Tag Archives: Fascism

The similarities of the Roosevelt Administration to Fascism

Posted on by

As the 1930’s began the governments of Italy and Germany descended into Fascism. Many saw this as the answer to the world’s economic crisis however despite this the U.S. did not go into a fascist state. It did although initiate several programs that many of the population and the media compared to the fascist governments of Europe.

Wolfgang Schivelbusch explores these comparisons in the book Three New Deals. In the early 1930’s when the Roosevelt administration had just taken office they looked toward the Italian government to model their economic reforms. Many did not appreciate the similarities of FDR and the Fascist dictators of Europe. However most of his polices were a mixture of Democratic and Fascist ideals. After FDR had initiated the NRA or National Recovery Administration Mussolini wrote in a book review of Roosevelt’s Looking Forward “The appeal to the decisiveness and masculine sobriety of the nations youth, with which Roosevelt here calls his readers to battle, is reminiscent of the ways and means by which Fascism awakened the Italian People.” Here we have one of the most infamous Dictators of the world comparing the process that FDR had began to that of Fascist uprising in Italy. When this review was published the Press department was ordered not to compare the new deal as fascist because it would have given Roosevelt’s political enemies welcomed ammunition. Even that fact that there was potential to label the new deal and the president himself to fascism grants one to imagine that there may have been fascist ideals in Roosevelt’s policies. Within Roosevelt’s 1933 inaugural address there is fascist qualities. However it is more of wartime propaganda comparing the economic crisis as an enemy that the country must rise up in arms to fight against the foe. French and English commentators also compared Roosevelt to a strong leader and in most cases they depicted him as commander in chief similar to the roman Dictator called into service in times of Crisis, another way that they usually depicted him, as was a plebiscitary autocrat a la Mussolini. The comparisons of FDR to the fascist regimes of Europe were not confined to the political enemies and the fascist regimes themselves; many out side of the expected drew comparisons. Personally I would like to know how despite the recovery that was clearly happening after FDR’s polices were put into effect, that some people still feared that his programs where to fascist and would in the long term destroy the liberties of the American people.

Joseph Stalin: Reply to Churchill, 1946

Posted on by

Main Points:

1. The Soviet Union suffered casualties from the German invasion several times greater than the US and UK put together. These caualties included men lost during the invasion, in battle, and then in the slave labor camps. Stalin feels this expense of the Soviet people that was essential to the eradication of Hitler’s regime, and the subsequent freedom thereby returned to Europe, has been overlooked.

2. Communism is growing as a natural result of the negative effects of fascism and the dependability that communism offered. Communists proved themselves as “fighters against fascist regimes” and concerned with the freedom of the people.

3. Accuses Churchill of believing the “common people” are easily manipulated and therefore takes a condescending stance towards them. Stalin states that the opposite is true and that the common people have opinions and views on politics of their own, that they are able to “stand up for themselves”. He points out that this ability was demonstrated when they (the “common people”) voted Churchill and his party out and voted for the Labor party instead. They preferred “Left democratic parties” to conforming with fascism and the extremists who cooperated with it.

Questions:

1. How does this document expose the enduring strain between the wartime Allies and cultivate tensions leading to the Cold War?

2. How come the Allies did not see it imperative to maintain good relations with the Soviet Union after the severe costs of WW2?

Observation:

I found Stalin’s tone in this document significant. He talks in a condescending, reticent, and provoking manner. It seems as if he is attempting to incite the other European nations to initiate war against Russia. He compares Churchill’s words to Hitler’s in terms of “racial theory”, saying that Churchill only speaks to English-speaking nations. This accusation separates the English speaking nations from the non-English speaking nations, but holds Churchill responsible.

Churchill’s Iron Curtain Speech and Stalin’s Response

Posted on by

Main Points:
1. Churchill acknowledged that the Soviet Union did not want war, they wanted “the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.” It is important to note that neither the west nor the Soviet Union wanted another war. It would preposterous to think that any state involved so heavily in World War II would actively seek war with a superpower less than a year after the conclusion of the war in Europe. It is very easy to see how a state would want to assert its power and influence in Europe so soon after the end of the war however, which is exactly what started the Cold War.
2. Churchill also mentioned the balance of power in his speech. He recalled how no one wanted to match or check Germany’s military buildup and fascism in the early 1930’s, and how World War II might have easily been avoided if Germany had been kept in check instead of being allowed to gain strength and momentum. Churchill said that the balance of power could easily be maintained in such a way that it would keep the Soviet Union in check if “the population of the English-speaking Commonwealth be added to that of the United States, with all that such cooperation implies in the air, on the sea, all over the globe, and in science and in industry, and in moral force, there will be no quivering, precarious balance of power to offer its temptation to ambition or adventure.”
3. In his response to Churchill, Stalin compared the west to Hitler and his racial theory, possibly confusing Churchill’s mention of the English-speaking Commonwealth with a declaration of English speakers as a dominant race. Churchill also compared the Soviet Union to Hitler’s Germany in his speech when he mentioned the balance of power. Stalin also conflated Churchill’s emphasis on freedom and democracy with a desire to take over Europe as Hitler did. Churchill clearly emphasized these principles in his speech as the ultimate goal in Europe, not domination by English speakers.

Questions:
1. How could Stalin accuse Churchill of being a collaborator with fascism, when Stalin backed the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact in 1939? Did that not make Stalin a collaborator with fascism?
2. How true are Churchill’s claims that he rose the alarm about Hitler’s Germany gaining power and why did no one listen to him?

Observation:
It is interesting that Stalin would point the finger at the west and compare their ideology to Hitler’s racial theory when he was guilty of killing millions of his own people and facilitating Hitler’s early success with the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

What is Fascism?

Posted on by

Three points:

1. Fascism does not believe perpetual peace and be achieved and maintained. It stresses that competition is always there, and that men eventually have to choose between life and death.

2. Fascism is complete opposite to Marxian Socialism, because it does not believe in public decision making; instead, it is a school of thought that promotes “holiness and heroism,” which constitutes a Fascism State that has will, consciousness and ambition.

3.Benito asserts that the twentieth century was going to be the age of Fascism, as he sees that the nineteenth century, the century of democracy, has come to an end, as liberalism and democracy had entered a chaos situation in which its people live a hard life.

Two questions:

1. Is Fascism only effective under the extremely bad economy during pre-WWII period because it shifted individual interest to collective interest?

2. Since the core idea that keeps fascist fighting is the existence of competitors, what happens when Fascism does defeat all its rivals? What will happens to the state when the collective goal is achieved?

 

Observation:

1.Fascism nevertheless has the characteristic of nationalism, yet it is more powerful than nationalism because it calls for a collective consciousness of competition, making it much more aggressive than nationalism.

2.I think its biggest issue is that, it can be a living faith while there are rivals to fight against, but let us say that it somehow defeat all its rivals one day, does not it mean that what holds the fascists together collapse at the moment they win? And when there is no rival, the competitive nature of people, which is what the fascists always believe in, results in a new cycle of chaos again. History repeats itself.

Benito Mussolini’s Fascism

Posted on by

Thee Points:

Politics: Mussolini states that Fascism is the exact opposite of Socialism/Communism.  This is due to Fascism’s core roots in “holiness and in heroism”.  Additionally, Fascism completely deviates away from the “whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application.”  Also, it refuses to recognize the majority as the main force behind the directing of society.

Economics: The economics of Fascism revolve around the fact that it is the opposite of Communism. The acts of Fascists are not driven by an economic motive.  This also means that materialism is not important.  Additionally, there is a vehement rejection of any ‘class-war’.

Colonization:  Fascism wields a strong desire to expand beyond its own borders and “is an essential manifestation of vitality”.  Mussolini states that their expanding influence will help the aspirations of the people and will join in Italy’s rise “again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude.”

Questions:  How did Italy’s fostering of Fascism allow it to spread to other European nations, most notably Germany?  Did Fascism cause concern in other nations and how did they react to it?

Observation:  I found it incredibly interesting that Mussolini was a editor for a socialist newspaper before becoming Fascist, the exact opposite of socialist.

What is Fascism?

Posted on by

1) Political: Highly efficient but unilateral. Mussolini’s Fascism highly contrasts common democracy because it dismisses the ethical philosophy that the majority is always right due to it being the most beneficial for the greater good. Although decisions that are non-consensual to demographic representation are often interpreted as inherently chaotic, this type of government can accomplish its political agendas more efficiently due to less required processes.

2) Economic: The opposite of Marxian Socialism. The economic ideology of Mussolini’s original fascism revolves around the individuals motives for “heroism” rather than materialism. Therefore, workers who embrace this principle will discard their desire of upward class mobility and replace it with the intent to work for the power of the State, as “Fascism believes in…actions influenced by no economic motive.” This can potentially serve as a powerful incentive for production due to laborers impression that greatness is achieved through effort rather than status.

3) Military: Expansionist. Mussolini believed what marked a powerful nation was its momentum, and there was no better way to achieve this than through expansion and imperial prowess.

How did Fascism manifest itself given the cultural and political history of Italy? Would Fascism have arisen had Italy played a larger military role in World War I?

It is easy to understand why American’s view of Fascism is dark. “The pursuit of happiness” is an American phrase that is embedded in our Declaration of Independence, while fascism regards happiness as a “myth.”

Fascism

Posted on by

Main Points:
1. “Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace.” Perpetual peace is not a realistic goal, nor is it a useful one. Fascism holds that problems and conflicts can only be ultimately solved by war, and that all other solutions to problems are only substitutes for war. War is not necessary detrimental, and pacifists have unrealistic world views.
2. “…Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production…. Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect.” Economics have little bearing on the history of man. History cannot be explained by social and economic issues or differences between estates and classes. Class warfare has no real effect on politics and conflict and cannot be the primary mechanism for change in society.
3. “After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage….” Fascism maintains that the majority cannot be held to be correct based solely on the fact that it is the majority. Universal suffrage is a useless practice, since the majority opinion does not matter. Not all individuals are equal, and therefore cannot have equal political standing; Fascism outright denies the democratic principles of political equality and perpetual progress.

Questions:
1. Why is it that fascism and socialism are thought of as being related by many people, when in actuality they are opposites?
2. Why does Fascism get its name from ancient Rome, the government of which is the inspiration for many of the world’s modern democracies?

Observation:
“…The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he 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…” Mussolini’s definition of fascism includes the stipulation that the Fascist despises suicide and knows nothing of it, yet Adolf Hitler, one of the foremost fascists in history, took his own life.

Stalin’s Accusations of Subversion

Posted on by

Stalin’s attempts to remove any political factions that were pitted against him provide an iconic example of a totalitarian rise to power.  These ambitions are summarized definitively in “Purges,” a document published in 1935.  In this passage, Stalin’s prose reveals his feelings that the extant companions of Lenin in the Soviet Union constituted a threat to his own political prowess and thus needed to be eliminated by whatever means necessary to decimate their power and credibility with the general public.

Stalin accused figures such as Bukharin, Zinoviev, and Trotsky of “insincerity and duplicity” in their statements of allegiance to the state and claimed that they were responsible for numerous acts of subversion, most significantly “a villainous plot against the life of S.M. Kirov. (Stalin)  The more poignant purpose of these accusations was to portray these Old Bolsheviks as enemies of the “common cause.” (Stalin)  By extension, these opponents of Stalinism became the collective enemy of the public.  Thus, by publishing “Purges,” Stalin attempted to simultaneously denounce the likes of the Old Bolsheviks and create a unifying “us against them” mentality amongst the Russian population.  The administrative technique of “unification against a common enemy” is pervasive throughout history and is evident in countless examples of leadership beyond the political sphere.   “Purges,” however, is one of the most archetypal instances of the usage of this tool.

Do you think that Stalin’s accusations of “insincerity and duplicity” against the Old Bolsheviks were a calculated act of propaganda or simply the product of paranoia? (Stalin)

Free Will in Fascist Italy

Posted on by

When Silone moves Bread and Wine into the city of Rome, the reader begins to understand the tensions between city and countryside life. On page 179, Silone writes about how Free Will, or the fear of lacking it, drives men to act against oppression. He describes that fear as the true reason for Pietro’s rebellion against the fascist state, promoting the freedom of man as a communist. This is an interesting form of motivation for a character that is suppose to be seen as a semi-autobiographical work. In the context of Italian history, a region which for the past 2,000 years had limited forms of free will, (between the establishment of the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church or the city states of the Renaissance) there is very limited free will. Every simple decision on paper in Italy has a thousand different strings attached to choosing the outcome. Nothing is simple in this country, even in the time of the Fascist state, even though it is an improvement over previous regimes.

Pietro’s motivation to promote communism in order to regain free will is another interesting thought. Because Pietro had lived abroad, he understood the need to break with the USSR’s Stalinism and promote true communism. However, in order to have free will within a truly communist society, wouldn’t one have to sacrifice his “rights” for the greater good of the state? These internal conflicts within the characters of Bread and Wine add another dimension to Silone’s story of a simple man, attempting to free his country from the oppression of a dictator.

Bread and Wine and Italy’s Past

Posted on by

Ignazio Silone’s novel Bread and Wine, is an honest work about the totalitarian regime’s in Italy. It follows the character of Pietro Spina, a communist party leader who has returned from hiding to revolutionize the peasant population. In the pages, Silone writes a fascinating story about several different populations in both North and South Italy and how the are reacting to the Fascist regime and living their lives.

A major theme of the Fascist movement is the rebirth of Italy’s greatness. Mussolini desired to bring Italy back to it’s glory days of the Roman empire. The Fascist Manifesto by Mussolini himself states that expansion and war are the most fundamental and important ways to progress. Silone does a great job of portraying this in Bread and Wine. On page 195 in Zabaglione’s speech, he addressed the people: “descendants of eternal Rome…..who carried civilization to the Mediterranean and to Africa.” Here, it is understood the fascism glorifies the past as a means to the future. The people are perhaps mobilized with the promise of greatness. There also seems to be strong themes of nationalism, especially in regards to their imperialist claims.

Why did the Fascists want to return back to the greatness of ancient Rome, instead of forging their own path to greatness?