Category Archives: Uncategorized

What is Fascism, 1932

Posted on by

In Mussolini’s What is Fascism, he attempts to portray the fascist agenda and how these ideals can be applied to Italy society. He emphasized how fascism and socialism were opposites on the political spectrum. The nineteenth century overwhelmingly stressed liberal ideals and democratic initiatives towards government. Mussolini wished to break this trend and create an Italian collectivist society that views the state as an absolute; individuals would be regarded solely by their relation to the state. Expansion and empire building were also essential components of Mussolini’s doctrine because he believed that growth of the empire is “an essential manifestation of vitality.”

Mussolini stressed how the nation was in dire need of for a fascist state to provide authority, direction and order. After World War One Europe as a whole attempted to incorporate liberal ideals towards governance. The success of these governments was oftentimes very short lived, leaving countries in a dismal state of affairs. People were forced to consider other form of government that would better tackle the problems of the time. I believe that fascism was easily accepted in Italy because an overwhelming percent of the population believed that it is preferable to exchange the right to some natural freedoms in order to obtain the benefits of political order.

Both Hitler and Mussolini believed that expansion of the nation was a vital component of rebuilding their respective countries. In hindsight, do you believe that the international community should have been able to predict the impending war that would break out? After all, in order to expand the nation the land must be taken from somewhere/somebody, thus causing unavoidable violence.

Mussolini’s View on Fascism

Posted on by

Benito Mussolini, the “founder” of the modern fascist idea, gives us in this article “What is Fascism” his definition of this form of government. Mussolini views Fascism in comparison to Marxism as ideologies that are on the complete opposite of the political spectrum. In Mussolini’s view the state holds complete control over the rights and ideas of the individual. In contrast to Marxism, which has the goal of creating a workers paradise, run by the workers. In a Fascist state each individual is considered “relative” to greater need of the state. The idea that man serves the state, not the other way around was vital in Mussolini’s view to the growth of a strong healthy nation.

Mussolini directly contrasts Fascism and the Marxist idea in the article. He feels that his political idea “now and always, believes in holiness and heroism…in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect.” This view conflicts with the economic view of history that Marxism relies on to explain conflict through history. Mussolini does not believe in the Marxist idea of class warfare dictating the course of history. To Mussolini the idea of a class system is pointless. Fascism does not take into account the will of the majority. Mussolini’s ideal Fascist state is one where a hierarchical society exists. He postulates that in this world there is a “fruitful inequality of mankind.” He believes that fascism with its innate hierarchical form is the only way to properly direct civilization.

Although Mussolini’s idea of a hierarchical society is somewhat drastic, is it really that much different then the “democracies” that existed in the inter war period?

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?

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?

“…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?

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.

The Madness from Within

Posted on by

The Madness from Within is an interesting documentary that examines the causes, events, and consequences of the Irish Civil War through interviews and archival footage. On June 28th 1922, after the Irish War of Independence and the establishment of the Irish Free State, the Irish Civil War began. Conflict arose between two opposing groups of Irish nationalists, the Free State and the Irish Republican Army (IRA), over the Anglo-Irish treaty. The Free State triumphed over the Irish Republicans, thanks to the money, weapons, and support from the British. It was a short yet bloody war and the ramifications are still very much present in Ireland.

The part I found most interesting about the documentary is the unrest Ireland is currently experiencing because of the Civil War. Today, the IRA has a modern sect formed by the direct descendants of the original IRA. They are not afraid to use arms if necessary. This shows how there is still an immense amount of conflict within Ireland, and they are not a united country.

One of the main reasons the IRA may never be satisfied is because of their disdain for negotiation. Their mistrust comes from the original negotiation with Britain in 1921. Due to the IRA’s unwillingness to negotiate, I do not think the political unrest will ever die down in Ireland. They will continue to have power struggles and acts of violence until the IRA is willing to sit down, listen, and negotiate with others. Although it is impossible for everyone to get what they want, there could be a way to compromise.

As time goes on, will the younger generations care less about the past and be able to move forward from a century of conflict?