We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day Yet in many ways, Mussolini’s notion of fascism has become increasingly dominant in much of the world, albeit in an unexpected form: in the worldview of those progressives who typically see “proto-fascism” lurking on the Right.
Mussolini, a one-time radical socialist, viewed himself as a “revolutionary” transforming society by turning the state into “the moving centre of economic life”. In Italy and, to a greater extent, Germany, fascism also brought with it, at least initially, an expanded highly populist welfare state much as we see today.
Indeed, Mussolini’s idea of a an economy controlled from above, with generous benefits but dominated by large business interests, is gradually supplanting the old liberal capitalist model. In the West, for example, the “Great Reset,” introduced by the World Economic Forum’s Klaus Schwab, proposes an expanded welfare state and an economy that transcends the market for the greater goal of serving racial and gender “equity”, as well as saving the planet.
– Joel Kotkin
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Not that unexpected really, but otherwise a very good article.
Some thoughts:
1) Mussolini’s final corporatist structure was to have industries run by boards in which ‘the owners’ got 25% of the votes, ‘the workers’ (i.e. trade union bosses) got 25% of the votes, ‘the state’ got 25% of the votes and ‘the customers’ (i.e. fascist party appointees ‘representing’ the public) got 25% of the votes. It was not an efficient way to run anything, but it did ensure Mussolini’s goal of “Nothing above the state, nothing beyond the state, nothing outside the state.” .
Modern ideas of giving alleged ‘stakeholders’ power in the running of firms (as part of giving wokeness power everywhere) have obvious similarities.
2) The woke call anyone who disagrees with them ‘fascists’ while implementing fascism (when, that is, they’re not calling anyone who disagrees with them ‘Nazis’ while channelling Hitler’s favourite racial prejudice). In the old world, it was said “Everything is prolonging its existence by denying that it exists.” In the brave new world the woke seek to inflict on us, “Everything will bring itself into existence by insisting it’s the fight against what it really is.”
3) The libertarian alliance wrote an excellent pamphlet explaining how Mussolini’s fanatical socialism evolved into fascism. (I’ve linked to it before – but anyone interested in this thread who has not read it will benefit from doing so.)
(BTW, I see that essay’s title was reused in its author’s book The Mystery of Fascism: David Ramsay Steele’s Greatest Hits, which includes it.)
Up to 1914, when he was expelled, he was actually a high-ranking member of the Italian Socialist Party (still around), which was a doctrinaire marxist party. The reason for his expulsion was his support for Italy’s entry into WW I (which the Party opposed in principal) and his valorization of the nation and its people over the proletariate. No class warfare for him. Other than that he was pretty much a (heretical) socialist for life.
People forget how many varieties of socialism, and even marxism, there were and are. The left is marked by a never ending series of heresies and intra-faith squabbles and actual wars. Trotsky/Stalin.
As to Mussolini’s syndicalism, was it actually installed, or did the war set it aside?
It depends what you mean by ‘installed’. The corporatist board structures I describe in my comment above proved harder than the fascists expected to set up but were all in place by the late 30s (i.e. before the war started). IIRC, it was Joachim Fest who said of Hitler’s regime that
(quoted from memory). In the same way, whether one thinks Mussolini’s state realised his earlier hard-left syndicalism or set it aside (“it wasn’t real syndicalism”, as I’m sure some would be saying if PC fashions were different) rather depends on what one thinks possible. To quote from the David Ramsay Steele essay I linked to above:
When fanatics try to realise their ideology, their methods determine what actually-possible reality they get, not their goals, so ‘installed’ and ‘set aside’ are not really alternatives.
I have long thought that the way modern societies were evolving was akin to fascism, without daring to speak its name. The events of the last 18 months have only accelerated that process.
I feel that the way this process of “fascism without calling it that” will proceed is via the Great Reset. Crucial to this is the doctrine of what was once called “global warming”, then “climate change” and now “the climate crisis”. All the corporate media are on board, as are all the corporate politicians. If any politician opposes the Great Reset, such as President Trump did, it turns out he “loses” the election, and none of the corporate media are at all interested in what might have happened.
In the “Insurrection” of January 6th, we even have our own Reichstag fire, which allows the corporate media and the corporate state to brand anyone who opposes them as “terrorists”. We have been here before in history, and it does not end well.
The racial and gender stuff is an after thought for a Corporate Statist such as Klaus Schwab.
But it is very important TACTIC (they do not really care) for the Frankfurt School Marxists who are the foot soldiers of the Fascist movement – yes Marxists fighting for Corporate Fascism (the irony should be obvious – but they lack any sense of irony, hence they dress up in black uniforms and form packs to beat up any dissenters and call themselves “anti” Fascists).
The Fascism itself is an old idea – much older than Mussolini (who just thought up the name), going back to Saint-Simon and others, before Karl Marx.
Mussolini believed himself to be (to the end) an updated follower of Karl Marx – even as he took Marxism back to Saint-Simon and co before Karl Marx.
In the end the Marxists and the Fascists may fall out (after all Mussolini was shot by orthodox Marxists) – Klaus Schwab and the Corporate elite being torn to pieces (and possibly eaten) by Antifa Marxists – oh dear, how sad, never mind. Or it may go the other way – Antifa used for biological experiments (again – oh dear, how sad, never mind).
Meanwhile the British media have not got a clue….
Front page of the Times today – it defined “Woke” as someone who cared about racial and sexual discrimination, no reference to the Frankfurt School of Marxism, which is what “Woke” Critical Race Theory and-so-on is all about.
I am reminded of those journalists (and government ministers) who went to World Economic Forum (and other) conferences – and seemed to be totally unaware that the whole thing was about building international Fascism – Corporate State Collectivism.
“What you mean the government and corporate bureaucracies are working for world tyranny?”
Well YES – they do not hide it, Agenda 2030 and so on are NOT secret documents. They are all out in the open – world tyranny, without any hidden conspiracy.
There is no need for tyranny – as most people if told “sustainable development” under “stakeholder capitalism” do not bother to think “what do these terms mean?”.
“Social Justice” “Equity” – all these terms mean tyranny, but people seem to think they mean something nice.
“Everything with the state, nothing without the state, nothing outside the state”. Pfui! If I recall, Mussolini was even accused of “statolatry” by the Vatican.
So… what’s exactly wrong with a fascist state?
Singapore has been one for ages now, and nobody can say we’re doing poorly.
One of our bedrock institutions is the Tripartite Alliance.
https://www.tal.sg/#
Sounds dreadfully familiar, doesn’t it? But it works in providing a high quality of life.
If the objectives are sound and the factors that can make it work are present, what’s wrong with fascism if exemplified by Singapore?
Singapore is up front about the fact everyone is managed sheep, that is refreshingly honest. As a chum of my grandmother who grew up on a farm near Hamburg in the 1940s said (quoting from memory) “We never saw the problem with the government, not until one night in July 1943 when there was no night, you could read a newspaper outdoors & our house and fields were covered in thick ash by the morning. But before then, the war was a problem but not the government, we kind of saw those as separate things. The NSDAP had no impact on our lives as we were a rural family of small landowners, more or less the German ideal straight out of central casting, living in a community of people much like us. We had a good quality of life, stable and predictable it seemed.”
Mr Wobbly:
How about fascism as exemplified by China? Economic growth allied to no political freedom whatsoever. Not so nice.
@Perry,
Fascist governments need not necessarily be expansionist ones. As things stand, smart fascists understand it’s better to use peaceful(mostly) measures to extract power and wealth from people, because war is risky, costly, and unpredictable.
@JohnK,
The interesting thing about fascism is that it can even exist within a voting framework. Even for China, there is some political freedom…
…if you rank highly enough in the CCP. So it’s not zero, but really low for the average citizen, or even a rank and file party member.
Wobby. I probably should have explained the quote better in my comment. It was not really about the war, at least not entirely, it was about Hannelora marvelling in retrospect about how complacent & comfortable living with fascism is if you don’t want to do anything that inconveniences the state.
But for I don’t think Singapore scales and JohnK has the right of it, the modern end point of fascism is not Singapore but rather China.
@Perry,
Agree, it is very comfortable. And sometimes, depending on the system itself, what are considered inconveniences to the state can force the state to adapt to the times.
It’s not that there’s no feedback (e.g. elections), it’s that the feedback mechanism can be quite selective and requires a high bar to clear (e.g. mass acceptance by the population), in some ways that may be better. Witness the hijacking of the West by aggrieved minorities by various types and the LGBT movement, and how they have shaped legislation to favor their causes and discriminate against the average citizen.
I think what scares a lot of people is that China may indeed be the ultimate ‘winner’, if there is even such a thing.
I remember the view on this website from way back, when commenters backed India over China in terms of development, while I was of the belief that India could not catch up. Almost twenty years on, India continues to lag behind, while China has almost ascended to being 1A.
Won’t be long before it overtakes the US. A world dominated by China and its fascist ideology is going to be quite interesting.
I am the most curious about this though: China’s fascism is getting it to the top. Can it keep it there?
The US, with its favorable geography (two oceans), multi-ethnic composition, and choice of government couldn’t stay on top for two centuries. How long would China last?
I think China is already falling apart. Its’ population is contracting (like Japan’s), and it has horrible air pollution. The bombastic attitude might be designed to steer you away from its’ fragile reality. India’s population is still rising, so it still has a shot at being Asia’s number one.
@Nicholas,
Yeah, the one-child-policy, coupled with their rapid economic development, movement to urban areas, and the ensuing TFR crash, is gonna put a huge crimp into their plans. Can they get rich before they get old? And can they automate fast enough to take care of their aging population? If so, then a contracting population like Japan’s isn’t exactly a big deal. Not optimal, of course, but not disastrous.
Air pollution will be one of those factors the population, once they’re ready for it, will pressure the CCP on. Then you’ll see the CCP take even more drastic action.
As for India, its increasing population is one reason why it’s in trouble. A demographical dividend, if not educated and utilised, turns from a dividend to a bomb. Here’s an article on this issue.
https://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/voices/2019/oct/20/indian-population-bomb-is-ticking-2049146.html
I have no confidence in India’s development. None. Where were the optimistic predictions from 20 years ago? Fail, failed, failing.
I have to add though, that India’s failure was not due to their democratic system. The failure was more fundamental – they were never a truly unified nation, only pieced together by the British.
The ignorance of Conservatives in English speaking world about Marxism and Fascism risk to be its downfall.
“Mussolini’s idea of a an economy controlled from above, with generous benefits but dominated by large business interests”
No, by 1930’s after the crash 70% of economy was under state control mostly by IRI. The former owners usually continued to manage the business but the state could always put them out.
Mussolini put at head of IRI the socialist Alberto Beneduce which had 2 daughters with very socialist names: Idea Nuova Socialista, Vittoria Proletaria.
His Marxist friend Niccola Bombacci was put at head of economy in RSI in 1943.
“The libertarian alliance wrote an excellent pamphlet”
Very uneven paper.
“A. James Gregor has argued that
Fascism is a Marxist heresy,xxxi a claim
that has to be handled with care.
Marxism is a doctrine whose main tenets
can be listed precisely: class struggle,
historical materialism, surplus-value,
nationalization of the means of
production, and so forth. Nearly all of
those tenets were explicitly repudiated by
the founders of Fascism, and these
repudiations of Marxism largely define
Fascism”
A. James Gregor has argued that
Fascism is a Marxist heresy,xxxi a claim
that has to be handled with care.
Marxism is a doctrine whose main tenets
can be listed precisely: class struggle,
historical materialism, surplus-value,
nationalization of the means of
production, and so forth. Nearly all of
those tenets were explicitly repudiated by
the founders of Fascism, and these
repudiations of Marxism largely define
Fascism
A. James Gregor has argued that
Fascism is a Marxist heresy,xxxi a claim
that has to be handled with care.
Marxism is a doctrine whose main tenets
can be listed precisely: class struggle,
historical materialism, surplus-value,
nationalization of the means of
production, and so forth. Nearly all of
those tenets were explicitly repudiated by
the founders of Fascism, and these
repudiations of Marxism largely define
Fascism
since when Fascism repudiated class struggle, it was precisely by that reason the corporate state appeared.
lucklucky (July 8, 2021 at 2:33 pm), the paper’s data is a good corrective to the left-misinformation doctrine of what fascism is. It also discusses the thought processes that let many an extreme socialist evolve into a fascist – which can also be a corrective to left-wing thought.
The rest of the paragraph after the sentences you quote (three times?) states that, despite the statements you quoted, fascism was an offshoot of marxism.
Mussolini’s final phase (1943-45) was very hard left indeed. His earlier period of rule divides into before and after the wall street crash. As the paper summarises,
Thus although you are right that fascism did not literally deny ‘the class struggle’ – why else would fascism be needed but to manage it – an orthodox marxist saw the class struggle as irresolvable, ending only in their total victory which it was evil to delay by fascist or other ‘management’ of it, so it did challenge what the marxists meant by the phrase.
Wasn’t there another problem with marxism- the idea that existing states give rise to their opposites, so that history is really a never-ending struggle?