The Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism

kuvasz, you wrote:
"Please don't tell me you are calling Hitler or the Nazis socialists just because they used the name.
They weren't."

Well, they were and were not. "Although the National Socialist Party had embraced socialist ideology, HItler was not a socialist."

The SA (Sturmabteilung) or Storm Troopers were the oldest paramilitary unit of the Nazi Partry. They were founded in 1921. These brown shirts formed one half of the Party; the other half was the P. O. (Politcal Org.) A Captain Ernst Roehm was the head of the SA. Roehm and Hitler were at odds. Hitler wanted the SA to remain a purely terrorist Organizaatiion. Rorhm wanted a Socialist revolutionary conquest of the state. HItler souught the support of bankers and industrialists to gain control of the German army.

Hitler solved this problem in the summer of 1934 with the famous "NIght of the Long Knives." With a pretext and the aid of the SS and Gestapo. The account of the number murdered, including Roehm, varies from 71 to over a thousand. So Adolph wasn't challenged anymore.

HItler was a Machiavelian nihilist. He would have done and been anything to retain power.

0 Replies

Only a person ignorant of history would have the temerity to call Hitler a socialist (totally misunderstanding that the name National Socialist Workers Party had little to do with socialism or "leftist" political thought) forgetting or perhaps never even knowing that one of the first things Hitler did when he took power was jail and kill both the communists and socialists in Germany.

0 Replies

The debate over the fine points of the proper meaning of political terminology such as Socialist, Fascist, etc. strikes me as a bit pedantic. These are very elastic political labels, and many of the prominent self-appointed spokesmen and leaders of these movements used the terms themselves in loose, often contradictory ways. Even worse are the tortured attempts of some to deduce conclusions about the character oif other governments on the basis of this or that "list of essential characteristics" of oine label or another.

We have seen in an earlier post, Hitler's definition of Socialism (or Socialist) as it related to his National Sociialist6 movement . It has also been noted that Hitler did nothing to put the means of production in the ownership hands of the state - presumably a central canon of Socialism (except perhaps by having the power of life or death over any German, industrialists included).

The Leaders of the Soviet Communist Party declared that they led a Socialist State which was presumabluy on the road to Communism. The state they led had little in common with the Socialism of Sweden or of the UK under Harold Wilson. It turned out that the road they were following led to oblivion, not Communism (whatever that rather esoteric condition may be).

Fascism is even more vague -- a term that in truth permits only the very broadest of definitions, based on the way people use the word. Attempting to postulate very fine definitions of these terms and then to use them to draw otherwise unwarranted conclusions is at best a fool's errand. At worst it is sophistry and deception.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

forgetting or perhaps never even knowing that one of the first things Hitler did when he took power was jail and kill both the communists and socialists in Germany.

Then again practically the first thing the communists did when they got into power also was to jail (fellow-)communists and socialists... ;-)

0 Replies

Well, it certainly always helps to eliminate the competition. Hitler, of course, disposed of the SA. It was the women in the munitions factories around Petrograd who sparked the Russian Revolution (February, 1917 by the calendar they used--March by the Gregorian). Embarrassed by not only having been left out of the equation, but having even prohibited any demonstration, the Bolshevik organizers hurried to take charge of the now successful insurrection. But the Soldiers and Sailors Soviet which took power in Petrograd could not be tamed by the Bolsheviks. This is why after the arrival of Vladimir Ulyanov--Lenin--a second, Bolshevik revolution was necessary. The leaders of the Petrograd Soviet were and remained powerful and influential. It was the first order of business for Derzhinski and Stalin to eliminate them.

0 Replies

control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism, etc."

Well, I see the word "racism" in the definition.
But, to ameliorate our juvenlle antics, I'd like to offer another view of "racism is not a priori a requiset of Fascism"

OK, all the evidence for considering "racial" an a priori of fascism is circumstantial and inferential. There are no smoking guns. Also, Setanta and kuvasz are trying to prove a negative which I understand can't bedone.

I think that if one views "Racial" as metaphoric, meaning there has to be an internal enemy, a cause, traitors, groups who are for abortion, groups who are aiding and abetting the enemy, causing secularism, etc. .........label them Liberals if you will.

It isn't as though there aren't enough scapegoats. The difficulty is in creating a single label -- a coalescing of perceived evils caused by ......Liberals.

An interesting statistic:
In 1925, the Jews in Germany comprised
less than 2% of the population.)

0 Replies

BillyFalcon wrote:

control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism, etc."

Well, I see the word "racism" in the definition.
But, to ameliorate our juvenlle antics, I'd like to offer another view of "racism is not a priori a requiset of Fascism"

OK, all the evidence for considering "racial" an a priori of fascism is circumstantial and inferential. There are no smoking guns. Also, Setanta and kuvasz are trying to prove a negative which I understand can't bedone.

I think that if one views "Racial" as metaphoric, meaning there has to be an internal enemy, a cause, traitors, groups who are for abortion, groups who are aiding and abetting the enemy, causing secularism, etc. .........label them Liberals if you will.

It isn't as though there aren't enough scapegoats. The difficulty is in creating a single label -- a coalescing of perceived evils caused by ......Liberals.

An interesting statistic:
In 1925, the Jews in Germany comprised
less than 2% of the population.)

excuse me? you have it upside down. the burden of proof is upon those who make the claim that racism was a fundamental part of fascism, not those who doubt it and ask for verifable proof.

just as great a case could be made that youth was as integral a part of the rise of fascism in post WWI europe.

0 Replies

Of course, the Fascists in Italy were not racists. They only published a tract in 1938 called Manifesto Della Razza( the Declaration of the RACISTS) which banned All Jews from Italian Schools and Universities either as students or as faculty.

Georgeob1 who, in my mind, is one of the most learned and even tempered persons on these threads, comments on the IMPOSSIBILITY of strictly defining something as amorphous as the ROOTS of Italian Fascism since, as Mussolini himself said, Fascism is elastic and ever changing.

Setanta huffs and puffs but CONVENIENTLY OVERLOOKS the quotes I gave of three world renown philosophers who, if they were to be published today, would be hung in the public square as racists. The point I made( which of course, Setanta would not address) is that the ever tolerant, erudite, progressive, liberal and, I am sure, most well meaning Setanta stands on the shoulders of Darwin to be--Oh, so much more
enlightened than our vicious racist founding fathers, who, if truth be told, were probably more enlightened than Kant and Hegel--if one is to judge by the writings of those Philosophers concerning race.

But, we are fortunate. Wecan sit at the feet of the great Setanta and Kuvasz to learn.

Or so they think!!!!

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

Of course, the Fascists in Italy were not racists. They only published a tract in 1938 called Manifesto Della Razza( the Declaration of the RACISTS) which banned All Jews from Italian Schools and Universities either as students or as faculty.

you would do well to return to your own words on this thread that declared racism as a fundamental part of fascism. that is completely different than saying Italian fascism devolved to a point when they were pressured into passing anti-semetic laws 16 years after taking power due to 20 divisions of the wehrmacht parked in the Italian Alps.

you proclaimed that racism was fundamental to fascism, facts were produced that showed that your remark was not a true statement.

Georgeob1 who, in my mind, is one of the most learned and even tempered persons on these threads, comments on the IMPOSSIBILITY of strictly defining something as amorphous as the ROOTS of Italian Fascism since, as Mussolini himself said, Fascism is elastic and ever changing.

well, actually you are wrong. george said or implied no such thing. he did not mention the roots of italian fascism or the roots of any fascism at all. check his post again.

Setanta huffs and puffs but CONVENIENTLY OVERLOOKS the quotes I gave of three world renown philosophers who, if they were to be published today, would be hung in the public square as racists. The point I made( which of course, Setanta would not address) is that the ever tolerant, erudite, progressive, liberal and, I am sure, most well meaning Setanta stands on the shoulders of Darwin to be--Oh, so much more
enlightened than our vicious racist founding fathers, who, if truth be told, were probably more enlightened than Kant and Hegel--if one is to judge by the writings of those Philosophers concerning race.

doesn't seem setanta huffed but you sure have used poofery in the thread, especially each time you glittering generalities were shown to be useless tools for objective analysis.

if you can show factual evidence that washington, jefferson, and madison were "more enlightened" than hegel and kant all you have to do is produce the evidence. why stop half-way? show the data. you are of course free to imply that owning slaves is an aspect of enlightened behavior, but i don't think you will convince anyone of it.

But, we are fortunate. Wecan sit at the feet of the great Setanta and Kuvasz to learn.

Or so they think!!!!

just a piece of gentle advice from a friend, once in a while you should afford yourself the luxury of an unexpressed stupid thought

0 Replies

You advice is rejected, Kuvasz.

Here are some STUPID thoughts you can dwell on-

David Hume:

"I am apt to suspect the Negroes, and in general, all the other species of men to be naturally inferior to the whites"

Immanuel Kant

"The Negroes of Africa have received from nature no intelligence that rises above the foolish"

George Hegel

"The Negro race has perfect contempt for humanity. Tyranny is regarded as no wrong and cannibalism is looked on as quite customary and proper"

Do you write these people off as racists, Kuvasz? Are they stupid? Are they not included among the most prominent philosopers the Western World has nurtured?

Setanta says that our founding fathers were racists. As proof he gives quotes from our constitution.

It's a shame Setanta could not go back in a time machine to tell the founding fathers they were racists. He could quote Franz Boas and his disciples about the importance of culture and Darwin as to the evolution of man.
And they would not know what he was talking about.

But Setanta is so much more "tolerant" and "enlightened" and "progressive" than they.

As for anything being a fundamental part of Fascism, are you saying that every movement, every ideology is completely expressed AT THE MOMENT OF ITS FOUNDING? If you do, you should go back to do some reading.

Again, Laura Fermi, who wrote a Biography of Mussolini,notes:

"When commenting on the birth of Fascism, he( Mussolini) said: We allow ourselves the luxury of being aristocratic and democratic, reactionary and revolutionary. legalistic and illegalistic, according to the circumstances of place, time, and environment in which we are compelled to live and act"

If there is any IDEOLOGY OF ITALIAN FASCISM SET DOWN IN SPECIFICS, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT, SINCE I AM CERTAIN, THAT ACCORDING TO FERMI, FASCISM INVENTED IDEOLOGY AS IT WENT ALONG.

Therefore, in 1938, the Fascists in Italy under the leadership of the head Fascist and chief ideologue, Benito Mussolini, published a tract called, the Manifesto Della Razza. Not only were Jewish students expelled from Italian schools but Jews were not allowed to remain in their teaching positions.

And I am very much afraid that you are in error, Mr. Kuvasz, when you speak of twenty Wermacht Divisions parked in the ITALIAN Alps. According to William L. Shirer, there certainly not TWENTY German divisions in Italy in February 1938 when the Manifesto Della Razza was published. You had better recheck.

Where did I say that the founding fathers were more enlightened than the philosophers?

Did you misread my post.

I said, and restated, that it was all well and good for Setanta to criticize the founding fathers since he stood on the shoulders of Darwin.

The reference to the philosophers was to show that Ideas concerning the inherent "inferiority" of Africans was not unknown even among the most BRILLIANT philosophers.

Now, we have studied Boas and Darwin and we know that inherent inferiority is not true and not scientific.

But Setanta sneers at our founding fathers for not being as enlightened as he.

Find the "Unexpressed stupid thoughts" in the above, Kuvasz. And, by the way, read up on the Wermacht before World War II began.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

You advice is rejected, Kuvasz.

Here are some STUPID thoughts you can dwell on-

David Hume:

"I am apt to suspect the Negroes, and in general, all the other species of men to be naturally inferior to the whites"

Immanuel Kant

"The Negroes of Africa have received from nature no intelligence that rises above the foolish"

George Hegel

"The Negro race has perfect contempt for humanity. Tyranny is regarded as no wrong and cannibalism is looked on as quite customary and proper"

Do you write these people off as racists, Kuvasz? Are they stupid? Are they not included among the most prominent philosopers the Western World has nurtured?

this is what you actually said:

[quote]Setanta stands on the shoulders of Darwin to be--Oh, so much more enlightened than our vicious racist founding fathers, who, if truth be told, were probably more enlightened than Kant and Hegel--if one is to judge by the writings of those Philosophers concerning race

so, quoting hegel, hume, and kant on their own racism in no way change the fact that washington, jefferson and madison actually owned blacks and held them inferior. you need to understand better what words mean when you state that one set of racists were "probably" more enlightened than other racists, especially when those you call more enlightened were actually those who owned other human beings.[/color]

Setanta says that our founding fathers were racists. As proof he gives quotes from our constitution.

actually, his remark was in reference to the codification of racism in our nation's founding document of a republican form of government where it was juxtiposed against no such apparent codification of racism in the establishment of Fascist Italy in 1922.

you are arguing two dissimilar things. it isn't even apples and oranges, its apples and walruses

It's a shame Setanta could not go back in a time machine to tell the founding fathers they were racists. He could quote Franz Boas and his disciples about the importance of culture and Darwin as to the evolution of man.
And they would not know what he was talking about.

But Setanta is so much more "tolerant" and "enlightened" and "progressive" than they.

As for anything being a fundamental part of Fascism, are you saying that every movement, every ideology is completely expressed AT THE MOMENT OF ITS FOUNDING? If you do, you should go back to do some reading.

hardly anything i said, but thanks for setting up a strawman argument for yourself to knock down. actually reading the thread shows that you were the one who demanded that the list of the 14 points essential to fascism include another, racism, so which is it now for you?

once, you stated that racism was a fundamental tenet of fascism then say now that it wasn't necessarily one because fascism was not fully expressed "AT THE MOMENT OF ITS FOUNDING."

you cannot have it both ways, either racism is fundamental to fascism or it isn't. which is it for you today?

and as for that adjectivial phrase "AT THE MOMENT OF ITS FOUNDING," even democracy was racist if one goes back to the Greeks of the 6th century BCE, so any intelligent discussion that uses such a phrase as your "AT THE MOMENT OF ITS FOUNDING" renders a discussion on political ideologies meaningless.

the context was between the rise of the fascist state of italy in 1922 and the founding of the United States of America in 1787

Again, Laura Fermi, who wrote a Biography of Mussolini,notes:

"When commenting on the birth of Fascism, he( Mussolini) said: We allow ourselves the luxury of being aristocratic and democratic, reactionary and revolutionary. legalistic and illegalistic, according to the circumstances of place, time, and environment in which we are compelled to live and act"

If there is any IDEOLOGY OF ITALIAN FASCISM SET DOWN IN SPECIFICS, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT, SINCE I AM CERTAIN, THAT ACCORDING TO FERMI, FASCISM INVENTED IDEOLOGY AS IT WENT ALONG.

that simply makes my point and undermines yours, viz., that racism was not an essential tenet of fascism.

Therefore, in 1938, the Fascists in Italy under the leadership of the head Fascist and chief ideologue, Benito Mussolini, published a tract called, the Manifesto Della Razza. Not only were Jewish students expelled from Italian schools but Jews were not allowed to remain in their teaching positions.

And I am very much afraid that you are in error, Mr. Kuvasz, when you speak of twenty Wermacht Divisions parked in the ITALIAN Alps. According to William L. Shirer, there certainly not TWENTY German divisions in Italy in February 1938 when the Manifesto Della Razza was published. You had better recheck.

there certainly was that threat, realized by 1943 when the Wehrmacht took over the country with the fall of the Africa Korps and the invasions of Sicily, and there is documentary evidence that Hitler leaned hard on Mussolini to deal forcefully with the jews in italy before 1938. Mussolini did not just decide one day to disenfranchise the jews all on his own. he was pressured to do so by antisemtic germany

Where did I say that the founding fathers were more enlightened than the philosophers?

you said "probably."
[quote]Setanta stands on the shoulders of Darwin to be--Oh, so much more enlightened than our vicious racist founding fathers, who, if truth be told, were probably more enlightened than Kant and Hegel--if one is to judge by the writings of those Philosophers concerning race[/quote]

and regardless of hegel, hume's, and kant's own ethoncentrist racism, you showed no evidence that washington, jefferson, and madison were, in word and more importanly, action "probably" less racist than the aforementioned european philosophers, the latter, none of whom owned slaves.

Did you misread my post.

no, you miswrote it

I said, and restated, that it was all well and good for Setanta to criticize the founding fathers since he stood on the shoulders of Darwin.

as we all do. however, newton's seem broader and personality-wise he was certainly a greater pissant than darwin.

The reference to the philosophers was to show that Ideas concerning the inherent "inferiority" of Africans was not unknown even among the most BRILLIANT philosophers.

again, you make my own case viz., that they were men of their times. but since mussolini came 150 years later, he should have known better.

Now, we have studied Boas and Darwin and we know that inherent inferiority is not true and not scientific.

using the imperial "we" are you? or is there anyone else rambling around inside that split-level head who would also like to speak?

But Setanta sneers at our founding fathers for not being as enlightened as he.

No he admitted as I wrote, that they were men fashioned by their times. but truth be told, other founding fathers, such as franklin and adams did not believe in slavery

Find the "Unexpressed stupid thoughts" in the above, Kuvasz. And, by the way, read up on the Wermacht before World War II began.

see above, the threat to Italy by the Wehrmacht was realized by 1943 when they took over the effective control of the country from the Italian fascists.[/quote]

0 Replies

Just noticed this Kuv . . . thanks for handling the light work . . .

0 Replies

Kuvazs- You wrote that the Wehrmacht was in Italy in 1943--correct. But you implied that the Wehrmacht's presence influenced Mussolini's Racist decree--WRONG. The decree came in early 1938. Again, you simply must read up on your History--Try Shirer- a good source.

When you state that the founding fathers owned slaves and were therefore as UNENLIGHTENED as the great philosophers and were, because of that owenership of slaves, racists, you deny that they were the most enlightened of their time.

You do not appear to know, I am afraid, that Racism was endemic in the Ancient Greece-from which we received so many of our ideas about Democracy. Orlando Patterson, in his book, Slavery and Social Death wrote:
"Slavery has existed from the dawn of human history right down to the 20th century. THERE IS NO REGION ON EARTH THAT HAS NOT AT SOME TIME HARBORED THE INSTITUTION" (except Setanta's region since, as I have repeated over and over, he is enlightened and progressive and stands on the shoulders of Boas and Darwin). The truth is that the number of people in the US who are true racists is diminishing, so Setanta cannot wear his badge of pride as the most tolerant of us all. However, our founding fathers, despite the fact that they DID NOT KNOW DARWIN AND DID NOT READ BOAS, were fifty times brighter and more PROGRESSIVE( in terms of their own time) than Setanta( who, from his perch suffused with two hundred years of learning and scientific discoveries SNEERS at those great men.)

I "juxtiposed"(sic) nothing. By the way, you don't even know how to spell the word. It's "juxtaposed".

You seem to have trouble comprehending so I will break it down for you in simpler terms.

l. If there was a FIXED AND ORIGINAL Fascist Ideology-- PRODUCE IT!!

2. There was no document which gave PRINCIPLES of Italian Ideology.

3. As I have shown, Mussolini, according to Laura Fermi, who knows much more than you do about Fascism, made up the ideology as he went along and as it was necessary. I'll reprint it again for you since you apparently did not understand it-
Mussolini said:

WE ALLOW OURSELVES THE LUXURY OF BEING ARISTOCRATIC AND DEMOCRATIC, REACTIONARY AND REVOLUTIONARY, LEGALISTIC AND ILLEGALISTIC, ACCORDING TO THE C I R C U M S T A N C E S OF
P L A C E, T I M E, AND E N V I R O N M E N T IN WHICH WE ARE COMPELLED TO LIVE AND ACT.

The chief ideologist of Italian Fascism gives his view and you still think that there was a fixed never changing ideology for Italian Fascism?

It is sure you know nothing about Italy in the 1930's.

Mussolini set down his IDEOLOGY as he went along. That is why he issued the Manifesto Della Razza and that is why Italian Fascism was racist.

Your comment on the "we" is well taken. I will use I in the future since it is apparent that you and Setanta don't know a great deal about Boas and Darwin.

We can continue to go around on this. You won't convince me that the Italian Fascists were not racist. My son was a student of one of the close relatives of the Finzi-Continis. He claimed that Mussolini and Fascism was racist to the core.

You say it wasn't. I think that you know very little about Italy in the 1930's.

And, by the way, instead of spinning and blahblahing your way through a post and making unsupported statements, why don't you try to state evidence based on Documentation and readings. Despite what you may think, you seem to lacking in basics--like spelling- If you try a big word--look it up first!

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

Kuvazs- You wrote that the Wehrmacht was in Italy in 1943--correct. But you implied that the Wehrmacht's presence influenced Mussolini's Racist decree--WRONG. The decree came in early 1938. Again, you simply must read up on your History--Try Shirer- a good source.

the wehrmacht did take over italy and that they did in 1943 shows that they were a cudgel in Hitler's hand to force Mussolini to tack to the third reich's antisemetism even before that.

When you state that the founding fathers owned slaves and were therefore as UNENLIGHTENED as the great philosophers and were, because of that owenership of slaves, racists, you deny that they were the most enlightened of their time.

I never called anyone unenlightened. you stated that slave owners were "probably" more enlightened than men who did not own slaves. as of yet you have presented no evidence for that probabilty.
You do not appear to know, I am afraid, that Racism was endemic in the Ancient Greece-from which we received so many of our ideas about Democracy. Orlando Patterson, in his book, Slavery and Social Death wrote:
"Slavery has existed from the dawn of human history right down to the 20th century. THERE IS NO REGION ON EARTH THAT HAS NOT AT SOME TIME HARBORED THE INSTITUTION" (except Setanta's region since, as I have repeated over and over, he is enlightened and progressive and stands on the shoulders of Boas and Darwin). The truth is that the number of people in the US who are true racists is diminishing, so Setanta cannot wear his badge of pride as the most tolerant of us all. However, our founding fathers, despite the fact that they DID NOT KNOW DARWIN AND DID NOT READ BOAS, were fifty times brighter and more PROGRESSIVE( in terms of their own time) than Setanta( who, from his perch suffused with two hundred years of learning and scientific discoveries SNEERS at those great men.)

Gee, It would appear if I said, even before your quote, that ancient democracy in Greece was racist, that would indicate that I recognized it before you said I didn't.

I "juxtiposed"(sic) nothing. By the way, you don't even know how to spell the word. It's "juxtaposed".

thanks, are you going to comment on my use of lower case letters too? btw, A2K doesn't work with my pc set-up.

You seem to have trouble comprehending so I will break it down for you in simpler terms.

l. If there was a FIXED AND ORIGINAL Fascist Ideology-- PRODUCE IT!!

why should I? it was you who said that racism was an integral component ot fascism, but now you say it was an ideology in flux. so which is it, was racism fundamental or only a derivative feature arising over time? you have actually stated your support for both theses.

2. There was no document which gave PRINCIPLES of Italian Ideology.

if so, why did you say that racism was an integral part of fascism? you actually used fermi to support that idea in a previous post. so again, what thesis are you actually supporting this time?

3. As I have shown, Mussolini, according to Laura Fermi, who knows much more than you do about Fascism, made up the ideology as he went along and as it was necessary. I'll reprint it again for you since you apparently did not understand it-
Mussolini said:

WE ALLOW OURSELVES THE LUXURY OF BEING ARISTOCRATIC AND DEMOCRATIC, REACTIONARY AND REVOLUTIONARY, LEGALISTIC AND ILLEGALISTIC, ACCORDING TO THE C I R C U M S T A N C E S OF
P L A C E, T I M E, AND E N V I R O N M E N T IN WHICH WE ARE COMPELLED TO LIVE AND ACT.

so, apparently according to mussoinli thru fermi there was no mention of racism as an integral conponent of fascism. so why did you proclaim so in your early posts on this thread? it looks like pure opportunism was mussolini's fundamental component of fascism, not racism.

The chief ideologist of Italian Fascism gives his view and you still think that there was a fixed never changing ideology for Italian Fascism?

you should note that neither setanta, nor myself ever mentioned a calcified nature of fascism. we in fact denied that there were a listed set of fundamental principles of the ideology, and setanta chastized the 14 points as irrelevant and i posted that the forms of it found in europe were mutlifaceted and dependent on the nation in which it arose but had in common anti-communist, authoritarian natures. but these were reflections of mass movements not ideologies

It is sure you know nothing about Italy in the 1930's.

neither apparently do you

Mussolini set down his IDEOLOGY as he went along. That is why he issued the Manifesto Della Razza and that is why Italian Fascism was racist.

that again makes my point, not yours, because you were the one who pronounced that racism was an integral facet of fascism. it cannot be integral if it comes along 16 years after the fascist state was formed. fascism existed prior to its racist component. but earlier you attacked that proposition. if you can admit that you will understand how your earlier remark is undermined by your subsequent postings.

Your comment on the "we" is well taken. I will use I in the future since it is apparent that you and Setanta don't know a great deal about Boas and Darwin.

maybe you should let those other fellows in your head get a chance to speak. perhaps they will be more rational.

We can continue to go around on this. You won't convince me that the Italian Fascists were not racist. My son was a student of one of the close relatives of the Finzi-Continis. He claimed that Mussolini and Fascism was racist to the core.

what? then the ideology vis-a-vis racism was not in flux, and you have spent now several posts proclaiming that the ideology was a dynamic one where mussolini fit the ideology to the circumstances. so, which is it?

You say it wasn't. I think that you know very little about Italy in the 1930's.

calling Mussolini racist and fascism inherently racist are not the same things.

i know enough about italian fascism to have had members of my own family put away in an internment camp for the duration of WWII even though they were american citizens.

And, by the way, instead of spinning and blahblahing your way through a post and making unsupported statements, why don't you try to state evidence based on Documentation and readings. Despite what you may think, you seem to lacking in basics--like spelling- If you try a big word--look it up first!

okay, i'll work on the spelling as soon as i finish up on upper case grammar as long as you stop arguing with yourself on this thread.

but i find it odd that it is called upon me to document my positions when it was you who called the slave-owning founding fathers "probably" more enlightened than men who never owned slaves. i am still waiting for your evidence of that, and the words of hegel, hume, and kant only describe them, you need to document how washington, jefferson and madison were "probably" more enlightened" racists as the slave-owners they actually were.

see ya in a few days, i have very sick dog to attend to.

0 Replies

You say that the Wehrmacht was" a cudgel in Hitler's hand to tack to the Third Reich's antisemetism's(sic) even before that". First of all, do you think I am going to accept the word of a person who is so lacking in spelling skills that he does not know how to spell Juxtaposed or antisemitism? I am afraid you will have to document that statement, I don't trust people that are such poor spellers. It shows the presence of a confused mind.

You are apparently quite ignorant about the thinking of many of our founding fathers concerning slavery. Setanta, of course, seated on his perch far above the founding fathers,can sneer at them but according to the Pulitzer Prize winning "Founding Brothers" by Joseph Ellis, George Washington made provisions to sell off Mount Vernon in pieces so that part of the proceeds could go to the support his freed slaves and their children for several decades into the future. Setanta is apparently as ignorant of this as you seem to be. (Do you and Setanta ever read anything?)

Can you produce the quote where I said that Racism was an "integral"
component of fascism? i NEVER SAID RACISM WAS AN I N T E G R A L PART OF FASCISM. Words have meanings. Are you lacking in comprehension skills as well as spelling skills. I never said, as Setanta opined, that there was a fixed and immutable set of Fascist Ideology in Italy which did not "need" Racism as a principle. I have said, and can repeat and quote what I said throughout this discussion, that racism was part of Italian Fascism as was made clear by the Manifesto Della Razza, which I doubt you have read although I gave you the link. I also twice quoted Mussolini, the chief "ideologue" in Italian fascism, to show definitively that Italian Fascism developed racism as part of its ideology in 1938--long before the Nazi Divisions were in Italy. Anyone who reads Mussolini's quote can not doubt that Fascism did NOT have a set of principles laid down but that it developed as it went along.

I am very much afraid that you are being quite simplistic when you say that "opportunism was Mussolini's fundamental component of fascism, not racism" How ridiculous. I am sure that(I hope you do) realize that even if opportunism was Mussolini's FUNDAMENTAL component of Facism, that does not PRECLUDE RACISM AS BEING ANOTHER COMPONENT.

Setanta huffs and puffs and it is apparent he does not know what he is saying.

In his post on 11/25-6:51 am( I am careful about quoting people precisely, Kuvasz, you should try it sometimes) Setanta said:
"Italian fascism had absolutely no need of a racist component in their IDEOLOGY" Then, amazingly, in the same post, he said--"It( Fascism) is not, in the end, an IDEOLOGY"

Is he confused???

Then on 11/29. Setanta wrote with his his usual imprecision--

"(Mortkat's) original statement describes racism as the CRUCIAL FIRST PRINCIPLE OF FASCISM"

My post said-11/25/2005

"Snood- the list is bogus( 14 defining characteristics of Fascism) It does not have one CRITICAL definition. Racism. How could the author have missed that? That is the primal sin from which all others flow."

Setanta slyly atttempts to make that post mean that I defined Fascism as A FIRST PRINCIPLE. I did not. A sin is not necessarily a principle as I hope Setanta knows.

0 Replies

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Fascism got a bad rap from Hitler.

Keep in mind, under Fascism:

1) Everyone has a job.

2) Crime is low.

3) And the damn trains run on time.

WOW! I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD SEE PROOF THAT THE US ISN'T A FASCISTIC STATE. WAS I WRONG!

0 Replies

Just had a glimpse of mortkat -- a friend has been keeping me abreast of the happenings on this forum because I have too little time these days -- who I have been told is massagatto redux ask whether setanta reads.

ROTFLMAO!!!

0 Replies

Well, if Setanta reads, he didn't read the Manifesto Della Razza. I have read enough of Setanta to know that hewrites as if he is the authority on everything. He is deluded.

I await a thread in which he attempts to blow his horn on Education in the United States.

One thing which is abundantly clear when one reads Setanta's pronouncements. Setanta obviously thinks all that has to be done is to make a statement and the matter is settled. When he said that The Ideology of Fascism did not need racism as a principle, he neglected to give evidence or documentation to that effect.

He did not do so. Now, if he had been able to come up with something entitled BASIC IDEOLOGY OF ITALIAN FASCISM, which had been put together by the Fascists in the twenties, I would have accepted that as the Ideology of Fascism, but as I have pointed out, CITING AUTHORITIES ON THE SUBJECT, Fascism had few principles and, indeed, as the chief ideologue himself said, he changed the principles according to the circumstances of place, time. and environment in which we are compelled to act.

One of the things I have come to expect from people who hold themselves up as authorities is precision and references to responsible documentation.

I received neither from Setanta on this thread.

0 Replies

To the extent that Italian Fascism had any set of core doctrines, they were set forth in the 1932 Enciclopedia Italiana article written by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile. The article says absolutely nothing about Jews or any other race, nor does it set forth any kind of racialist agenda. As has been pointed out numerous times here, racism was an afterthought in Italian Fascist ideology.

0 Replies

Italmassamortgato seems to think that there is a burden on other's to disprove his silly thesis. It is up to those who make extraordinary claims to prove their claims. Italmassamortgato has claimed that racism is foundational to fascism, that it is "the primal sin from which all others flow"--but has failed to demonstrate this proposition.

0 Replies

The Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know