the Northern Irish Parliament voted on the issue. Yet, I find this argument unconvincing. Page 8 of David MccKitrick and David McVea’s book, Making Sense of the Troubles reveals the extent of the Unionist assault on Northern Irish democracy:

“In 1922 the voting system known as proportional representation was abolished. Its removal was by no means simply a technical adjustment, since it had been built in both as an actual safeguard for Catholic and Protestant minorities in the two parts of Ireland and also as a symbol of respect for their views. The first past-the-post system introduced in its place, together with the highly partisan redrawing of local government boundaries, was of huge benefit to the Unionist Party. As a result of the changes, nationalists lost their majorities in thirteen of twenty-four councils they originally controlled.”

To ignore this information and act as if no manipulation on the part of Northern Irish Protestants and British Loyalists influenced the separation of Northern Ireland from the Free State constitutes the height of intellectual dishonesty. We should also ask ourselves if the establishment of a separate Northern Ireland, like France’s partition of Syria, ostensibly for the sake of Lebanese Christians, might not represent a British effort to prolong strife in Ireland by partitioning it, thereby undermining any hope for a completely unified Ireland and  giving them an additional reason to station troops and bases on the island. The documentary fails to consider this plausible explanation, painting those who continued fighting for total Irish independence as “impractical”.

 

[1] Arthur Goldschmidt Jr. A Concise History of the Middle East. (Westview Press: Boulder CO, 2002), 207.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

The Irish Civil War

Posted on by

The Irish War of Independence, which lasted from 1922 to 9123, was fought in order to determine whether or not the country would remain a part of the British Empire. The Free State forces won (as opposed to the IRA) and the country was kept in the Empire. However, at a cost that that divided the country so deeply that these debates are still going on today.

The documentary, The Madness from Within, broadcasted in 1998, showed the lasting impacts on the country and different personal views from children whose parents’ lived through the wars themselves. Throughout the film, it showed the immense violence and bloodshed of leaders and activists as well as the outcome of the two party state we see today.

I found the documentary hard to follow, however very intriguing. This deep set division still resonates today in a way that leaves many Irish still bitter about the outcome. Current IRA members (now a guerrilla army) are being prosecuted today. This battle may have had a cease fire, but it doesn’t seem like the deep rooted ideologies ever left families after all these decades.